A federal district court threw out the case of Bain v California Teachers Association, which was a victory for the unions. The suit was funded by Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst, in an effort to cripple the union. For an explanation of the suit, read this. As Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times explained,
“Attacks on public employee unions, especially teachers unions, have become a permanent feature of the political landscape. But you’d be hard pressed to find one as incoherent and dishonest as a lawsuit filed last month in federal court in Los Angeles against six California and national teachers unions.
“The lawsuit purports to defend the “free speech” rights of its plaintiffs, four California schoolteachers. But its real goal is to silence the collective voice of union members on political and educational issues. Its lesson is simple: If you don’t like the decisions your organization or community reaches through the democratic process, just refuse to pay for them.
“The plaintiffs in Bain vs. California Teachers Assn., et al, say the conditions of union membership coerce them into supporting “political or ideological” viewpoints they don’t share. StudentsFirst, an education reform group supported by wealthy hedge fund managers and the Walton family, is bankrolling the lawsuit. StudentsFirst was founded by onetime Washington, D.C., schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, who, before leaving the organization in 2014 under a cloud, established its philosophy that the problem with education is that teachers have too much power and job protection.”
The national leaders of NEA and AFT were jubilant.
The NEA released this statement today:
“Hi Diane – Hope all is well. I wanted to make sure you saw our statement on the dismissal of April Bain et.al. v. California Teachers Association (aka “Bain v. CTA). Thanks!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 30, 2015
CONTACT: Staci Maiers, NEA Communications, 202-270-5333 cell, smaiers@nea.org
Federal court dismisses meritless lawsuit seeking to silence voices of educators
Bain v. CTA is another attack on educators ‘bankrolled by wealthy special interest groups’
WASHINGTON—A federal district court in California today dismissed Bain v. California Teachers Association, a lawsuit that sought to undermine the ability of teachers, school employees, and other educators to join together and speak up for public education and their students.
The court concluded that the lawsuit—brought with funding from anti-teacher group Students First against the National Education Association, the California Teachers Association, NEA’s state-level affiliate, and several other unions—was without merit and did not state any viable legal claims. The court’s decision came just days after it heard argument on the union defendants’ motion to dismiss the case.
The following statement can be attributed to NEA President Lily Eskelsen García:
“The National Education Association is pleased that the court today saw through the thinly veiled attempts to silence the voice of educators and rightly dismissed Bain v. California Teachers Association. The court, like every other court that has considered such claims, found the plaintiffs’ case without merit. No teacher is required to join a union and no teacher is required to pay any fees that go to politics or political candidates.
“This case is just another attack on educators and their unions that is being bankrolled by wealthy special interest groups whose objective is to undermine public education. Teachers unions are made up of educators who join together to make their voices heard on issues that affect their students, classrooms and schools.
“The stark reality is that America has swung out of balance. It’s getting harder to get by, let alone get ahead, and the gaps between the haves and have-nots is only widening. This case is about making it even harder for working people—like school bus drivers, nurses, counselors, custodians and classroom teachers—to come together, speak up for their students and each other, and get ahead by negotiating to ensure better learning and working conditions. Lawsuits like Bain v. CTA are just another distraction and do nothing to help students.”
# # #
For Immediate Release
September 30, 2015
Contact:
Kate Childs Graham
202-393-6354
kchilds@aft.org
http://www.aft.org
AFT’s Weingarten on Granted Motion to Dismiss in Bain Case
WASHINGTON—Statement from American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten on the motion to dismiss being granted in the Bain v. California Teachers Association case.
“Through their union, educators join together to make their voices heard on issues that affect our children: fighting for smaller class sizes; advocating for enough nurses and librarians; calling for full and fair funding of our schools; and making sure every child has the resources they need to succeed. The only way to do that is by using our strength in numbers—banding together and speaking with one voice.
“This case was yet another tactic by wealthy special interests, led by Students First, to pull working people apart and silence teachers. It’s no surprise that every court that has considered the claims outlined by the plaintiffs in this case has rejected them.
