Pet This
The country’s largest teachers’ union, National Education Association, has been donating money to left-leaning organizations. This is news?
Disclosure: I'm a pro-union teacher who does not belong to a union. Why would I join a group that only gets us a whopping 2% increase each year? Most educators join because they want protection if they're sued. As far as I’m concerned, that's too much money to throw away on a what-if scenario. I'm pro-union in general because unions have done a lot for our country and worker's rights. The ability to organize and bargain collectively is the only way to get management's attention. I’ve got family in the teamsters. I loved Norma Rae. I’m Jewish. Of course I’m pro-union.
Anyway, the Wall Street Journal is up in arms. They rant and rave over NEA giving money to liberal groups as if they can’t believe the outrage, the horror! They also credit the current Secretary of Labor for pushing through new rules that say unions must disclose their spending to the public and, most importantly, dues-paying members. Unions should disclose their spending. Members paying a hundred bucks each paycheck deserve to know where the money goes. If a union can't conduct affairs in the open, then perhaps they deserve to be exposed. Members will either be thrilled with these partnerships and continue supporting them or they will drop out. Still. It’s their money and they’re entitled to “throw it away” or “invest in Democratic ideals”. It’s up to them.
However, the WSJ failed to disclose a few things themselves.
They claim dues are mandatory. Not true. Oh, sure, they’re mandatory if you want to join. However, teachers can work without joining up and not a penny is deducted from their paycheck.
Also, union members typically vote on where to donate union money. The article doesn’t mention that either. Perhaps the right-wing journalist(s) would be just as angry if the beneficiaries had been conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, but the article seemed most incensed about liberals getting the loot. Most educators are educated themselves, committed to helping people, and spend a majority of their time with the future of our country. No one should be surprised when they vote Democratic, give to like-minded institutions, and enjoy decent karma. Is anyone shocked when business leaders spend money fighting unions, joining country clubs that keep everyone else out or donate to groups working to get even more money away from working people? Of course not; right-wingers are only doing what comes naturally to them: screwing the disenfranchised. And teachers try to make the world a better place – by teaching, organizing and giving to groups that share the same focus. We all have our priorities.
They gave money to Amnesty International and AIDS Walk Washington? Those bastards! Maybe I should join the NEA after all.
posted by kate @ 6:00 AM
15 comments
15 Comments:
Why would I join a group that only gets us a whopping 2% increase each year? Most educators join because they want protection if they're sued. As far as I’m concerned, that's too much money to throw away on a what-if scenario.
Members will either be thrilled with these partnerships and continue supporting them or they will drop out.
Is anyone shocked when business leaders spend money fighting unions, joining country clubs that keep everyone else out or donate to groups working to get even more money away from working people? Of course not; right-wingers are only doing what comes naturally to them: screwing the disenfranchised.
You are sooo conflicted. You do realize you are practically one step away from being libertarian?
I'm not at all conflicted. Instead, I'm quite proud that I see all sides of an issue, agree along my own terms and not party lines, and see shades of grey. I also allow that what works for others doesn't necessarily work for me (which doesn't make it bad) and vicey versey.
What can I say? I rock.
Actually, you vacillate. How do you keep up with it all?
Seeing shades of grey only means you don't agree with anybody, so why should we agree with you?
Name a topic and I'll tell you with whom I agree. On many topics, I don't waver at all. Most of the time, I state my opinion clearly yet listen to others and see that their points of view work for them. Case in point: unions. I'm not joining, but I don't take the right-wing stance that says, "Unions don't work for me so they must be bad. Outlaw them!! Discredit them!!" And so on.
You are such a typical Republican. You can't argue with the merits of my point so you go after the manner in which it's presented. Karl Rove would be so proud.
Without rational foundations for your point then the merits of said point are baseless and not worth considering. If you don't know why you believe what you believe, then why should I accept your argument? i.e. Saying you are Jewish is not a rational reason for supporting a union.
Why do I oppose unions? Because their actions actually keep wages down while inflating the production price of goods and services, thus raising the cost to purchase by all - union and non union alike. This is true in any industry, including education.
