The issue is payroll deduction for union dues.
I can actually see both sides of this issue--well, at least part of each side.
Argument in favor of ending payroll deduction for union dues: why should a government agency (schools) serve as a conduit for funding an outside organization (union)? Let them get their money from their members.
The legislators say that it’s not necessary for public school districts to be involved in financial transactions on behalf of unions.
Argument against the above argument:
Union officials had to get all their members to sign up for a new form of dues payments, and then manage the administrative burden that came with those payments. For example, if an educator’s credit card expired, the union would then have to make sure that the educator added a new form of payment...
“Many of our classified employees do not have credit cards or bank accounts,” she said.
Point of order! I call B.S. on that last statement. I'll bet every one of those people is paid via direct deposit.
Argument against the argument against:
Proponents of the bills disagree. Finding another method to collect dues “is a very minor inconvenience,” said Rusty Brown, the Southern director for Freedom Foundation, a conservative, free-market think tank. “To say that’s shifting rights away—that’s, at best, a stretch.”
He argued that it’s no longer necessary for public school districts to serve as a financial intermediator between teachers and their unions, since automatic bill payments are increasingly common and easy to set up.
If you can do it for the electric company, you can do it for your union.
Argument against ending payroll deduction for union dues:
But teachers’ unions say that adapting to these measures will require a lot of time and money and could hurt their membership numbers. They also point out that many of these bills exclude conservative-leaning unions, like those for police, and target teachers’ unions, which typically support Democratic politicians.
Argument against the above argument: If they provide a decent service, people will pay for it; it's not the school district's responsibility to keep a union's membership numbers up. That's a silly, whiny argument. The next point, though, is valid--why are they singling out the teachers unions? If you're going to get rid of payroll deduction for unions, then all public service unions should be treated this way. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a penalty for being a union that supports Democrats, and that's not how a legislature should make decisions.
My conclusion: it's very little effort for a school district to set up payroll deduction. You can have money deducted for an IRA/403b or for health insurance contributions, why not for a union? No, it's not the district's responsibility to support the union, but if they're going to set up payroll deduction, I don't see why union dues cannot also be withheld--especially since government employees are no longer required to be a member of, or pay money to, a union since the 2018 Janus case (about which I've written many times) and thus all union dues are voluntary.
I did find this concern interesting, however:
Legislators in support of the bills have also said that having to let school district officials know whether you’re a union member could lead to harassment or discrimination.
“This bill is about removing any potential fear or intimidation in the workplace,” said Arkansas state Sen. Joshua Bryant, a Republican and the author of a related bill, during a floor debate, according to the Freedom Foundation. “The technology is there to be able to pay our dues direct. Why do we have to go through and fill out a form, check a box, and annually let people know what we’re doing? Why can’t we just take this like we do everything else and take it to our home?”
Yes, it could happen, but absent any evidence that it does happen or has happened, I'm tentatively willing to call this one a red herring. Still, the old warning holds true: eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty. You've got to watch labor unions like a hawk.
5 comments:
As I may have mentioned in a comment before, I taught for 25 years without being a member of the union. There were years where I was the only teacher in the district who didn't join. However, for most of my career, I was obliged to pay fair-share, and that money went to the union anyway. I rejoiced over the Janus decision.
Payroll deduction of voluntary union dues isn't the issue. As you mention, the district takes deductions for other reasons, so it isn't a hardship. If other public unions can have dues deducted automatically, then teachers should not be singled out.
The real issue is public unions. The union collects dues from teachers, then uses it's money and members to get board members elected or taxes increased, so teachers can get more money in the next contract negotiation with the school board that they helped elect. This circular Charlie-Foxtrot is unsustainable because there is no comparable competing interest.
If public unions exist, and since administrators can be dicks, there is a solid reason for them, they should be apolitical. No endorsing candidates or legislation. No campaign contributions or lobbying. It's a fine line, but so is church and state.
Darren, here you go again. You love, love, love to endlessly complain about unions, yet you benefit from living in a pro-union state.
You should see how the other half lives in Red State America, were teachers have ZERO political power. These states are raiding teacher's pension funds, slashing benefits, forcing their workforce to go years without a cost of living adjustment, and encouraging teachers to arm themselves against future mass shooters.
As much as you love to complain about lefties, you still have not moved from California. I know dozens who have fled the state because of housing costs and taxes, but not you. Why is that?
Anonymous, it really frosts your hide that I don't want to be a member of any current union, doesn't it? Why does it bother you so much, do you ever think about that? I do. I don't like where and how the unions spent my money.
As for moving, well, in 2027 I'll hit 30 years of teaching. The retirement at that point will be pretty good. You say that's because California's a union state, I say it's because California is a high-cost-of-living state and was before teachers unions got their claws into the state. I'll take my good retirement and un-ass for a place where the weather and the politics are more to my liking. If I can wait four more years, you can wait four more years for me to do so.
Until then, unions are big ole poopy-heads. Does that bother you? Good! :-)
You have not been paying attention to what is going on in other states, where GOP legislatures have raided the public sector pension funds. In states with politically powerful teachers unions, this has not happened.
You will have a great retirement, thanks to the lefties you've spent decades whining about on the internet.
I guess you can choose to look at things that way. I look at things other ways.
How are those union states doing with unfunded liabilities? I'm concerned about that here in the DPRK.
Post a Comment