Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(31,959 posts)
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 01:45 AM Sep 2014

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 union’s 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
41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Michigan teachers can resign from union any time, judge rules (Original Post) alp227 Sep 2014 OP
and then they should give back all the raises and benefits the union got for them nt msongs Sep 2014 #1
This^^^ ybbor Sep 2014 #2
So you believe that without a union whistler162 Sep 2014 #3
My wife and I have taught in both union and non-union states... and that's correct! Sancho Sep 2014 #4
Righteous rant. apnu Sep 2014 #6
Absolutely...nt freebrew Sep 2014 #10
So then of course you believe Guaguacoa Sep 2014 #22
It's a labor union, not government. freebrew Sep 2014 #27
Some say the same thing about government. Guaguacoa Sep 2014 #34
One doesn't have to join a government... freebrew Sep 2014 #35
One doesn't have to join a government? Guaguacoa Sep 2014 #36
Sorry... freebrew Sep 2014 #38
You don't know what I support, I Guaguacoa Sep 2014 #39
Good god... freebrew Sep 2014 #40
Are you capable of comprehension? Guaguacoa Sep 2014 #41
That's clearly not what was said BuckeyeBrad Sep 2014 #12
Then people who do not pay taxes . . . toopers Sep 2014 #21
On the immediate issue, the judge is correct. Hoppy Sep 2014 #5
If you can sign a contract for a phone for two years, you can join the union for a year! Sancho Sep 2014 #8
Stoping and starting and stoping and starting and stoping and starting Deadbeat Republicans Sep 2014 #20
DE was the same as NJ SteveG Sep 2014 #16
If they don't support the organization, fine, but then they liberalhistorian Sep 2014 #25
I understand that unions would be unhappy Android3.14 Sep 2014 #7
Your teaching CONTRACT is annual, and the bargaining agreement is likely 2 or 3 or 5 years! Sancho Sep 2014 #9
That's irrelevant Android3.14 Sep 2014 #11
Then we need to change the law SteveG Sep 2014 #17
That sounds just like those saying Guaguacoa Sep 2014 #23
fundamental difference SteveG Sep 2014 #29
That ability to pay can also be manipulated Guaguacoa Sep 2014 #32
This is a state law issue. CANDO Sep 2014 #18
Nope-it is a LABOR RIGHTS, CIVIL RIGHTS Constitutional CRISIS! n/t bobthedrummer Sep 2014 #33
the issue is 'exclusive' unions ...nt quadrature Sep 2014 #13
more rethug union busting. blackspade Sep 2014 #14
No objection from me... brooklynite Sep 2014 #15
Yes, but then they should no liberalhistorian Sep 2014 #26
Going forward, certainly... brooklynite Sep 2014 #28
I agree that it should be only liberalhistorian Sep 2014 #30
And what if.... philosslayer Sep 2014 #37
My Question Is... november3rd Sep 2014 #19
If they opt out, then they don't get any liberalhistorian Sep 2014 #24
Here in Ohio, teachers are fired at will even with the unions. greatlaurel Sep 2014 #31
 

whistler162

(11,155 posts)
3. So you believe that without a union
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 07:02 AM
Sep 2014

Teachers are worthless and don't deserve their salary and benefits!



Sancho

(9,065 posts)
4. My wife and I have taught in both union and non-union states... and that's correct!
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 07:14 AM
Sep 2014

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.

Guaguacoa

(271 posts)
22. So then of course you believe
Sun Sep 7, 2014, 11:29 AM
Sep 2014

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)
27. It's a labor union, not government.
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 08:25 AM
Sep 2014

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)
34. Some say the same thing about government.
Tue Sep 9, 2014, 12:12 PM
Sep 2014

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)
35. One doesn't have to join a government...
Tue Sep 9, 2014, 01:25 PM
Sep 2014

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)
36. One doesn't have to join a government?
Tue Sep 9, 2014, 05:53 PM
Sep 2014

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)
38. Sorry...
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 08:43 AM
Sep 2014

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)
39. You don't know what I support, I
Thu Sep 11, 2014, 10:32 AM
Sep 2014

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)
40. Good god...
Thu Sep 11, 2014, 11:16 AM
Sep 2014

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)
41. Are you capable of comprehension?
Thu Sep 11, 2014, 11:34 AM
Sep 2014

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)
12. That's clearly not what was said
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 10:28 AM
Sep 2014

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)
21. Then people who do not pay taxes . . .
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 10:12 PM
Sep 2014

should not get the benefit that is bought from those taxes.

 

Hoppy

(3,595 posts)
5. On the immediate issue, the judge is correct.
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 07:53 AM
Sep 2014

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)
8. If you can sign a contract for a phone for two years, you can join the union for a year!
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 08:43 AM
Sep 2014

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.

20. Stoping and starting and stoping and starting and stoping and starting
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 02:16 PM
Sep 2014

Reinstatement fees aren't cheap in the electrical union, they grow every year.

SteveG

(3,109 posts)
16. DE was the same as NJ
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 12:52 PM
Sep 2014

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)
25. If they don't support the organization, fine, but then they
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 02:07 AM
Sep 2014

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)
7. I understand that unions would be unhappy
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 08:41 AM
Sep 2014

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)
9. Your teaching CONTRACT is annual, and the bargaining agreement is likely 2 or 3 or 5 years!
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 08:48 AM
Sep 2014

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)
11. That's irrelevant
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 10:10 AM
Sep 2014

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)
17. Then we need to change the law
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 12:54 PM
Sep 2014

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)
23. That sounds just like those saying
Sun Sep 7, 2014, 11:32 AM
Sep 2014

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)
29. fundamental difference
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 10:04 AM
Sep 2014

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)
32. That ability to pay can also be manipulated
Tue Sep 9, 2014, 12:06 PM
Sep 2014

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)
18. This is a state law issue.
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 01:18 PM
Sep 2014

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.

brooklynite

(93,834 posts)
15. No objection from me...
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 11:44 AM
Sep 2014

...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)
26. Yes, but then they should no
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 02:11 AM
Sep 2014

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)
28. Going forward, certainly...
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 09:48 AM
Sep 2014

...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)
30. I agree that it should be only
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 11:14 AM
Sep 2014

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)
37. And what if....
Tue Sep 9, 2014, 08:14 PM
Sep 2014

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)
19. My Question Is...
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 01:45 PM
Sep 2014

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)
24. If they opt out, then they don't get any
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 02:02 AM
Sep 2014

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)
31. Here in Ohio, teachers are fired at will even with the unions.
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 12:06 PM
Sep 2014

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.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Michigan teachers can res...