Teachers Trumped
Court ranked 'free speech' gathered through
mandatory unionism above all
A disappointing state appellate court ruling
has placed a union's free speech rights ahead of the free speech rights
of individuals. Even worse, the union's "free speech" is being
paid for, in part, by the very individuals denied their own First Amendment
rights to free speech and free association.
The misguided court ruling will rightly be
appealed to the state Supreme Court by the state Public Disclosure Commission.
The Washington Education Association was sued by the state and found guilty
in July 2001 of violating a law meant to protect teachers from having their
mandatory union dues go to political activities outside of collective bargaining
without their permission. The original court ruling was right on: School
employees should not have to contribute to causes or candidates they disagree
with.
The WEA convinced the appellate court, however, that money taken from teachers'
union dues should be used how the union wants, despite what state law says.
Further, the union said it has "no fiduciary duty" to its members.
With approximately $750 of a teacher's paycheck going into union dues each
year, that's an awfully arrogant attitude. That an appellate court overturned
individual speech rights to accommodate the union is even more arrogant.
The state Supreme Court must right this wrong.
All this court action, of course, could simply be avoided with the abolishment
of mandatory unionism for the state's teachers.
In Washington, teachers are required to pay union dues. The union tries
to confuse the issue by allowing individuals who object to the union's political
agenda to seek out "agency fee payer" status. But all that gets
an individual teacher is a very small refund of dues, based on the union's
calculation of its political spending outside of collective bargaining.
And teachers lose far more in the process: They give up their vote in all
union matters, including collective bargaining. They are also stripped of
the level of legal protection offered full members. Why? What does legal
protection have to do with getting a small refund for a union's politicking
on issues that have little or nothing to do with teaching and job matters?
The union says recent court actions against it are merely right-wing attacks
by a select few (the union apparently thinks the state PDC and state attorney
general are right-wing nuts). The WEA insists that, contrary to these right-wing
complaints, it has the support of its members.
Since the crazy right wing is the union's only detractor, the WEA ought
to lead the way in making unionism voluntary in this state. Mandatory union
membership simply runs contrary to its claims.
Once association with the WEA is completely voluntary and the union's 72,000-plus
full-time members can choose to pay upward of $700 in annual union dues,
the right-wing crazies will go away.
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]?"