Listen to Dori Monson weekdays on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM
 Dori Monson


Should teachers be fired for going on strike?

August 27, 2009 @ 1:28 am (Updated: 12:45 pm - 4/6/11 )

Dori writes...

 

Several local school districts may be facing strikes by teachers this school year. Wednesday night, teachers in Kent voted overwhelmingly (86%) to authorize a strike.

As Mike Reitz at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation points out: Public employee strikes are illegal in Washington, and teachers fall within this category. There is growing consensus that teachers strikes are not only illegal, but bad for communities and bad for education policy. There are serious, legitimate issues on the bargaining table – teachers have valid concerns and districts have real constraints. These issues should be dealt with candidly and openly. Walking out of the classroom, however, escalates the discussion into a combative, fix-it-at-all-costs scenario.

The legal prohibition, however, doesn’t prevent teacher unions from declaring strikes and winning significant bargaining concessions from school districts. The tactic is effective, which is why unions employ it year after year. Every once in a while a teacher union is taken to court, and the court usually terminates the strike. (Note that the Washington Education Association, while claiming strikes are legal, has never tested this theory in appellate court.)

Until someone confronts the union, they will continue to employ the strike tactic. School districts, unfortunately, are very reluctant to take that step.

Even in the best of economic times, the teachers' strikes are ill-advised because of their illegality. But when we have a real unemployment rate of between 16-18% in our country (not the 9.4% that's commonly reported) it's unfathomable to me that the teachers are doing this to the struggling families in their districts.

But for the teachers, there is zero economic downside to a strike. State law calls for a 180-day school year. No matter how long they're out, they will still teach - and get paid for - a full school year. It just may drag into next July.

I've gotten several e-mails from listeners in Kent, Lake Stevens and Everett - districts that are facing possible strikes - that would like to see the teachers fired for their illegal strikes. As listener Jan said, "Reagan did it to the air traffic controllers. Gregoire should do that to the teachers".

Of course that would never happen in our state - the teacher's union has bought and paid for much of state government. But what do you think of that idea?

 


More Dori Monson

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (101)


  • Add A Comment

  • shadetree101 wrote...
    DUH???
    August 27, 2009 1:23 am
    Of course they should be fired! How can you teach impressionable kids when you flaunt the law. Ahhh but they are liberals and that's okay.

    The Dumbing down of America one election at a time!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Dori, your spin on a detail speaks volumes- and not favorably
    August 27, 2009 3:40 am
    Dori wrote: "The real unemployment rate is 16-18%....." and provided a link to a conservative magazine article claiming that if you count discouraged workers not looking for a job the rate is 16%.

    So, 16- 18%? Gee whiz, Dori. Why not claim 16-25%? Or 16-35%? After all, you can support the lower number in that range by citing a magazine article. Including the higher number, (18% - which you apparently pulled out of a very private orifice), is yet another example an old and sleazy technique. You insult the intelligence of your audience when you assume that finding a corroborating opinion for *part* of an outrageous charge automatically validates the entire bill. The 18% number served its purpose though, it makes the admittedly dire unemployment rate seem a little worse than it really is, and doing so is consistent with your anti-government agenda.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SouthernRoots wrote...
    Firing won't work
    August 27, 2009 3:55 am
    Firing teachers would be counter productive because the kids would still be delayed in starting school.

    Go to court immidiately - in all cases and put the union in a contempt of court position. Fine the union - heavily. Drain their coffers to where they are forced to increase dues to refill them. This would have to come from the teachers, so they would end up having to pay a price for walking out. Make the unions responsible for the teacher pay for every day the school year is extended because of a strike.

    Regardless of the legality of the strikes, it is immensly insensitive to call for a strike in this economy. How many of the out of work or reduced income families can afford more childcare or alternative arrangments for childcare while the teachers are on strike?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    By the same standard- eating a burrito, buying lawnmower, and scratching your nose are all "illegal"....Challenge to Dori and the EFF
    August 27, 2009 4:04 am
    As far as I know, a Washington State AGO (attorney general's opinion)stated "teachers have no constitutionally protected right to strike". There is no "constitutionally protected right" to eat a burrito, scratch your nose, or buy a lawnmower yet the lack of a constitutionally protected right to do so doesn't make any of those activities "illegal".

    In fact, a constitutional premise in our country is that any rights not awarded to the government in the federal or state constitution revert "to the people". We don't assume that unless an action is "constitutionally protected" it's illegal- we assume tht unless it is constitutionally *prohibited* it is legal.

