A
couple of weeks ago I mentioned a book I’ve been reading:
Standing Up to Goliath, by Rebecca Friedrichs. She was the
mother/teacher at the center of the Friedrichs v. California Teachers’
Association case that went before the Supreme Court in 2016, which was about to
be ruled on when Justice Scalia died suddenly, leaving a 4-4 ruling, which reverted
to the appellate decision favoring the union.
It took an extra couple of years, but the Janus case, ruled
on last June, finally won against the labor unions. Workers who are not members
of the union no longer have to pay fees for bargaining rights, because unions
engage in politics even at the bargaining table.
This will apply also to teachers’ unions, which reduces
their revenue and thus their power. It’s a start. Teachers’ unions need to have
their power reduced. Curtailed. Abolished—even better.
Today I’ll go through some of the points in the book, and
then we’ll cover the good news of the Janus case.
Unions Are about Power,
Not Education
The book’s main question was, “Why were teachers being
forced to support policies against their own consciences?” (p. 13).
Contrary to popular belief/propaganda, teachers’ unions are
not about improving the educational experience or conditions for teachers,
students, or parents; they are about gaining and wielding power for the union.
For Rebecca Friedrichs, that was a lesson that took years to
learn thoroughly, from both inside and outside unions. It started when she was
doing student teaching with a master teacher. Their classroom was great, and
she learned so much there. But the classroom next door had a monster teacher, whom
she refers to as the “witch,” continually yelling, screaming, belittling, and
bullying students. “She would grad them, yank them into their places in line,
and scream right into their little faces” (p. 12).
These were first grade classrooms. Friedrichs wondered why
something wasn’t done to rescue these children:
As the Master and I were grading papers one day, I found the
nerve to ask her how a mandated reporter like me could file a complaint about a
teacher. The Master slowly turned to me, removed her glasses and locked into my
eyes preparing, it seemed, to tell me a hard truth about life. “Today’s the
day,” she said, “you learn about teachers’ unions” (p. 13).
The “witch” had tenure, so the union protected her, not the kids. Unions enforce a seniority-based
LIFO policy (last in, first out), so that when layoffs are needed, newer
teachers, no matter how good, are let go, while older teachers, no matter how bad,
are kept.
Friedrichs tells the story of a California teacher, Bhavini
Bhakta, who had been “Teacher of the Year” in 2012. Despite her effectiveness
as a teacher, she had been laid off four times because of union-imposed rules
(p. 17).
Another story was of a teacher with extra qualifications,
teaching AP Statistics, Algebra II, and Pre-Calculus. No other teacher in the
school had his accreditations. But he was laid off after his second year—despite
heroic efforts by his principal to keep him—leaving the school unable to meet
the needs of the students (p. 18).
Meanwhile bad teachers were moved around. It’s called “the
dance of the lemons” (p. 25). One egregious example was inflicted on principal
Eileen Blagden in a Southern California elementary school.
A teacher in the district had been on leave after a 2008
arrest for indecent exposure and lewd and lascivious behavior, and a subsequent
charge of trespassing for which he pled guilty. Though he was found not guilty
of the sex-related charges, a restraining order forbade him from going within
one hundred yards of public parks, beaches, schools, and bathrooms in the city
of Long Beach.
In 2009, Eileen’s employer, a school district located in a
neighboring city of Long Beach, allowed the man back into the classroom but
transferred him to Eileen’s school as a kindergarten teacher. Eileen was not
permitted to know the man’s history, but could tell from the start that he was
emotionally unstable, and he was even falling asleep during class (p. 26).
Other teachers were worried. In 2010 the man talked to colleagues
about suicide and a desire to kill other teachers. Eileen asked the district to
remove him. Instead, they sent a union representative who did nothing. And the
district warned her against reporting to the police, which she was required to
do as a mandated reporter of threats to children.
She nevertheless reported him to the Sheriff’s Office, along
with the threat from her administrator about reporting.
Three days later, she was placed on five months
administrative leave for not following a district administrator’s directive. There
was an eventual trial concerning the retaliation for whistle-blowing, settled
before trial—which included a confidentiality agreement. Fortunately, Blagden
had told her story beforehand. Still, she was demoted, reprimanded, and
eventually resigned.
Union Positions
Here are some of the union positions that probably differ
from what you would want from anyone related to educating our children:
·
They’re against school choice—even, or
especially, when it means protecting students from failing schools, bad teachers,
or bullies. They do not believe parents are capable of making decisions in the best interests of their children.
