U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus Ruling Deals Blow to Ohio’s Working Families
Wednesday, June 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision overturning a 1977 ruling that public employee unions could, without violating First Amendment free speech rights, collect fair share or agency fees. The long-awaited decision is seen as a potential blow against collective bargaining.
The National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest union with more than 3 million members, filed an amicus brief in the case with the American Association of University Professors to expose the truly radical nature of the plaintiff’s arguments including unsupported and audacious legal claim that public-sector collective bargaining in itself is constitutionally suspect.
OEA is the state-level affiliate of NEA.
“As a 19-year classroom teacher, I know what my students need to succeed, and strong public employee unions give educators the collective voice to advocate for smaller class sizes, safer schools, and better learning conditions for their students,” said OEA President Becky Higgins. “Keeping our union strong is important in our advocacy for our students and for our fellow educators.”
At its core, Janus v. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees) questioned whether non-union members – who share in the wages, benefits, and other protections negotiated by collectively bargained contract – may be required to pay a share of the cost of those negotiations.
The decision is a concerted attempt to weaken collective-bargaining rights by imposing right-to-work rules on public unions across the nation, including the Ohio Education Association’s more than 125,000 members.
It also contradicts the wishes of the American public. A recent Pew Research Center study finds that 55% of Americans have a favorable impression of unions and feel the large reduction in union representation has been mostly bad for working people in the U.S.
The ruling disregards jurisprudence and national precedent established by the Court’s 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. The Court ruled in favor of a shared financial responsibility for a union’s collective-bargaining activity.
The ruling is also a sweeping repudiation of the will of Ohio voters. In 2011, Senate Bill 5 (SB5), which weakened collective-bargaining rights for public employees was repealed by nearly 62% of Ohio voters after a campaign by educators and other public employees against the measure.
“Many of our schools have faced serious funding cuts that are likely to grow even worse. We’ve seen it in the resources available to our students, and we have felt it in our paychecks,” said NEA President Lily Eskelsen García. “All over the country, they are cutting funding for arts and PE, up-to-date textbooks, and class sizes that allow for one-on-one instruction. A strong union and collective bargaining agreements are what help to ensure students receive the tools and resources they need to succeed in school and in life.”
Alex Price, an instrumental music teacher at Belmont High School and Wright Brothers Middle School in Dayton, adds, “Fine arts programs were being cut from my school and students were missing out on subjects like arts and music. My union negotiated with the district to bring back music so our students could have a well-rounded curriculum.
When some school principals tried to renege on the agreement, as a union, we stepped up. We came together through our union and spoke out for what our kids need. Strong unions build strong schools and strong communities. We need unions now more than ever.”
Stand Strong for Public Education…Together, We Can!
Janus v. AFSCME?
Through our union, we advocate for what our students deserve and for what educators need to do our jobs well. However, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely issue a decision in the case this week that could threaten our collective voice. Janus v. AFSCME is a politically motivated attack to use the U.S. Supreme Court to divide and conquer our union by eliminating the fair share fee.
Why Does It Matter
Janus v. AFSCME is part of a concerted effort to weaken our ability to advocate for our students and members. Negotiating collectively improves the lives of all working people—even those who are not union members themselves—because strong unions set pay and benefit standards that non-union employers follow. This means stronger communities. At its core, the Janus case is about working people’s freedom to make a better life for themselves, their families, and their communities.
What Are We Doing About It?
Together, we are continuing the fight for strong public schools by strengthening our locals and demonstrating value and relevance to our members. | #OEAstrong
Download the Strong OEA = Strong Public Schools fact card for additional details about Janus v. AFSCME.
Oh Yes, We’re Social — Join the Conversation!
Updated June 4, 2018
A Small Case with Big Ramifications
My five-minute morning commute usually gives me just enough time to consider a few issues that might be cause for anxiety in the day ahead. But my typical worries were pushed aside last January by a news story I was listening to on NPR about a case the U.S. Supreme Court was then hearing called Harris v. Quinn, a case dealing with home health care workers in Illinois and their ability to unionize and collectively bargain. A decision on the case could be handed down any day now.
