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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Socialist Progressives

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Starry Messenger

(32,377 posts)
Sat May 9, 2015, 12:34 PM May 2015

Suit against teachers unions isn't about free speech but silencing members [View all]

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20150510-column.html?fb_action_ids=10200582865409910&fb_action_types=og.shares#page=1



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.

Bain vs. CTA should be viewed in the context of a long war against public employee unions. Among its landmarks were Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2005 ballot initiatives to reduce teacher tenure rights and hamstring public employee unions' authority to spend member dues on political activity. Both failed.

The lawsuit's prime target is the "agency" or "fair share" fee. Under the law and according to a 1977 Supreme Court decision known as the Abood case, workers can be assessed non-member fees to cover solely the cost of negotiations and contract enforcement, without being compelled to join the union and support its political activities with their dues. That's the arrangement in California. For decades, union opponents have been trying to get Abood overruled. The Supreme Court is pondering whether to hear one challenge from California, Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Assn. Bain "helps create a favorable political climate for the Supreme Court" to accept the Friedrichs case and overturn Abood, says Joshua Pechthalt, president of the California Federation of Teachers, a defendant in Bain. Its purpose is "pretty clear," he says: "The erosion of unions' ability to be involved with politics."

<snip>

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Maybe if someone wants to own a gun they should have to pay pipoman May 2015 #1
This is the Socialist Progressives group. Starry Messenger May 2015 #2
So then you would be ok with the guns/NRA requirement? pipoman May 2015 #5
Guns are a hobby. Starry Messenger May 2015 #6
No, guns are a civil liberty as is pursuit of a career... pipoman May 2015 #7
Bye. Starry Messenger May 2015 #8
Good decision. demmiblue May 2015 #9
Screen-caps are forever though. Starry Messenger May 2015 #10
All you have to do Rolando May 2015 #3
Same here. Starry Messenger May 2015 #4
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Socialist Progressives»Suit against teachers uni...»Reply #0