If you are a teacher or working in education take a moment to read this article about an important Supreme Court Case regarding choice and union membership.

Jan. 3, 2016 4:23 p.m. ET

I am one of 10 California teachers suing to end compulsory union dues in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which will be heard by the Supreme Court Jan. 11. Our request is simple: Strike down laws in 23 states that require workers who decline to join a union to pay fees anyway. In our view, paying fees to a union should not be a prerequisite for teaching in a public school. No one in the U.S. should be forced to give money to a private organization he or she disagrees with fundamentally. Teachers deserve a choice.

I have taught in public schools for nearly 30 years, mostly in California. I grew up in the Central Valley, and though I’m the son of two teachers and related to eight more, I didn’t think I’d choose a career in education. But when I went off to college, I started tutoring other students in math and realized that I was good at teaching and I really enjoyed it.

I’ve never regretted my decision. Sunday nights are joyous because I know I’ll be going to work in my classroom, with my students, on Monday morning.

I was a member of the union for years and even served as a union representative. But the union never played an important role in my school. When most teachers sought guidance, they wanted help in the classroom and on how to excel at teaching. The union never offered this pedagogic aid.

Instead, the union focused on politics. I remember a phone call I received before a major election from someone in the union. It was a “survey,” asking teachers whether they would vote for so-and-so if the election were held tomorrow. I disagreed with every issue and candidate the union was promoting. After that conversation, I thought about what the union represents. Eventually, I realized that my dues—about $1,000 a year—went toward ideas and issues that ran counter to my beliefs.

So I opted out of paying the portion of union dues that is put toward political activities. The Supreme Court requires unions to provide this option, but I was surprised by how difficult this is. To opt out you have to resign from the union and relinquish all benefits—insurance, legal representation, maternity leave. Although you are prohibited from voting on any new contract, you are still forced to pay for the union’s collective bargaining, on the theory that the union negotiates for everyone.

But over time I’ve learned that the union’s collective bargaining is every bit as political. The union is bargaining for things I’d never support. For example, in my community, the union spends resources pushing for ever-higher teacher salaries. I’m in favor of a decent salary for teachers, but I think we are already well paid compared with everyone else in the Central Valley.

The area has endured hard times in the past few years. Parents of my students have been laid off, and many are still unemployed. Some have moved in with grandparents or other family members to stay afloat financially. Families struggle to make ends meet. That the union would presume to push, allegedly on my behalf, for higher salaries at the expense of smaller class sizes and avoiding teacher layoffs is preposterous.

The union also negotiates policies on discipline, grievances and seniority that make it difficult—if not impossible—to remove bad teachers. Over three decades I’ve seen my share of educators who should be doing something else. One example that sticks with me involved a colleague whom everyone, students and faculty, knew was incompetent. All on campus knew that he was biding his time until retirement.

These situations are sad. Students were relying on this teacher for an education, and he did not deliver. Yet he could do exactly as he pleased because the union had negotiated protections based on seniority. Sometimes the very teachers who shouldn’t be in the classroom are protected from layoffs thanks to seniority rules, while slightly younger but more competent colleagues are given the ax—again, thanks to collective bargaining.

The teachers in my family disagree about the union. Some support it and others don’t. But everyone agrees that each of us should have the right to decide whether to join. So I’m not against the union; I’m against the state forcing me to pay union fees against my will.

Most Americans agree. Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government recently released its ninth annual “Education Next” opinion poll. A majority of teachers who had an opinion, 50% of those surveyed, favored ending mandatory agency fees. Most Americans, regardless of political persuasion, are also on our side. A Gallup poll last year found that 82% of the public agrees that “no American should be required to join any private organization, like a labor union, against his will.” That’s all we’re asking.

Mr. Elrich is a math teacher in the Sanger Unified School District.

Do you like this post?

Showing 3 reactions

commented 2017-04-13 08:41:35 -0700 · Flag
Trust it or not, as an Attorney who sues obligation authorities as a profession, this is a vital case. Suing obligation gatherers and obligation http://www.pro-academic.co.uk/write-my-essay/ accumulation law offices can be extremely precarious. We utilize a ‘slightest complex’ shopper standard in a large portion of these cases. Thus, while assessing any obligation accumulation exercises, we should put ourselves and our customers in the shoes of the minimum advanced shopper.
commented 2016-02-09 23:40:12 -0800 · Flag
Hey! your post is fantastic to read with awesome title “If you are a teacher or working in education take a moment to read this article about an important Supreme Court Case regarding choice and union membership”.I refer your post with my friends because it’s very helpful for me. For “Need to purchase assignment” Discover here: http://www.buyassignment.com
commented 2016-01-29 21:54:26 -0800 · Flag
I am agreed with Mr. Elrich’s point of view about public education in the U.S. Current events are setting public education issues at side or ignored. Additionally, the power of the California Teachers Association as others unions country wide make incompetent teachers entitled to the public education’s classrooms where children are observing “Roles Models” for their future. I totally support the right of rejecting any mandatory agency fees when the agency is far from being proactive, honest, and efficient. Teachers Associations in the U.S. need to reform many regulations that prevent children to receive outstanding education, which is the main goal rather than protect careless and unmotivated members. Thank you professor Elrich for engaging us in this matter, and hopefully we can have the option out of these agencies for faculty staff shortly.