The Impact of the Janus Decision

You may recall the U.S. Supreme Court decision last spring, known as the Janus decision, which allows union members who do not wish to be forced to pay union dues to tell the union to "take a hike" and not suffer any consequences.

As a retired teacher who's been a life-long conservative, it was frustrating to be forced to pay union dues which supported candidates in both mid-term and general elections who were always Democrats. Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Obama; everyone was endorsed by the N.E.A.

While there were always those who said, or told me, that the dues never went to political campaigns to support their liberal candidate choices, I know from having spent several years as an active member in my local, state, and national union activities that this was simply not true.

Here's one example which has been vivid in my memory. I was an alternate delegate to the N.E.A.'s national convention in July of '82. While on the floor of the huge convention hall, one morning session was spent debating whether the union should send a letter to President Reagan chastising him for funding the Contras in Nicaragua who were fighting the Sandanistas, a socialist/communist backed faction trying to take over the government there.

Being a new teacher I went to the convention thinking I would be spending time discussing, debating, and getting training in how to be a more effective teacher in my classroom. It was quite the shock when I learned that the national union was all about political power and had plans to keep liberal politicians in office as much as their clout of numbers allowed them through raising massive amounts of funds through their dues collection.

Near the last few years of my career I was very disappointed to learn that the local union, despite what they had repeatedly told their gatherings of members at various rally events to vote on striking, was not interested at all in "going to bat" for a dues paying member who expressed their frustration at its support of consistent liberal candidate choices.

As a result, and because a more local court case had an outcome in favor of a state teacher being able to decide which charity their union dues would go after resigning, but still having their dues deducted from their monthly salary, I too resigned because I refused to allow them to send it to Planned Parenthood, or some other nefarious entity they favored, and continued teaching my last year before retiring from my full-time position.

Now, just this week, the Washington Policy Center's Liv Finne, an associate who specializes in education, wrote an article on their site regarding the impact of the Janus decision on the Seattle School District's membership and funds collected.

I invite you to read it with special attention to the first line's opening statement. Why? Because it seems to espouse what I know to be incorrect; that one could have been fired if I, or anyone else, ceased being a member.

I've emailed Ms. Finne asking her to explain how this could be, when I know it is not true. Should I receive an explanation which clarifies any misunderstanding I may be under, then I will add a footnote to this post.