Unions still matter

by Sean McElwee @SeanMcElwee

April 15, 2015 2:00AM ET

New evidence suggests that unions may be more important than Democrats in reducing inequality

This year the Republican war on unions has returned with a vengeance. In former labor stronghold Illinois, GOP Gov. Bruce Rauner is pursuing right-to-work legislation — which allows workers to gain the benefits of union representation without paying dues — and looks likely to succeed. Wisconsin became a right-to-work state last month, and its Republican Gov. Scott Walker looks set to ground a presidential bid in union busting, recently saying his political fight with unions prepared him to take on the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. The Supreme Court appears ready to overrule its Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision, which allows unions to collect dues from nonmember public sector workers who nonetheless benefit from collective bargaining.

With the enemies at the gate, the liberal elite seems to have finally learned to love unions. Nicholas Kristof writes that, contrary to his earlier opinion, “we should strengthen unions, not try to eviscerate them.” Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, a key architect of Bill Clinton’s finance-friendly economic policy, recently argued, “Measures that facilitate collective bargaining can result in a broader participation in the benefits of productivity and growth.” And in “The Report of the Commission on Inclusive Prosperity,” which is likely to become the centerpiece of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, the commission, co-chaired by Ed Balls and Lawrence Summers, concludes that “we need to support the growth of unions.”

But it may be too little, too late. Democrats did little to defend unions when it counted. Under President Jimmy Carter, Alfred Kahn began deregulating the airlines. Carter then signed into law legislation deregulating railroads and trucking (both hobbling powerful unions). President Bill Clinton pushed for the North American Free Trade Agreement against union opposition and deregulated finance, greatly empowering capital. To be fair, some of these pressures came from global trends, but public policy played a key role in tilting the field against labor. Now Republicans are fighting to drive a final spike in the heart of the most effective anti-inequality movement in history. If liberals do nothing to shore up unions, their decline will only continue. That will have important implications for inequality.

What unions do

Unions not only give their members a voice at work but also can have much broader political effects. By mobilizing voters and contributing to campaigns, organized labor is in effect the only lobbying group operating in the interest of ordinary Americans.

In a 1998 study, political scientists Benjamin Radcliff and Martin Saiz found that “the relative strength of the labor movement across the American states is one of the principal determinants of policy liberalism.” They found that the rate of unionization has a dramatic effects on spending for Aid to Families With Dependent Children and education as well as on tax progressivity and that these effects are stronger than Democratic governors and Democratic legislatures. As Radcliff told me, “strong labor unions are able to influence public policy, so as to create programs … that benefit everyone in society, not merely organized workers.”

Unions are the most important institution in the fight against inequality.

One way unions reduced inequality was by boosting voter turnout, which gave them political leverage. It’s rarely noted, but the campaign for Seattle’s $15 minimum hourly wage could not have succeeded without a massive, union-led voter registration drive. Many studies have confirmed that unions boost voter turnout and that their Election Day mobilizations push candidates and parties to the left.

Percent reported voting, union and non-union households

In a country where few politicians come from a blue collar background, unions have often been a conduit for workers to enter politics. Political scientist Nicholas Carnes found that “a 10-point increase in the percentage of the state that belonged to labor unions was associated with a 1-point increase in the percentage of state lawmakers from the working class.” Given that politicians’ occupational background and wealth influences their voting behavior, this is another important way unions can promote policies beneficial to the working and middle classes.

The right-to-work revolution

But unions have always faced deep opposition, especially in the South, where many of the first right-to-work laws were passed. Historian Elizabeth Shermer writes, “The central message in the Southern right-to-work campaigns was preserving the Old South’s racial order.” Southern elites feared that an organized working class would be a threat to the racist social and economic practices that had long defined the region. They successfully kept collective bargaining at bay with laws that forbade unions from requiring beneficiaries of its negotiations to become members and pay dues. These right-to-work laws appealed to non-elites by channeling widely held anti-government individualism. But labor law expert Raymond Hogler notes that the question has often been posed in deceptive terms:

Many polls show a strong majority of Americans are against making workers pay union dues to keep a job. That’s the wrong question. When workers in a union are asked whether anybody benefitting from a collective bargaining agreement should pay dues to support the agreement, they say yes. 

