Six on the Janus Ruling: "This is a sad day not only for our nation’s education professionals but for our nation’s children.”
philip panaritis
By a 5 to 4 vote, the Court nullified the laws of 23 states and the District of Columbia that oblige those who are covered by public sector union contracts to pay “fair share” fees. Such fees cover the expense of the cost of negotiating and enforcing employment contracts. In doing so, the Supreme Court overturned the 40 year-old decision of a previous court that asserted the right of unions to receive payment from all they represent.
“This ruling is an extraordinary example of judicial activism on the part of a court whose majority claim to be aligned with conservative principles,” said Network for Public Education Executive Director, Carol Burris. “It is clear this was a politically motivated decision designed to reduce the power and voice of public sector unions—including all of the unions that represent teachers, nurses, custodians, instructional assistants and administrators in public schools.”
The implications of the decision go far beyond the protection of workers’ rights. It will have a deleterious effect on the well-being of all public school students. Teacher unions have been strong advocates for well-funded, safe public schools for America’s children.
NPE Board member and student and parent advocate Leonie Haimson said, “For more than fifty years, teacher unions have been a positive force in fighting for more funding and better conditions in our public schools, including smaller class sizes. Especially now when our public school system is under attack, we need strong unions to preserve, protect and strengthen our public schools from the privateers who are trying to undermine them by outsourcing education to corporations — whether charter schools, private religious schools or ed tech companies.“
NPE President, Diane Ravitch agrees. “The evidence is clear. Nations with strong student performance, such as Finland, have strong teacher unions. The best student scores on the NAEP exams are in states with strong unions, while weak scores are associated with states with so-called “right to work” laws. Unions give teachers a voice to advocate for more funding for schools and better working conditions. This provides great benefit for students. This is a sad day not only for our nation’s education professionals but for our nation’s children.”
|
|
|
"The U.S. Supreme Court has just announced its ruling on Janus v American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)—not that we were exactly waiting with bated breath. All the smart money was always on a ruling against the union.
The case takes its name for Mark Janus, the federal employee who argues that, as a non-member, being forced to pay the “fair share” dues (less than what a member pays) of the union that negotiates his contract violates his free speech rights because he disagrees with the political positions his union takes. This is despite the fact that fair share dues cannot be spent on a union’s political activity.
I come at the case with mixed feelings. I have been the president of a local teachers union, and have often been a critic of my state and national unions. I also taught in a state which is not right-to-work, but where fair share must be negotiated into local contracts. For most of my career, non-union teachers in my district only paid fair share if they chose to.
So when union supporters say that Janus could be a big blow to unions, my first thought is that my co-workers and I lived without fair share for decades. What were the practical effects?
Periodically, members would quit our local union because they were angry about something the state or national union did. I would bet that the majority of my co-workers, like many members of National Education Association (or NEA, the nation’s largest union), are Republicans. I’m a Democrat, but NEA’s support for Common Core and its early endorsement of Hillary Clinton did not make me feel any warm, fuzzy solidarity for the union."
|
“Don’t count us out. While today the thirst for power trumped the aspirations and needs of communities and the people who serve them, workers are sticking with the union because unions are still the best vehicle working people have to get ahead.
“Strong unions create strong communities. We will continue fighting, caring, showing up and voting, to make possible what is impossible for individuals acting alone. The teacher walkouts this spring, with educators fighting for the funding children need, were an example of how we will continue to make that case—in the halls of statehouses and the court of public opinion, in our workplaces and communities, and at the ballot box in November—through organizing, activism and members recommitting to their union.
“This is a dark day in U.S. jurisprudence. Swung by a Trump-appointed justice with a long history of ruling for the wealthy and corporations over regular people, the Supreme Court overturned a 40-year unanimously decided precedent that has given teachers and firefighters, nurses and cops, a path to a better life for themselves and their communities.
“More than forty years ago, the court recognized that collective bargaining for teachers and other public sector workers benefits those workers, their employers and their communities. Union representation, if chosen by a majority, is the glue that holds us together. That wisdom has now been abandoned by the slimmest majority.
“The dissenting justices saw this case for what it really was—a warping and weaponizing of the First Amendment, absent any evidence or reason, to hurt working people. Not only was Abood well within the mainstream of First Amendment law, it has been affirmed six times and applied to other cases upholding bar fees for lawyers and student activity fees at public colleges.” -Randi Weingarten, President, AFT
|
Class Size Matters
phone: 212-529-3539
leo...@classsizematters.org
Follow on twitter @leoniehaimson
Make a tax-deductible contribution to Class Size Matters
Subscribe to our newsletter for regular updates on class size and related issues at http://tinyurl.com/kj5y5co
Subscribe to NYC education list: email nyceducationn...@yahoogroups.com
How does this affect New York? Aren’t all covered public sector workers here already required to be union members?On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, Marco Battistella <ma...@makeko.com> wrote:I think the ruling must be turned back against it’s anti-union supporters.If i understand it correctly the ruling say that a worker doesn’t have to be paying dues to a union to benefit from the union negotiations.But if that is true then we can look at it from the opposite point of view, a worker is represented by a union even if she is not paying dues to it.Which means that the Union has the power to negotiate for all worker, independently of their unionizing status.I think the teacher Union should start representing all charter school teachers, with consequential immediate salary and contractual agreements (and the end of charters). the same should all true for all non unionized workers.I might be going crazy, but i think this is what the unions should do.
