Michigan teachers can resign from union any time, judge rules
Source: Detroit Free Press
Members of the Michigan Education Association should be able to resign from the union at any time, and not just during the month of August, an administrative law judge ruled this week.
The ruling could be a blow to the union, which represents teachers and many other school employees. For decades the unions bylaws have stipulated that members could opt out only between Aug. 1 and Aug. 31. Union officials said in a statement this morning they would appeal.
They also said that despite an aggressive campaign by conservative groups to let MEA members know they could have resigned last month, 95% of the members stuck with the union.
In the ruling issued Tuesday, administrative law judge Julia Stern said the restrictions on opting out violate right-to-work rules enacted in 2012, which make it illegal to require dues payment to a union as a condition of employment. The rules were passed during a lame-duck session without any public debate or committee hearings.
Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20140904/NEWS06/309040105/teachers-michigan-education-association-mackinac-center
AP: Judge: Michigan teachers can exit union anytime
msongs
(67,193 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)Teachers are worthless and don't deserve their salary and benefits!
Sancho
(9,065 posts)If you don't pay dues, then don't expect the due process protection, the reasonable working conditions, a reasonable retirement plan, or job protection from crazy politicians.
In the South, we saw a teacher fired for putting up an MLK poster. I had books on evolution removed from my science library in my classroom. I've seen someone fired so that there was a job open for the superintendents daughter-in-law. You name it and it happens if there's no one there to keep watch.
We have right-to-work in Florida, and the only thing that guards the gate is the union. If non-union folks benefit from the work of the union members, then they should pay dues.
Actually, almost all the standards for the work environment, fair pay, and due process come from union action. If you don't believe it, then you haven't been there on the front lines.
Well said.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)Guaguacoa
(271 posts)that people that do not pay taxes should not benefit from the government, right? It's the same thing no matter how one wants to rationalize it.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)If it were government, then all of the people should benefit.
A union is not government, they usually end up fighting the government that sides with business.
Unions fought hard for the benefits that ALL workers enjoy. What you seem to be suggesting is that struggle was for nothing. Why pay dues if the union has to represent you anyway? That's utter bull.
Unions need to be protected, they are basically private organizations fighting for workers' rights. You expect them to do this for free? They cannot remain viable without its' members dues.
So, no, it's not the same thing and whatever rationalization you come up with would end up destroying unions.
Guaguacoa
(271 posts)There are people that will go out of the way to work under the table to not pay the government anything, yet use government services. The argument can also be made that some pay in and collect nothing wile others pay nothing but collect.
I don't expect them to do anything for free, it's hypocritical to be against one but for another. Just playing the devils advocate, and rationalization the other way with the government is destroying the government. Isn't that the argument of the other side? Both require being a part of and requiring money whether you want to pay or not.
I also have a different outlook on unions. Here in mexico they are as bad as the narcos and the pri government, very corrupt. They help finance pri also for the kickbacks. Look at Alba Esther Gordillo, ex head of the teachers union that spent millions on herself about a 2500.00 usd a month salary. They are all like that here.
So I guess the direction I am looking from is probably distorting my view.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)unions here are collectives that are funded by union dues. To be a member, you have to join up.
A citizen, whether US or Mexico, is born with that 'privilege'.
Neither can exist without some form of funding, but unions are representing workers against management and very often, government.
It isn't right that workers be represented by unions of which they are not a member.
The unions have done many good things for ALL workers as a result of representing their own members.
Unions have their own problems internally, and there are many corrupt people within the rank and file.
Wherever there are large sums of money, that seems to be the case. It isn't the fault of the union, that fault lies with individuals doing the crime.
As always: power corrupts.
Guaguacoa
(271 posts)So you are saying you have a choice in whether you pay in to the us government? If not then it's not optional and in a sense you are required to join..
Again, Some will say it's not right to collect benefits from a government they do not pay into.
I don't see much difference really. Forced to pay into a government to support others, forced to pay into a union to support others.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)I guess I don't know how to explain it to you.
I support unions. You don't?
Then why are you on a Democratic site?
Guaguacoa
(271 posts)clearly said unions should not be forced to do anything. I am just capable of rational thought and playing the devils advocate. Clearly you are not. I can remember when liberal meant seeing all issues and discussing them from both sides, obviously "progressive" means as closed minded conservatives. We used to be above them, not following their closed minded pattern with different directives. How times change.
When you have no argument you attack and accuse, that's a page out of the conservative book as well.
Hypocrisy runs rampant among progressives, with liberals it used to about principals and standing for them...period. You should be able to tell I am a liberal, for example anti war no matter who is president, not a progressive that sells out depending who is in office. THAT"S what I am doing on a democrat site, I am what democrats used to be. It just bothers you that some of us are still around.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)you accused me of believing an irrational idea of government responsibilities.
Through your posts, you seem to believe that union officials are corrupt, so they're bad.
I know there are corrupt union officials. I support the union, not them. Corruption should be punished.
I really don't know what you're on about, I agreed with a poster that unions shouldn't have to pay for non-union issues. You took offense at that and jumped my ass about government being the same.
Progressive? I am a leftist from long ago. Don't attempt to tell me who I am or what I believe.
Power to the people.
Guaguacoa
(271 posts)1. I said the unions here in mexico are corrupt. It's not a secret here, they also back the most corrupt political party. I never said the unions in the us are corrupt? Try actually reading and comprehending. If you are claiming the unions here are not corrupt then I will say you don't know anything about them. Since the ones here are the only ones I spoke of being corrupt I assume you think they are not.
2. Offence? Jumped your ass? Do you really equate calm discussion with jumping your ass? You really need to get a life instead of spewing gross exaggeration.
3. Don't attempt to tell you who you are or what you believe? Pure hypocrisy after you tried telling me who I am and what I believe. You just made my point about hypocrisy.
Power to the people? That's also hypocrisy. Isn't allowing people to join or not join giving power to the people?
I'm actually having fun, not offended. It's soooo easy also.
BuckeyeBrad
(15 posts)But many extra benefits on top of what would be a low base salary are 100% the result of union membership. Opting out of union dues after getting yours is a direct threat to the livelihood of most other teachers.
toopers
(1,224 posts)should not get the benefit that is bought from those taxes.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)People should not be forced to be a part of an organization whose principles they no longer support.
On the other hand, well, where I was teaching, there was a strike. (Jersey City, N.J.) The few teachers who crossed the picket line were ostracized... not even so much as a "Good morning" when they walked in the door.
In N.J., you didn't have to belong to the union but the union could bill you for the costs of negotiation.
Sancho
(9,065 posts)There's nothing wrong with joining or not once a year - just like we do with insurance enrollment, auto registration, etc., etc. To be able to quit at any time is irresponsible.
Believe me, as soon as the quitter is about to lose their job or is discriminated against, they are the first one to want to join the union right that minute so they can get union lawyers and file a grievance! I see it year after year.
If you want the benefits, joining annually is fine.
Deadbeat Republicans
(111 posts)Reinstatement fees aren't cheap in the electrical union, they grow every year.
SteveG
(3,109 posts)but in most right to work states, agency fees (for the cost of negotiations) are not allowed. And any contract negotiated applies to all. Those who are not members but get those benefits are behaving as parasites on those who are members of the Union.
liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)shouldn't reap the benefits of what the organization collectively bargains for their colleagues. And I absolutely understand the attitude of the teachers toward the strike-breakers; they are cake eaters who want something for nothing. The union SHOULD bill those who are not dues-paying members for the costs of negotiation that they directly benefit from. They're as bad as people who hate and don't want to pay any taxes, but who insist on getting the services those taxes pay for.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)But the First Amendment says it pretty well. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It seems that if the government should be unable to force a person to practice or leave a particular religion, then it lacks the authority to force a person to be a part of an assembly.
Also, telling a government employee that he or she will receive lower pay or fewer privileges unless they join a particular group (say the Republican Party or John Birch Society) is also coercion that the first amendment prohibits.
I know it weakens teacher unions, but it does reinforce a precedent that protects a core freedom.
I would hate for my government to tell me I had to join a particular non-governmental group if I didn't want too.
Sancho
(9,065 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 5, 2014, 09:47 AM - Edit history (1)
It's not a 1st amendment issue. If the union bargained a collective agreement on your behalf
, that benefits you for 2 to 5 years in the future (much less long term benefits like retirement and health care), then you can step up and enjoy the contract and pay your dues.
You can join or not join, but if you aren't part of the contract process, then you don't deserve the protections for years in the future like you invested.
