So almost 2/3 of the NEA's expenditures, and over 1/3 of the state and local expenditures, are for activities not directly related to improving my pay, benefits, and working conditions. Why are we required to pay these people at all?
If Wisconsin, of all places, can do it, California can. It'll happen some day.
5 comments:
People have been amazed that I received $460 back this year. It has given me a great opportunity to explain how it works though. Especially that I still pay the union as an agency fee payer, but don't get to vote or have any say on anything...
All the more reason to try to go to public financing of elections ...
My rebate this year was $440 and change. Highest amount in the 4 years I have been an AFP. Wish I could keep all $950 they take in a year. I am with you - hope it goes away soon.
The sad thing is that the main reason we need teachers' organization or unions at all is for liability insurance. In our litigous society, blaming the teacher has become a frequent excuse for all of a student's failings. I'm not in a union state, but I still shell out money for this service. I have to wonder if those millions siphoned up for union dues were used to mitigate insurance costs, subsidize childcare or provide disability insurance if teachers would be better served.
In California the CTA does *not* provide liability insurance to members. CTA itself has a million dollar policy that it can elect to cover member with if it's in CTA's interest to do so! Members think they themselves have this insurance, but they don't.
Each year when I get my rebate I join the Association of American Educators, a professional organization, and through them I have a *two* million dollar liability policy *in my own name*. And membership costs me $180/year or so, which is usually about half of my rebate.
Post a Comment