Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Call an Illegal Strike and Lose Recognition for Your Union
Michigan Capitol Confidential ^ | 3/25/2011 | Paul Kersey

Posted on 03/25/2011 9:40:41 AM PDT by MichCapCon

In response to reports that MEA is preparing to wage a statewide work stoppage as a protest against changes to the Emergency Financial Manager law, Representatives Paul Scott and Bill Rogers have introduced a two-bill package that increases penalties for striking teachers while streamlining the process of determining which teachers are subject to fines. In particular, striking teachers will put their teaching licenses at risk if the proposals are passed. The legislation is a positive step, but if the Legislature really wants to put an end to strike talk, there’s one more step that the state needs to take.

Among the many difficulties with enforcing the strike penalty is the need for individual hearings to determine whether a teacher took part in the strike. Individual school boards are likely to find themselves bogged down in hundreds, perhaps thousands depending on the size of the bargaining unit, of hearings and then have to repeat the process in the circuit courts.

The new legislation would relieve that burden somewhat; the school district would be allowed to consolidate employee hearings “unless the employee demonstrates manifest injustice from the consolidation.” But this is still only a partial remedy. Instead of hundreds of quick hearings, school boards (or the state superintendent of public instruction, who gains new anti-strike enforcement powers) will now be confronted with a single legal proceeding, albeit one with many defendants, who are likely to offer different explanations for why they were not involved in the strike, all of which will still need to be either verified or debunked.

As long as anti-strike penalties target teachers there will be risks that innocent teachers will be caught in the crossfire. An individual teacher may have scheduled vacation or been genuinely ill, or may have avoided work because of concerns about picket-line violence. If individual teachers are going to be held accountable, they have to be given a fair chance to defend themselves.

The best target for anti-strike penalties is the entity that usually orchestrates the strike: the union itself. The $5,000 per day fine against unions may sound stiff, but for MEA, with its $130 million budget, $5,000 is a pittance, the equivalent of about 20 minutes of the union’s year-round operations. And while a long enough strike against a large number of districts would definitely smart, the MEA’s power base — it’s authority as bargaining representative for teachers throughout the state and its power to collect mandatory dues from thousands of teachers who may or may not support the union’s positions — would be untouched. The union would almost certainly recover over time. And for a more typical strike against a single school district, this fine is, relatively speaking, still a pinprick.

The strongest penalty would hit the union where it hurts — by removing the union as representative of teachers for a substantial period. To ensure that the union does not attempt to resume bargaining authority under another guise, the bargaining unit involved in the strike should lose collective bargaining privileges for three to seven years. In the process, the union would lose several years of dues revenue, a penalty that will add up to millions in a large enough unit. (This penalty should be bearable though, as the union will no longer incur the costs of representing those same teachers.) This rule would make public-sector strikes radioactive, and there is no reason why it should be limited to public schools.

In addition, this penalty would simplify factual determinations greatly. A court would have one factual question to decide: was there a strike or wasn't there?

Union hyperbole aside, collective bargaining for government employees is not a fundamental right. It is a privilege that the state has offered to local employees in hopes that union representation would improve working conditions, morale, and last but not least the quality of public services. Illegal strikes represent the ultimate abuse, and the ultimate failure, of collective bargaining in government. The Legislature should not flinch from taking privileges away from unions that intentionally misuse them. "Abuse the privilege, lose the privilege" is a very sound rule.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: billrogers; mea; michigan; paulscott; union

1 posted on 03/25/2011 9:40:43 AM PDT by MichCapCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
VOLT DEBUE
2 posted on 03/25/2011 9:44:58 AM PDT by FrankR (The Evil Are Powerless If The Good Are Unafraid! - R. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

I have a better idea. Outlaw government employee unions.


3 posted on 03/25/2011 9:46:30 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

How about taking the Wisconsin approach. And on top of that, anyone who strikes or stages a sickout gets fired, no questions asked, ever.


4 posted on 03/25/2011 9:48:33 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

Its interesting that the MEA attorney is advising them against releasing emails derailing illegal strike plans in response to a FOIA request.

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/14797


5 posted on 03/25/2011 9:53:16 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Przybylowicz cited the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling on the Howell Education Association vs. Howell Board of Education case. This ruling stipulated that email communications between public school employees in their capacity as members of the union were “personal emails” and thus not subject to FOIA.

first, any communication using a government email is foia-able. but if they want to play this game, fine. call them "personal emails" as it's alot easier to fire them for using government resources for personal business.
6 posted on 03/25/2011 10:25:33 AM PDT by absolootezer0 (2x divorced tattooed pierced harley hatin meghan mccain luvin' REAL beer drinkin' smoker ..what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

I heard this week on WJR from Detroit on the Frank Beckmann show on Tuesday as I was driving home from Tennessee that one of the county administrators I believe in Oakland County said I got three words for the MEA if they decide to strike over this situation “Air Traffic Controllers” after being asked the question by Frank.


7 posted on 03/25/2011 11:20:59 AM PDT by Eric Roelfsema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson