The following comes from a Dec. 19 story on TheDailyCaller.com.
In April, a group of public school teachers filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against a powerful California teachers union — an organization that they contend has violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them to contribute money toward political causes with which they disagree.
Now, in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, lead plaintiff Rebecca Friedrichs, shared why she believes the California Teachers Association and National Education Association have violated her free speech and free expression rights.
“They aren’t defending my interests,” she said. “I should be able to decide without fear of coercion whether I want a union to represent my needs.”
California is a “closed shop” state, meaning all public school teachers are forced to pay union dues, regardless of whether they wish to be in a union or not. The union then bargains on their behalf, and even lobbies for certain political outcomes that union leadership claims will help teachers.
But Friedrichs [who teaches in the Savanna School District in Buena Park] said she doesn’t agree with her union’s political advocacy or its collective bargaining efforts.
“Within collective bargaining, the union just continually pushes for teacher tenure,” said Friedrichs. “So you work three years and now you have a permanent job. Say you do something criminal or you’re just not a very strong teacher, and a better teacher comes along, say an outstanding teacher who is dynamic and children are learning, and … the school cannot let go of the tenured position. That’s troubling to me.”
Friedrichs opposes tenure and supports school choice vouchers, but her union lobbies for precisely the opposite causes. Not only does this hurt her students, but it violates her First Amendment rights, she said.
“I’ve been teaching for 26 years, and throughout those years I’ve been forced to pay dues to the union,” she said. “The union hierarchy, I don’t think they have any idea what goes on in the classroom. They obviously don’t understand the economy. They are harming my students.”
She isn’t the only one who feels that way. Friedrichs said she knows many teachers agree with her, and feel silenced by their union. Nine other teachers have joined her suit….
Since only the Supreme Court could decide such a significant First Amendment matter, Pell hopes to speed the case along as quickly as possible.
Earlier this month, federal district court proved amenable. Judge Josephine Staton allowed the case to proceed to the Ninth Circuit Court — the next step in its journey to the Supreme Court.
Whether the case makes it all the way — and whether the justices will be sympathetic — remains to be seen. But Pell thinks the conservative majority is very much open to his argument. In the 2012 case Knox v. SEIU, a five-justice majority essentially invited a challenge to mandatory dues collection, said Pell….
Read more here.
Brave plaintiffs — God speed you case to a just decision. Of course, the Democratic Party, if in power, will do all it can to stop any decision from coming out (as they fear it will be adverse), and, if it is issued, they will either ignore it, or force years more of litigation to enforce individual teacher rights. Do not be at all surprised if these teachers are summarily fired, as well. Much better to have them proceed in two separate litigations (assuming they will contest their firings), with its attendant expenses and emotional burdens. Still, this kind of thing is what must be done. The Crusaders were tired and bloodied, but opened, for a time, access to the Holy Land. And, more importantly, the Crusaders brought fear into the hearts of Islamic believers and their rulers. To this day, the followers of Islam see all non-believers that oppose them as “Crusaders” (although saving their special venom for those with strength, like Americans). These women are Crusaders, too, and deserve our prayers, respect, and support, as needed. Unions, including those for teachers and for all government workers, are nothing less than the Mafia (although the latter lacked the power of the State to enforce the crazy edits of the NLRB, and to create bizarre and oppressive legislative and employment contracting policies which have truly awful economic and social price tags, such as municipal bankruptcies, and maintenance and expansion of abortion). Perhaps these lawsuits will lead to a wider menu of restraints on rapacious union leadership.
God bless them….this gives me hope…I pray for more to follow suit! I pray that they bankrupt those unions! We need more of this….
Here’s a question, what if the teachers union wanted to compel members to fund pro-life organizations, fuel campaigns against gay marriage, and fight for prayer in schools?
Would anyone here feel that it was wrong for the Teacher’s Union (with compulsory membership dues) to compel support for issues that have little to nothing to do with teacher employment? Would you support litigation to end such funding by the Union?
JonJ:
A fair question. Unions should fight for their members – period. Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum warned the nascent unions of the time not to become entangled in partisan politics (which advice most have ignored). So I would agree that unions should not become involved in larger political issues in any way.
JonJ,
In your desire to defend what God has forbidden, you set yourself up. I a Conservative Republican, more Conservative than Republican, a former Republican Nominee for Congress and a former Republican Officer, elected. will now answer your question. If the Unions were forcing what you mentioned on their members, I would OPPOSE that! The teachers unions should only be involved in matters that pertain to teachers.
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
Awe so so interesting here. With how JonJ wants to change the thinking of many by simply asking that question. Sneaky!
In a perfect world, if things were as JonJ was asking us about…wow…then that would be mean that there were more moral people and this world would be a better place. Unions are run by people! They have their own priority and they do not look at other issues, they just want their unions to be safe and protected! It don’t even think its about their members either.
