It is illegal for teachers to strike. The teachers of the Kent School District are on strike. Why are they willingly violating the law?
Every time a school district has taken the local teacher's union to court over a strike the district has won. But the Washington Education Association (WEA) retorts "An appeals court has never upheld a school district to end a strike." Technicality! Trick! No WEA local has every appealed. So the WEA's record in appeals court is 0 for 0; never lost.
What are they striking over in Kent? Meetings? Sure. Disrupt thousands of families over how many meetings you have to attend.
For a 10% pay raise? Ask you neighbors, teachers. They might find the district's offer of 4.5% too high.
For smaller class size? The system is providing funding for enough adults to lower the class size IF they would put more adults in their Kent classrooms.
The education system has found more and more things for people to do outside the classroom - counselors, planners, coordinators, etc. But they still work for the district and are being paid by the district. THE STATE PROVIDES ENOUGH MONEY. Get them back in the classroom.
The teachers and their well funded union are part of the establishment that maintains this situation. They have immense pull with the legislature, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, etc., if they want more people in the classroom.
THE STATE PROVIDES ENOUGH MONEY. Funding has grown far faster than the student population when adjusted for inflation. As I recall the numbers are over 70% funding increase during 25% student growth.
Seattle Times - news
Danny Westneat thinks they should get back to work.
Added: The legal basis that teacher strikes are illegal:
In 2006 Attorney General Rob McKenna gave his legal findings on the legality of teachers in Washington State striking - concluding that they do not have the right under law.
He cited RCW 41.56.120, which states, "Nothing contained in this chapter shall permit or grant any public employee the right to strike or refuse to perform his official duties."
And RCW 41.56.025 "This chapter applies to the bargaining unit of classified employees of school districts..."
Posted by Ron Hebron at September 02, 2009 06:20 PM | Email ThisSee the law of diminishing marginal returns. The WEA/NEA enables poor educators and inappropriately place them on an equal par with the good educators (rapidly becoming a misnomer in this profession). Like most unions that do this, the result is inevitable (see Boeing workers/future residents of Charlestown,SC).
This isn't rocket science folks.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 2, 2009 08:18 PMThe problem with these large districts is that they don't have a strike-breaking apparatus. Too many teachers and employees. Smaller districts can bring in emergency employees, nothing stops a strike faster than the teachers realizing that school is going on without them and they won't be paid. Districts should form cooperatives made of out of area substitute teachers and extra administrators and they should be bussed in when a union doesn't show up to work.
Posted by: Doug on September 2, 2009 08:23 PMMoreover if I get caught stealing from my company or committing fraud, I would be immediately terminated, whereas a teacher or trooper goes on paid administrative leave for 2 years.
Posted by: travis t on September 2, 2009 09:16 PMThere is no reason to coddle these NEA folks. If their jobs are so horrible, then they should quit. But clearly they're not quitting; in fact, they think their jobs are pretty darn good. Otherwise they wouldn't stay around. They would go find other jobs that pay better and have better working conditions, right??
They think they have it pretty good, so they're just striking. There is no penalty for them to do so. So that's what they'll do, because districts "let" them. Which they should not. Quit messing around and fire them.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam on September 2, 2009 09:45 PMYes Travis. This is the what happens when you have government by patronage and privilege. The ones that are part of the political class or who can buy their way in get all the treats. Of course, if you are a preferred constituency group who can deliver the votes, that's as good as money. You get treats too.
This is why the founders of the country created a government by rule of law. Nobody was supposed to be above the law, everybody treated equally. As you implied, this does not apply any longer.
The political class has finally taken over. We work for them.
Posted by: G Jiggy on September 2, 2009 09:45 PM@ formermoonbat: All kinds of stupid*. Especially if you're upset about the strike delaying the start of school. You want to alleviate that situation by taking the time to interview and hire replacements for every single teacher? You think you can find that many qualified applicants willing to cross the picket line? Not hardly.
*So stupid, in fact, that I'm willing to believe that was just a tone-deaf bit of web performance art.
Posted by: Bronson on September 2, 2009 10:09 PMStep two: if the strike continues, jail all union officers.
Step three: jail the teachers, starting with the last names picked out of a hat, say, 5 teachers per day... until all teachers are jailed.
Chances are, you'd only need to do this for a few days... but these clowns need to know they WILL go to jail.
Keep them there until they agree to go back to school and DO THEIR JOBS.
Step four: Don't give them a thing. We're in the midst of a horrific recession. If they don't like it, they can quit. Dozens of laid off teachers would BEG for the chance to get back in the classroom.
Step five: at the end of the school year, fire every teacher that participated.
And do this ANYWHERE teachers go on strike.
And if they don't like it, that's too damned bad.
Posted by: hinton on September 2, 2009 10:34 PMStep two: if the strike continues, jail all union officers.
Step three: jail the teachers, starting with the last names picked out of a hat, say, 5 teachers per day... until all teachers are jailed.
Chances are, you'd only need to do this for a few days... but these clowns need to know they WILL go to jail.
Keep them there until they agree to go back to school and DO THEIR JOBS.
Step four: Don't give them a thing. We're in the midst of a horrific recession. If they don't like it, they can quit. Dozens of laid off teachers would BEG for the chance to get back in the classroom.
Step five: at the end of the school year, fire every teacher that participated.
And do this ANYWHERE teachers go on strike.
And if they don't like it, that's too damned bad.
Posted by: hinton on September 2, 2009 10:35 PMPeople who work year round can't just shift the work year by a month or two and still get paid the same amount for the year. If they are out of work for two months they lose two months worth of pay. The teachers go without a paycheck for couple of months but at the end of the year they will have made the same as if they hadn't gone on strike.
Since you can't force them to work for no pay, the only way to provide an appropriate disincentive to striking is to fine them for every day they are on strike.
Posted by: Ken on September 3, 2009 07:14 AMThat would be my headline.
If the teachers keep up these ridiculous strikes, the charter school initiative just might pass. We should be putting in on every ballot, year after year until it passes. The ballot measure title should be simple: stop teachers from striking by creating charter school competition.
Posted by: blindman on September 3, 2009 07:34 AM@ hinton (#12): Not too bright, are you? Sure, you might be able to get an injunction. As for the rest of your plan? You'd better enjoy daydreaming about it, because it's not happening in what the rest of us like to call the, "real world."
Posted by: Bronson on September 3, 2009 07:43 AMIf you have a law that just says such and such is illegal and doesn't mention penalties or remedies, then, um, under that plain meaning rule, does it mean there aren't any?
Seems like this is another case where a judge would have to make up some law.
Posted by: Torture Lawyer on September 3, 2009 08:02 AMIn issuing her injection ordering Marysville teachers back to work in 2003, Superior Court Judge Linda C. Krese said:
“Public employee strikes are illegal under the common law of Washington. The (Marysville Education Association) strike violates the prohibition on public-employee strikes and is an illegal strike.”
In 2006 Attorney General Rob McKenna weighed in on the legality of teachers in Washington State striking - concluding that they do not have the right under current law.
McKenna’s opinion cited RCW 41.56.120, which states, “Nothing contained in this chapter shall permit or grant any public employee the right to strike or refuse to perform his official duties.”
The law also states in RCW 41.56.025 “This chapter applies to the bargaining unit of classified employees of school districts...”
Posted by: BCW on September 3, 2009 08:43 AMI believe the lack of a specific legal remedy is the crux of the issue. As I understand it, there is no specific remedy outlined under current law - so unless the district is prepared to terminate employees that are engaged in an illegal strike, there is not really a downside to striking from the union perspective. They essentially get a free pass. And as another poster mentioned, their annual salary structure is such that, at the end of the year, they don't "lose" money - however, I don't believe they are collecting checks while on strike. And as most of us know, cash flow in a household is an important thing...
Unfortunately for the district, the significant amount of time it would take (and the ongoing disruption to students and parents) along with the major expense required to hire and onboard scores of new teachers would be a nightmare for the system.
Communities that are faced with illegal teacher strikes are really between a rock and a hard place.
Posted by: BCW on September 3, 2009 09:28 AMBTW - I don't think you would be any less secure than if you went through the WiFi access point at any random coffee shop. Not suggesting it is a great idea to take advantage of someone's open access point, but from a technical perspective...
Posted by: BCW on September 3, 2009 09:41 AMWithin a week the strikers can be replaced by new teachers who are currently unemployed and presumably want to work.
Consider re-hiring the competent ones if they choose to apply. The district could use this as an opportunity to ditch the useless, incompetent teachers who plague our public schools and curse children to third-rate educations. Posted by: attila on September 3, 2009 09:47 AM
Firing the striking teachers may be an opportunity for the district to "clean house" - but it won't make the union go away. And will cost the community a tremendous amount of money - both in terms of the district budget, and in terms of what accommodations families need to make while the disruption persists.
I don't think it is as easy a decision as it might seem.
FWIW.
Posted by: BCW on September 3, 2009 09:56 AMIn addition to the actual wording of the laws and statutes, courts look to precedent in making determinations of legality.
In this case, there is precedent - see #22 above - which makes it pretty clear that strikes by teachers are in violation of the law. I don't think calling a teacher strike "illegal" is much of a stretch.
And in about five minutes we'll find out what another court says regarding this specific strike.
One more thing...
You state "a law IS NOT a law until tested in court."
As soon as an executive signs a bill it is a law. Period.
There is no concept that a law isn't "valid" or does not take effect until it is tested in court.
Using your reasoning law enforcement could not act to enforce a law until it has been "tested" in court - because in your world it is not really a law.
I wouldn't recommend using that argument with a police officer...
Just look at the Harlem Children's Zone. The kids that have been in the program since birth tested at 97% in math and 85% in reading in their 3rd grade standardized tests back in 2004. The program has been continually improving itself and the 3rd graders who took the tests in 2009 scored 100% in math and 97% in reading.
Why is this remarkable? Because more than 50% of the kids qualify for federal reduced cost/free lunch. There is a large population of non-english speakers and kids living in single-parent homes with drug addiction, foster care, government assistance. Basically, the kids in involved in the Harlem Children's Zone are the poorest of the poor.
The Harlem Children's Zone seeks to enroll all of the kids in a 95 block area of Harlem. The schools and programs are all free; paid for by government vouchers (they run charter schools) and private endowments in a public/private partnership.
President Obama wants to start up 20 "promise neighborhoods" around the country that emulate the Harlem Children's Zone. He wants to use federal money to be the public side of the partnership so that state's without charter school laws (i.e. Washington State) can't block the effort.
Now I know how we all feel about this kind of federal intervention and use of tax money. The problem of our failing public school system combined with the stranglehold the teacher's unions have on our state, I think necessitates federal intervention.
Think of the collective brick that the WEA/KEA would shit if the Gates Foundation matched Federal Money to set up a Kent Children's Zone. The Zone would open private schools that provide 100% tuition scholarships to all kids who enroll. The schools, offering PreK-12 education would be charter schools in everything but name. There would be nothing the WEA could do.
If you're interested in the story of the Harlem Childrens Zone. I suggest you pick up a copy of "Whatever It Takes" from your favorite book seller. It is a great story and proves once and for all that it is the existing school system that is the problem and not the kids or their socio-economic situation. The Harlem Children's Zone schools are now one of the highest scoring schools in all of New York. Routinely scoring as high or higher on standardized tests than the most prestigious, upper-east-side private schools.
Posted by: blindman on September 3, 2009 12:24 PMThat 'mother' should be ashamed.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 3, 2009 12:27 PM@ Duffman & Yosemite Sam (#33-35): First of all, extricate yourselves from this fantasy mass firing scenario. It isn't going to happen. Second, it's the insular, overpaid and manipulative KSD administration that's been gaming this from the get-go. Had they been negotiating in good faith, Kent students may well have started school on time.
Posted by: Bronson on September 3, 2009 12:36 PMPosted by: blindman on September 3, 2009 12:45 PM
Agree, it would cause chaos for a while but other teachers w/be found, some would want to be re-hired and school would resume with indelible memory of what happens when you illegally violate the public trust. Posted by: Duffman on September 3, 2009 12:45 PM
Of course, when rehired they will lose all seniority, will start at the bottom of the pay grade, and so on.
So they will get to return to their job; we won't run out of teachers! But they'll be entry-level teachers, and will get to compete with other unemployed teachers for those same spots. And their pay grade? Back to entry level.
Unions - and the power they bring politically - exist on the seniority system. Firing all, then bringing them back as new hires completely destroys that seniority system. Suddenly all teachers are new, can be removed easily, can be weeded out, etc. No more entrenched teachers you can't get rid of because they've been there for 20 years, etc.
