Teacher Who Never Wanted Union Representation Still Forced To Be A Member

Capitol Confidential ^ | 11/4/2013 | Tom Gantert

[MichCapCon]

When Matt Knapp was hired as a teacher in the Saginaw Public School district 11 years ago, he said he was given paperwork to sign to be a union member.

"Oh, no," Knapp said he told the district employee. "I'd rather not be in the union."

To his surprise, he was told it was a condition of employment.

That changed last year when Michigan became a right-to-work state, which allows union members the freedom to choose whether they want to pay dues or fees to the union. When that happened, Knapp said he approached his union about how to opt out.

He said he was told he missed the August window to leave, the only time the Michigan Education Association allows members to opt out. Knapp said he did not know that was the only time of the year he could leave.

Knapp filed an unfair labor complaint along with six other teachers with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission against their local unions and the MEA. The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation is representing the teachers.

Knapp, 46, is an art teacher at Ruben Daniels Middle School in Saginaw.

"This has nothing to do with my school or the Saginaw district," Knapp said. "I've not been a large supporter of the union to begin with, and when the right-to-work action passed, I was excited about it. I was not notified about a deadline. I'm trying to leave the union gracefully if they will let me. I think that the union's responsibility is to fight for the right of the worker, and my right is to not be part of the union. … That is one right they won't protect, apparently."

Saginaw Education Association President Leann Bauer and Michigan Education Association UniServ Director for Saginaw Sue Rutherford didn't respond to requests for comment.

[DIRTYSECRET]

If u get their benefits you have to pay. Membership? Doesn’t matter

[DonaldC]

That is a good point, what benefits is the teacher willing to give up for not being in the union.

[Mr. K]

The union serves no purpose now other than to make education extremely expensive.

It has long ago surpassed reasonable pay and benefit packages, and is now FAILING to help get the primary job done- which is educating students.

The unions have protected bad teachers and are now a DETRIMENT to good education

[donmeaker]

It isn’t the union’s benefits, it is the workers’ benefits.

Generally non-members pay a ‘bargaining fee’. Members pay that and have their dues sucked off to political contributions, Union boss benefits, with which a worker may or may not agree.

[Mr. Lucky]

It depends.

If the dissenting teacher is a run of the mill union slacker, the pay package probably extorts more from the taxpayers than his service is really worth. On the other hand, if he is the sort of competent, conscientious role model most of us would like to see as public school teachers, the union negotiated package pays him less than the true market value of his service.

[T-Bird45]

Unlike typical trade unions, teachers’ unions have not generally been the agent for the delivery of benefits, leaving that to the employing district but still subject to negotiations and contract language. WI may have been an exception to that as I recall articles about how that was an issue there because it was a source of a double-dip by the union.

[Repeat Offender]

If you like your teacher, you can keep your teacher.

[DIRTYSECRET]

U R funny.

[melsec]

That’s when I left Unions for good when I found out they were advocating homosexuality, Pro Choice and Euthanasia causes.

[DIRTYSECRET]

I’m REALLY waiting for the “Higher Education Bubble”. Heard of it? Since it’s got a good chance of happening, how can we “kick them” while they’re down? It needs to happen all at once-not gradually for maximum effect. How about a $100k gift for Valedictorians who choose NOT to go to college? Watch them squirm!

[paladinan]

If u get their benefits you have to pay. Membership? Doesn’t matter

Well... it doesn't quite work that way. I was in the same boat (in Wisconsin), while fighting to get my union dues out of the grubby mitts of the union lawyer in Madison (I was trying to file as a religious objector).

The union is legally obligated to represent any teacher on staff, whether they pay dues (at all--including so-called "fees") or not. It's not a function of "how much did the teacher pay"; rather, it's a function of "this is the price the union pays for insisting on being the SOLE arbiter with the school board". If it were a different (and saner) world, a teacher who resigned from the union would have the legal right to negotiate his/her own salary, benefits, etc., directly with the administration and/or school board. (Granted, there's some debate over whether that'd be a smart move.) The teacher should also, in that saner world, have the legal right to join any other independent union, or lawyer, or what-have-you, to represent him in those regotiations. But the local (read: liberal, greedy, power-hungry, dissent-squashing, abortion-and-gay-promoting) union has sole arbitrating rights, and neither the teacher nor a third-party union (such as a Christian union, which doesn't promote abortion like the NEA and AFT do) has any right to approach the school board/administration in that local union's stead.

It's for THAT reason (i.e. exclusive bargaining rights) that the union is legally obligated to represent everyone on staff, whether that staff person pays the union one thin dime, or not.

[napscoordinator]

The courts may not allow ignorance as a defense. Hopefully he is able to at least force the union to give the upcoming opt out period.

[BfloGuy]

That is a good point, what benefits is the teacher willing to give up for not being in the union.

He doesn't have to give up any benefits. It's been federal law for decades that unions have to represent non-union members. He's entitled to everything they negotiate.