Though the origin of labor unions dates back to the 18th century and has roots in the Industrial Revolution, the first union recognizing educators was formed in Philadelphia in 1857. Founded on the basis professional educators were owed the same protections extended to workers in the growing trade and labor unions, the National Education Association (NEA) has matured to become the largest teacher’s union in the country. Counting over three-million members, the NEA, together with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), represent more than 4.7 million educators and education paraprofessionals nationwide and operate on a combined budget exceeding $550 million.
Although the major responsibilities of a teachers union are wide ranging, the establishment of unions representing educators was based on helping career educators enjoy the fullness of professional life, preventing abuse to labor’s right to work or rest, to achieve a fair contract and favorable work conditions, and to offer a wide array of professional development opportunities. Though both the AFT and the NEA describe themselves as non-partisan organizations, both enjoy immense political clout, but only with the political Left. In Chicago, this past year has brought a renewed focus on teachers unions in part to the cancellation of classes owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2019 Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) strike. More attention is certain to come to the CTU thanks to a lawsuit filed by two former CTU members, both of whom took issue with the CTU’s enforcement mechanism for the collection of member dues.
In a legal case which will harm the CTU’s ability to function, two former members of the CTU freed themselves from the claws of the union by resigning from the shop in the midst of the 11-day CTU strike. No longer seeing promise in union membership, the two, Ifeoma Nkemdi, who teaches at Newberry Math and Science Academy and Joanne Troesch, a technology coordinator at Jones College Prep, shed the CTU’s iconic red garments, and returned to work in the midst of the walkout. Though the women resigned from the union, they soon discovered the chains forged by membership in the CTU were not easily broken. In a repellent incident with striking similarities to a gang member being “beaten out” after quitting, Ms. Nkemdi endured the ugly behavior of a charged CTU mob repeatedly calling her a “scab” as she crossed the picket line. While running a gauntlet assembled by CTU members outside the school at which she works, Ms. Nkemdi was also subject to taunts, puerile name calling, and her colleagues alleging Nkemdi was guilty of betraying the cause.
In the months which followed the pair renouncing ties to the CTU, both Ms. Nkemdi and Ms. Troesch learned their departure from the CTU left them with the obligation to pay union fees until September 1, 2020. An odd circumstance since both had resigned from the CTU in October 2019, and Ms. Troesch had clearly delineated after her resignation she should no longer be subject to union dues, the genius of the continued deduction of dues was in its simplicity: CTU policy. Under CTU bylaws, though a member can resign from the union at any time during the year, the 31-day month of August is the only interval in which former members can inform the CTU it no longer wishes to have dues automatically deducted from wages. A scam to punish defectors the CTU runs not in high contrast shadows but in the brightness of day, the two women were later informed in March 2020 both had been found guilty by a CTU tribunal for violations to the CTU’s strike policy. After the CTU rendered its verdict, both Nkemdi and Troesch learned they faced a pecuniary punishment equivalent to pay they had received for the time they spent at work while the CTU remained on strike.
However, the CTU’s vindictive dues’ policy is headed to court owing to Ms. Nkemdi and Ms. Troesch refusing to be intimidated by the union’s authoritarian impulses. Assisted by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the women have filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District claiming the CTU violated their First Amendment rights for continuing to deduct union fees upon their request. The case, Troesch et al v. Chicago Teachers Union, petitions the court to rule the limits placed by the CTU on educators opting out of paying mandatory union fees is unconstitutional. The filing, which cites the landmark 2018 court case Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, also names the American Federation of Teachers Local 1 and the AFL-CIO as defendants.
A stinging rebuke to the CTU, prior to Janus, public-sector unions in states without right-to-work laws were sceptered to collect “agency fees” in lieu of dues from members who remained the union’s bargaining unit, but who had opted out of the union. An “agency fee” is a percentage of standard union dues paid by non-union employees to compensate for union benefits which are collectively bargained for, which the non-union employee receives. Though the High Court had upheld the legality of a public union and agency fees in the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a 2014 case, Harris v. Quinn, compelled agency fees for private-sector unions. It was not until Janus in 2018 when the Supreme Court ruled agency fees in public-sector unions violated the First Amendment.
