In about half the states, including California, the answer is yes. The argument in these so-called Fair Share states is that the union is required to represent me so I should pay for their representation. In the other half of the states, the Right To Work states, no one is compelled to pay a union as a condition of employment.
I'm not a union member; requiring union membership was ruled unconstitutional years ago, which means there's no such thing as a "closed shop" in this country. I am, however, required to pay a union, even though I don't want or need their services. The argument of the u-bots is this: you get the advantage of everything the union negotiates for you but don't want to pay for it, you're a free rider. My argument is this: I'm not a free rider, I'm a forced rider, and you assume that, given the opportunity, I couldn't negotiate better for myself. In a free market, do you really think a math teacher and a kindergarten teacher would be paid the same? I'm not disparaging the work of kindergarten teachers, not at all, but the laws of supply and demand dictate that I'd be paid more. Unions distort, or destroy, that reality.
One of the reasons I'm a Talker for Walker, a supporter of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for President, was his reining in of public union excesses in Wisconsin, the "home of progressivism". I've held out hope that if it could happen there, it could happen here in crazy California. That's my dream, and that dream is coming one step closer to reality:
A group of public schoolteachers on Monday petitioned the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to laws allowing teachers unions to require dues from nonmembers who disagree with union positions and policies.I hope the Court takes this case.
A decision in the teachers' favor could change how public employee unions operate nationwide.
The lawsuit, first filed in April 2013, takes aim at the 300,000-member California Teachers Association and the affiliated National Education Association. The plaintiffs – 10 California teachers and the Christian Educators Association International – claim California's "agency shop" law is unconstitutional and violates teachers' First Amendment rights by forcing them to pay union dues regardless of whether they support or are a member of the union. Twenty-six states currently have such laws in place...
The plaintiffs' intent, Pell says, isn't to take down unions or attack collective bargaining, but rather to protect the First Amendment rights of teachers.
"The issues here are inherently political issues, and the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to decide for themselves what side of those political questions they’re on," Pell says. "We think the court should give heightened scrutiny to these types of political disputes."
A petition for writ of certiori has been filed in the case of Friedrichs v. CTA, the case that challenges forced union dues. If the Supreme Court grants the petition, plaintiffs will not have to go through all of the intermediate appellate steps before getting to a Supreme Court hearing and the matter may be heard as early as October 2015 with a decision in about June of 2016.
ReplyDeleteDavenport v. WEA was also a certiorari case involving a teacher and the Washington Teachers Association and misuse of union dues. In that one, the Justices ruled for the teacher 9-0.
And, as always, this is why your argument is wrong -- although I will concede a point. Later. Yes, you are a forced rider. But, if you were permitted not to be a forced rider, you would have no incentive to everyone else, who would do the heavy lifting for you. And since everyone has the same incentive not to participate as you do, the union fails. Unless you have incredibly altruistic members. Like Kindergarten teachers. (I kid, sort of.)
ReplyDeleteYou're right -- you , as a math teacher, could command a greater salary individually -- but think about that on a grander scale: it would be horribly inefficient to conduct individual negotiations; it would make department camaraderie difficult; and it would ensure that students taking courses in areas where teachers are more abundant would get lower wages, and the best ones would go elsewhere-- not a good goal for public schools. And I'm sorry, but when you say your teaching skills are worth more than a Kindergarten teachers? You do denigrate them. I know the point you were making, but as a high school teacher, you do have a vested interest in hiring the best quality teachers before you. It's not like it isn't interconnected.
Where I do agree with you? The interests of primary vs. secondary teachers are entirely different. They should have separate unions, because their work days are so different. Primary runs about a fifth as many students, requires less specific training, and requires less work outside the workday … or at least different. I know monthly billboards would be a pain, but it's a hell of a lot better than trying to read 165 essays rife with grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors. So… that's a split I can agree with.
Yet, max, the vast majority of the country works this way and the sky doesn't fall. If unions are good and valuable, people will join out of self-interest. When they're not good, people won't join--which is why so many lost members in Wisconsin, thankyouverymuch Scott Walker!--and they shouldn't be compelled to support bad unions.