Fire them, and tell them the job is waiting for them to be rehired when they break the strike. Rehired as a new-hire, of course, with no applicable seniority.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 3, 2009 01:03 PMIt HAS happened... and it CAN happen again. And if these idiots keep screwing around with our kids, then it SHOULD happen... and soon.
http://www.google.com/search?q=teachers+jailed+in+strike&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADSA_en
This type of action against those scum striking against our kids for NO justifiable reason need to think about it in a cell with Bubba.
And those like Bunson, who really have no clue as what their babbling about, should actually GET one BEFORE they post.
Idiot.
Posted by: hinton on September 3, 2009 02:52 PMA) The teachers in the article weren't jailed for striking, they were jailed for, "...straying into a restricted area while travelling in Saudi Arabia."
B) The events in your article took place in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia. Think about that one for a second. We do have a slightly different approach to jurisprudence here in the good old USA.
I don't mean to be harsh, but you don't seem to be firing on all cylinders my friend. I take it you mean me when you refer to a, "Bunson," who has, "...no clue as what their babbling about," yet you chose to buttress your point that teachers can be jailed in America for striking with a story about teachers who were jailed for getting lost while on holiday in Saudi Arabia (http://tinyurl.com/mve9ql). Perhaps you ought to simmer down and focus all your abundant commenting energies on writing one good cogent argument. Sound good?
Posted by: Bronson on September 3, 2009 05:15 PMAnd no one here is even dreaming of a 10% raise... and that's with a three year contract. What planet do many of these teachers live on?
Posted by: Mike H on September 3, 2009 05:47 PMVargas was MIA for the bulk of the negotiations, and chose to make his first big appearance in the manner of a schoolyard bully. His early failure to lead is part and parcel with a Kent School Board that has dedicated the better part of the last decade to insulating themselves from any kind of challenge to their prevailing orthodoxy. Instead of listening to the proverbial boots on the ground in their district, they're only listening to themselves. That's not a way to run a school district.
Posted by: Bronson on September 3, 2009 07:24 PMFire the bums.
Posted by: USA Ronin on September 3, 2009 08:25 PMYOU wrote "@ hinton (#12): Not too bright, are you? Sure, you might be able to get an injunction. As for the rest of your plan? You'd better enjoy daydreaming about it, because it's not happening in what the rest of us like to call the, "real world."
First of all, scumbag, you don't know me. That didn't stop you from moronically commenting on my intelligence.
You want to stick to the issue? Fine. Stick to the issue. You want to get personal, asswipe? I can play that way as well.
The fact is that what I wrote HAS happened in the past, and COULD happen here. You provided absolutely nothing to disprove anything I wrote.
In the insane dimension where you reside, you would have us keep doing what we've been doing. Well, look where that's gotten us.
If we're not willing to lock these scum up, and make them PERSONALLY feel the pain they're inflicting on others, then why bother with the injunction? If they don't have to go to jail... if they don't have to pay, and pay big time, then what's the point?
I get that you find things "laughable" when you're sunk in your Rule #5 attacks. But that YOU, (whoever the hell you might be) find it that way is as meaningless as the rest of your blather.
These morons want to engage in illegal actions? They want to break the law, and violate a court order?
Swell. Then let them pay the price. And if they did lock these morons up, imagine how many fewer of these illegal strikes would actually take place.
That our particular judicial system lacks the necessary testosterone to do what has to be done does not, of itself, equate to your idiocy that failing to engage these scum that way isn't either realistic or viable as an alternative.
It CAN be done... and it HAS been done. All we need is the will to do it, union scum notwithstanding.
Posted by: Hinton on September 3, 2009 09:14 PMOne problem with your scenario of fire and rehire at entry level. The problem depends on the district's language regarding rehiring. Most businesses have policies regarding rehires and if the person is rehired within a certain time frame, then most likely they will retain seniority. Further, most pay scales are not just seniority with current business, but seniority in general. Therefore, a teacher with 10 years experience if moving to another district doesn't start out at the bottom, but close to the same pay as others with 10 years experience. To make your scenario happen, then HR policies regarding rehires would need to be revised and payscale policies would need to be revised. These revisions involve change in working conditions and are thus privy to union approval prior to implementation. Do you really think the Union would allow such policies to be changed? Posted by: tc on September 4, 2009 07:09 AM
I would guess that Vargas came in, listened during the summer negotiations, hoping that the existing KSD and KEA leadership would work things out. Any meddling by him probably would have hampered progress simply because both sides would have asked, "you're brand new, who are you to tell us what to do?"