    Challenge to Dori Monson and the EFF: Please provide the RCW stating that it is illegal for teachers to strike. If you are going to claim teacher strikes are illegal, then it should be very easy to provide a reference to the law that makes them so.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cdbtx wrote...
    Unions
    August 27, 2009 4:09 am
    I tend to be very opinionated when it comes to Unions. Having been a Union Member and official I experienced and saw the ugly side. Unions openly discourage productivity and individual growth. After I left the Union my salary increased based upon my performance, my benefits increased based upon my performance. I never had a Union Grevience filed against me for going the extra mile. I was rewarded for working hard. In addition - my view when I accept a job with a company - I have an honorable agreement. I'm entitled to work hard and negotiate my agreement. If I don't like the results I'm free to work elsewhere, but my primary point - I knew going into my job what my agreement and responsibilities were. So why is it different for teachers? It's like moving next to an airport then filing suit because of the noise. Gould - you can follow the political talking points regarding unemployment, but facts are facts. The administration does not include those workers no longer seeking work in the unemployment count. My question for you - Are they unemployed or not????? Is a fish still a fish if it's on my grill??? My bottom line - if you signed a contract, morally you're obligated to adhere to the contract - if you didn't understand what you were signing then you certainly don't belong in the teaching profession.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SouthernRoots wrote...
    Link
    August 27, 2009 4:14 am
    http://atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=5736
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Willierussd wrote...
    Is it about money?
    August 27, 2009 4:19 am
    The claim is its about class size? --But while we are at it could we get a raise! At least you have jobs!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    There was no strike in Las Vegas.....in the end, the students suffer either way
    August 27, 2009 4:24 am
    School started this week in Las Vegas. Gambling tax revenues are the primary source of funding for Nevada schools. It shouldn't surprise anybody to learn that the disastrous decision to flatten affordable hotels on the Strip and replace them all with $400/night palaces and Gucci boutiques (just as the current recession was getting underway) has driven more traffic to the (still Vegas associated) Indian casinos across the country. Gambling tax revenues are way, way down in Nevada, and therefore so is school funding.

    My son teaches high school in Las Vegas. Some of the teachers in his building were fired as a result of the funding shortfall, and my son and the others remaining were forced to take a pay cut. The teachers did not strike.

    The local anti-labor rabble rousers are quick to scream "Teacher strikes hurt kids!" Delaying the start of the school year undoubtedly does effect kids, and not in a positive way.

    Kids are also hurt when teacher unions cannot or will not speak up as an advocate for those they represent. Among my son's 5 high school classes each day, he has one class with 71 (!) students assigned and another with over 60. His classroom can only hold 45 desks, so about 25 kids (in the largest class)are sitting on the floor around the edge of the classroom, backs to the wall. (My son turns this lemon into lemonade, sort of - any kid caught "texting" or otherwise screwing around during class and who is sitting at a desk gets to trade places with a kid sitting on the floor but actually trying to learn).

    Even the radical EFF would be unlikely to support stuffing over 70 kids in a class. Delaying the start of the school year until a labor agreement is in place causes the kids to suffer, but if the teachers don't speak up in favor of reasonable working conditions those same unreasonable conditions impact the education of the kids.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    re:cdbtx..
    August 27, 2009 5:01 am
    I didn't disagree with the premise that the permanently lazy (and the temporarily discouraged who have exhausted unemployment benefits are not counted in the 9.4% unemployment rate). This has been true in all economies and during all administrations. I took issue with Dori's hyperbolic claim that the real rate is "16-18%", and then supporting that with a cite that claims 16%. Why not claim 16-25% or 16-35%? After all, he can support (sort of) a claim of 16%
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    re:Southern roots
    August 27, 2009 5:08 am
    An attorney general's "opinion" is not a law. Shall we appoint the attorney general dictator of the state and govern according to his or her opinion, or shall we consider RCW's passed by the legislators (supposedly representing the people) the law in Washington?1

    When the legislature revamped educational funding in the 1970s, there was actually a lot of pressure from the anti-labor forces to make teacher strikes specifically illegal as part of that bill. There was equal pressure from the WEA to make strikes specifically legal. The legislature declined to take either action at that time.

    Still looking for an RCW that makes it illegal for teachers to strike, rather than an "opinion" of a state official.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }