Washington State Appeals Court Upholds Teachers’ Right to Restitution for Dues Illegally Spent By WEA Union Officials

After securing U.S. Supreme Court victory, National Right to Work attorneys pick up the pieces of an otherwise impotent campaign finance regulation

Seattle, WA (December 17, 2008) — A recent decision by a Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 2, has ruled union officials can be held liable for illegally spending teachers’ forced union dues under a now-effectively defunct campaign finance regulation.

The ruling means that thousands of Washington State teachers may receive restitution for the amount Washington Education Association (WEA) union officials illegally docked their paychecks to pay for union political expenditures. The ineffective campaign finance law at issue had been adopted in 1992 and has since been voided by the Washington State Legislature.

The teachers are receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. In 2007, Foundation attorneys successfully brought the Davenport v. WEA case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned an earlier Washington State Supreme Court decision using the campaign finance law to undermine the First Amendment. The state appeals court ruled Friday on a number of issues, including upholding the teachers’ tort claim for restitution and approving the certification of thousands of employees as a class.

Before it was gutted by amendment in 2007, the Washington law had required union officials to obtain the prior consent of nonunion public employees before spending their mandatory union dues on a small fraction of what the union actually spends on politics. According to an amicus brief filed by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, the amount of political expenditures actually covered by the law was “miniscule… less than one quarter of one percent of the WEA’s total expenditures.” However, in striking down the law, the state Supreme Court had erroneously found a constitutional “right” for union officials to spend the money of non-union employees who are compelled to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

(Continue reading this news release...)

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a fourth grade teacher from Ohio has filed a federal suit against Ohio's largest teacher union for religious discrimination:

Columbus, OH (December 4, 2008) – A fourth grade teacher from the Coldwater Exempted Village School District has filed a federal suit against the state’s largest teacher union for forcing her to pay compulsory union fees to fund the union whose activities violate her religious faith.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, providing the teacher with free legal aid, filed the suit this week in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

Kathy Hart, an active member of the Catholic Church, has been a teacher in the Ohio public school system since August 1996. Because the public school she works in is unionized, she works under a collective bargaining agreement which forces her to pay compulsory union fees to the National Education Association (NEA) union and its state and local affiliates - the Ohio Education Association (OEA) union and the Coldwater Teachers Organization (CTO) union. Due to her faith, Hart objects to the unions’ positions on abortion and special rights for homosexuals.

Hart had asked that the union divert her compulsory fees to a charity, thereby accommodating her religious objections to supporting financially unions she believes to be involved in immoral activities.

Read the rest of the Foundation's press release here.

On Monday, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review published an editorial criticizing the special privileges Pennsylvania law gives to teacher unions:

The Pennsylvania State Education Association causes untold damage to kids, taxpayers and the commonwealth. Few Pennsylvanians know how costly is this teacher union. But the public has the power to tame the beast.

With more than 185,500 members, 281 full-time employees and an annual income above $84 million, the PSEA is one of the state's wealthiest, largest and most politically active labor unions, reports The Commonwealth Foundation, a public-policy, free-market think tank in Harrisburg.

The PSEA has had cancerlike growth because of its ability to organize employees into collective bargaining units, influence legislation through its puppets that the union's political action committee helped to elect, and push for endless amounts of public financing for public schools, which usually ends up in union members' pockets.

Yesterday, the PSEA lied in response:

Contrary to the editorial, Pennsylvania is not a "compulsory" union state. Act 84, the Fair Share Fee law, preserves the right of all teachers and school employees to join or not to join a union.

But unions are legally required to represent each member of their bargaining units (including nonmembers) fairly and without discrimination. So it is reasonable for unions to charge nonmembers a fee for the costs of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, as well as enforcing their collective bargaining agreements through processing grievances.

There is no question that Pennsylvania is a compulsory unionism state.  That's an outright lie from the PSEA.  Further, this is a common refrain from union bosses, who refuse to mention that the only reason they must "represent" nonmembers because they seek monopoly bargaining over all employees, not just members.

The truth is that excellent teachers, who would often rather represent themselves in negotiations with school district officials, have no choice but to accept a union's so-called "representation." That usually means good teachers are forced to accept lower compensation than they could get if they negotiated on their own behalf.

For more on teacher union abuses in Pennsylvania and other compulsory unionism states, check out this op-ed in the Tribune-Review by Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation.

For more on the issue of compulsory unionism and education, see this video and listen to this podcast.

Recently, Foundation attorneys notified employees represented by the Machinists union (IAM) and Washington Education Association union (WEA) nonmembers of their opportunity to reclaim a portion of their forced union dues from supporting the union officials' politics as determined by law and Foundation-won court precedent.

Employees Represented by IAM

In the National Right to Work Foundation's "Special Legal Notice to Employees Represented by the Machinists union", it states that:

If you are a nonmember of the IAM paying dues to keep your job, you are entitled to claim a reduction in your 2009 IAM dues of approximately 25%. For 2009, the IAM admits that 30.54% of International union dues, 16.77% of district lodge dues and 20.61% of local lodge dues are spent on political, ideological and other non-representational activities for which no employee can be required to pay. According to the "Notice" published in the Fall 2008 issue of the "IAM Journal," you can claim this reduction by sending a letter postmarked during the month of November 2008.

With November ending in less than a week and a half, now is the time to act if you have not already done so to get your 25% reduction in your 2009 IAM dues. For more information and specific instructions on how to claim your rebate, read the Foundation's "Special Legal Notice to Employees Represented by the Machinists union (IAM)".

Nonmembers of the NEA/WEA/UniServ Council/local association (Washington teachers)

In the Foundation's "Special Legal Notice to Washington Teachers" it states that:

As a nonmember of the NEA/WEA/UniServ Council/local association, you should have received your 2008/09 "Hudson" package from the WEA. Please use this suggested letter that you can fill out and mail to get your 2008/09 rebate check of around $200. You must individually complete and send in your objection/challenge/rebate request letter. Your letter must be postmarked on or before December 8, 2008!

Again, time is running out. December 8th is less than two-and-a-half weeks away and if you do not send in your letter on or before December 8th, you will probably not receive your rebate. For more specific instructions on how to claim your rebate of approximately $200, please refer to the Foundation's "Special Legal Notice to Washington Teachers".

As always, the Foundation will continue to help employees across the country fight the evils of compulsory unionism. If you are a teacher interested in your legal rights, please refer to the Abood and Hudson decisions on our Foundation-won Supreme Court precedents webpage. If you are a private sector employee, you can learn more about your legal rights under the Communications Workers of America v. Beck decision on the same page.

In the latest episode, Foundation VP Stefan Gleason sits down with Matt Brouillette of the Pennsylvania-based Commonwealth Foundation to discuss the compulsory unionism stranglehold over much of America's educational system. Check it out:

Big Labor's big money boys are pulling out all the stops to get the presidential candidate of their choice elected. Across the country, teacher union bosses have been pushing their preferred political causes and candidates and the result is the disturbing politicization of the classroom.

Today, the Washington Times reported that union brass of the Virginia Education Association Union (VEA), an affiliate of the National Education Association Union (NEA), sent an e-mail to Virginia teachers which:

...encouraged members to bring politics into the classroom by wearing blue in support of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama and simultaneously suggested that the union's voter registration efforts include those "you teach."

Meanwhile, the New York Post reported today that teacher union bosses in New York have been "handing out thousands of Barack Obama campaign buttons" to teachers. However, as the Post notes, “the Department of Education… has a long-standing policy barring teachers from wearing political campaign buttons in schools.” The teacher union bosses in New York said they will appeal the Department’s decision. The Post quoted Department of Education spokeswoman Ann Forte as saying:

Schools are not a place for politics and not a place for staff to wear political buttons… We don't want a school or school staff advocating for any political position or candidate to students and we don't want students feeling intimidated because they might hold a different belief or support a different candidate than their teachers.

Indeed. But what about the teachers that don't support the union bosses' chosen candidate? They too should not be subjected to union officials' politicking. In the 28 states that do not have Right to Work laws (including New York), union officials are notorious for extracting forced union dues to fund political pet projects that teachers often oppose.

Unfortunately, most teachers are not even aware of their rights to refrain from contributing to Big Labor’s political pet projects as established by Foundation-won Supreme Court cases. However, while our work is cut out for us, there is hope. As Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, stated in an op-ed printed last month, “Praise the teacher, not the union”:

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is currently providing free legal aid to thousands of teachers and other employees who object to their compulsory fees funding the political agenda of union bosses, whose ultimate goal, according to one former NEA official, is "to re-order the priorities of the United States of America."

If you are a teacher who would like to stand up for your rights against the evils of compulsory unionism, click here.

Via the Education Sector's blog, the Washington Post has an excellent article up on DC School Chancellor Michelle Rhee's proposal to create a two-tier pay system to allow administrators to reward teacher excellence in the capital's hidebound public schools.

Rhee's reforms would permit teachers to forgo tenure in favor of higher pay scales based on student achievement, or choose better job security at lower rates of compensation. Predictably, union bosses are fighting the reform tooth-and-nail because it weakens their education stranglehold:

"It's degrading and insulting," said Brocks, to ask that teachers give up tenure and go on probation for a year if they choose the more lucrative of the two salary tiers under the plan, which is at the center of contract negotiations between the city and the Washington Teachers' Union. He said that Rhee wants only to purge older teachers and that for instructors to sell out hard-won protections against arbitrary or unfair dismissal is unthinkable. "For Michelle Rhee or anyone to ask that is like Judas and 30 pieces of silver," Brocks, 59, said.

Apparently it's "degrading and insulting" to demand accountability from a school system that has been wracked by massive corruption scandals and boasts some of the lowest test scores in the country, even when all that the proposal does is allow individual teachers to have one single choice about the terms of their employment. Here's the Government Accountability Office's 2008 report (.pdf) on DC public schools (emphasis mine):

The system serves about 50,000 students and operates 144 schools.1 In fiscal year 2007, its operating budget exceeded $1 billion and the federal government provided funds for about 13 percent of that amount. Long-standing problems with student academic performance, the condition of school facilities, and the overall management of the D.C. school system have been well documented over the last several decades. In particular, the academic challenges facing the District are enormous. In 2007, D.C. public schools ranked last in math scores and second-to-last in reading scores for all tested urban public school systems on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

I particularly enjoyed reading the Education Sector's response to union intransigence (emphasis mine):

There's a certain infantilizing quality to this vision of teacher work, where individuals can't be trusted to make up their own minds about their relationship with management and shouldn't be allowed to make the tradeoff that virtually all well-compensated professionals make: more accountability and less security in exchange for more recognition and compensation.

. . .

So on the one hand you've got an uber-responsive chancellor who reformed the bureaucracy to better support teachers and wants to give them the option to voluntarily enter a system that would pay them a whole lot more money. On the other hand, a union that can't return emails and is notable chiefly for a history of theft and venality so outrageous that it's memorable even by the highly attentuated moral standards of DC municipal government.

Ultimately, this boils down to one thing: union boss control over teachers and their paychecks. If DC teachers are permitted to make their own decisions about their terms of employment, even more DC teachers may discover how unfair it is that they are forced to pay dues to union bosses for "representation" they may not they need or want.