President Roosevelt was right: we should have never allowed public employees to unionize. When unions negotiate with government officials there is no one to represent the interest of ordinary citizens and taxpayers.
The administration of the governmental organization negotiates the interest of the public. They sometimes do a great job and sometimes they don’t. My union’s contract must be approved by the state legislature. One party is actively opposed to unions and that fact alone means that negotiators from the state Department of Education must be tough. We certainly don’t get what we ask for simply because we ask for it. For years our pay has lagged behind pay increases of comparably educated private sector workers while required paperwork and busywork has increased.
On the flip side, the union bankrolls the politicians of the other party, with a huge conflict of interest.
Your answer has no room for the kids education, but plenty of room for pay and benefits of the union members. But that is old school quibble, the OP article is concerned about the expansion of UTLA purview into naked political arena:
> But under Myart-Cruz’s stewardship, which began when she assumed office in the summer of 2020, that purview has been expanded to include a breathtaking range of far-flung progressive issues: racial justice, Medicare for all, the millionaire tax, financial support for undocumented families, rental and eviction relief—over the last 15 months, UTLA has championed them all.
I don’t understand your response. A union’s primary purpose is for advocating for the rights, working conditions, and pay for it’s members. That teachers’ unions often times advocate for making things better for their students in the form of supporting school lunch programs, universal healthcare, increased mental health resources for kids, etc. is because members generally care about those we teach.
In the end it doesn’t matter what you or I think. The members of the union have a right to advocate for what they want to advocate for. They have free speech rights too.
It is a difficult subject to tackle, here's a second attempt:
If there was school choice, sure, go advocate for whatever political cause you want. To the extent that the public is forced to pay taxes for public schools, the public has a right to be concerned when the teacher union veers into territory that is beyond a reasonable purview.
The union priorities are telling:
* High: Negotiate pay and benefits for the union. Reasonable in principle, but less reasonable when the union bankrolls the politicians that signoff the paychecks.
* High: Naked political campaigns outside the professional scope of teaching. This is crass: union members joined the union for the pay and benefits negotiator role. Now some are forced to (tacitly) support political causes against their conscience. This is further crass because sooner or later it leaks into the classroom, and teachers should strive for a political neutral stance, not for classroom political indoctrination.
* Low: Figure out how to improve kids educational attainment, which is the #1 reason people hire teachers.
Teach Jonny how to read. For politics, join a political organization, don't drag the professional union into politics.
I suppose you don’t think constitutionally protected free speech rights apply to unions. Are you at least consistent and want to ban lobbying efforts by corporations? The leaders of corporations can join a political organization. Are you consistent and decry the fact that stockholders have to accept that the company they hold stock in can advocate for things they don’t like? Union members have a right to have the portion of their dues spent on political advocacy refunded to them. Stockholders have no such similar rights.
Have you been in the classroom as a teacher? I’ve been teaching for over 20 years. I’m glad my Union advocates for social justice because I’m tired of students using student loans as a means of welfare. I’m tired of sick students not being able to afford healthcare and remain sick. I’m tired of dealing with students who have to work full time jobs to support themselves and can’t devote enough time for school. I’m tired of dealing with hunger, transportation problems, etc.
But it doesn’t matter what you or I think. Unions have free speech rights and can advocate for things you don’t like. Get organized and fight for your position. There are lots of checks on unions and what unions spend on politics is nothing compared to the monied interests opposed to us.
Constitutionally protected free speech rights apply to unions. However public employee unions shouldn't be allowed to collectively bargain with governments over employment terms. And public employees shouldn't be required to contribute money to a particular union as a condition of employment. Those are merely statutory issues that don't involve Constitutional rights.
Public employees who want to advocate for political change can do so the same as any other citizen by working with their elected officials, making financial contributions, and voluntarily joining advocacy organizations.
Your knowledge regarding union membership is outdated. No one can be forced to join a Union and no one can be forced to even pay for collective bargaining that they benefit from.
Government schools are a quasi-monopoly that only parents who can afford private school tuition can escape. A monopoly can afford to be inefficient and indulge the whims of the people working for it. Quoting the article:
"under Myart-Cruz’s [the teachers' union president] stewardship, which began when she assumed office in the summer of 2020, that purview has been expanded to include a breathtaking range of far-flung progressive issues: racial justice, Medicare for all, the millionaire tax, financial support for undocumented families, rental and eviction relief—over the last 15 months, UTLA has championed them all. Many of these may be laudable aims, or at least worth debating, but they aren’t the sort of agendas normally pursued by your neighborhood teachers’ union. In what universe, after all, does UTLA’s recent boycott of Israel over the conflict with Hamas benefit the teachers—or students—of Los Angeles?"
As with all sufficiently large organizations of people there are leaders of the organization. The leaders represent the members and sometimes some members disagree with the leadership. Are you suggesting that no organization of people ought to advocate for a political position unless x% of the membership specifically advocates for this? Are you opposed to corporate lobbying? It’s not as if every stock holder of Apple gets a say on how Apple lobbies and gets involved in the political process.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/letter-the-resolut...