Take for instance, you have a high school kid working at a grocery store, very part time….he is there past his probation and has no choice but to join the union….guess what, he has to pay many fee’s up to close to over $300.00. He only makes minimum wage, works very part time. Lets suppose this teen didn’t want to join the union because he felt it was a lot of fee’s he was paying and he didn’t like how they were endorsing a candidate who went against his beliefs……well guess what, he didn’t pay and he was terminated from his job. You should read the letters that they send, wow, they sure threaten that he would be terminated if he didn’t pay and also the longer it took, the more the charges grew. What can a kid from a high school do to keep his job? Since he was under 18, the union rules say that he can not be promoted, he would remain a bagger and maybe get a 10 cent raise. And if he was to get a raise, his dues would go up too. So if you really factor in the dues and fee’s to join, it was as if he was working under the minimum wage requirement. So my advice to young kids…..if you need to work especially since many are trying to save up for college….don’t work for any company that requires you to join a union…here in California, the workers have so many rights that there is no need of unions. Unions are the reason we are morally bankrupt.
Abeca, great post! You demonstrate perfectly, why the Church teaches God’s “Principle of Subsidiarity”! Whether you realize it or not, you also demonstrate why the Democrats support an increase in the minimum wage. It aids the Socialist Union Bosses!
Thank you Tracy. But setting all this aside and seeing the reality…I am not a democrat but I do not see anything wrong with raising minimum wage while getting rid of the union bosses. Those two would be great or maybe perhaps if we didn’t have unions then perhaps we wouldn’t be in this mess and we would not need to raise the minimum wage….I see what you mean. : )
Abeca, I didn’t mean to imply that I thought you were a democrat. I realize that even some Republicans and Independents support a minimum wage. I only meant to point out that Unions are the architects and champions of a “minimum wage” or rather a “standard wage”. When legislators start talking about “the need” to raise the minimum wage, you will always find the unions pushing for it. This is no coincidence!
You really need to get a grip on what subsidiarity really means. You seem to have little understanding of the concept.
YFC, please demonstrate to me where I lack understanding on the principle of subsidiarity!
If I, (or others), decide to negotiate my own contract with an employer, the principle of subsidiarity tells me that I have that right, as well as an obligation to do so, (unless, let’s say, I am unable to do so because I lack the mental skills like someone with Downs Syndrome would).
You nor, anyone else for that matter, has the right to tell me what the proper reimbursement for my services is. This is between me and my employer!
(As you can see, the principle of subsidiarity is opposed to the false doctrine of equality!)
All my life I have chosen to avoid unions. Yes, this has meant sometimes earning even less than the Federal and State minimum wage (I was a sub-contractor at the time), yet I have never been in debt, nor on the public dole. It is not right that my choice of employment has been limited by mandated union membership.
The question I asked goes to what extent is it right to use compulsion to make others obey and support moral principles.
1) Would it be moral to point a gun at someone’s head to make them vote for an abortion ban?
2) Would it be moral if the person holding the gun makes up his/her mind that they would not shoot no matter what the person decides?
3) What if that one person held the deciding vote? Would it be moral to point a gun at that individual’s head if their one vote would make abortion unconstitutional?
4) What if a bystander tackled the gun wielder in defense of the voter, knowing that the voter would vote to keep abortion legal? The result of the bystanders action is to keep abortion legal. Was the bystander’s action moral?
JonJ, It sounds to me as if you have spent too much time in the secular university! Even God does not force us to do what is right and moral! He does promise, however, that our choices, good or bad, always have eternal, if not temporal, consequences. The framers of the Constitution of the United States knew full well that our new style of government would only work as long as it’s people followed moral Judaea/Christian principles!
I don’t think it’s a frivolous question, Tracy.
There’s also varying levels of force. If we don’t get the state to enforce Catholic theology, you can still exercise: 1) social rejection 2) ridicule 3) shaming 4) exclusion.
Under what circumstances are varying levels of coercion moral? What standard do we use to make such decisions? Obviously, it likely depends on the moral principle involved—but how is that weighing conducted?
JonJ, first let me apologize for failing to look at and answer your question until now.
You seem to have an issue with needing to “force” or “coerce” people into moral action! Let me say this again, God does not “force” or “coerce” any of us into taking moral positions. What He gave us in it’s place was “Free Will”. With “Free Will” comes consequences for the good or the bad. In addition, it affects both innocent as well as guilty people.
It sounds as if you are extremely uncomfortable with this reality given to us by God, as it necessarily negates the possibility of “Utopia”. God gave us the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule in the Old Testament. Jesus gave us the great commandments and the Beatitudes. Whether or not government or religious leaders choose to “punish” people who violate those Holy Laws is their “free will” choice.
