I've been giving a lot of thought to the Freidrichs case, which, if we were to lose, would render dues optional for public union members. Basically, if you don't feel like paying your dues, you won't have to. And not only could you keep your precious 1300 bucks, but you could also retain pretty much whatever services the union offers. Why should I pay 1300 bucks for eyeglasses and representation when I could just let some other fool lay out the money?

That, of course, is not the basis of the argument. The argument is that union engages in political activity of which you may not approve. For example, your union might support less work for more pay while you are passionate about more work for less pay. Or maybe they support candidates who don't believe people should work seven days a week. Who knows what awful things the union might support, and how the hell are you supposed to know that your money isn't supporting it? The only fair thing is to let you freeload while everyone else pays.

Well, if that's the rationale, and SCOTUS thinks it's unethical to mix politics with dues, I'm good with it. But they need to be consistent. If, for example, one does not believe in war, one ought not to be compelled to pay for it. I'm not a huge fan of war, and certainly haven't supported the last few I've seen. In fact, there are education programs, like Common Core and Race to the Top, which I oppose fairly vehemently.

One of my biggest issues with the government is taxes. Federal taxes pay for Arne Duncan, and I gotta say, I find him pretty repugnant. For one thing, he's the highest ranking educator in the country, but he isn't even a teacher. For another, though he spends a lot of time imposing policies about public education, he has decided public schools, after years of his stewardship, are no longer good enough for his children.

So, if union dues are optional because I might not believe in what union does, taxes should also be optional.

If I don't have to pay union dues because I don't agree with what the union does, why should I pay taxes when I don't agree with what the government does? It's all about me, isn't it? It's all about persona liberty. If I'm opposed to NCLB, if I'm opposed to Common Core, and if I'm opposed to Arne Duncan representing education, why should I have to support these things?

I'd also like to determine whether or not I support military actions before my tax dollars go to pay for them. As far as I can tell, our last excursion into Iraq was incredibly costly, and not particularly effective in stabilizing the region. Why should I pay for GW's mistakes? In fact, I approved of almost nothing GW did. Can I get a refund?

Because the premise is the same. To tell you the truth, I disagree with a whole lot of things my union leadership does. But I don't see withholding my dues as a solution. This notwithstanding, if the law of the land says I don't have to pay for things I may not support, I don't want to pay federal taxes. And given His Majesty Andrew Cuomo, I don't want to pay state taxes either. I'll continue to pay local taxes because I believe in public education.

Maybe the money I save will make up in some small way for the destruction of my union. Ultimately, though, I doubt it will be enough.

It’s certainly interesting to read about how Cuomo wants to deunionize a thousand workers who supported Zephyr Teachout. NYSUT, of course, is outraged. After all, we didn’t support Teachout and he wants to screw us anyway. But that’s not really what they express outrage about. How dare the governor take people out of a union? After all, unions support union, don’t they?

In fact, in the case of NYSUT, they don’t. Even as NYSUT takes exception to the governor's latest juvenile snit, a whole lot of NYSUT employees are not unionized. Most of them are, but there’s a glaring exception. To wit, it's  Executive Vice President Andy Pallotta’s staff.  Most of them are not unionized, and have no bargaining rights.

The justification given, I'm told, is that legislative staff must be available 24/ 7 during budget time and other crucial times. So what does that suggest? Are they to have no rights, to ignore their families, or not even have families? Lots of people, myself included, work extra hours all the time. That’s a by-product of having a job you love. But were they unionized, NYSUT says, these folks might not be available when needed. That’s a pretty poor excuse, in my view at least.

If I recall correctly, that was the same justification GW used to not unionize homeland security. So Revive NYSUT, once again, finds itself in great company. Certainly GW's bro Jeb would share Karen Magee's passion for Common Core, and might even agree with her that the alternative is total anarchy. Sadly, they're both wrong.

Now you might say, “Sure, NYC Educator, but Andy Pallotta’s a swell guy, and he would never fire anyone, because we union folks just don’t do stuff like that.” And I’d hope you'd be right, but you wouldn’t be. In fact, after the contested NYSUT election in April, I’m told a female staff member they deemed insufficiently loyal was fired with no due process. Of course, not being in a union, they don’t really need a whole lot of reason to fire anyone. In Andy's defense, I'm told he didn't want to get his hands dirty, so he had someone else do the actual dismissal.

But NYSUT doesn’t affect us NYC teachers, does it? Well, in fact, the EVP in NYSUT has always been a UFT member. There’s a sort of power-sharing agreement there in which the EVP represents the UFT. Some people have told me the EVP pretty much ran the show until Richard Iannuzzi showed up claiming to be President, simply by virtue of having been elected President. The audacity! It's likely that's why UFT propped up Revive NYSUT. Now that they've dumped Iannuzzi and put in their BFFs, it's quite clear who calls the shots in the state union.