The last decade has been very unkind to organized labor. Over the past eight years alone five states, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and West Virginia, have all passed right to work laws, which limit the capability of unions to demand membership or payment of dues as a condition for employment in select industries. Today, more than half the states in the Union are right-to-work states. A shift which represents a cultural change in some of this country’s bluest states, the decline in union muscle is precisely why the CTU has remained steadfast in maintaining compulsory union dues. A fact which has less to do with a loss of prestige, compelling union dues from non-union members revolves around maintaining power and preserving the flow of member cash into the CTU’s treasury.
In the post-Janus world, labor unions braced for the worst: A loss of members and fees. Following the High Court issuing its ruling in Janus, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) lost 98 percent of agency fee payers. Similarly, after Janus, 94 percent of agency fees vanished from the coffers of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). A staggering decline, the loss of revenue meant union influence over government had diminished. While agency fees collected represent a smaller share of dues paid to the CTU, every penny matters: The two largest teacher unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) shelled out $32 million in the 2016 election cycle, with virtually every nickel contributed to Democratic office seekers or Left-wing outside groups. Hardly surprising, it does not require mastery of split-particle physics to understand why this lawsuit challenging the union has CTU leadership wincing. The CTU and its rabid NEA and AFT cohorts are desperate to safeguard revenue from members to protect their stranglehold over the public-school system. Proceeds which finance Democratic office seekers and intense lobbying efforts in Springfield and in Washington D.C., the CTU, NEA, and AFT spend lavishly to lobby Democrats to resist any changes to teacher accountability or tenure, demand a boost in federal spending on public education, and prevent tax dollars from being delivered to voucher programs or charter schools.
“There is no question that union bosses, especially in the public sector, have relied and continue to rely heavily on forced union dues to maintain their political power. So it’s no surprise that since the Supreme Court ruled in the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision that union payments cannot be mandatory, union officials have done everything they can to block workers from exercising their rights under Janus. Unfortunately cases like this one filed against the CTU have been necessary across the country as union officials attempt to block hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of teachers and other public employees from cutting off union payments, much of which is likely earmarked for Big Labor’s radical political and lobbying agenda,” said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation Vice President.
To compensate for any further loss in revenue after the Janus ruling, the CTU shifted tactics. Instead of advancing a persuasive message union membership provides marvelous benefits to entice new members and keep current members, the CTU has deployed an arsenal of weapons to blunt the Supreme Court. In an end-run against the rights of workers affirmed by the High Court, the Illinois General Assembly debated and passed SB1784. A bill pushed feverishly by the CTU, SB1748 brims with a raft of provisions intended to withhold critical information over union membership. The bill essentially gags employers from discussing terms under which a unionized employee can leave the union, while increasing union engagement time with new employees. Predictably, Governor Pritzker signed the bill into law. Moreover, the CTU also showcased the viability of the picket line as a way to acquire contracts which sustain its membership. While only union members can vote in favor of authorizing a strike, union leaders can leverage strike votes to supplicate, coerce rather, non-unionized members to join the cause. A lousy method to attract members, one may be tempted to ask of the CTU: Why would a union which professes to care about its members resort to such miserable schemes to prevent members from being better informed about their rights?
While it is still too early to assess if the 2019 CTU strike accomplished its unstated goal of pressuring non-unionized members to remain or seek full membership, Janus provoked some careful though among some CTU members. Janus caused some CTU members to question why millions in union dues support political candidates who endorse legislation antithetical to their political beliefs or hostile to their well-being. If Ms. Nkemdi and Ms. Troesch are victorious in court in their case against the CTU, perhaps many reluctant CTU members will re-think their role in the union and ask why the CTU does not support members’ freedom to do what they chose regarding their paychecks and their workplace. Furthermore, should the court deal the union a loss, perhaps CTU leadership will devise incentives for members to maintain full membership rather than capitalizing on measures to extort from members looking for a way out.
