Can a teachers union force
non-members to pay the wages of unionized teachers who are away
from their jobs on “union business”? The Mackinac Center
for Public Policy says no.
Adam Neuman, a public school teacher in Brighton, Michigan, is a
veteran who served in Afghanistan in 2011. He disagreed with the
National Education Association—the parent organization for his
local union—over the organization’s anti-war activism, and sought
to leave the union in accordance with the state’s Right to Work
law.
Neuman believed that would end any obligation he had to
contribute money toward views he didn’t support. He was wrong. The
union insisted that his contract still required him to contribute
money toward a “release time” fund, which pays teachers who have
temporarily stepped away from their normal duties to attend to
union business. (Taxpayers also
subsidize this practice to the tune of $2.7 million, according
to Mackinac.)
Mackinac has filed suit on behalf of Neuman:
“What part of opting out does the union not understand?” said
Patrick Wright, vice president for legal affairs at the Mackinac
Center for Public Policy. “They are not allowed to raid a
non-member’s paycheck.”
In addition to the fact that the “release time” payments force
non-members to pay for activities they don’t support and have a
legal right to disassociate from, the practice has a secondary,
insidious effect. Neuman explained that teachers will be more
reluctant to leave the union if they are forced to pay
regardless:
Neuman says he knows teachers who feel that way.
“Their opinion was, they wanted out, but if they’re going to
still take my money, I might as well stay in so I can at least
vote,” said Neuman.
Keep in mind that Michigan Education Association President
Steven Cook
repeatedly denigrated ex-members as “freeloaders.” Attempting
to exercise basic free association rights sure is a nasty business
when the union bosses fight back.
Watch Mackinac’s interview with Neuman below:
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1ylgUZP
via IFTTT