As right-to-work laws spread from the South to the rest of the country, the results have been devastating. A paper by Holger, Steven Schulman and Stephan Weiler shows that right-to-work states have seen an 8.8 percent decrease in union density and that these laws account for slightly more than three-quarters of the difference in union density across states.

Another study found that from 1989 to 2002, whether a state had a right-to-work law was more important than partisan control of the state government in determining the progressiveness or regressiveness of the state’s taxes. This conclusion holds up at the global level, according to a recent International Monetary Fund study showing that lower unionization rates were associated with an increase in the share of income going to the top 10 percent of the population.

Political actors

The importance of these studies is clear: Unions are the most important institution in the fight against inequality. But for too long, many liberals seemed happy to watch unions disappear. Part of the problem is that they misunderstood unions as primarily economic institutions, interested in parochially negotiating wages and benefits for their members. In reality, unions are far more important as political actors promoting policies that benefit the working class and middle class as a whole. As legendary United Auto Workers leader Walter Reuther put it in 1970:

"There’s a direct relationship between the ballot box and the breadbox, and what the union fights for and wins at the bargaining table can be taken away in the legislative halls." 

It’s nice that the Kristofs and Summerses of the world have finally caught up with Reuther. We can only hope it is not too late.

N.J. public employee unions irked by Christie call to cut health benefits

Samantha Marcus

02/28/2016

TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie's state budget address came with a public challenge to cut $250 million from state employees' health benefits.

Without those savings, he warned, New Jersey would struggle to afford a record $1.86 billion public worker pension payment and "protect valuable priorities for the rest of our citizens." The bill for providing health care to active and retired public workers would otherwise rise by hundreds of millions of dollars.

But public employee union members of the two committees that design health care plans for government workers say they view Christie's call as a threat – and point out that he has no power to order the changes.

Instead, they say Christie will use this to blame them if he cuts back the pension payments. They said they've been looking for cost savings since the committees' inception.

"This is a publicity stunt to get out of making a pension payment," said Kevin Lyons, a retired police officer who sits on the union side of the committee for state workers. "He's going to leverage his $1.9 billion pension payment on this $250 million. If we come up with the $250 million, he's still not going to make the payment. If we don't come up with the $250 million, he's going to blame us anyway."

Tackling the rapid growth in health care costs is a top concern for the administration, Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts said.

Nearly 10 percent of Christie's $34.8 billion proposed budget pays for health benefits for active and retired state workers and retired teachers. The administration estimates health care costs could crack $6 billion a year by 2024.

"There is an urgent need to bring these benefits into balance to make them fair and affordable," Roberts said. "The math speaks for itself as to the skyrocketing cost of this to taxpayers."

The governor is backing a sweeping overhaul of health benefits to save $2 billion a year. But that plan hasn't gained traction in the Legislature, and Christie said in his budget address he's "not willing to let gridlock and politics stop our progress on this issue." In the meantime, he would seek $250 million in state savings that would translate to another $200 million in reduced costs for local governments.

"We can't afford stalled progress any longer at the expense of our taxpayers and those who rely on state safety net programs," Roberts said.

Christie suggested "reasonable reforms," like requiring generic drugs, "modest" copay increases and "establishing new delivery methods for primary care services."

Finding those savings falls to the State Health Benefits Program Plan Design Committee, the 12-person panel that figures out health care plans for state government workers, and the School Employees' Health Benefits Program Plan Design Committee, the six-member panel that establishes benefits for school retirees. 

The panels — whose members are split evenly between union and Christie administration representatives — were created as part of the 2011 pension and health care reform law that hiked employee contributions up to 35 percent of the premium, depending on a worker's salary.

Though Christie's proposed budget assumes this $250 million in savings, the union members are quick to point out the health benefits committees are autonomous, and Christie's authority is limited to the votes of the management members.

"We don't work for him," said Hetty Rosenstein, area director of the Communications Workers of America and a state workers'  committee member.

"If you had called me before the budget and said 'Are the unions interested in figuring out ways to reduce the cost of health care in the state of New Jersey,' I would say yeah, of course we are," she said. "Do I think the governor gets to drop in the laps of the plan design committee a 7 percent cut in the cost of health care? No. I don't think he has the authority to do that."

Under state law, the committee has sole discretion over changes to employee health plans, she said. The committee's independence was affirmed by a 2014 state appeals court ruling that said the administration overstepped when it raised retiree prescription drug copays in 2013 without consent from at least seven committee members.

Spokespeople for administration officials on the committee did not respond for requests for comment or deferred comment to the governor's office.

David Jones, a retired president of the State Troopers Fraternal Association and health benefits committee member, said trying to identify savings and build the best plans for the lowest cost is part of their charter, with or without instructions from the governor.

"As it relates to me, it's not going to change a thing." Jones said.

The average teacher enrolled in one School Employees' Health Benefits Program plan makes $69,000 and pays $6,193 a year for family coverage, 19 percent of the premium and 9 percent of their salary, said Wendell Steinhauer, president of the New Jersey Education Association and a member of the school employees' committee. They're motivated to save money because it also lowers the cost of employees' premiums, he added.

Jointly, the union and administration members have made changes reducing the cost of health care by hundreds of millions of dollars, members said. The administration estimated in its proposed budget that the committees' work already saved the state $197 million next year.

The committees have slashed reimbursements for chiropractors who are not part of an insurance network, raised copays on emergency room visits, limited payments to out-of-network acupuncturists, restructured prescription cost sharing between employers and retirees and "aggressively" cracked down on the exploding pricetags for compound medications, Lyons said.

They also agreed to participate in a direct primary care medical home pilot program that pays doctors a fixed salary and a bonus for good clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction, in place of the "fee for service" model in which doctors have incentives to treat as many patients as possible.

Labor leaders said the problem is much bigger than employee health benefits: New Jersey is one of the most expensive health care markets in the U.S.

"It is not that we have a gold-plated or platinum plated health plan. It's not that the plan design is that rich or that out of control. That's not the problem," said Rosenstein. "The issue is the cost of health care."

But Roberts, Christie's spokesman, said the administration didn't label the plans platinum; it's an Affordable Care Act designation.

"The problem in New Jersey is not simply rising health costs. It is absolutely the wildly out of balance and overly rich level of benefits ... and it comes at the expense of taxpayers," he said.

Opinion: Unions holding Ohio back

John Morris 

February 28, 2016

Ohio State is on a three-game losing streak. First was Indiana, then a surprise loss to Michigan, followed by West Virginia. Kentucky is next.

What I am talking about? Perhaps I should not have written Ohio State, as you are now likely thinking about a collegiate sport. But I needed your attention. It is not Ohio State University but the state of Ohio that is losing to its neighboring states. Ohio is now in a virtual tie with Illinois as the most unfair, uncompetitive and unfriendly state in the Midwest for workers’ rights. West Virginia just joined Indiana and Michigan in passing right-to-work legislation, and Kentucky will likely soon do the same, leaving Ohio dwelling in the cellar.

When presented with facts, not propaganda and lies, only three small groups are against passage of right-to-work (workplace freedom) legislation. These are unions who have failed to modernize in 60 years, legislators bribed by unions in exchange for doing nothing, and advertisers. Purveyors of billboards and Ohio legislators-for-hire, Rejoice! You are about to get a new windfall. Those who cherish truth in advertising and elected officials who do what is right for workers, prepare (again) to be aggravated. Unions all across Ohio will soon be doubling their propaganda campaigns and campaign contributions in an effort to ensure Ohio gets left behind.

An overwhelming majority of Ohioans support passing right to work. A recent survey showed that 68 percent of households with a union member support workplace freedom. This is because right to work accomplishes two things: It guarantees workers the right to unionize while concurrently making sure the union actually works for them. It is simple – with right to work, a union must deliver value to workers or the worker will choose to not pay dues.

Most of today’s union workers never voted to belong to the union that takes dues from their check every week. Rather, their union was formed by workers from generations before, who worked in environments that existed before the EPA, OSHA and aggressive litigators became watchdogs over industries. Those unions worked for safety and other worker rights.

Unfortunately, over the past 60-plus years, unions have simply become high-paid lobbyists disconnected from workers. Households with union workers support right to work because it guarantees value for their dues. Union bosses oppose right to work because they would much rather “wine and dine” elected officials than serve workers.

Wherever right to work has passed, none of the union propaganda lies have been realized. There are not increased deaths from unsafe conditions, nor do schools replace good teachers with cheaper ones. Instead, the number of union workers and average wages have grown along with the number of overall jobs.

In December 2015, local union boss Carolyn Park stated, “It is time that politicians here in Ohio and in Washington, D.C., got the message: Americans are tired of policies that benefit the wealthy few at the expense of everybody else.” She is absolutely correct. Not passing right to work is bad policy since it only benefits a few wealthy union bosses and lobbyists. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average Ohio union leader annual salary exceeds $125,000 plus benefits. Their pay has risen every year while workers’ net pay and benefits have gone down.

Passing right to work would mean union bosses (the 1 percent) would stop benefiting from decisions made years ago and go back to working for their members. It is time for right to work to come to Ohio. Hard-working union members deserve the freedom to choose. 

John Morris is president of the Associated Builders and Contractors, Ohio Valley and Northern Kentucky chapters.

Teachers Unions Bully The Very Teachers They Claim To Protect

Connor D. Wolf

02/27/2016

Rebecca Friedrichs spoke with fellow teachers and right-to-work advocates Saturday about her case against forced union dues and her years of allegedly being bullied for speaking out.

Friedrichs spoke at the Concerned Educators Against Forced Unionism (CEAFU) conference about her experience with the California Teachers Association (CTA). The same experience that led her and nine other teachers to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court against mandatory union payments. Friedrichs recalled how she was once bullied by the very union entrusted to represent her.

“My entire experience, my 28 years being forced into this union, I have been bullied,” Friedrichs said. “I have been bullied the entire time.”

Friedrichs tried to leave early on after she found out it was impossible to fire an abusive colleague just because of the union. She felt the union didn’t represent her values and its policies put students in harm’s way. She could leave but she was forced to keep funding its activities. She then rejoined in the hopes of changing the union culture as a representative but found that didn’t help either.

“If you are lockstep with the union, if you do exactly what they want, if you don’t question anything, if you are just fine with the status quo, well then they don’t bully you,” she recalled. “But if you’re independently minded and speak up or you dare to question what their doing, you’re bullied.”

She alleges she was ostracized just for disagreeing with the union. Union officials and members shunned and harassed her and other vocal teachers just for speaking out. When she did try to fix the culture she only became more alienated from her colleagues.

“Even when I was a union rep I went to an annual union conference, myself and other teachers in the room were bullied by the CTA president at that time,” she added. “We were shutdown and treated as though we were bigots if we didn’t agree with their stance in politics or collective bargaining.”

The teachers made their case Jan. 11, since then, major upsets have occurred that put their chances of winning in question. Justice Antonin Scalia passing away Feb. 13 created a major upset in several open cases, including theirs. Scalia was believed to be the deciding vote against required dues.

President Barack Obama is likely to appoint a liberal-leaning justice, making a decision in favor of the union more likely. Nevertheless, without a majority decision the ruling will default to whatever the lower court decided. The lower court upheld mandatory union dues by ruling in favor of the union.

The CEAFU is a project of the Nation Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation with the aim of challenging compulsory unionism in education.

Unions’ ‘unconstitutional taking’ argument on right-to-work dripping with irony

By M.D. Kittle 

February 26, 2016 

MADISON, Wis. – Arguing in Dane County Circuit Court Thursday that Wisconsin’s Right-to-Work law constitutes an “unconstitutional taking,” three unions that filed a lawsuit against the state seem to have overlooked the irony of their argument.

The complaint was filed in March 2015 by the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, the International Association of Machinists District 10 and the United Steelworkers District 2 in Menasha – a day after Gov. Scott Walker signed the legislation into law.

Wisconsin became the 25^th right-to-work state last year, ending compulsory union dues in the private sector.

The unions argue the law fails the constitution because labor groups are forced to represent employees who have exercised their right-to-work rights to not pay union dues. That has cost big labor big money.

“That’s an unconstitutional taking,” said Milwaukee attorney Frederick Perillo, who represents the unions in the lawsuit.

Mark Mix, president of the Virgina-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, said the irony is pretty deep.

“The union chose to be a monopoly bargaining agent,” Mix told Wisconsin Watchdog Friday on the Jay Weber Show, on 1130 WISN in Milwaukee. “The unions adopt this exclusive bargaining privilege because it gives them total power over the bargaining unit… And then they come back here in this court and say, ‘This is an illegal taking.’

“The question has been settled many times before and I expect, hopefully, we’ll get the same outcome we got in Indiana and elsewhere.”

A similar case in Indiana went to the state Supreme Court. In that case, the court said unions had not proven they were forced to represent workers who declined to pay union dues.

Other courts in Michigan, federal appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court all have come down with rulings declaring the constitutionality of right-to-work laws.

But it could take years to settle the question in Wisconsin, depending on appeals. And that will cost taxpayers plenty.

The Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty have intervened in the case on behalf of four union shop employees who have opted out of paying union dues.

“They objected to forced unionism,” Mix said. “Their desire was to safeguard their rights and refrain from paying dues to an entity they did not belong to. Prior to the right-to-work law, they still have to pay up to 100 percent of dues to keep their jobs.”

Perillo, as noted in Wisconsin State Journal story, argued it’s expensive for unions to represent the interests of workers in negotiations, grievances and other matters, and under state and federal law, unions established in workplaces must provide those services even to workers who are not union members.

“Literally, the state is forcing the unions to take property from A and give it to B,” Perillo said.

But union dues pay for more than just contract negotiations. A big share of dues is marked for political purposes – causes some employees don’t agree with.

“The arguments have all been made before that somehow this private organization, that this is somehow illegal to allow Wisconsin citizens to exercise their associational and free speech rights, as this is somehow an injustice on organized labor and their monopoly power.”

Pension move riles unions

By Michael Scott Davidson

scott.davidson@heraldtribune.com

February 25, 2016 

NORTH PORT - Despite opposition from unions, North Port will soon begin enrolling new rank-and-file police and fire department employees into a state-run pension plan.

Unionized police and fire employees under the current municipal pension plans, in place since the 1970s, will have the option to continue those plans or opt in to the Florida Retirement System.

Over time the change should lower the city’s risks and costs associated with pensions, said North Port Finance Director Pete Lear.  

“I can’t tell you if the city will save money in year one,” Lear said. “There are too many variables to say that right now.”

The unions contend the changes are being made for political reasons and will not save taxpayers money because the city will pay more for the same benefits, said Jim Brantley, attorney for both the Southwest Florida Chapter of the Florida Police Benevolent Association and Suncoast Professional Firefighters and Paramedics Union.

“The (Florida) League of Cities is giving marching orders to dismantle these municipal pension plans,” Brantley said. “This is a philosophical, political decision to get out of the pension business.”

Ordinances implementing the changes to police and firefighter pension programs were advanced to a final reading by city commissioners on Tuesday. The ordinances could be amended at second readings, but that is unlikely.

If approved, all unionized police officers hired on March 1 or later will be enrolled into the Florida Retirement System, Lear said. A date for unionized firefighters to begin enrollment has not yet been set.

North Port employees not in the fire or police unions have been in Florida Retirement System since the 1990s, Lear said.

‘Gun to our head’

Brantley said the unions agreed to the change because they faced a worse outcome if they did not.

“We basically approved this with a gun to our head,” he said. "(North Port) had a list of changes that would go into place that would make that (municipal) plan undesirable. They would gut that plan.”

North Port's action follows similar moves across the nation among municipal governments to reduce pension obligations.

A Herald-Tribune analysis in 2013 found that 15 municipalities in the Sarasota-Manatee area had unfunded pension shortfalls totaling $280 million. Two-thirds of the municipal pension plans were considered critically underfunded.

In 2014, Venice reached an agreement with its police and fire departments to end city-run pensions for new workers. Before that Longboat Key closed its pension funds and transferred employees into a 401(k).

But North Port’s municipal pension plans aren’t currently in financial trouble, the city and unions agree.

A well-funded pension plan is one that has the money to pay at least 80 percent of its promised benefits, Lear said.

The Florida Retirement System pension plan is about 87 percent funded, Lear said, which is about the same as North Port’s municipal police pension. The city’s firefighter municipal pension is more than 94 percent funded.

Fire union president Merv Kennell said there was no reason to switch to Florida Retirement System when the firefighters' municipal plan was doing so well. The city will not be able to leave the Florida Retirement System and return to municipal pensions in the future.

“We were just absolutely shocked when they came forward with the proposal to come out of that plan and move to FRS, which has been historically more expensive,” he said. “The contribution rate has been historically higher than the city’s plan.”

North Port will have to contribute 22 percent of each employee’s total salary into the Florida Retirement System. That’s an increase from the 20.01 percent the city contributed for each firefighter's salary on the municipal plan, and Lear said it should be a slight decrease from the approximate $2.27 million flat rate the city contributed into police municipal pensions last year.

But that 22 percent could fluctuate because Florida Legislature passes a bill every year that sets that percentage, Lear said.

North Port’s unionized firefighters currently contribute 10.3 percent of their salary toward their municipal pension, Lear said. Unionized police officers contribute 8 percent.

In the Florida Retirement System, employees contribute 3 percent of their salary, Lear said.

“That’s a benefit for them out of this,” he said. "(Firefighters) get a 7.3 percent increase in their take-home pay because they contribute less to their pension plan.”

Shifting the risk

Like the current municipal pension plan, the Florida Retirement System’s benefits are based, in part, on an employee’s salary and length of employment. North Port will still pay into the fund, but the state will bear the market risk.

“Any shortfall in the plan is made up by the state, not the city,” Lear said.

Because the pool of contributors to the Florida Retirement System’s funds is so much larger than both North Port’s police and firefighter pension funds, Lear said if a retired employee draws more benefits than projected, it will have less of an impact on the state system than it would the city.

“We have a local plan with about 100 people in it. We’re now switching to FRS, which has about 10,000 people in it,” Lear said. “Any one person does not have as big of an impact on the plan.”

Brantley said he worries what will happen to employees who choose to stay with the municipal plans they’ve had for years.

If no more union members can join the municipal plan, there will be no new sources of funding for it other than the interest it collects. Meanwhile the city will continue to pay out benefits on the municipal plan as more employees with it retire.

“Our fear is in three years from now (the city will) come back and say look at how expensive the municipal plan is,” Brantley said. “We’re afraid they’ll use that as justification to implement all those cuts they didn’t do this time.”

For example, if municipal pension multipliers were lowered, it would raise the number of years a member had to work before earning his or her maximum pension benefits.

Lear said he doesn’t expect that to happen because North Port’s municipal pension plans are currently well funded. He added that if the city were to change the pension multipliers, the unions would have to agree to the changes during contract negotiations.

“While it’s a concern, I don’t think it’s a realistic one,” he said.

In 'Vergara' arguments, unions say courts should stay away from teacher tenure debate

Kyle Stokes 

February 25, 2016

Three state appellate justices heard oral arguments Thursday morning about whether a lower court overstepped in moving to strike down three job protections California teachers have enjoyed for decades.

It’s the latest chapter in the Vergara v. California case, in which plaintiffs charge these job protections — including teacher tenure, a lengthy process for firing teachers and protections for senior teachers against layoffs — leave too many poor and minority students in the care of “grossly ineffective" teachers.

The case, which many see as ultimately headed for the California Supreme Court, has become a flashpoint in the national debate that's engaged powerful political players from national teachers unions, civil rights groups, advocacy organizations — and statehouses. (Gov. Jerry Brown sided with the unions in this case.)

In their Los Angeles County Superior Court trial two years ago, Vergara plaintiffs presented evidence that poor or minority students were more likely to be taught by "ineffective" teachers. The plaintiffs — nine public school students represented by the advocacy group Students Matter —  said the state's teacher tenure rules and seniority protections caused the disparity.

"Together, they’re putting unqualified teachers who are not [effectively] teaching children into the classroom. The administrators are saying, 'We want change this, we want to have great teachers, but we can’t,'" Boutros told KPCC afterward. "That means students are having their rights violated, they’re being harmed."

