Teachers Get Their Day in Court (Heather Reams)
A new and better day for the free speech rights of teachers may be just over the horizon. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases directly affecting teachers: Davenport v. Washington Education Association and Washington v. Washington Education Association.
In agreeing to hear arguments for these cases, the Supreme Court is recognizing the potential significance of state “paycheck protection” laws in upholding the individual rights of more than 17 million union members nationwide. More than two million public school teachers could be affected by the ruling, which is expected to be heard in January.
In 1992, the voters of Washington passed a referendum that required the teacher unions to get their members’ “opt-in” permission before spending money for political purposes. The law was created because teachers there must, at a minimum, pay “agency fees” to their unions for the “privilege” of representation in collective bargaining. However, those teachers had no assurance or itemization as to how their mandatory dues were spent. In fact, after the new law went into effect, the union was fined over half a million dollars for repeatedly violating the trust of both its members and non-members. At the heart of the law and this Supreme Court case is a union’s accountability in spending money seized from teachers’ paychecks.
Unfortunately, Washington courts felt that asking unions to keep track of the money coming in and going out of union coffers and into the pockets of politicians was unconstitutionally “burdensome” on unions. Apparently the free speech rights of unions superseded the individual rights of teachers who were forced to pay for the union’s activities or face losing their jobs. The dissenting opinion written by one of the justices of the Washington Supreme Court said the decision “turned the First Amendment on its head.”
No one should be forced to pay for political causes they do not agree with, period. Thomas Jefferson once said, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.” The Washington paycheck protection law does not silence the union’s political voice. It simply provides the opportunity for the funds to come from voluntary, informed contributors. In striking down the law, the courts have essentially silenced teachers’ voices, particularly those members who specifically resign from the union because of their personal beliefs.
Those teachers are growing in numbers—nearly 300,000 teachers nationwide have joined a non-union, professional educators association rather than a union. They recognize the importance of belonging to a group that promotes professionalism and does not fund political or social agendas that have nothing to do with education. They recognize that associations should be run by their members, not by corrupt leadership influenced by external politics.
In fact, there is substantial evidence that suggests if the Supreme Court upholds the Washington paycheck protection law, teachers will respond by defunding the union’s political activities. For example, when a similar Utah law required unions to get permission from their members for political contributions, the union’s political fund dropped 90 percent.
Furthermore, the paycheck protection law is supported by the general public. The law was enacted by 72 percent of Washington voters. It seems most Washingtonians recognize that to force anyone to contribute to politics that may offend their personal convictions as a condition of employment is simply wrong.
Unions’ mandatory political contributions are also placing a strain on our system of free and fair elections. In the 2004 presidential election cycle, organized labor raised nearly $200 million for their own political organizations. These contributions help elect politicians who in turn enact pro-union laws and policies that further restrict the rights of the individual. It’s clearly quid pro quo and one of the worst cases of special interest money in recent memory.
The Supreme Court’s intervention will hopefully begin a trend in recognizing individual rights over those of the organizations they are forced to belong to. Hopefully a day will come when no teacher is forced to pay money to any union. Currently, hundreds of thousands are forced to pay minimum dues to unions in nearly half of the states. That amounts to over $700 each year for some teachers.
This case is important because our most basic rights are in peril. If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the Washington courts, then unions will continue to run rampant with tremendous power and little accountability. It’s long past time for the unions to be held accountable to their membership.
Heather Reams is the Director of Communications for the Association of American Educators in Alexandria, VA.
Comments
Join the conversation
This is a good article and I, like many people are watching this case for a number of reasons, from teachers’ rights, to union rights to campaign finance rules.
One thing that I think is important to note, is that this case is not likely to turn on any reading of the paycheck protection act, but rather on the negative First Amendment associational rights of teachers who pay only agency fees.
I think the reason the Court took up these cases (which will be consolidated for argument) is that the question of negative associational rights, that is the right not be associated with a groups one disagrees with political but must be a member of for “labor reasons,” is one in which the Court has never ruled to my knowledge.
On a practical level, the accounting may be burdensome because, in my experience, most unions are sloppy at best with their accounting particularly when it comes to political funding.