Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Socialist Progressives
Related: About this forumIn Major Anti-Labor Case, Union-busters No Longer Even Pretend Unions Don’t Benefit Workers
April Bain, a Los Angeles teacher and the plaintiff in Bain v. CTA, says her union has benefitted her greatly, and she wants to keep receiving those benefits. She just doesn't want to pay for them.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17887/in_major_anti_labor_case_union_busters_no_longer_even_pretend_unions_dont_b
BY MOSHE Z. MARVIT
April Bain is a high school math teacher in Los Angeles, and a dues-paying member of her union, Los Angeles Teachers United. She has benefited from this membership, and indeed claims that everybody has a horror story of a teacher that needed their union. She describes a personal experience of conflict with her principal in which having a union behind her made her feel safe. You felt safe. You kind of felt like, okay, we can do whats right here and well be protected, she has stated.
However, Bain has decided that she does not want to contribute to any of the unions political activities of her union. Bain doesnt specify which of the unions expenditures she specifically disagrees with, but previous objectors to such spending have cited union support or opposition for political candidates, support or opposition for ballot initiatives, support for causes important to the membership, and the like. Though Bain can register as an objector and get a refund of all fees not germane to its representational duties while still being covered under any collective bargaining agreement with the employer, she does not want to exercise that right because she knows that membership has benefits.
To object and become a non-member, Bain would simply have to write to her union during an open window and state her desire to quit the union. However, if she did so, she would not receive liability insurance, which is a benefit of union membership, or have the right to vote in union elections.
Therefore, with the backing of education reformer and former Washington, D.C., schools chancellor Michelle Rhees anti-teachers union group StudentsFirst, Bain and several other teachers have filed a federal lawsuit against the California Teachers Association, the National Education Association, the California Federation of Teachers, the American Federation of Teachers, United Teachers Los Angeles, United Teachers of Richmond and various school superintendents. Through that suit, Bain seeks to accrue all the benefits of union membership while paying a reduced dues rate and becoming a non-member.
FULL story at link.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1401 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In Major Anti-Labor Case, Union-busters No Longer Even Pretend Unions Don’t Benefit Workers (Original Post)
Omaha Steve
Apr 2015
OP
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)1. Oh ffs!
epic . This exceptional twit is obviously exceptional.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)2. Pathetic.
Utterly pathetic.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)3. If she succeeds, I hope she gets fired
Nobody that mentally and ethically defective should be teaching young children.
Starry Messenger
(32,375 posts)4. If this succeeds, CA will essentially be right-to-work.
I'm a Supreme Court voter this cycle for exactly this court case. Sick of labor being trashed by the USSC.