At first, I listened because it was a story about unions, a subject in which I am always interested. However, as I heard more, I became concerned. This case is not just about home health care workers in Illinois. It potentially has ramifications for all public sector workers across the country. This case, brought by the National Right to Work Committee, which has been linked to billionaire conservative mega-donors Charles and David Koch, could render a ruling that would impact all public sector unions, even in Ohio, in a manner similar to “Right to Work” legislation.
About 20,000 home-care providers in Illinois unionized about ten years ago, which has afforded them the right to bargain for benefits and working conditions. Since home-care providers have union representation, all must pay at least an agency fee, or “fair share,” since all workers are benefiting from the union’s ability to collectively bargain.
Within this group of 20,000 home-care workers, eight individuals filed suit against this fair-share arrangement, saying it violates their First Amendment rights. They contend that the union should not be the sole representative to voice their concerns and beliefs to the state.
The group of eight has already lost in both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In an unanimous decision, the Seventh Circuit decided that the issue was settled over 35 years ago by another case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which established the ability of public unions to have a sole representative. Because the unions are required by law to represent all employees in the bargaining unit, no employee is allowed a free-ride.
Yet, despite recommendations by government attorneys for the Supreme Court to bypass the case, the Justices granted review in October of last year. The question many Supreme Court watchers are asking is, why? There is concern that the majority of Court Justices, who have conservative leanings, are “prepared to use Harris to overrule or limit Abood” or worse, find “that the traditional system of ‘exclusive representation’ is unconstitutional.”
The decision the Court renders could impact many groups, depending upon the scope of its their ruling. Obviously, it will affect those 20,000 home care workers, but let’s not overlook the other group it may have an impact on, the patients. A compromised ability to collectively bargain could mean reduced wages and benefits for workers, and thus lead to less stable and reliable care for seniors and people with disabilities.
Often too, the home-care workers are family members. If the ruling impacts the ability for these workers to bargain for and earn a fair wage, they may have to seek other employment — and the seniors and people with disabilities who need care could be moved from their homes and placed in institutions.
Areesa Johnson, an Illinois home care worker says the current system benefits not only the workers, but the people for whom they care: “As more people see home care work as a way to provide for their own families, while also making a difference in the lives of other families, turnover goes down and the quality of care for our clients goes up.”
Beyond the boundaries of Illinois, this ruling could affect millions of union workers across the country. A ruling in favor of the eight plaintiffs could set precedent and jeopardize the ability of any union, anywhere, to collect agency fees. This ruling could do exactly what supporters of “Right to Work” laws want — diminish the ability of unions to collect dues and diminish unions’ capacity to bargain for workers, essentially implementing “Right to Work” throughout the country.
Over the next few days or months, I will be anxiously thinking about the case. I’ll be hoping for a favorable outcome for the home health care workers of Illinois, those who depend on their services, and all of us in public sector unions, who realize that our membership leads to better conditions for patients, students and the middle class, in general.
By Dan Greenberg, Sylvania Education Association
Right to Work: Overworked and Underpaid
There is a fair amount of discussion regarding the “Right to Work” initiative that is being debated in many states. In short, I have experienced this “right” firsthand. Before I taught science in Columbus City Schools, I was employed at a private, non-parochial school in Columbus, Ohio. There was no union. There was no science department. For most of the 11 years I taught there, I was the science department.
I started out with 13 preps a week. Yes, that is a “1” and a “3”. In addition to teaching 5th grade through 8th grade science I also taught drama, gymnastics, second grade math, reading, and whatever else was needed. I didn’t mind because I was happy to have a job and I was young. I started there at the age of 26. My initial contract was for $18,000 a year in 1987. However, in order to earn the full amount of my contract, I had to work summer daycare. If I only worked September to June, I got 3/4 of that amount.
I worked very hard. I taught exceptional children — and kept reassuring myself of that every time I got my paycheck. When the school expanded to have a campus in Powell, I worked half a day in Columbus and drove to Powell while I ate my lunch in the front seat of my car, hoping I had remembered to grab all of my materials. Eventually, I taught full time in Powell: chemistry, biology, environmental science, all the middle school science preps, and drama. I accomplished a lot. At the Central District Science Fair our small school went from 3 participants to 12 and all of my students passed the then NGPT.
