Monday morning, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The significance of this case cannot be overstated; the decision could potentially restore the freedom of public employees to choose how they want their hard-earned paychecks spent, and might put decisions about voluntary union membership back into the hands of the employees themselves.
According to the Manhattan Institute, the decision might affect 5 million public workers across 22 states including California, Illinois, and New York.
The case results will also have implications for the quality of education we deliver to our children. Teachers’ unions fight hard to protect mediocrity, even in failing schools, and support policies that keep ineffective teachers in the classroom — a taken-for-granted practice that in turn discourages more quality entrants to the profession.
Unions stifle innovation with demands for all teachers to operate under fixed rules about how schools are run. Union contracts dictate when teachers can enter a cafeteria (rarely) or how often they can stay after school without violating policy (seldom). The unions admit that most public employees do not know what this case is about. Neither do they really understand the extent to which the activities the union undertakes are political in numerous issue areas that often conflict with the employee’s own points of view and are at odds with their own employment. Campaigning against performance pay so that teachers who do better are paid better, or differential pay for different kinds of teachers (particularly those who are rare, like scientists and mathematicians), are all against the union playbook.
Then there’s the issue of school improvement. Efforts to turn around failing schools are fought by unions, as are efforts to provide parents with options so that their children do not have to attend failing schools. All these things are done with taxpayer funds that are involuntarily taken from public employees. When they learn these truths and then request back the portion of their money that is spent on politics, they usually are met with a pittance, as the union has the upper hand when it comes to defining political activity.
The two major teachers’ unions (the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers) are also among the largest political donors of all time, together spending the second-most in political donations nationally, far above and beyond the NRA, for example. Many of the policies and politicians they support, and programs they seek to have implemented, prevent children from escaping failing schools and deny parents their due power to determine which education best meets the needs of their children.
“For too long America’s workers — teachers especially — have been forced into joining or funding labor unions because they do not know they have the right to opt out. This coerced membership and forced dues run contrary to freedom of association all Americans should enjoy,” argues Colin Sharkey of the Association of American Educators. He is correct.
As Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation points out, “Janus brings up a core issue of the First Amendment and asks the question, ‘Can a private organization force someone to pay them to ‘speak on their behalf’ without their consent?’” The simple answer to that is “No.”
Now we’ll see if the Supreme Court agrees.
Jeanne Allen (@JeanneAllen) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is CEO and founder of the Center for Education Reform.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
