I found this quote over at the CTA’s website. It’s from Barbara Kerr, president of CTA, on the class-action lawsuit I discussed previously:

“This is another politically motivated lawsuit that has no basis in fact or in law and that represents a waste of the valuable time of the courts and of taxpayer dollars. It is also a cynical attempt to promote a ballot initiative whose goal is to silence teachers so that they cannot take part in the debate over public policy on an equal footing with the corporations and special interests that finance organizations like the National Right to Work Committee.”

Focus on the second sentence. I have to assume that Ms. Kerr is talking about proposition 75 which requires unions to request permission from their members before using their paycheck deductions for political purposes. If I’m correct, what exactly is Ms. Kerr trying to say here?

It is also a cynical attempt to promote a ballot initiative whose goal is to silence teachers so that they cannot take part in the debate over public policy on an equal footing with the corporations and special interests that finance organizations like the National Right to Work Committee.

“It’s cynical.” Okay, I’ll bite. I can’t blame them for being cynical.

“It’s an attempt to promote Prop 75.” Well, it sounds to me like the plaintiffs are trying to stop YOU from promoting your views on Prop 75 with THEIR money.

“They’re trying to silence teachers.” Uh, the plaintiffs ARE teachers. It sounds to me like they’re tired of being silenced under the far left umbrella of the CTA, and are working to stop you from speaking for them. They’re trying to silence the CTA…not teachers. There’s a difference.

“Corporations and special interests are too big for teachers to compete with…without us.” Nah. Corporations can’t contribute without limits, like you can. You brought in $50 million from your members – who are paid by taxpayers – to promote your disapproval of some propositions. FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY. No corporation is donating $50 million to this campaign, and while I don’t know the specifics of campaign financing in California, I’d venture a guess that corporations aren’t ALLOWED to donate that kind of money.

This thing has me spitting mad.

Holy smokes, what’s next? Sensibility in the Union America?

Here’s an article that briefly sums the situation. Essentially, a few teachers are initiating a class-action lawsuit against the California Teachers Association because their dues were recently raised in an effort to wage a political campaign against the Governator’s ballot propositions. They’re claiming, in effect, that they do not agree with the political ambitions of the CTA, and that the ~40% of the teachers who are Republicans probably don’t either.

This issue has been addressed in court many different times. While I don’t have the case numbers handy, it was decided in 1988 (I believe) that union members have the right to rescind the union’s right to use their dues for political purposes. Note the verbiage here: the union member has the right to RESCIND the union’s right to use their dues.

In other words, the court acknowledged that if a union member doesn’t want his/her dues being used for political purposes, that individual needs to initiate a request through the union to effect such a change. That probably seems a little backwards; the union (who’s there primarily for bargaining purposes) should have to petition its members – not the other way around.

Well, coincidentally, that’s another one of the things that Arnold’s proposing on the ballot this term. Since it’s a proposition, the voters get to decide: will unions in California be required to hold a member vote before using dues for political purposes? It will be getting my vote.

The CTA has been running television ads for the last few weeks, admonishing the governor for trying to “strip our children of education.” They’re fired up about props 74, 75 and 76.

Prop 74 changes the number of years required for tenure from 2 to 5. Yeah, read that again. From TWO to FIVE. As it stands now, California teachers need to perform adequately for two years before they’re essentially guaranteed a lifetime job. Getting rid of a teacher with tenure – regardless of performance – is an awfully difficult thing to do; this change would require that teachers perform for five years, and face potential disciplinary action until then.

Prop 75 is the dues question. It requires the unions to get permission from its members before using paycheck deduction money for political purposes.

Prop 76 puts a cap on the state budget. Ultimately, it says “we’re not going to spend what we don’t have, and we’re not going to let the legislature shut down the state when it can’t agree on a budget.”

The CTA isn’t commenting on Prop 77, which aims to eliminate the gerrymandering that’s defined California’s election returns for years. The proposition would have an independent committee formed of judges (former and current) determine the district lines in a nonpartisan way.

Now, I’ll come clean: I voted for Arnold in the recall…and I feel vindicated. These propositions all make a tremendous amount of sense. Over 40% of California education money is spent on overhead, and over 50% is spent on wages. We pump more money into education in California than in any other state, with the highest paid teachers in the country. But note the results: more money does NOT necessarily mean better products. Hell, just ask your local private school. They’re operating on a SHOE STRING budget, compared to their public brethren.

Sure, I know…it’s not the schools’ fault. It’s the system. The bureaucracy is ridiculously large, and school decisions are made at the highest possible level – rather than in the schools. I agree with all of that, but I also realize that teachers in the CTA get one hell of a good deal. Man, I could sure go for tenure in the private sector. But count me out of any professorships at a UC school: you have to perform for EIGHT years before they’ll give you tenure. I prefer two.

Like I said, these propositions are super sensible ideas. Then again, the CTA’s disapproval was my first clue that they were sensible ideas.