When Columbus City Schools hired me, my income went up by $14,000 a year without having to teach summers, despite the fact that they only allowed me 5 years of credit. And I will tell you a secret. Before the private school, I taught for two years in Miamisburg City Schools where we had the choice of opting out of paying union dues. I did take that option because I didn’t think that I needed other teachers to negotiate for me. I was wrong. I learned, the hard way, that teachers need each other. I learned that we have to fight for our rights, as I stood on the statehouse lawn several times demonstrating against SB5.
“Right to Work” puts us against each other. At the private school, we were warned NOT to tell other teachers what we made for an income. I would rather have my colleagues in my corner. And I don’t think I am any less accomplished now with a reasonable schedule and the right to be heard and treated fairly.
By Linda Kennedy, Columbus Education Association
Right to Work: Don’t Trust It!
Whether it’s the “Workplace Freedom” initiative or so-called “Right to Work,” DON’T trust it! The words “freedom” or “right” may sound really positive, but they have completely different meanings for extremist legislators than they do for Ohio’s working families. Words have power. Important decisions are made on a daily basis, simply because of the choice of words, so people need to be careful not to be misled. Let’s look at this issue and see what it really means.
Most of Ohio’s Republican legislators belong to a powerful organization of lawmakers and corporations, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), that have joined the Tea Party affiliated FreedomWorks for “an aggressive grassroots state-based campaign to push back against domineering unions.” The “Workplace Freedom,” or “Right to Work,” campaign’s main goal has nothing to do with “freedom” or “rights” for American workers, but it’s targeted at destroying unions by misleading people with those positive sounding words. By minimizing the effectiveness of unions, the corporations will have employees who work more for less, and the Republican Party will have removed the union-supported political party that stands in its way, the Democratic Party.
We are all familiar with the Tea Party and its influence on today’s Republican Party, but how about ALEC? Most of us know very little about this secretive organization that has taken over the Ohio Statehouse. In 2011, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) revealed the powerful control of the corporate-backed American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) over the legislative process in many states in the US. It published a report showing over 800 business-friendly bills that were created, endorsed, and secretly voted on by corporations and Republican lawmakers. People for the American Way, Progress Ohio, and Common Cause documented the stranglehold that ALEC has on the legislative process in Ohio and divulged the fact that 43% of its legislators belong to this corporate bill mill. There’s no need for these ALEC lawmakers to write many of their own bills, since ALEC’s corporate policy-makers create “model bills” for them to sponsor and get passed into laws. For more background on ALEC, watch this documentary by Bill Moyers.
Now that we know a little more about who we are dealing with, what are “Right to Work” laws? The Center for Media & Democracy states that, “So-called right-to-work laws undermine collective bargaining by allowing some employees a free ride when the union uses the collective power of workers to negotiate wages, raises, and other benefits with managers. Several of the anti-union laws introduced since the 2010 elections can be traced to “model” bills from ALEC, after legislators who attended the December 2010 ALEC meeting embraced the right-to-work agenda that had stalled decades earlier.” Check out the “ALEC Model Right to Work Act.”
Two years ago 2.1 million Ohioans overwhelmingly defeated Senate Bill 5, Governor Kasich’s unfair, unsafe attack on working families that would hurt all Ohioans. Even though a majority of the people of Ohio had voted against this assault on collective bargaining, the Ohio Legislature recently began hearings on three so-called “right to work” bills that would eliminate freedoms for working families, threaten workplace safety, and put profits before people. These so-called “Right to Work” initiatives, brought to the Statehouse by the same out-of-touch people who wanted SB 5, are worse than Senate Bill 5, because they would hurt every worker in Ohio. Even though the media has publicized that “top Republicans have said a package of right-to-work bills doesn’t have support,” we should continue to remain vigilant, because in Michigan, right to work legislation was passed in the dead of the night.
What will so-called “Right to Work” laws really mean? So-called “right to work” laws will give employers the “freedom” to offer their workers less pay with less benefits, because their unions’ negotiating powers will be diminished. So-called “right to work” laws will give employers the “freedom” to weaken the voices of our teachers, nurses, firefighters, police officers, and first responders by making it harder to bargain for safe staffing levels and necessary equipment. So-called “right to work” laws will give employers the “freedom” to silence whistleblowers who are counted on to keep our workplaces safe, protect consumer goods, services, and products, and safeguard our natural resources.