In the end union members are typically paying dues for an organization that artificially suppresses wages and benefits under the guise of "protecting jobs" and increases the price for goods and services to all consumers thereby raising the cost of living simultaneously.
Unions actually hurt union workers doubly because they could be making more money under natural market forces and they would spend less of their wages pruchasing goods not produced by unions.
Unions appeal to emotional arguments for support because rational thought, ie pocketbook mentality, such as your own decision making process as described earlier ultimately leads one to decide not to join.
Some of your reasoning about unions is flawed, but I'm more concerned by the implication that anyone who doesn't agree with you is more emotional than cerebral.
Who cares what my rationale is? I've coached debate teams and believe me, judges couldn't care less what the debater believes. It's all about a more convincing argument and the best lawyers I know might not agree with what a client says, but will fight for his right to say it. So get off me. Stick to the facts, not my psyche.
And although I was kidding about being Jewish as a reason for my pro-union stance (way to get me) - it's of course part of why I believe the way I do. The foundation of my belief system is a commitment to social justice. So why shouldn't I mention it? Just like the foundation of your faith is concern for the poor, love of your fellow man...err...wait a minute...
Don't deflect my criticisms. I am concerned with your policy formulations and how you came to believe you are correct.
It's not possible to say you support social justice, i.e. equal treatment, then claim to support a group that advocates preferences, set asides and protections.
You vacillate and you are hard to follow. I think you have genuine good intentions and believe are doing right, but you often conflict your own positions with your emotional oubursts.
Is that because you are a liberal or some other reason?
"They claim dues are mandatory. Not true. Oh, sure, they’re mandatory if you want to join. However, teachers can work without joining up and not a penny is deducted from their paycheck."
This is true in Florida, but in most states you must either join the union or pay what's called an agency fee, which amounts to between 65-85% of total dues -- and you lose your liability insurance and the right to vote on your contract.
"Also, union members typically vote on where to donate union money. The article doesn’t mention that either."
The article doesn't mention it because it isn't true. A typical NEA budget line item reads: "Collaborative relationships supportive of quality public education developed, maintained, expanded, and tracked among labor, civic, civil rights, minority, religious, family and parent, community, and public policy advocacy organizations."
It was under authority like that the mucky-mucks at NEA made their donations.
"No one should be surprised when they vote Democratic, give to like-minded institutions, and enjoy decent karma."
Except that NEA's own member surveys show that 50% of NEA members identify themselves as "conservative" or "tend conservative" and only 40% identify as "liberal" or "tend liberal."
The WSJ did mess up in two places:
1) the $65 million figure was the total amount in NEA's contributions category. Most of that went to its state affiliates. NEA's donations to liberal advocacy groups can't be easily quantified because, well, how do you define a liberal advocacy group?
2) Reg Weaver only made $370,428 last year. The Journal included his travel expenses in the total. Of course, NEA executives are allowed to defer income, so maybe he made more. The previous NEA president, out of office since 2002, got over $62,000 from NEA last year.
Sorry to be so verbose. I'm just trying to keep a heated debate anchored in fact.
Uh, oh. Kate has some 'splaining to do...
I won't worry about you actually responding to mike. I learned early never to debate anything factual with you because I don't think you can handle it. I like to stick to the big picture policy and idea stuff. Stuff you can fake.
But feel free to ignore me for a while and try to respond to mike. It will be entertaining... ;-)
This is more entertaining than anything on t.v. at this hour. I say Katie and Mr. C take this off line and onto the airwaves.
So many issues, so little time.
First of all, I do not work on Friday nights. And yes, responding to small-minded conservatives is work. And so I turn off the computer and rest. So it is written. Or not in this case.
And I welcome a discussion of real issues instead of silly excuses from Mr. C that I'm too complex intellectually. Poor Mr. C - he gets confused so easily. Those thinly veiled sexist remarks about emotional outbursts will not stand. Asshole.