“As the U.S. Supreme Court session begins next week, we have renewed hope for justices who will stand with working people and reaffirm their right to democratically come together, negotiate for fair pay and benefits, and, most importantly, speak up for our children and our communities.”
###
**************************************************
Very good news indeed! Awesome!!
This is a huge win for our side. Maybe the courts are catching on to the endless duplicity of StudentsFirst, and the Rheeformers.
Great for a state like Iowa, where you do not have to join a union if you want to work.
Unfortunately, the next door neighbor Illinois does not have that freedom!
But unions are trying to pass “fair share” laws in states like Iowa.
Alas, there is nothing fair in those laws. Being excitedly and conscientiously not a member if any union, I do not benefit from any union agreement – and am okay with that.
A loooooong time ago, I belonged to an employers union, but stepped back from that for the same reason why I am against employee unions.
Neither side is willing to make common sense compromises, and is concerned about their own interests.
Please, Rudy, do some research before you spout off. As it says in this article, no one is forced to join a union anywhere. But those who choose not to join the union still have to pay their Fair Share fees because they get the benefit of union representation even though they’re not in the union. Why would you think it would be fair otherwise? Why should people be allowed to freeload on the union? I really wish you would understand how unions protect everyone, except the 1% who are trying – and succeeding! – to fleece us all. The reality is that employers hold all the cards when it comes to working conditions and compensation unless employees band together and bargain collectively. And no one, whether in the union or not, has to pay for political activities of the union if they don’t want to.
I do not know anywhere you have to join a union to work. There are plenty of non-union jobs, teaching included. The hypocrisy of the Right is astounding. Somehow, to conservatives, “freedom” translates to preventing and destroying the rights of workers to assemble. Apparently, professional organizations are only allowed if they are industry groups that lobby on the behalf of corporations.
I saw a garbage truck boldly painted with a flag and the words “America, love it or leave it”. Wouldn’t it be interesting if people disagreed with the policies and operation of the military and used that as a basis for refusing to pay taxes towards national defense? Wonder how conservatives would view that form of freeloading?
I guess you are not from Illinois.
I am from Illinois. You do not have to join a union. You do not have to contribute to funds for political action. You do have to pay fair share if you are working in a union shop since you receive the benefit of a union contract.
Yes. No one is forced to join a union, anywhere in the U.S. Even sectors like teaching, where union membership is high, you can work in a non-union charter or private school. With workforce participation in unions approaching single digits, there are far more non-union jobs than union. The myth of forced union membership is from corporations and anti-union zealots. It is a tactic meant to suppress free speech and the freedom to assemble. While conservatives want to turn America into North Korea, we aren’t there yet.
I chuckled hearing how Rep. McCarthy’s honest “revelation” that the eternal Benghazi hearings are mostly politics bought howls from fellow Republicans. Just like Right-to-Work, vaccines, Planned Parenthood, immigration, climate change, and teacher’s unions to name a few, the first rule of being a Republican is never actually speak the truth.
If you enjoy weekends off, a 40 hour work week, overtime pay if you work longer than 40 hours in a week, vacation time, sick time, holidays, health insurance, child labor laws, et al, then you do indeed benefit from unions whether you belong to one or not.
Maybe it’s time for you to become educated and informed about the history of unions and the working conditions of teachers and others before I unions. Do you work on weekends? Do you have insurance? Do you get breaks? Thank the man unions for that and much more.
Which is why NONE of this reform crap has anything to do with children–it’s about MONEY, pure, plain and simple, money in that corporations and private equity firms want all the money spent on labor for themselves: salary, benefits, pensions….take away from one to enrich the already-wealthy.
“Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses….”…..and we’ll be sure to keep ’em that way.
Hope this stands, without an appeal.
The beneficiaries of unions include free-loading teachers who disengage, fail to make their views known, complain about the contracts, and think that “fire at will” policies are perfectly fine.
Someday, those freeloaders will find themselves fired.