Actually, much of UFT staff is not unionized. While they are UFT, they can be fired from UFT positions and dumped back into classrooms at any time. Thus many of them are fiercely loyal to whatever they’re instructed to be fiercely loyal to. After all, why would they want to turn down all those junkets and gala luncheons and be sent out to work with us lowly teachers? You don't think they want to be evaluated by junk science as we are, do you?  I’m told the clerical staff at UFT is unionized, but they, of course, are not the ones with the all-important task of pimping the latest piece of crap contract, 2-tier due process, Common Core, or whatever gets us this week’s Seat at the Table.

NYSUT leadership will preach no perks, but then pass legislation to benefit their leadership. NYSUT leadership will say they oppose Cuomo and fail to do so. They'll say they oppose Common Core but then support it.

NYSUT leadership can be union, ostensibly support union, but concurrently deprive their very own employees of it. It's an abject disgrace.

 It was inspiring to a lot of people when the Revive NYSUT ticket appeared last year. Naturally, there were frustrations with NYSUT, and a few people I respect explained some of them to me. In fact, when I first saw them, I thought it might be a good idea. Like most UFT members, I had little contact with NYSUT, but I knew UFT needed a revival, so why not try this? It wasn't until weeks later I discovered that UFT leadership was actually behind this movement. I was recruited to run for Executive VP of NYSUT, and I traveled all over the state going to forums. I learned an awful lot about NYSUT.

For one thing, it's clear new NYSUT leadership follows UFT in every way. UFT makes up 28% of NYSUT, but has a 34% voting bloc, because many locals simply cannot afford to spend a weekend at the NY Hilton. Therefore, they get no vote. Of course all UFT reps have signed loyalty oaths. They vote as Mulgrew dicates or risk not only a punch in the face, but also expulsion from the elite, invitation-only Unity Caucus and all the privileges membership entails.
 
This is ironic because one of Revive NYSUT's biggest cheerleaders criticized the old leadership for belonging to the Fort Orange Club. NYSUT claimed membership was 15K a year, that the membership preceded their tenure for decates, and that the space was needed. Current Secretary Treasurer Martin Messner, in particular was vocally livid about this "perk." Not only this, said Messner, but NYSUT officers were taking first-class flights. He was gonna get to the bottom of this and make sure there was transparency, and no more perks! NYSUT could hold high-level meetings at Starbucks, suggested Revive, and save these crucial member dollars. Ya think they invited Cuomo to Starbucks to discuss endorsement plans?

Here's the thing, though. It was tough to recruit people willing to run for NYSUT office. You see, the UFT has a deal with the city that while its members work union jobs, it compensates the city for salary. Full disclosure--I'm chapter leader at a large school, and I get one period off to take care of union business. I believe UFT covers 20% of my salary. For those who do more work, or even all work for UFT, their salaries are covered too.  Even more full disclosure--I don't think it's a bad idea.

Of course, I didn't run for office bitching and moaning that current officers had too many perks, were living like kings and lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills. In fact, I ran demanding representative democracy, saying there was precious little of it in UFT and that this model was not one we ought to emulate. I ran complaining about anti-teacher legislation, particularly APPR, Cuomo's punishing tax rule that districts need a supermajority to help kids, and Tier 6 pension. I was amazed to see the APPR labeled as an Iannuzzi bill, and  that no one from Revive seemed to remember their staunch supporter Mike Mulgrew taking credit for it.

 Anyway, while NYSUT leadership can't oppose Common Core, while it can't oppose Cuomo, while VAM is still enshrined in law, and while pension is still severely diminished for members, it managed to quickly and quietly get legislation passed to make sure leaders Magee, Messner, and Pecorale have their pensions covered. Unlike Iannuzzi, none of them have thirty years in. Now NYSUT will make sure that if they resign or retire, or even if they get blackballed by Mulgrew, it will be like they were at their old jobs.

When is Martin Messner gonna take a principled stand, resign his old job, and demand a salary cut from hard-working NYSUT members? When is he gonna protest that this bill was passed so surreptitiously and demand transparency? Personally, I suggest you sit while you wait for that to happen. 

This is hypocritical not only because they, particularly Messner, were so adamant about not taking perks and being transparent. It's also hypocritical because former Secretary Treasurer Lee Cutler was denied the transition pay that ex-officers receive, and NYSUT is fighting to make sure he doesn't get it. Not only that, but Cutler resigned from his position to work with NYSUT. Neither Magee, Messner, nor Pecorale are showing this level of commitment, even as they work to make sure Cutler isn't compensated.

Current NYSUT leadership takes good care of current NYSUT leadership. You and me? Meh. Why do they support Common Core, despite explicity promising they were against it? Why do they support Jeff Klein? Why won't they oppose Governor Cuomo in favor of pro-teacher, pro-labor Zephyr Teachout? Why did Governor Andrew Cuomo sign a bill that protects NYSUT leadership when we have such a hard time getting substantive pro-education bills realized? Why is Tier 6 good enough for new members?

I'll leave that to your imagination. You might also be interested to know that, far from a principled salary cut, NYSUT Board of Directors voted a 2% raise for officers, already making at least 250-300K or more. And why not? What does 250-300K even buy nowadays?

I can't be sure. I only know it's a hell of a lot more than most working teachers will ever be able to afford.