As far as Mike is concerned, here's my response: I know teachers in Florida, Arizona, Colorado, and Washington who are not forced to join the teacher's union and are not penalized for staying out. Therefore, mandatory dues are not to case everywhere and I believe the WSJ was misleading.
Secondly, I only know union members here in Florida and they are most certainly involved in deciding where the money goes. Even though there are conservative members, it seems the votes are overwhelmingly for liberal causes. For whatever reasons. ;-)
So put that in both your pipes and choke on it.
Sha: Mr. C has a face for radio. RADIO. He'd scare little kids otherwise.:-)
Radio...ahaa. I wondered why his profile was a "side view". Was the uptilted pinky off his beverage the sign of a Republican ;)
Mr. C, if you're going to make your blog more "serious" then perhaps your profile needs updating as well.
Katie FYI his recent blog states: "...And Florida liberals can expect us - Mr. C, Mr. G, man in black and Blogger X - to come after you when you start spouting that crazy liberal jive turkey"
Ooooooh. Sounds so threatening ;)
pinky and the brain over here isn't it...
Thanks for responding, Kate. I don't know who Mr. C. is, I'm not a Republican, I'm not small-minded, and I don't smoke a pipe.
Once again, your comments on union membership laws are only half-correct.
First, in Washington -- the state and the district -- teachers are required to join the union or pay an agency fee, so you have been misinformed by those teachers, at least.
You are correct that Florida, Arizona and Colorado are three states where teachers need not pay ANY money to the union if they don't want to. Nevertheless, this status still puts them at a disadvantage. In Miami-Dade, for example, union members make up less than half of the total number of teachers, yet the union has exclusive bargaining rights with the district. In Denver, the union negotiated a performance pay plan, but non-union teachers weren't allowed to vote on its implementation.
In places like Georgia, Texas, Missouri and Mississippi there are more teachers who belong to non-union teachers' associations than belong to the NEA or AFT affiliate.
<<"I only know union members here in Florida and they are most certainly involved in deciding where the money goes.">>
Since this is a subjective statement, I take you at your word, but when United Teachers of Dade President Pat Tornillo was arrested for fraud and misappropriation of union funds a couple of years ago, every level of union leadership claimed they had no idea Tornillo had ripped off $5 million of members' dues.
Since being raided by the FBI, I agree, UTD has established several new layers of oversight.
In any event, you'll be happy to know that the Florida Education Association also is required to file a Labor Dept. financial disclosure report. Go this web page:
http://erds.dol-esa.gov/query/getOrgQry.do
and type in 542-234 in the file number box, then click Submit.
Since your union friends in Florida already know that the FEA president makes $122,320, that the chief of staff makes $126,878, that most of the UniServ directors are in the $88,000 range, that most managers are in the $103,000 range, and that the Escambia and Dade unions are still in debt, they should be able to tell you off the tops of their heads what they purchased with $7,000 at the Jacksonville Stein Mart, or why they sent $73,577 to Danneville Tyson Associates in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Teachers' unions are like any other big bureaucracy. They operate beyond the scope of anyone's best efforts to monitor them. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that, well, they take liberties.
I've been writing about teachers' unions for nine years, and my biggest "fans" are also the most ardent unionists, because they know better than anyone what happens when people have access to other people's money with little accountability.
Don't you agree that if leadership in unions changed to teachers (or workers for other professions) instead of bureaucrats - we'd all be better off? I think the people there on the frontlines would do a much better job fighting for fellow workers than the ones who get cushy jobs and work without a fire in their bellies.
You don't seem to be criticizing the unions with a hate-on for them, which is probably why your fans are unionists. You seem to want to change the system to make it better for workers - not necessarily for management (although a happy, well-paid, and healthy workforce benefits everyone) and it shows. So I'm glad to know about your site. Keep it up.
I do believe we are better off with unions in place and on our side. I think the state government is hostile to public education right now and we wouldn't have half of what we do have without an advocate - no matter its faults.
And my Mr. C - however a stubborn sonofabitch - is the Republican to whom I am speaking and insulting most of the time.
Post a Comment
<< Home