Simple solution:

Pass law that requires independent workers to negotiate their own terms and establish they are not entitled to equal treatment, and inform them that they need to seek their own independent representation if their is a workplace conflict.

Simply put, they cannot benefit from anything they do not contribute to. As an HRM graduate, this seems both legal and appropriate.

Are the teachers trying to protect their union-negotiated & hugely inflated wages, benefits, and pensions??? You bet they are!!! Teachers should be legally treated like like most of CA salaried workers. No unions, no excessive paychecks, no excessive benefits, and NO grossly overpaid pensions. It's time to deal with grossly excessive educational salaries. Teachers are no better than most other salaried worker.

@William

Because when I think of a profession with hugely inflated wages, teacher is the first the comes to mind. How else do you think they afford their gilded mansions?

"The decision is the result of well-funded and nationally orchestrated effort to weaken the ability of working men and women to come together as unions and to speak with one, united voice,"

No. It is simply saying that if you choose not to join the union, you can't be forced to pay the fees for it. This is totally understandable.

@YIMBY: You are correct. Teacher's salaries are not that high (that is simple economics since it is relatively easy to get a teaching credential).

That said, the state spends 40% of it's budget on Education (which is a heck of a lot considering how wealthy California is). 30% of that is purely teacher pensions. On the other end, it is ranked 42 in education in the nation, in a country that ranks pretty low in education internationally. Just throwing more money at it is not the answer.

@Ron

Fretting about teacher salaries isn't the answer, either. It's just a variation on the right-wing meme of Overpaid Government Employees.

Government employees are not only overpaid, they are grossly overpaid

If the unions would do a better job at representing teachers-workers, then everyone would more than likely opt to pay their dues.

But the real issue about union dues has nothing to do with teaching, and everything to do with politics. If the unions would stay out of politics and stop giving 99% to one party, they would have more willing teachers to pay dues.

Dues are about political power and now it has been cut back, that is why the Dem's and union heads are upset.

So let me get this straight: “Teachers decry” the decision, but the reporter didn’t talk to any teachers. Just the Teachers’ Union. I guess “Teachers’ Union decries” decisión just doesn’t have the same ring, does it?

As a government worker I can’t fathom being told I have to pay union dues if I elect not to be in a union. The Supreme Court got it right this time. No one should be forced to pay for something they don’t want to be a part of, no matter what the upside. Especially when it comes to unions and politics. I don’t want my money going to who the union deems to be the correct political party or speaking on my behalf in any situation. If The unions want to stay involved in politics they need to find another way to be relevant or get out of the game. California is finally getting a dose of reality.

Instead of decrying forced dues, just pay your union dues voluntarily, problem solved. Some people will choose not to join the union and won't be forced to pay. I see nothing wrong here.

William Hitchens, want to explain how your comment got 154 likes in such a short space of time ... or should I?

Why is it always the extremists right-wing posts that get these odd treatments?

@John

Private sector workers are grossly underpaid. Public sector wages at least try to match inflation.

So all teachers where upset. I would imagine that any Republican voting teachers would be happy. This article indicates that all teachers are Democrats. If so our children are getting a biased education.

@fake news
It’s all about politics and very little about the kids. Anyway you slice it. I’ve seen the liberal agenda brain wash kids instead of teaching.them. When education leans towards racial rights and gender rights instead of teaching. It’s a problem. When kids are protesting the street during class instead of opening books. Your doing a disservice to every student. California unions stop using kids for political agenda.

@Jack

Good to know that the liberal agenda is apparently making kids less racist and sexist than you.

It's about time that those who choose not to support a particular political party through forced union dues are finally free not to do so.

For decades, teachers have been forced to support the Democrat party, despite their personal objections to the platform, just because they have been forced to join a union in order to work. Now they are free to direct that money as they choose. It is called the freedom to choose how your earnings are spent. Tell me again how you are for "the little people" when you want to take their money by force and use it against their wishes.

If the unions were really using their money to better student and teacher conditions, rather than directing it to a political party, they wouldn't have such an issue here. They just know that they will get less money from teachers who can make up their own minds about the party they wish to support. An idea so good that people have to be forced to do it.

As for the comment about private sector employees being underpaid, I found it hard to stop laughing at that one. Have you checked out the salaries at Google and Facebook recently? Underpaid? Yeah, right.

@psr

Not all private sector workers are in tech. Wages have been stagnant for decades compared to inflation for the average worker. You can't just point to a Google employee or a CEO and dispute that, since they're outliers.

Supreme Court got this one right. The whole concept of public sector unions is an abomination. FDR - no conservative - more or less said so quite forcefully himself.

And can we please stop with the ‘right wing extremist’ and ‘left wing communist’ name calling towards anyone with whom we disagree?.

