Two teachers went to Washington, D.C. to hear the oral arguments about the Friedrichs v. CTA case, which could be very harmful to the future of all public sector unions.
You will find their account of the justices’ views fascinating. They listened as classroom teachers. Both teachers are BATS. Marla Kilfoyle is the executive director, and Melissa Tomlinson is the assistant director.
“At 6:45 a.m., braving about 30-degree weather, we took a cab down to the Supreme Court building. Although we got there around seven a.m., we were still 30th in line. We understood clearly that were were in line to witness the case that could destroy the unions that we belong to with pride- Melissa, as a member of NEA and Marla, a member of AFT. We have personal involvement in this case, enough that spurred us to spend a better part of our summer co-writing and submitting an Amicus Brief to be read by the Justices. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/14-915_bsac_Brittany_Alexander.pdf
“The date was January 11th; the court case was Friedrichs vs. CTA.
“As we stood on the sidewalk, we watched the demonstrators line up. By the end of the morning, the “I stand with Rebecca” crowd numbered about 50 supporters, the union side about 500. We stood in line for about 3 ½. At approximately 10:05 we were let into the Court to witness the entire oral argument.
“We were overwhelmed
“We were to be witnesses to history
“Would it be the history that saves our unions?
or
“Would it be the history that destroys our unions?
“Here are our thoughts as we listened from the eyes and ears of two teachers.
“Here is the full transcript of the oral arguments.
Click to access 14-915_e2p3.pdf
“In this piece, we would like to share what we thought were some of the most poignant moments of this case. At the core of this case is the overturning of the four-decade-old case of Abood. Abood is the Supreme Court case that protects agency shop fees and thus holds up the ideals of “collective” bargaining. We would also like to address some of the comments that the Justices, Mr. Carvin, and the Union side made. Our observations, once again would come from the experience, and lens, of working teachers who have had unions working for them”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I’m pro-labor and in favor of unions, but here in Miami FL our United Teachers of Dade (UTD) (the largest union in the SE US?) only charges dues/fees to members, not also to non-members (as LAUSD does?).
So, if a union forces fees upon non-members, is that kind of like taxation without representation, because non-members are charged yet they have no input into the union?
I would think any employee (private or public sector) has the right to join, or not join, unions, and only pay if they join. Let’s be honest, sometimes unions become bloated and only concerned with “workers’ rights”, not an excellent product. Unions can become self-defeating when they oppose reform efforts that would actually improve the product, but would make some employees work harder for their money (because some lazy and unproductive workers are protected by unions, when they should improve or might be worthy of getting fired).
LikeLike
Rick Lapworth,
As the law now stands, people are not required to join unions but they have to pay dues for the cost of collective bargaining, whose benefits they enjoy (salaries, working hours, pensions, health care, etc.). They do not have to pay for the political activities of unions; that sum is figured and refunded to them.
The issue here is whether non-members can enjoy the benefits and pay no dues. That is what Friedrichs wants. The hope of the sponsors, like the Koch brothers, is that a decision in favor of Friedrichs would cripple the unions because many members would stop paying dues and unions would become shells.
Perhaps the solution is to say that if people like Friedrichs don’t join the union, they don’t get the benefits. They stay at the same salary, the same pension, etc. because they were not willing to join and pay a fair share.
LikeLike
You make a great point, and I agree. We could, should?, have a 2-plan contract: 1) those union members that pay and 2) those that are not members because they don’t pay.
Those in group 2 get no health benefits, no salary increase promises….basically none of the benefits that come from union efforts.
Can this be done; can a district be legally forced to create a 2-plan contract (one for members, one for non)? If not, why not? This seems to be a great solution and non-members could no longer parasitize us, and might realize why they should join.
LikeLike
Rick, I agree. Those who don’t pay dues should not get the benefits negotiated by the union. Two tracks.
LikeLike
Rick, that was written like a reformer lapdog. All the mea culpa in the beginning, how you are in favor of unions, etc. When a union bargains for a GROUP of members, a GROUP OF EMPLOYEES, it is bargaining on behalf of all employees, and as an extension students as well, and what it bargains for is a better work place. EVERY EMPLOYEE benefits, whether they are union or not, so why should the non-union members benefit without paying something for the bargaining, which benefits them, to the union? There are states where unions have a 2 tiered system, and those who don’t want to belong to the political aspect of the union pay reduced dues. If people don’t want to belong to a union, is it fair for them to benefit from union bargaining on said employee class?
I love how you wrote that “unions …become self-defeating when they oppose reform efforts….lazy…unproductive workers are protected…when they should improve or might be worthy of getting fired.” You have exposed yourself, right there. You are a reformer shill, no more, no less. Sell your nonsense to someone else.
As you certainly know, one thing unions bargain for is smaller class size, which benefits STUDENTS. Reformers would have 50 kids in a room with a clerk walking the aisle while the poorest children, who need the most human contact, are plugged into computer programs. Puhlease….get your story straight.
LikeLike
Rick Lapworth, a union’s purpose is to do exactly that-protect workers’ rights. A union actually is not involved in the profession itself, but in its workers. What exactly are you referring to when you speak of “an excellent product”? The data or the child who produces it?? Unions are self defeating because they stop protecting workers they were supposed to and using worker monies, the dues, to junket and party with. You should really make yourself knowledgeable about labor history in this country since you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the function and scope of unions.
LikeLike
Agreed and thanks for the input. Yes, I’m not a union expert, just belong to one. As to “excellent product” we teach to have students learn, so that they are prepared for the real-world. My job as a teacher has this objective, not just to protect my own job.
So, when a group of us in the union recommended school-site peer evaluation teams, that would go in and observe “needy teachers” (those deemed in need of improved practices), because the administration is either too busy, too lazy or unconcerned about vital and efficacious pedagogy by each teacher. The response by many members was “I’m not allowing my peers [who think they’re qualified to evaluate and help me] to “judge” me and make recommendations”. So, the idea died, and a possible in-house way to hold some lazy and apathetic teachers accountable was shelved.
In my 25 yr career (with several awards NBCT 1999, Miami-Dade Life Science teacher of the year) I’ve seen too many teachers that close the door, have the students do work out of a book 90%, and do little to really teach and make their content vibrant and meaningful. Their apathy infects the students and brings down the pedagogic environment of the school. If administration did more to confront and correct these teachers that would be great, but it rarely happens. I don’t like to play judge, but some of the poor pedagogy and apathy of some teachers merits their termination, but with union-protectionism this will never happen.
It seems like this tolerance of “dead weight” teachers is what is giving our opponents and the deformers and privatizers fuel for their rhetoric (ex. Waiting for Superman?). When a student goes home and parents find out the poor quality of education some teachers give, and is tolerated by the admin and unions, it only gives families greater reasons to look for alternatives (though there are apathetic teachers in charter schools, but I think there is less tolerance of them there?).
I understand no organization will perfectly “clean house” because we all suffer from biased self-interests. I just believe all teachers should have a passion and commitment to teach with efficacy (however that is measured), and if they only care about saving their jobs it is not the Unions purpose to do so. Workers exist for the purpose or goal of something higher than their own paycheck; a commitment to excellence and valuable service (IMO).
LikeLike
By your argument, taxation is voluntary. If I decide I do not agree with a weapons system or military action, by your logic, I can stop paying taxes yet receive the benefit of national security.
If there is peer reviewed evidence a reform effort works, I do believe most teachers would support it in a union vote. Remember, most union activity is grassroots and deals with often mundane issues directly affecting the classroom. So far most “reform” in our state (Ohio) has lead to more bloat, confusion, gaming, and mistrust.
I can never understand why people think paying teachers well and professionalizing the occupation somehow leads to worse classrooms, while demonizing teaches and paying minimum wage somehow leads to quality outcomes. It is irrational.
As far as the myth private sector is a functioning meritocracy and everyone is a model of productivity, I can assure you private sector pretty much pays everyone the same in similar positions, nepotism and cronyism reigns supreme, and often people are fired for having too many grey hairs or promoted to the highest level of their incompetence. It is what makes Dilbert cartoons so funny.
LikeLike
To all who have pointed out the flaws in my axioms and corollaries….Thank You!
I write from the perspective and experience of being in Miami-Dade schools for 24 years, joining the union, UTD, about 10 yrs ago, because I believed I was benefitting from their work and that I should pay my fair share to support negotiating. Yes, many “deformers” don’t care about good education but about how to privatize everything and save money. Yes, I believe in strong labor rights and bargaining.