·
They work diligently against charters, vouchers,
education savings accounts, or anything beyond the status quo, which they
control.
·
They’re in favor of diagnosing and drugging
wiggly children who have a hard time sitting still in a desk all day—with less
recess and play time than past generations.
·
Unions donations go to between 87% to 100% Democrat
parties and candidates, and 100% to liberal outside groups (pp. 76-77).
·
They insist on sex education that is pro-promiscuity,
pro-homosexual, pro-transgender, pro-experimentation, but anti-abstinence,
anti-family, and anti-parental involvement—and anti-parental approval or
ability to opt out of what’s being taught. Further, they withhold critical
knowledge that would protect students from sexually transmitted diseases (p.
93). Lessons can be so disturbing that teachers protect themselves by paying
for substitutes, but are unable to protect their students from the
vile material.
·
They promote the LGBT agenda, and bully anyone—including
any student—with a different opinion (p. 94).
·
They do not tolerate free speech of any sort
that doesn’t coincide with their views. They use four psychological
manipulations against anyone who steps out of line: fear, intimidation,
isolation, and ignorance (p. 82).
·
They are anti-science, deleting the need for
science education to be based on empirical evidence derived from valid
scientific experimentation and verified by using the steps of the scientific
process (p. 102).
·
They are unequivocally pro-abortion. They do not
explain what this has to do with educating our children, but they work to make
abortion available to children without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
·
They control the politics surrounding school
board elections, by controlling teachers, so school boards end up being more
pro-union than pro-student education.
·
The PTA stands with the unions; any parental or
teacher input on policy is ignored, but if PTAs support education by filling
classrooms during a walkout, they are punished by the unions (chapter 11).
·
Unions do not protect teachers from severe,
dangerous discipline problems, particularly when the perpetrators are black,
because of “racial equity discipline policies” (chapter 12).
·
They focus on race, indoctrinating students with
“white privilege” guilt, and are against informing parents of this political indoctrination
in the classroom.
If there’s something bad about public schools, there’s
probably a union policy making sure it stays that way.
Take Away the Money, Take Away the Power
Could teachers opt out of paying the unions? Only partially.
Until this year, they would still be forced to pay “Fair Share Fees,” which
were automatically deducted from their paychecks, purportedly to cover the
benefits they get from collective bargaining, along with the union teachers.
The difference ranges from 0% to 30%. In those early days of the author’s career,
the difference was about $50 a year out of around $1000 annually (p. 14).
Teachers were bullied into paying the full amount. One woman
who was the lone holdout refusing to join the union in her school, was working
on papers late in the evening when four men showed up and pressured her to sign
on. The first time she was able to get them to leave by saying she would think
about it. Then they cornered her alone a second time, and she believed they
would not leave, or allow her to leave, and might do her physical harm, so she
gave in and signed. It looks like a protection racket—organized crime. I believe
that’s what it is.
About 50% of dues go to the state union. About 30% go to the
national union, the NEA. Only 20% will stay with the local union. As bad as state
and national unions are, which get 80% of the money, many teachers are happy
with their local unions, which get only $1 out of every $5 paid in (p. 173).
If there’s one thing that would vastly improve public
education, it would be the abolishment of state and federal unions. Possibly
local unions too, but at least they are in touch with actual teachers and their
issues. Leaving union dues in teacher paychecks would be an automatic $1000
raise for most teachers.
 |
Mark Janus, center, who sued his public sector union, outside the Supreme Court
June 27, 2018, with Gov. Bruce Rauner of Illinois, right.
Photo credit: Andrew Harnik/Associated Press. Found here. |
While the Friedrichs v. CTA case favored the union, after
the death of Justice Scalia, there is a possible better future on the horizon.
The
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
case, decided in June 2018, went against
the unions 5-4. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, said, “We conclude
that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by
compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public
concern.”
This case affects teachers’ unions as well as other public
sector unions. They can no longer collect fees from nonmembers, which reduces
their money—and thus their power—considerably. It also means they have less
leverage to practically enforce membership. Predictions are that they could
lose as much as
a third of membership.
It may be that it’s even better than that. There is nothing
in the ruling to say this is only from now going forward; unions may have to
repay those fees they took by force from nonmembers, going back years, which
could bankrupt them. We can only hope so.
If we are ever to find solutions to our public schooling, it will be in a free market, which brings innovation, and better outcomes for
less money.