It’s really quite tiresome.

This whole idea of flat wages over time is misleading. Over time workers drop out and new workers enter the labor force, so the comparison across time is like comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison is to follow the same workers over time. When you do this, you will see significant upward movement in earnings by all lower income groups.

@Apples to Oranges - I don't think yau are right, if you follow recent economics research (over the last decade) the percentile of USA residents in the top 1% or 5% have vastly increased their income (and wealth) total national percentages since the post-WW II decades. I believe that the wealth concentration numbers are now near their Gilded Age (late "robber baron") levels. Oh for another Rough Rider to charge up those Hill(s) (and over out-of-control capitalists). [view of a progressive Republican]

There is some confusion evident here and the article (Kevin) between union "agency fees" (for negotiation and employee representation services') and UNION DUES. I don't know what % of the CTA (state) money is for 'agency fees'. I would assume none of the NTA (national) money is, and I would assume 'most' of the DTA (local) money is for "agency fees". I hope the national reporting is much clearer on this [I'd Hate to Have to Read Through that Da#@ Alito's justification!]

Voice reporter Kevin F.: and the answer is, your headline caption is in error! Not "dues"

(from the usually authoritative ed100.org).

Writing for ScotusBlog, Amy Howe summarized the essence of the ruling:

"...government employees who are represented by a union but do not belong to that union cannot be required to pay a fee to cover the union’s costs to negotiate a contract that applies to all employees."

Web Link

@Apples to Oranges

Do you not understand the concept of inflation?

For a good primer Google Russ Roberts and his videos on the middle class. As he points out changes in the composition of households and the increase in seniors (who don't earn income but receive retirement benefits) make it appear average HH income has dropped. When you correct for these changes, average HH income has increased. When you follow the same people over time, you get even more growth.

Or you can look at average wages for specific jobs at specific skill levels over time and compare the change in wage with inflation to see if wages are keeping up with it. They're not.

Web Link

Again, this doesn't follow the same people over time to see how their wages are growing. Also we are looking at wages as whole. Some jobs may not have higher wages and some may. Until you watch the Russ Roberts videos there is nothing more to say.

"Watch all the videos by this right-wing Libertarian economist for why, actually, things are great."

It's so good to see people that have fully drank the Kool-Aid.

@Apples to Oranges


I think I'm going to take the Pew Research
Center's data over your YouTube videos.

So you have no argument against my point that these studies you believe in fail to follow the same people over time and fail to take into account changes in HH distribution. Go ahead and continue to believe in these studies that are easily refuted.

Those points aren't relevant to the validity of the data. You don't need to follow the same people over time. And this isn't about household income, it's about individual wages. I don't believe you understand how statistics actually works.

Data is data. It always depends on how you interpret data. The data show median wages have been stagnant over time, but so what. If you compare different people across time what does that prove. It means nothing. That's why it like comparing apples to Oranges. Ask any labor economist and they will explain the silliness of comparing different cross sections of individuals over time. When you follow the same people over time you will see that their wages rise over time and decline near retirement age. So wages are not flat, they rise when you control for obvious variables that are important.

So the notion that the middle class is not improving is flat out wrong. Perhaps this level of sophistication of statistics is beyond your level of knowledge. That's how statistics works.

Uh huh. Tell me when you decide to open up your own firm and show the Pew Research Center how it's really done, then, random person on the internet.

Wait, your argument that wages aren't stagnant is that people's wages increase over their career and decline when they retire? That's even dumber than I initially thought. I really doubt you know "how statistics work" if this is the quality of your analysis.

I just realized that you think that when people say wages are flat, that you think they mean that people aren't making more money in their career over time. Wow. No wonder you're confused.

I'm not confused. Your the one who stated wages have been "stagnant " for years. I merely said that his is a misleading statement.

You have no idea what that statement actually means or the idea it conveys.

Which statement. The one where you are confused about stagnant wages. You have yet to offer any credible evidence that you even understand statistics. You merely restate some propaganda and act like its true since you quoted the statements correctly without vetting the information. Try to come up with your own arguments. This is such a one sided discussion. I feel like I'm talking to a child.

Apples, just take the L and walk away. Pretending like you know what you're talking about is just making it worse. Your entire last post reads like something we'd write about your posts, is it just projection?

Another incoherent argument. Apparently my statistical arguments are way over your head. I apoplogize for trying to argue w children.

I am curious if anyone can tell me exactly how many hours a day an average school teacher works. Deduct half-days, xmas break; easter recess; mid term recess; sick days; personal days; convention days; ten month work year etc. etc. Then can one of you economic geniuses give me the hourly wage of (say) a 15 yr tenured teacher? thank you. P.S. I have no horse in this race.