ReplyDeleteIn what other arenas do you, a libertarian, support forcing people to pay for something?
A good, and very fair question… because I am an economist first, and a Libertarian second -- because Libertarian principles most closely mirror good economic thinking. The answer is really simple: Any time people who elect not to pay for whatever good or service it is, yet reap the benefits anyway -- they should be forced to pay. Usually, taxes address these areas: roads, police, fire, national defense, public education, for a few.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a member of a union, but as an adjunct at a CC the dues are extracted out of my paycheck. I have no say, as my state is not a right-to-work state. (Funny how the concept of "choice" only applies to killing unborn babies, and not to paycheck extortion.) The only thing I get for my involuntary contribution is a monthly rag, put out by the union, which is less than useless and consistently pushes left-wing ideas and politics.
ReplyDeleteI cannot understand why leftists are so greedy, and fixated on money to the point of becoming apoplectic if the average joe happens to have any money left over after paying taxes, "contributions," and all the countless ways they nickel and dime us to death.
I already pay taxes, max. I shouldn't be compelled to pay a non-governmental entity for the "privilege" of working for the government. It's entirely non-sensical.
ReplyDeleteThat's not the point. The principle is the same; the people compelling you to pay are different.
ReplyDeleteIt's very much the point.
ReplyDeleteNiels:
ReplyDeleteThat union rag can be useful. It can tell you who not to vote for, for example. I use the AFT publications and endorsements for the same reasons.
I have had some leftists accuse me of ignorantly voting against my self-interest, but I inform them that I believe in education more strongly than the union, and I vote accordingly.
Don't you love it when people tell you what's in *your* best interest, as if you're too stupid to figure that out and they know better than you do? Talk about condescending!
ReplyDeleteI don't need to tell you it's in your best interests; non-unionized teachers at private schools in CA, including those math teachers who are so valuable that you could write your own check, allegedly, pay substantially less with fewer benefits. I would hope that I would not need to tell you that the union is in your best interests, because that WOULD be condescending. If the union isn't benefitting you economically, why aren't you selling your teaching skills on the free market? And if it is, why are you complaining about a fee that is nowhere near the difference in salaries? And why can't you also agree that the difference is the union? Private schools charge a lot more per pupil, and pay a lot less.
ReplyDeleteAnd granted: the teacher's union takes a lot of crappy positions. Which is why you should become a union rep and try to change them -- like I did.
That came off more angry than I wanted it to. But, in fairness? When you use your sarcasm asterisks to complain about someone being condescending? Especially when they weren't? The sad thing is … if you and I were to go down a list of things that the teacher's union should do, and should not do, I'm almost positive we would be pretty close to perfect agreement. The only one where we differ, really … is forced dues. But, if you don't have forced dues, you don't have bargaining power. You've just destroyed the entire purpose of the union. What should be happening is, people like you and me, who disagree with the political tangents the unions take should involve themselves and return the focus to what matters. But most people like you and me decide it's a lost cause, and don't try. And, it might be a lost cause…but it is definitely one if you don't try.
ReplyDeleteYou suggest that I should go where the union *isn't*, while ignoring that it still exists and distorts the market for, what, 95% of all teachers in California? And I'm supposed to think that 5% functions as a market would if unions didn't have the power they do? Interesting belief, but pardon me while I don't accept it.
ReplyDeleteLike every *other* organization on the planet, a union will get members if people feel its services are of value. The fact that Wisconsin teachers unions lost *so* many members when the RTW law was passed is evidence enough that the union wasn't responsive to a *large* number of forced members. Certainly, as someone who thinks like an economist, you can understand the value of *voluntary* associations and having organizations respond to "the market" when providing a service. Can't you?
Sure. Except the main reason that unions are needed is that the market doesn't work for labor… under certain specific circumstances, and education qualifies. And accepting your number of 95% union participation in the teacher market (which seems high, but okay) the fact that that 95% makes more than the 5% who aren't union, significantly, proves the point. Could they be better? Sure. But they aren't, and still get you a better wage and benefits package than others.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, your excessive and unnecessary use of sarcasm asterisks was duly noted.
ReplyDelete