In June 2014, Judge Rolf Treu agreed with the plaintiffs, writing that the evidence "shocks the conscience." He struck down the state's teacher job protections as infringing upon students' rights to an equal education, but stayed the effect of his ruling pending appeal.

Much of Thursday morning's oral arguments in the California Court of Appeals was spent wrangling over whether it was appropriate for a court to weigh in — or whether teacher job protection laws were a matter of policy best left to the state legislature.

Attorney Michael Rubin — representing the state's two largest teachers unions — argued the lower court ruling doesn't establish that teacher job protections are to blame for disparities in the quality of students' education. Without establishing this causal link, Rubin argued, it would be inappropriate for the court to step in.

"These are legislative decisions," Rubin told reporters outside the court afterward. "One superior court judge should not be striking down five of the most important provisions in the California education code unless there’s a true violation of the constitution."

When Students Matter attorney Theodore Boutrous stepped to the lectern to make his case, Justice Brian Hoffstadt challenged Boutrous on this point.

In his initial ruling, Hoffstadt said Judge Treu "didn't really address the points we've been talking about — 'Do these statutes inevitably cause these harms?'"

"I believe he did, your honor," Boutrous replied. "He didn't use the word 'inevitable' … The entire thrust of [the decision] is these statutes are having the inevitable effect of causing this injury" to students.

Rubin argued the plaintiffs' contentions did not consider districts that were able to distribute higher-quality teachers to schools with large concentrations of vulnerable students, citing Riverside Unified as one example. Playing off the term in Judge Treu's ruling — "grossly ineffective teacher" — Rubin said the plaintiffs' arguments precluded the possibility of a "grossly ineffective administrator."

Unions say teacher tenure rules and seniority protections are principal means for attracting high-quality educators to the classroom, and that teachers with lots of experience are assets worth protecting for the benefit of students and for the benefit of less-experienced teachers.

"What they've tried to do is say, 'This is a firing issue.' This is not a firing issue," said Randi Weingarten, president of the nation's second-largest teachers union, the American Federation of Teachers. "It is a personnel issue: how do we make this a great profession? How do we have people flocking towards it?" 

Boutrous categorically rejected this argument.

"The notion that the union says there are benefits to these statutes and we need to take those into account — there are no benefits to these statutes," Boutrous told the three-judge panel.

The appellate justices have 90 days to issue their ruling.

Teacher pay bill opposed by unions faces uncertain fate

Associated Press 

February 25, 2016

INDIANAPOLIS — A proposal that would give school districts authority to negotiate higher pay with individual teachers faces an uncertain fate in the Indiana Legislature after the Republican Senate leader pronounced it dead Thursday amid widespread opposition from teachers’ unions and school administrators.

We “decided that we will not proceed with (the bill) or any similar legislation this year,” Republican Senate leader David Long said in a statement, adding the intent of the bill “was misperceived by some as something that would be harmful to teachers.”

But whether efforts to move a similar idea forward this year will actually cease remains to be seen because a similar measure that was already approved by the Senate is currently before that GOP-controlled House, which could vote to send the measure to Gov. Mike Pence’s desk for signature.

GOP House Education committee Bob Behning has scheduled the measure for a committee hearing Monday. He could not be reached for comment Thursday evening.

The debate comes as state officials and local school leaders have considered steps to address possible teacher shortages as the number of first-time teaching licenses issued by the state Department of Education has declined by 33 percent over the past five years

Senate education committee Chairman Denis Kruse, an Auburn Republican, has said school districts should have more flexibility to fill their teacher vacancies.

He echoed Long’s comments Thursday, saying in a statement: “The contents of the bill were offered with good intentions of supporting Hoosier teachers, but the effects of the bill have been misperceived by some teachers.”

Democrats and unions have argued that salary matters for teachers should be part of district-wide contract negotiations with the teacher unions.

Leaders of the Indiana State Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union, maintain that individual deals would cause division among teachers.

Representatives of the ISTA could not be reached Thursday evening. An office receptionist said no one would be available to comment until Friday morning.

School administrators have said the proposal is cumbersome and would require more staffers in the district’s personnel office to handle contracts for individual teachers. They also don’t think it would help much in teacher recruitment.