I DID SOME MATH. USING A $50.000 BASE AND ASSUMING 160 SCHOOL DAYS I CAME UP WITH ROUGHLY $40.00 PER HOUR. NOW YOU HAVE TO FACTOR IN MEDICAL AND PENSION COSTS. THIS SKYROCKETS TO ABOUT $60.00 PER HOUR. NOW PROMOTE THIS PERSON TO A $100,000.00 DEPT HEAD SALARY AND YOU ARE NOW PAYING THAT PERSON $120.00 PER HOUR. THAT'S NOT ALL FOLKS. MANY TEACHERS GET STIPENDS FOR ADVANCED DEGREES. AND IF THEY DON'T USE THEIR SICK LEAVE AT A LOWER RATE OF PAY, THERE ARE LUMP SUM PAYOFFS WHEN THEY RETIRE. THESE ARE PAID AT THE UPPER RATE. IF I AM WRONG PLEASE ANSWER IN A CIVIL WAY AND SHOW ME YOUR FIGURES. THANK YOU P.S. MCDONALD'S PAYS $12.00 PER HOUR.

I'M PRETTY SURE THAT A TEACHER WORKS MORE THAN A STANDARD 8 HOUR DAY. BESIDES LECTURING, THERE'S LESSON PLANNING, GRADING, AND TEACHER-PARENT CONFERENCING. PERHAPS THIS IS SLIGHTLY MORE COMPLICATED THAN TO NAPKIN MATH MIGHT SUGGEST.

Teachers everywhere are celebrating this Supreme Court decision as it means that teachers will now be getting a bigger pay check! Yes, you can even call it a raise! No more union dues.

You are welcome.
A message from all Trump supporters.

@To all Teachers

Until the unions stop being able to function and bargain collectively for the teachers, giving the administration more leverage in negotiations and resulting in reduced pay and benefits over time. But that always was the plan for you guys anyway.

It's also pretty good that on an article titled "Teachers decry Supreme Court decision on union dues" this broken-brained Trump supporter is saying that, no, actually, they're really happy. Like, you should at least try to make your claims line up with reality. On the other hand, they're just mindlessly following their leader.

To all of you:

I cannot believe that you all expect those who undergo such training of education, and take care of the safety and well being of students, simply expect teachers to be paid the same rate as a “child-care” assistant.

Especially when they are required to be certified in order to be teachers in California.

To express such hostility to those who undertake such a serious responsibility is amazing.

It just seems to me that these certified professionals are simply underappreciated by a significant group of people.

Of course what you’re expressing is that you want to remove collective bargaining from them because you don’t take the effort to establish the same process for yourselves.

Typical libertarianism

General Counsel Bob Chanin explains to NEA convention why Big Labor is so powerful: Link here,Web Link

" Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas; it is not because of the merit of our positions; it is not because we care about children; and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child.

. The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of million of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them; the union that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.

. This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing drop rate rates, improving teacher quality, and the like are unimportant or inappropriate. To the contrary these are the goals that guide the work we do. But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights, or collective bargaining.

. That is simply too high a price to pay."


Ask yourselves, as the NEA has exploded in membership, budget, and power, how have American students fared? What have unions done for their education? Absolutely nothing. Power first for the unions, and only "goals for the students".

Jeez, do you all ever stop just BSing? You're using a cropped video that first got circulated in 2022 on Hannity! Take a look at this link: Web Link


I've got a real question, have you yourself been misled, or are you knowingly peddling this stuff?

Lets just say that the next time a teacher is beaten, raped, shot or murdered while on the job, just think about your hostility to them.

To me, I have very good teachers in my background. And almost everyone has them too.

You cannot have achieved anything without teachers, and you know it.

To me, this is just another targeted group by libertarians and lets just call it fascists, targeting unions just like it was done in the past. You claim you are being fair. But you really are just wanting to squeeze those who work in many cases dangerous situations.

All I can say is that this is simply not appreciated by these critics.

From the article:
"The California Teachers Association, one of the most powerful unions in the state with 325,000 members, ... teachers in the district pay $924 each year in union dues,"

So the teacher's union collects about $325 MILLION dollars per year. CA has about 2.5 million government employees so the unions collect over $2 BILLION in dues. No wonder they own the CA government from school districts like here in Mtn. View all the way up to Gov. Brown lock, stock and barrel.

The unions are not going to give up this control easily. I wonder what they are do? They have had years to prepare for this and they can get the politicians to do anything they want. And they are nothing if not smart and wily.

One possibility is to make it super hard for any worker to opt out. Maybe make the optout period for 1 minute at midnight on Jan. 1 LOL