Yet, what I’ve seen in the UTD leads me to question some of their actions and positions. For example, our newest contract got rid of steps, which is a violation of an FL statute that states all Professional Service Contract teachers must always have, as a choice, a Step-salary schedule (and now we don’t, though an outside group is challenging both MDCPS and UTD about this erroneous contract). Also, the current ruling caucus has not acted justly and has sought to kill any competition to their control (there are pending cases against them for not releasing school site vote counts, as the law requires…..heck, we get the Superintendent shaking hands with the UTD president about the new contract, before the vote was even taken).
So, my angst about forcing dues upon all teachers (members or not) is only because the UTD I joined seems to not well represent the views and desires of all its constituents, and suffers from internal power-mongering. Yet, these are problems of all institutions and of fallen human beings.
So, you are all right, that without unions the oppression against teachers would be even worse. Thank you for the reproofs! Grace!
LikeLike
Will this mean that people that disagree with our wars don’t have to pay taxes!
LikeLike
Diane,
I hope you would someday publicly challenge these deformers to a debate. Most people just hear the mainstream narrative coming from the media. I believe it is never wise to make judgement without first vetting sources, considering multiple sources/perspectives, and getting the whole story. I truly believe common sense would prevail and expose the nonsense being implemented in public education. Thanks for all you and the many others due to preserve public education in America!
LikeLike
Oh, the challenge has been out there for a couple of years now. Diane almost had one set up but they couldn’t find a third person for their (edudeformer) side against the one (Diane) on the good guys and gals side.
LikeLike
If we’re talking about a live debate, in person, I would be wary. Some people are very good at rhetoric, and their goal is to win and distort the truth rather than find it and display it. These people are often very loud — and quick, clever thinkers — and can easily make the most sense to those who are not informed (most people).
Now, if it was something like Anthony Cody’s battle against Bill Gates and Co. over the internet, that might be better.
LikeLike
Señor Swacker: the challenge has been out there a lot longer than two years—and on those occasions when the owner of this blog has appeared on panels, etc., she has been outnumbered 2 or 3 or 4 to one, with the added proviso that the “moderator” was there to facilitate rheephorm talking points!
Yet she still has done a credible job, which is why various rheephormsters like Michelle Rhee have found every excuse in the book to avoid going one-on-one [or variants of same] with Diane Ravitch.
Clever and misleading only go so far—look what happened recently when Eva “Saint” Moskowitz had to actually answer real questions in a somewhat public forum. Even in much more restricted circumstances (e.g., the Lindsey Layton interview with Bill Gates) they rapidly do the classic fold-o.
IMHO, both from experience and instinctively, for some time they have feared and loathed even the suggestion that they engage in genuine give-and-take in any sort of open discussion. *Think Cami Anderson and John King for starters.*
For all their talk of grit and determination, they’re weak and cowardly when put on the spot.
That’s the way I see it…
😎
LikeLike
To Ed Detective:
I tend to agree with your concern because gullible public always succumb to empty promises and easily believe in fantasy without foundation of reality in each profession’s requirement to be excellent.
For instance, a con artist without STABLE income offers gullible public 10% return in monthly interest only payment, but minimum requirement is 1,000,000 investments. This will yield 100,000 yearly or 8333.33 interest only payment. Gullible Public will gather friends and family members and come up with 10,000,000 to invest with con artist. over short period of time = 3 to 6 months or max 1 year. Gullible public will lose their principal because con artist only spend max 2 mils to pay them to gain their trust in pyramid scheme, then wrap up the rest to flee away where nobody can track them down.
In the same vein, all charter schools’ OWNERS after looting public education fund billions of dollars, then they only pay back to CORRUPTIVE congress officials, governors, JUSTICE SYSTEM, EDUCATIONAL (administration) officials like Mayor and Superintendents, FAKE advocacy groups… a few of millions in order to collapse the real public education, to destroy the teaching profession, to damage young generations’ learning potential, and to NULLIFY PUBLIC UNION SECTOR. Yes, within a few years, these crooked charter schools will fold up their PRIVATE businesses and leave our public education worn and torn down to the point of NO RETURN = impossible state of being revitalizing.
How gullible can people let their children to be cared under TFA teachers with 5 weeks in training, superintendent with military background, BUT NO education background, and owners with criminal background or being swindler for living???
Please wake up to smell coffee, gullible people. Back2basic
LikeLike