IS FRIEDRICHS VS. CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION A DEATH KNELL FOR ALL UNIONS

Friedrichs.jpg

(Mensaje se repite en Español)

The ramifications of the Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association (CTA) that is now pending before the United States Supreme Court go far beyond the public sector unions and employees litigating this case with specious allegations of their 1st Amendment free speech rights being violated by what Justice Kennedy called "coerced speech."

In reality, it also has very little to do with the fair-share agency fees required of all public employees like teachers who are exclusively represented by a union like CTA, but choose not to be members of that union, because they do not share the political views and support given by that union to predominantly Democratic candidates and issues. Already public employee unions must segregate the funds collected to defray the costs of collective bargaining on behalf of all workers- who they have had the exclusive right to represent- and any supplemental political actions the union chooses to engage in and fund only from members dues.

In a country where only 6.6% of workers in the private sector and 35.7% of public sector workers remain unionized, the clear purpose of the Friedrichs case seems to be in dealing a final mortal blow to what remains of unions in this country. If Rebecca Friedrichs and her co-plaintiffs being represented by Michael Carvin and other elite conservative attorneys given carte blanche by the billionaire boys club are successful, not only will they not have to pay for union representation, but it is highly likely that a high percentage of the remaining 325,000 union membership in CTA will quit the union in much the same manner as we have already seen after Governor Scott Walker's siege against unions in Wisconsin.

Since Governor Walker's attack on unions, "American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has lost 18,000 of its previous 32,000 members and has seen its annual revenue fall from $10 million to $5.5 million." In addition, "The state's largest teachers union, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, has lost more than a third of its members." It seems highly unlikely that unions that have spent $1.7 billion in the 2012 elections will be able to do so in 2016, if they are being confronted by their own bankruptcy.

There is a certain irony in the fact that while the principal free speech argument under the 1st Amendment in the Friedrichs case is weak, there is a much stronger contracts argument that the Friedrichs lawyers might have made. That argument is based on a complete and utter failure of consideration under contract law. All teachers be they members of the union or mere agency fee payer must get something for their fees and/or dues. With literally thousands of teachers- most of whom are at the top of the salary scale or about to vest in expensive lifetime health benefits- being summarily removed from their teaching careers without the teachers unions (CTA, AFT, UTLA, and others) lifting a finger to defend them, a fair question to be asked is what are any public employees paying their union for, if when they finally need legal defense, the union is not only nowhere to be found, but rather colludes with the school districts or other public entities that have illegally targeted them in complete derrogation of their supposed collective bargaining rights and basic constitutional rights.

If in actuality there is no benefit to the employee and no burden on the union to defend them, then Rebecca Friedrichs can truly ask what are any teachers paying the union for?

While I have always been a strong supporter of unions as the defender of labor, a union that has long colluded with management against the interests of their rank and file is worse than no union, since it creates the expectation among the workers- blue and white collar- that they have an advocate based on their numbers, but in reality all their is is a union illusion that they would be better off without.

The Friedrichs case is a wakeup call. Corrupt unions need to be forced into some kind of receivership as both state and federal law provide for in dealing with all corrupt and/or bankrupt entities.

If you or someone you know has been targeted and are in the process of being dismissed and need legal defense, get in touch:

Lenny@perdaily.com

Blogs We Love

Do you find the media and their "teachers-suck," "power to principals," "privatization is the best thing that's happened to public schools" disgusting and distasteful? The powers that be may "control" the main media but it's people like us who control the SOCIAL MEDIA. Hungry for more information about crusading educators going against the grain to do what's right for teachers, unions, communities, and children? Check out some more blogs below:

Las ramificaciones de la Friedrichs vs. Asociación de Maestros de California (CTA) que ahora está pendiente ante el Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos van más allá de los sindicatos y los trabajadores litigantes este caso con acusaciones falaces de sus primera Enmienda de los derechos de libertad de expresión de los sectores público siendo violados por lo que la Justicia Kennedy llamado "discurso coaccionado."

En realidad, también tiene muy poco que ver con los gastos de agencia en acciones justas requeridas de todos los empleados públicos, como maestros que están representados exclusivamente por una unión como la CTA, pero optan por no ser miembros de esa unión, porque no comparten la opiniones políticas y apoyo dado por esa unión de los candidatos y los temas predominantemente demócrata. Ya sindicatos de empleados públicos deben separar los fondos recaudados para sufragar los costos de la negociación colectiva en nombre de todos los trabajadores- que han tenido el derecho exclusivo que represente y las acciones políticas complementarias al sindicato elige a participar en y el fondo sólo de los miembros de las cuotas.

En un país donde sólo el 6,6% de los trabajadores del sector privado y el 35,7% de los trabajadores del sector público siguen siendo sindicalizados, el claro propósito del caso Friedrichs parece estar en asestando un golpe mortal final para lo que queda de los sindicatos en este país. Si Rebecca Friedrichs y sus co-demandantes están representados por Michael Carvin y otros abogados conservadores élite dado carta blanca por el club de chicos multimillonarios tienen éxito, no sólo no tienen que pagar por la representación sindical, pero es muy probable que un alto porcentaje de los miembros 325,000 unión restante en CTA se salga de la unión, de la misma manera que ya hemos visto tras el asedio de Scott del gobernador Walker contra los sindicatos en Wisconsin.

Desde el ataque del Gobernador Walker a los sindicatos, "Federación Americana de Empleados Estatales, del Condado y Municipales ha perdido 18.000 de sus 32.000 miembros anteriores y ha visto su caída anual de ingresos de $ 10 millones a $ 5,5 millones." Además, "el mayor sindicato de maestros del estado, la Educación Consejo de Asociación de Wisconsin, ha perdido más de un tercio de sus miembros." Parece muy poco probable que los sindicatos que han pasado $ 1.7 mil millones en las elecciones de 2012 serán capaces de hacerlo en el año 2016, si están siendo confrontados por su propia quiebra.

Hay una cierta ironía en el hecho de que mientras que el argumento principal la libertad de expresión bajo la primera enmienda en el caso Friedrichs es débil, hay un argumento contratos mucho más fuerte que los abogados Friedrichs podrían haber hecho. Este argumento se basa en la falta total y absoluta de su examen en el derecho contractual. Todos los maestros ya sean miembros del sindicato o agencia mera cuota pagador debe obtener algo por sus honorarios y / o cuotas. Con literalmente miles de profesores- mayoría de los cuales están en la parte superior de la escala salarial oa punto de titular en costosos salud vida Beneficios a ser removido sumariamente de su carrera docente sin los sindicatos de maestros (CTA, AFT, UTLA, y otros) levantar un dedo para defenderlos, una buena pregunta que se plantea es ¿cuáles son los empleados públicos que pagan su unión porque, si cuando finalmente tienen defensa legal, el sindicato no sólo es por ningún lado, sino más bien en connivencia con los distritos escolares u otras entidades públicas entidades que los han atacado ilegalmente en derrogation completa de sus supuestos derechos de negociación colectiva y de los derechos constitucionales básicos.

Si en la actualidad no hay ningún beneficio para el empleado y no hay carga en el sindicato para defender a ellos, entonces Rebecca Friedrichs verdaderamente puede pedir lo que están pagando los maestros del sindicato para?

Aunque siempre he sido un firme defensor de los sindicatos como el defensor de la mano de obra, una unión que se ha puesto de acuerdo de largo con la gestión contra los intereses de sus bases es peor que ningún sindicato, ya que crea la expectativa entre los trabajadores- azul y blanco collar- que tienen un abogado basado en sus números, pero en realidad todo su es es una ilusión unión que estarían mejor sin.

El caso Friedrichs es una llamada de atención. Sindicatos corruptos deben ser forzados en una especie de sindicatura ya que tanto las leyes estatales y federales prevén en el tratamiento de todas las entidades corruptas y / o en quiebra.

13

01 2016

1 Comment

The teacher jail issue could bite UTLA in the butt. UTLA has really NOT been helpful to these teachers. Failure to do that could result in losing members if the rank and file figure out they are paying UTLA money and not really getting anything for it.

Many of those not in teacher jail think, "That won't happen to me. I am a good teacher. I don't do anything immoral." I think one purpose of teacher jail is to get those teachers away from their colleagues resulting in "out of sight, out of mind".

Sometimes I wonder if UTLA has been a willing participant in LAUSD's targetings because, if an over-40 teacher can be eliminated, it can allow for TWO rookies to be hired (an extra person to pay UTLA dues).

I still suspect there are deeper issues that are not openly discussed because LAUSD's money issues can't be solved by firing every over-40 male teacher it can.

Leave a comment