Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At issue is the court’s 1977 precedent in Abood vs. Detroit Board of Education, which today allows government worker unions in California and 20 other states to collect “fair share” fees to cover the costs of collective bargaining, even from government workers who don't join or support the union for various reasons.
Though the Supreme court states that employees cannot be required to pay for a union’s political activities, the high court has concluded that employees should contribute something toward a union’s cost of negotiating better wages and benefits for every employee. The court’s conservatives, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., have long questioned whether these mandatory fees in the public sector violate free speech because these fees require employees to support a union they may oppose.
No matter what your opinion is about unions, I don't know any teacher who would not want to have a union representing them when a child or parent accuses a teacher for any misconduct that isn't true.
How about a principal who knows that that the teacher is not a member of their local union, I could see how that person could be treated or fired for any reason.
How about when the union negotiates salaries for all of its paying members, does that mean that the teacher who is not a paying member get the same percentage pay raise, even though he or should could make the argument that they should be included in the pay raise for doing the same work as a unionized teacher?
I pay approximately $1,085 in union dues to my local chapter every year, which by the way is also tax deductible. So is this about the right not to pay union dues or is it a clever way to weaken unions by allowing people not to pay into them?
Last edited by toobusytoday; 07-02-2015 at 05:55 AM..
Reason: PLEASE do a correct attribution when you use a direct quote
I have taught for 8 years as a history teacher in Illinois. Every year, I was mandated to pay up around $450 in union dues that was directly deducted from my paycheck. I found out that much of that cash wasn't even being used for contract negotiations; it was flowing straight to Springfield and put in the hands of Democrat politicians to finance their campaigns. Then, these politicians would kick the favor right back by passing legislation/benefits favorable to teachers unions.
I have a real problem with that. It's corrupt. Furthermore, if a union is so beneficial to me, why should membership be mandatory? If unions are so great, the membership issue will take care of itself.
I have taught for 8 years as a history teacher in Illinois. Every year, I was mandated to pay up around $450 in union dues that was directly deducted from my paycheck. I found out that much of that cash wasn't even being used for contract negotiations; it was flowing straight to Springfield and put in the hands of Democrat politicians to finance their campaigns. Then, these politicians would kick the favor right back by passing legislation/benefits favorable to teachers unions.
I have a real problem with that. It's corrupt. Furthermore, if a union is so beneficial to me, why should membership be mandatory? If unions are so great, the membership issue will take care of itself.
I agree with you about the political matter, especially in blue states where our unions mainly support liberal causes or Democratic candidates. In CA teachers can opt out of any political causes and have their union dues not support any politics. I do like that. With that said, I like the fact that my union would represent me in the event that I am sued by a parent accusing me of what ever that isn't true and more than likely destroy my career even after the allegations are proven false. I like the fact that, our union does fight for fair wages and benefits. Unions are in the business, taking the politics aside, to protect their members and their members' salaries and benefits.
I have two issues with unions: supporting politics I don't agree with and protecting clearly horrible teachers. However, I always paid my dues, including in states where it wasn't mandatory. Why? Because they do help protect teachers. The state's with the best work environments for teachers are those that have strong unions. I just wish they would get out of the social activism business and stay out of any topic that does not directly effect TEACHERS. If they want to be social justice warriors that needs to be a totally separate entity supported by different funds.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
My aunt and cousins are teachers in CA, and neither one wanted to join the union. They did, though, because it's dumb to pay the same fees and not be in the union. Why don't they want to join? Well, they aren't fans of unions. Plus, the hate that their dues go partially toward political campaigns that they are vehemently against. (Yes, the did "opt out", but they shouldn't have to. Also, who trusts the union to actually follow that?)
So is this about the right not to pay union dues or is it a clever way to weaken unions by allowing people not to pay into them?
This is exactly what it is. Follow the money, it's a corporate-backed astroturf movement to weaken unions. Unfortunately they were able to find a few useful idiots who seem to believe that free-riding is the same thing as freedom, but I'm hopeful that this case will be thrown out.
How about when the union negotiates salaries for all of its paying members, does that mean that the teacher who is not a paying member get the same percentage pay raise, even though he or should could make the argument that they should be included in the pay raise for doing the same work as a unionized teacher?
I can only speak from what I've seen at my school, but the union fought to get a salary bump for teachers (hadn't happened in many years)...all teachers received this increase in salary, regardless of if they were in the union or not.
The only reason I pay over $900 a year is to protect myself legally. I don't trust the building reps and I don't like many of the lies they have told to staff over the year to get people riled up. Obviously this may not be the case for everyone, but I pay a lot and only expect legal representation... nothing more
And I'll be the first to say that teacher's unions oftentimes overstep their bounds or throw their support behind people who don't deserve it. But teaching is a profession, and teachers need a say in the decisions being made on a variety of issues ranging from government policy down to how individual schools are run. Teachers also need to feel valued and respected and not have to look over their shoulders with concern that their administrator is out to get them.
I'd possibly favor the abolishment of the NEA and AFT if it were replaced by a teacher organization with the same professional power and authority in education that the AMA has in medicine and ABA has in law.
I can only speak from what I've seen at my school, but the union fought to get a salary bump for teachers (hadn't happened in many years)...all teachers received this increase in salary, regardless of if they were in the union or not.
The only reason I pay over $900 a year is to protect myself legally. I don't trust the building reps and I don't like many of the lies they have told to staff over the year to get people riled up. Obviously this may not be the case for everyone, but I pay a lot and only expect legal representation... nothing more
I trust my building rep. I understand how you feel.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
