Dear Colleague,
As most of you undoubtedly know by now, on June 27th the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the Janus v. AFSCME
case. The decision means that no public school teacher or any other
government worker in the U.S. has to pay money to a union as a condition
of employment.
What we know
Effective immediately, nonmember agency fee or fair share payers should
have no more money taken from their monthly checks by their school
district and union. CTA has sent a letter stating as such. If anyone has
not received this missive, please let me know and I will email you a
copy. I have not seen nor heard about any such communication from CFT,
however. If any AFT/CFT agency fee payer has received a “sayonara”
letter from that union, please scan and email a copy to CTEN.
Because agency fee payer status is now a thing of the past, there is no
need to send in a yearly rebate/objection letter any more. (The yearly
letter required to be submitted by November 15th each year applied to the existing school year in which it was submitted.)
What we don’t know
For existing union members, things are not that cut and dried. If you
have been a union member and decide you want out, you must let your
union know in writing. The National Right to Work Foundation has
provided teachers with an easy-to-fill-out template that you can use to
resign. To access the form letter, go here.
But we are not sure when the union is legally bound to release you. Will
they wait until the current bargaining agreement is up? Will the union
say you can only leave between dates that it specifies? Any hoops the
union tries to make you jump through will very possibly be met by a
legal challenge. Please send CTEN any communication that the union sends
you on this matter. We very well may be able to get you free legal
help, and at the same time, assist others who are in the same situation.
New laws
The unions and their friends in the legislature in Sacramento have been
planning for the ruling for quite some time now, and there is no
shortage of new laws intended to insure the unions don’t lose too many
of their members.
A year ago AB 119
was signed into law. Government unions now have access to all workers’
personal contact information and rookies are now required to attend a
mandatory union “orientation” meeting, during which a union huckster
tries his/her best to convince a captive audience about the benefits of
union membership.
More recently, AB 2970 would
prohibit government agencies from publicly disclosing information about
the new employee orientations. The unions fear that new public
employees attending the orientation meetings might hear opposing views.
More here.
AB 2577
would allow a “deduction (of) an amount equal to the amount paid or
incurred during the taxable year by a taxpayer for member dues to a
labor organization.” As reported by the Pacific Research Institute,
“Californians, in effect, will collectively subsidize union dues – the
bill would cost taxpayers $250 million the first year, $170 million in
2019-20, and $180 million in 2020-21.”
SB 866
stipulates that if an “employee notifies the district of his/her desire
to opt out of paying dues/discontinue membership in the union, district
staff must refer the employee directly to the union in order to work
out termination of union membership/agency fee deductions.” More
information here.
For a review of all Janus v. AFSCME related California legislation, the law firm of Lozano Smith has an extensive list which can be accessed here.
Also, California Policy Center’s Ed Ring has compiled “A Catalogue of California’s Anti-Janus Legislation, which can be seen here.
Lawsuits
Public-sector workers across the country are now suing to recover dues
they paid to unions over the last several years. Class action suits have
been filed against 11 unions in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Minnesota, Maryland, California, Oregon, Ohio, Illinois and the state of
Washington, “accusing individual unions of violating workers' rights by
collecting mandatory dues payments.” The suits argue that any
public-sector employee who participated in forced dues systems should
receive financial "redress" from labor organizations.
Grand Rapids, MI attorney John Bursch, the man behind many of the
lawsuits, claims his litigation is an attempt to reclaim “a refund of
the fees that were illegally extracted.” For more information on the
lawsuits, go here and here.
Alternatives to unions
If you leave the union, you will lose your liability insurance and legal
representation, but there are alternative ways to secure this coverage.
You can join the Association of American Educators ( www.aaeteachers.org) or the Christian Educators Association International
(www.ceai.org) for your insurance and legal needs. These are professional organizations, not unions.
New Rules
We are in uncharted territory in California. There is serious pushback to the Janus ruling
in several states and lawsuits will follow accordingly. CTEN will do
its best to keep up with it all and inform you as things happen. If you
have any news – good or bad – please let us know so that we can share it
with other teachers across the state. Also, please pass this email
along to your colleagues and encourage them to join us.
Many thanks.
Sincerely,
Larry Sand
CTEN President