Frankly, I think you should pay dues for the duration of the contract at a minimum.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 5, 2014, 12:22 PM - Edit history (1)
If a school district wishes to negotiate separate contracts with non-union members it can. It's just a bit of a hassle for potential employees and the district, so they just use the contract the union negotiated.
While it is impossible to prove this is not a First Amendment issue (can't prove a negative yada-yada), it is a simple matter to prove this absolutely is a First Amendment issue. You are saying that an outside group should have the right to force a government department to treat a person as a second-class citizen with fewer rights and benefits unless that person joins the outside group.
The union has a responsibility to make their group attractive enough to keep their membership numbers up, rather than trying to threaten people into joining, or using extortion to keep them in the group.
Again, I understand that unions want this power to increase their influence (which is often a good thing), but denying them this power reinforces a Constitutional precedent that protects us from having to join or leave groups.
SteveG
(3,109 posts)so that non-member employees have to negotiate their own contract for employment. The should negotiate their own grievance procedure, etc. They should not be allowed to piggy back on those who are members of the union.
Guaguacoa
(271 posts)non tax paying people should not be allowed to piggy back on taxpayers. I bet you don't agree with that.
SteveG
(3,109 posts)dues paying union members or those who pay agency fees, are employed in decent paying jobs. Virtually everyone pays taxes of some sort, though not all pay federal income taxes, almost everyone pays SS taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes etc.. Income taxes are based on ability to pay.
Guaguacoa
(271 posts)by wanting to work or not. Same argument. There are people in the us that do their best not to give the government anything, working under the table for example, but use government services.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)This isn't really a 1st Amendment issue. Since states decide open or closed shop union rules, this is outside of Congressional authority. There is no federal law stipulating how states decide on this issue, so your contention of 1st amendment is wrong.
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)quadrature
(2,049 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)this is about destroying pro-worker political election support.
brooklynite
(93,834 posts)...WHETHER there should be a union and whether teachers should participate in it are separate points to argue. The ruling simply says that -IF- someone chooses to leave the Union (assuming such a move is legal), it should be at a time of their choosing.
liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)longer be able to receive any of the benefits that collective bargaining has obtained for them. If they don't want to pay for that, then they should totally be on their own and not be parasites piggybacking on their colleagues.
brooklynite
(93,834 posts)...and I assume that if they're not compelled to pay Union dues, that would be the case. But since they paid for Union operations up to that point, why would they not be entitled to previous raises?
liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)going forward and that they should not retroactively lose raises and benefits that they've already paid for. However, they should be completely on their own when it comes time for the next contract negotiations. Period.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)An individual teacher goes in and negotiates a better deal than the union did? School district officials could do this to "stick it" to the union members.
november3rd
(1,113 posts)If workers should be free to quit the union whenever they want, does that mean they're free to start a union whenever they want, too? If not, that would be blatant hypocritical injustice, and they should not only appeal the judge's current ruling, but sue the state for not sticking up for labor organizers who get silenced by employers.
liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)of the benefits that are collectively bargained for them, and which are much better than individual benefits would be, and which are paid for by the very union they are disdaining. If they get fired because darling little Johnny's parents didn't like a grade he received even though he did little or no work and they get no due process or defense (which happened a lot before unions, according to my retired teacher parents), then tough shit. Let them live by their individualistic, "personal responsibility" bullshit and see just how well they'll do. My parents are retired teachers who began their careers before unions and they know damn well just what a difference those unions make in their working conditions, financial stability and careers.
Fucking selfish, clueless, hypocritical morons.
greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)Any one who believes the lies about it being difficult to fire teachers is an idiot. The unions here are very weak for most school districts. We see a lot of the abuses you pointed out. Science teachers avoid evolution like the plague, because the religious nuts go after them immediately. I have seen teachers fired so administrators and school board members relatives can get jobs. The bad teachers will never be fired due to the very fact they are the relatives and friends of the administrators and will be protected no matter what. The religious nuts vote as a block and elect the most ignorant to the school boards and other local government positions regularly. They then make sure to hire more and more of their fellow religious nuts as teachers and administrators. It is getting much worse here. It is very frightening.
It has gotten worse since the implementation of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. NCLB and RTTP have helped administrators in helping their cronies. The unions are so weak in Ohio that they help no one. it is really discouraging. With the most corrupt bunch of GOP politicians in control here in Ohio, the corruption at the local levels of every public institution, including schools, is expanding exponentially.