Marysville Teacher Strike - Lessons Learned, Part III
WEA’s real objective: Survival! (Part three of a five part series)
Monday, July 19 will mark the last day of class for Marysville students. Who actually gained ground from the strike? It harmed students, and the teachers who broke the law strained the good will of the community. Union officials weren’t truthful about the facts surrounding the strike. They forced three school board members out and replaced them with people sympathetic to the union’s position. And teachers ended up with a new contract that is financially unsustainable.
So who won? For the union, it’s all about survival. Union leaders depend on conflict between teachers, administrators and legislators. Resolving conflict and putting power in the hands of teachers would mean the WEA is unneeded. So the WEA stirs up discontent through a constant media campaign designed to convince teachers they are underpaid, unappreciated, and that only the WEA stands between them and school boards and legislators who don’t care about them.
So what do union officials really get from this type of illegal action? Consider the following:
1. More teachers and higher wages mean more money in WEA coffers. The union already collects more than $52 million annually from teachers in this state, most of which is not spent on collective bargaining or related issues. Still, that’s not enough. The WEA will raise another $2.7 million annually through a new assessment on its members. It will be used to meet its multi-year strategy for instituting a state income tax and more control over school board policies.
2. Locally elected school boards, who are supposed to represent the interests of parents and taxpayers as they oversee school operations, can get in the way of the WEA’s desire to control all elements in K-12 education. When they do, the union is prepared to eliminate them. A strike highlights the conflict. Unlike the average school board member, union leaders are trained in political and communications tactics, and they seem unconcerned that their public statements are frequently false.
3. Last year, the WEA’s strategy included forcing districts to provide the cost-of-living increases that the legislature refused to provide. In order to do this, they forced districts to pass economically unsustainable contracts, which improperly used TRI money (Time, Responsibility, Incentives). This is a financial time bomb waiting to go off.
The WEA strike action is a radical strategy that is causing collateral damage to our school children. The legislature needs to put a stop to this... and soon.
Prepared by: Evergreen Freedom Foundation | 360-956-3482
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"