Ohioans must not let themselves be fooled by the power of words. All workers must exercise the right to work together for our own “aggressive grassroots state-based campaign to push back against domineering corporations.” Only then will there truly be freedom.
By Jeanne Melvin, Hilliard Education Association
Protecting Ohio Workers’ Rights
For the past couple of months, I’ve had the opportunity to travel around Northwest Ohio, presenting information to groups about so-called right to work at Urgent Member Meetings — Protecting Ohio Workers’ Rights (POWR) — along with my friend Kate Jacob from the AFL-CIO. Although it’s not as glamorous as a city-to-city rock band tour, the meetings have been worthwhile and the purpose has been far more significant.
Before the meetings, I thought I knew everything I needed to know about so-called right to work, but I was wrong. As I poured through the information, I saw a great visual that really helped me understand how so-called right to work would impact unions. After all, the law does not come right out and ban unions from existing or state what unions can and can’t bargain for.
The diagram illustrates the downward spiral that it creates. It starts with fewer workers paying dues, which translates into less resources and diminished ability to advocate, which leads to lower wages and benefits, which results in fewer people joining the union because the union is less effective, and the cycle go on and on …
The meetings were an opportunity to hear workers’ stories. I met a couple of people who spoke of the struggles they’ve experienced over the years to maintain their rights. One gentleman talked about his work on the team that developed the campaign the last time the so-called right to work fight came to Ohio, in the late 1950s. It was powerful to be in a room filled with so many workers, from all the different unions, who are just as concerned as I am about what this dangerous legislation will do to our jobs.
Most of the Urgent Member Meetings have been in schools and many of the people who testified as to the complications of teaching without strong union representation had taught in charter schools, parochial schools or public schools in so-called right to work states. None of those teachers are looking to return to the conditions they worked under before moving to public schools in Ohio.
When I talk to teachers at these meetings, I try to draw on the parallel between plagiarism and so-called right to work laws. We wouldn’t tolerate a situation where a student gets an A by copying another student’s paper, having done none of the work to earn that grade. Why would we tolerate a situation where most workers contribute to the union so they can negotiate a fair contract, while a few pay nothing and get the exact same benefits that the union bargained for?
We also discuss how this split, between educators who pay dues and freeloaders who pay nothing, is bound to cause animosity. Teachers need to work together collaboratively to benefit their students and this animosity could hinder the process — making all teachers less effective.
In my last meeting, with teachers from the neighboring district of Springfield, we talked about the aspect that is most frightening to me as a union leader: reprisals. I work hard to represent the teachers in my local and sometimes that means saying tough things to administrators. Our collectively bargained contract has provisions in it that protect me from retribution and reprisals for acting on behalf of my teachers. In so-called right to work states, with one-page contracts, no such protection exists. Under so-called right to work, I would have to compromise the advocacy I do for my colleagues or risk losing my job.
While I have enjoyed talking to Northwest Ohio workers over the last two months, it is downright scary to think about the impact this so-called right to work legislation could have on so many others and me. At an Urgent Members Meeting a few weeks ago, someone said that it wasn’t a matter of “if” we will see this type of legislation introduced, but “when.” That comment proved prophetic last week when three Ohio House members introduced so-called right to work legislation. It is no longer a far off hypothetical. It is staring us in the face. Find an Urgent Member Meeting near you on We Are Ohio’s Facebook Events page at https://www.facebook.com/weareohio/events. We all need to educate and arm ourselves with the facts for the coming battle ahead.
By Dan Greenberg, Sylvania Education Association
Stories from the Front: Working in a RTW State
In a world where people misconstrue and twist information to fit their needs and agendas, it’s hard to know who and what to trust. Quotes and video footage get taken out of context. Athletes and celebrities swear up and down that what they are saying is the absolute truth, only to admit to their wrongdoings later.