JonJ, I value the freedom God gave us. How about you?
Where is the USCCB regarding UNIONS forcing people to contribute to the Democratic Party of Death and issues and candidates that violate their religious freedom ? ? ?
Where is the California Catholic Bishops’ Conference ? ? ?
Is grant money $$$$$$ more important to them than principles ? ? ?
Most Unions in the USA are corrupt – SEIU, UAW, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, etc.
Union leaders are using FORCED dues to pay for their PERSONAL politicial, immoral and religious beliefs, and to elect immoral politicians.
They pay to bus in demonstrators who do not even live in the same City or State to FALSELY make in appear there is widespread support for their immoral political agenda.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/union-leaders-line-up-behind-same-sex-marriage-obama
Unions run Caliofnria, which explains moss of its state and local government problems.
The Catholic Church is quite hypocritical in its stands on unions, beating their chests about private sector workers being unionized then engaging in wrecking crew behavior to keep unions from organzing any workers employed by the CAthiolic Church, like teachers, grave diggers at Cathilic cemeteries! Hypocrisy? You be the judge…
Unions are wrecking Califonria….
good cause, finally a cause we both completely agree with!
All Unions are corrupt. Especially the NEA. Wasn’t always that way, but it is now.
SandraD, even back during WWII, unions were known, by the United States Government, to be hotbeds for Communists.
Just so everyone knows any union member in California is already allowed to pay only the dues that go towards collective bargaining and not have to pay that portion of the dues that go toward political action.
Also, unions are democratic. A majority of teachers voted and continue to vote for this union to represent them. No one gets their way all the time in a democracy. We may not like the will of the majority, but it is preferable to the tyranny of the minority even if the majority turns out to be wrong.
Kathy405, while what you say is true on paper, opting out of the political portion of dues is not quite as easy as you seem to make it sound! Unions are well known for using stronghold tactics to discourage their members from opting out in the first place. If one does succeed in opting out, life will typically be MADE to become more difficult! But what of someone like me who believes in the “Principle of Subsidiarity”? Belonging to a Union on any level is contrary to my beliefs. I, as well as others like me, should have the right to pursue a position with a company and negotiate the terms of employment on my own without the forced interference of “collective” bargaining bosses.
Tracy, it is not true only on paper, but it is true in practice. It is a very simple document that basically requires a signature. A number of people in my district do it (in a very liberal area and a very large district) it has not been a problem. As for the “Principle of Subsidiarity” being contrary to your beliefs, you must know that union rights have been repeatedly upheld by the Church. Also, once a decision has been arrived at fairly and democratically one does not have the right to ignore a majority vote. No one has a right to demand any job and then also demand the right to ignore agreed to terms.
Kathy405, I am glad to hear that your district has not retaliated. I have heard numerous stories of union members who have experienced quite the opposite. I find it hard to believe that anyone would go to the effort of filing a law suit, (or any attorney taking the case), if this issue was as clear cut as you make it sound. They are clearly asking the courts to make a judgement on something they find unjust!
As far as the Church upholding “union rights”. I am not sure what you are talking about, other than acknowledging what some of the Bishops have been saying, such as Cardinal Mahoney, with regards to unions. Unfortunately, the American Bishops on a majority scale also chose, back in the 60’s, to ignore another of the Church’s teaching with regards to the evil of contraception.
<> This is factually incorrect. I was a judge on a teacher dismissal panel and can attest that CA teachers with tenure *are* fired. Elem/sec school teachers’ tenure is *not* a guarantee of lifetime employment like college prof’s tenure. It is a guarantee of due process which means an impartial hearing of the evidence. In the case where I was a judge the teacher was dismissed. Her offense was being incompetent in the sense of not getting paperwork properly filed, being tardy and having poor classroom control. The principal provided evidence of that and the accused was fired. In the interest of truthfulness I encourage the editors who published this article check with the CA State Dept. of Education on this subject. I assure you that the firing process does go on. Check the facts or you are guilty of bearing false witness. Don’t let your feelings get in the way of finding out the truth.
California Teacher, after reading what you posted here, I re-read the article. I interpreted what Rebecca Friedrichs is quoted as saying differently from the way you appear to have interpreted it.
Friedrichs said, “Within collective bargaining, the union just continually PUSHES for teacher tenure,” The author of the article goes on to say that, “Friedrichs opposes tenure and supports school
choice vouchers, but her union LOBBIES for precisely the opposite causes.”
Friedrichs and the other teachers, filing this law suit do not want to be forced to belong to a union which does not “lobby” for THEIR values. It is quite clear to me that the article is suggesting that the unions have NOT YET succeeded in obtaining the type of tenure for their teachers which university educators currently have.
I must admit that it greatly concerns me that you where once a judge.