And the older ones, even if good teachers, working for less money, if working at all. Retirement out the window unless they can finance it on their reduced salary in a 401K. This will be the legacy for many who expected that they would survive the competition from Charter Schools. There are teachers who thought the criticism of public schools was about improving the public school. They did not realize that it was really about their union benefits, gutting their civil rights, and ignoring the 14th amendment.
Thanks Laura and Mathvale…too many people do not understand these cases which are setups to determine whether working teachers who do not want to pay union dues and opt out, should get the union benefits for free. Most non union teachers agree to pay a pittance for this free service afforded them, which is paid in full by union members. And some very few agree to be plaintiff/shills for Rheeformers to sue to break the backs of the unions….bit by bit….poco poco.
It’s a lie that it’s about “public employee unions”, too. The minute they knock out the public employee unions they immediately go after private sector unions.It was funny because people seemed to “get that” in Ohio when ed reformers (among others) went after public employee unions. A lot of the private sector union members here were energized, because they knew they were next.
Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. It failed in Ohio, but only because the state happens to have a referendum process and it went down in flames with a state-wide vote.
You really DON’T have to be a rocket scientist to see a pattern 🙂
My middle son is a (newer) member of an electricians union, he gets it, and he’s only 22.
If at work you enjoy a lunch break, 40 hour work week, safety policies, etc., thank the unions. I don’t agree with everything the NEA does, but that’s typical of democracy. Most important, my local union kept me from being fired for reporting guns at school. Without union protection, teachers are muzzled and at the mercy of incompetent principals.
The nice list: Michael Hitzik, the CTA, Diane Ravitch, the court.
The naughty list: approximately 1% of Americans.
“Without merit” describes many endeavors by the “reform-minded.”
SD Poet, you could compose a good poem for this! Let’s see, what rhymes w merit? Oh, Coleman’s line about reader response Nobody gives a “sherit”
“Empty Suits”
Sans merit was their suit
So judge applied the boot
The suit of April Bain
Was scarecrow minus brain
“If I only had a Bain” (from the Wizard of Oz, of course — and how apt it is)
I could scare away the unions
Conferrin’ much confusion
Consultin’ with insane
And my head I’d be scratchin’
While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a Bain
I’d unravel N-E-A all
Or any C-T-A all
With trouble and with pain
With the suits I’d be bringin’
And the claims I’d flingin’
If you only had a Bain
Oh, I would tell you why
The Rhee is ‘hind the door
I could think of schemes I never thunk before
And then I’d sit and scheme some more
I would not be just a nuffin’
My head all full of stuffin’
My bank account a-drain
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a Bain
The not-so-nice list:
E4E or Educators for Excellence
Just as with Friedrichs’, E4E provided the plaintiffs, who were and are all members of
E4E… a phony, astroturf group “supporting teachers.”
http://www.protectteacherrights.org/meet_the_plaintiffs
Meet the Plaintiffs
——————-
April Bain
Growing up, April was that kid who always finished her schoolwork first, eagerly raising her hand to find out what was next. She excelled in math, and, as she got closer to college, teachers and other adults guided her toward business, arguing it would be the best use of her math skills. Despite her secret desire to be a teacher, she ended up following their advice.
While working in business and finance in New York City, April started volunteering with a non-profit where she mentored kids in need. She worked with a girl named Kishana, and April’s original passion for teaching was reignited. So she made the decision to leave her career in finance and follow her original passion into the classroom. She has now been a teacher in Los Angeles for five years and is thankful every day for the inspiration Kishana gave her to work with kids.
April is a proud union member, and she wants to remain a member as long as she is in the classroom. But, through some work with a local teacher group, she became aware that a good portion of her union dues wasn’t actually going towards the union’s collective bargaining activities, but instead to fund non-education-related political causes, such as propositions relating to prescription drug costs and regulation of electricity companies.
April believes in fairness and common sense. She is happy to pay union dues that improve the lives of teachers and students. But she doesn’t want to be forced into choosing between union membership and political causes that she doesn’t feel are connected to the classroom. She joined this case to make certain that no teachers face this unfair choice.
——————-
Bhavini Bhakta
Bhavini has been a teacher in California for over ten years. She has won awards for her work in the classroom, and she has been a leading voice in the effort to change the education system to better serve students. In 2014, she delivered powerful testimony in the landmark Vergara v. California case, where she described in detail her experience of being laid off at the end of almost every school year during her first nine years of teaching. Her story was a vivid reminder of how California’s teacher employment laws deprive students of their constitutional right to education.
Bhavini’s work on Vergara was not the first time she advocated for reform. In 2013, she worked with several education reform groups to pass legislation enacting a new teacher evaluation system. She spoke in front of the California Senate Education Committee and urged them to vote “yes” on Senate Bill 441. She watched with growing frustration as the bill stalled in committee, with six senators refusing to even cast a vote.
These experiences have been difficult for Bhavini. Although she remains committed to her classroom and students, she is increasingly troubled by the problems facing California schools and her union’s opposition to change. Through her work with education reform groups, Bhavini learned that state level teachers unions are the biggest financial supporters of the very legislators who have blocked the reforms for which she has fought. Even more troubling is the fact that a good portion of her union dues goes to support harmful educational policies.
Bhavini fully believes in her local union. Despite her ideological differences, she values her local union’s representation and wants to pay her fair share for the benefits it provides. But right now the current system prevents her from remaining a local union member unless she helps fund the very policies that are blocking meaningful reforms that she believes are vital for teachers and students in California.
This fundamental unfairness led her to this case. She hopes that the court will protect her First Amendment rights and ensure that neither she nor any teacher can be forced to support political causes with which they disagree.
——————-
Kiechelle Russell
Kiechelle Russell grew up in Compton, California in a notoriously underperforming school district where she learned first-hand the role education can play in determining a person’s future. Whether it was facing rundown facilities, rotating teachers, or high dropout rates, Kiechelle was stuck in an environment that made it challenging for her to flourish, despite her passion for learning. Fortunately, Kiechelle’s family eventually moved and she was able to enroll in a new school district—one without the challenges she had faced in Compton. Over the subsequent years, her hard work paid off and, with the support of a strong school district, she made her way to college.
Kiechelle certainly worked hard for her success, but she also recognized that there were a lot of children from her old neighborhood who hadn’t made it to college. Through this experience, she learned just how important schools are in helping students realize their potential. As she advanced through college, Kiechelle set her sights on an important goal: helping to ensure that students like those in Compton receive a high-quality education.
Kiechelle first wrestled with the idea of going into politics and making change to the overall system. But she couldn’t shake the pull to the classroom and the opportunity to help kids on a more personal level.
In 2000, Kiechelle started her career as a special education teacher. Today, she is a resource teacher in LAUSD, soon to enter her fourteenth year of teaching. During her free time, Kiechelle takes on as many professional development opportunities as possible and continues to stay involved in education politics. She is involved in Educators 4 Excellence, a teacher-led organization that works to ensure that teacher voices are included in decisions that affect students and the future of the teaching profession.
For Kiechelle, teaching is more than a job. It has been her life-long passion. She cares deeply about her students and about the quality of education in California. She is actively involved in her union as a member of the House of Representatives, and she values the collective bargaining and union representation that she receives as a dues-paying member. But her appreciation of union benefits is at odds with her feelings about the union’s political activities. Over the years she has watched union political money go to support candidates and ideas that she thinks go against the best interests of her students. Kiechelle is in the unfair position of having to support these politics or lose the benefits that she values and that her family counts on. This is an unfair choice, and it’s why she has joined Bain v. CTA.
Clare Sobetski
Clare Sobetski was raised with a commitment to community service and political awareness. She was involved in local politics from a young age, and ended up volunteering for President Obama’s 2008 election campaign. After college, she sought out opportunities that allowed her to continue to work in the community on issues she cared about. This led her to become a Teach for America teacher in Richmond, California.
Over the past two years, Clare’s passion for education has blossomed. Indeed, she has decided to remain a teacher past the two-year Teach for America commitment, and is excited to start her third year of teaching this coming fall. Her commitment to political activity has also stuck with her: Clare serves as her high school’s union representative and through that role knows the value of a strong union.
But one of Clare’s biggest concerns about the future of her community and country is the entanglement of money in politics. California’s teachers’ unions are the largest special interest group in the state. Even more upsetting to Clare is the fact that a portion of her union dues contributes to this disproportionate influence.
Clare asked her union if she could prevent her money from supporting the union’s political candidates and ballot measures. She didn’t like the answer that she received—her choice was to continue to make these political contributions or be stripped of union membership and employment-related benefits.
Clare doesn’t believe anyone should face this kind of choice. The union should be required to make a case for candidates or ballot measures and then ask for donations, rather than simply forcing teachers like Clare to fund their political work. Clare is passionate about education, service, and following her convictions, and this passion is what inspired her to get involved in this case.
Clare is concerned “about the entanglement of money and politics”…so she wants to silence teachers’ unions?? Destroy the only counterweight to billionaires’ money? This is rich.
I would like to dissolve congress. Perhaps I could sue congress. It spends my tax money on many things with which I disagree.
My job however is to support people who will not fund things with which I disagree. Not prevent congress from supporting anything at all. Have any of these plaintiffs run for office in the Union? Have they led any groups within the Union?
They sound like several teachers I have met. They are children still, naïve about the world and when confronted by a world that does not match the view they once had are sure they can win in court what they are unwilling to work to influence.
Just what benefit has Claire been denied? In L. A. it would be supporting candidates and ballot measures she opposes. A union is about candidates and ballot measures. What she wants is a teachers’ professional organization. She can drop the union and join one. They often have benefits also.
How sad they are being used. I wonder if they are being paid for being used. I have wondered if the Vergara plaintiffs lives have been financially enriched by allowing themselves to be used.
Remember, the reformers like to ruin from within. They come in on a trojan horse, and they are patient. I think their patience is wearing thin because they are blatant these days, but they are also relentless in taking from the poor and giving more to the rich.
I do not believe for a second they are being used. I am not sure why they belong to the union at all unless it was for the purpose of having standing for this lawsuit. And why are they not in charters where this is not an issue for them? I can recommend one. But then won’t they be leaving the profession when their five years is over?
Or maybe, just maybe they are genuine people with a genuine concern. I know that seems hard to believe, but it just might be true.
P. S.
I wonder why they are not working in a religious school? After all, one teacher, a friend of my spouse, commented that teachers in religious schools “really cared” about the kids not the money. Interestingly, when she retired, she was dependent on her sister renting her a place to live since she couldn’t afford the one she had while working.
I suppose they want the benefits of salary, tenure, mandated hours, but they want it free of politics and money.
I am not sure they are qualified to teach as they seem to lack any historic knowledge of workers in America. Everything in life is political and money. Need to get your hands dirty with both to survive.
I spent my life working for the same reasons they site. But I am not naïve. I also was a proud union member. That does not mean I liked everything done in my name, but I do not bite the hand that feeds me. I worked for change. I often thought the union was really too, too weak. I didn’t quit and I didn’t sue to get it shut up.
Who is funding their website – http://www.protectteacherrights.org/? The site is even asking for donations.
Imagine that, Walton, et al, asking us peons to pony up cash for this clunker of a case!
That is to keep up the pretense that it is grassroots.
Yet another ed reform corruption scandal arises in Ohio- it’s the usual suspects, but now it’s statewide and affects every Ohio public school in addition to the “charter sector”. It’s spreading:
They gotta clean house. It’s systemic.
Oddly enough, Michelle Rhee and her husband recently attended a Cornel West lecture and sat up towards the front of the auditorium, as if she wanted to be seen as being supportive. It doesn’t make much sense.
Rhee and her husband also lectured on ethics at the University of Hawaii a couple of years ago. I wonder if that is online.
I look forward to the day they walk off hand in hand, in handcuffs.