Take my recent trip to Lansing, Michigan last month to attend a rally protesting the “Right to Work” (RTW) legislation Governor Snyder signed into law. After seeing footage of a physical altercation between labor protestors and Tea Party activists on the lawn of the Michigan Statehouse, my family and friends reacted with sincere concern for my safety. Based on the Fox coverage they had seen, which depicted a chaotic and dangerous situation, they questioned my decision to be a part of the “riot” up there.
In reality, it wasn’t a huge deal at all. Only a handful of the over 13,000 protesters in attendance were involved. A tent came down. There may have been a punch thrown, but I wasn’t close enough to see. The incident only lasted a few minutes. The bulk of the day was spent listening to speakers, chanting and commiserating with Michigan workers about the state of affairs.
Despite the fact that what was shown on TV was a total distortion, that’s what most people are going to believe.
Knowing how often things get sensationalized, I work hard to find reliable sources for information. With a RTW group petitioning to put a Constitutional Amendment on the November ballot, I need to find information I can trust, so I can form an educated opinion. What I’ve found is that the most reliable and meaningful information has come, not from newspaper articles or television shows, but from other educators. Listening to their stories about what it’s like to teacher in states with RTW laws has given me the insights I need to understand why these are harmful and what I can expect if they are enacted in Ohio.
The person I turn to most often is my friend and colleague, Perry Lefevre, who has taught for over 25 years and has been a leader in my local education association. Perry told me what it was like to teach in Waco, Texas upon graduating from Baylor University. “I caught my principal, a family friend, formally evaluating me from the hallway,” he said. “I had a final grade changed on a problem student by the same principal because he was the star running back and wouldn’t be able to play in the fall with a failing grade. And the superintendent/treasurer tried to force me to drive a school bus before and after my school day. My contract was literally a single page in length.”
Unlike Perry’s situation in Texas, my district, under a collectively bargained contract, has set up a procedure where principals have conferences with teachers before a formal observation of the class. The principals take the time to understand the context of the lesson, and listen to teacher concerns about areas in which they would like to approve. The evaluation becomes a useful tool to help teachers improve their delivery of instruction, not as a means to reprimand teachers and tear them down.
The wife of one of my colleagues had the same type of slim contract as Perry in the two public schools where she worked, in Georgia and Alabama, both RTW states. “The contract was not very detailed,” she said. “It was basically stating your employment for that year and consequences if you left early that year.” Describing her experiences in Alabama, she said, “There were some days were we did not get our plan, because of scheduling/ events. There were no real consequences for office referrals. Most of the time, the principal would call their parents to let them know what happened, but even that did not happen all the time. Students were able to cuss at you, flip desks —I even had a girl flash the boys to show them her new bra —and they would be back in your room within minutes and no real consequences was given. We had to cover our own recess and we were also required to eat in the cafeteria with the students to monitor them. We were the only monitors in there.”
In contrast to her one-page contract, my district has a 100-page, thorough contract. This lengthy document works well, because it outlines many procedures and sets parameters for wages and working conditions. It benefits both teachers and administrators, as it establishes a framework for the way schools will operate. It’s a collectively bargained document, so teachers and administrators are able to create this document together. With this contract, teachers in my district don’t lose their planning time, which is a crucial part of the day.
Then there’s Brenda, who taught in the RTW state of South Carolina for 34 years. I was struck by the discrepancy in teacher pay between Ohio and South Carolina. Brenda’s salary after 34 years of teaching is less than what I make after 15 years of experience in Ohio. In fact, teachers in my district with 34 years experience make about $20,000 a year more than Brenda. Brenda explained there was no real salary negotiation in her district. It was more about teacher association leaders “pleading” for a raise. If the administration said there was no money, then raises weren’t awarded, and there was no recourse.
Reflecting on the conversations I had with these three different people who taught in different RTW states at different times, one thing becomes apparent: Teaching in RTW states is a frustrating experience for public school educators, far more so than for us here in Ohio, where teacher associations work collaboratively with administrators to improve schools for students and educators. But that because we don’t have RTW legislation blocking our ability to fairly and collectively bargain for our students and ourselves.
I take the words of my fellow educators to heart. I know I can trust their first-hand accounts, far more than I can those who consider RTW the correct path for Ohio and our public schools.
By Dan Greenberg, Sylvania Education Association