Fast forward to now. The KEA goes on an illegal strike and the KSD has to respond. I'm sure Vargas consulted with the school board and other KSD leaders when making the decision on the last few offers leading up to the strike and the decision to seek a court order to end the strike. Leadership is needed when things start to boil over. His hand was forced.
I would give Vargas credit for being a wise leader and making the transition as best he could. Coming in as a new leader when your subordinates are in a metaphorical war is always a test of a leader. Considering that he came from California where even the bums are unionized and strikes are used as a bullying tactic, I'm pleased that he came out of his corner swinging. The KEA and other teacher's unions have been running this state for far too long. They disparately needed a black eye and Vargas did a great job delivering it.
Bronson, just need a bogeyman to blame and Vargas is a convenient guy to put on your propaganda posters.
By the way, I know I am right when I say that "they are not bargaining in good faith" is a euphemism that unions use which means "they aren't giving us everything we want." You hear it all the time in the leftist media.
The unions deliberately misuse the term to sway public opinion. It is called a "bargain" for a reason. Both side have to give in to meet a mutual agreement. From the checklist of demands I've seen, it looks like KSD gave in to most of the KEA demands. What has the KEA given in on? I haven't seen anything on that list. Who was not bargaining in good faith?
Why don't the Kent parents form a class action suit and simply sue the teachers and their union for failure to provide services and for disruption of their employment, hardship, etc?
If the teachers are blatantly breaking the law, wouldn't this be a lawsuit that could be fought in court? I'm not sure what the penalty would be for depriving children of an education, but I'm sure it must be a lot of money.
Posted by: johnny on September 4, 2009 08:12 AMIf the contract is over, then this becomes a negotiating point. The SD can do it unilaterally since there IS no contract. Then the union has to negotiate to get that basic expectation back.
I think it's a great way to add a lot of pressure, and encourage most teachers to stay on the job. If you don't walk off the job, you get to keep your pay grade, etc. without worry. If you do strike, well, you MAY get to come back with the same benefits from your seniority, but you may not.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 4, 2009 02:37 PMSo it's okay to ignore the law and the court system just because you want more money? Idiot. And the argument about small classes is a lie. Kids in China and India are in large classes, yet they come to America and run circles around US students. Heck, half of Microsoft's staff is foreign.
Posted by: ThomasB. on September 4, 2009 04:35 PMYou've failed to substantiate your claims that teachers have been jailed in the USA for going on strike. The article you cited was concerning tourists in Saudi Arabia getting arrested for getting lost while on holiday.
Your inability to construct a well thought out argument, your insistent citation of unrelated information and your devolution into a fuming mass of swear words would lead a reasonable person to believe that you are not that bright. Would that you were, perhaps you might have demonstrated that dazzling intellect by exercising your extensive vocabulary rather than using more curse words.
This is no knock on you - some people are born with certain advantages, others are not. You still have a valuable role to play in our republic, even if you can't seem to get through one comment section without soiling your digital self with foul language.
@ blindman (#54): You bet Vargas was just hired. All the more disappointing that in such a short time, he's been sucked into the morass that is the prevailing leadership culture on the Board. He hasn't listened to those on the front line, and you need only look at the 1000+ teachers picketing outside his office (http://tinyurl.com/nx5s4b) to see how well he's earned the respect of his subordinates.
I am fascinated by your analysis of my career based on my comments on this board. Pray tell, what other insights into my career have you gleaned from your extensive analysis?
Posted by: Bronson on September 4, 2009 09:31 PMOf course, this is no knock on you. Some people are born with certain advantages, others not. You do still have a valuable role to play in our Republic, that of demonstrating how ugly arrogance can be.
Posted by: katomar on September 4, 2009 09:49 PMSweet turning around of my words though - it's almost like you gave me a taste of my own medicine. Awesome! You keep up with that and you'll win internet for sure!
Posted by: Bronson on September 5, 2009 07:07 AMGet over yourself already. You're not nearly as important as you think you are.
Posted by: jimg on September 5, 2009 11:40 AMit hte district who has been dragging out this situation longer than it has to be. They have the funds to sufficently meet the teachers demands. The district has had this coming with there missuse their funds, the timing is unfortunate but everyone else knows that if they were in the teachers shoes they would be doning the same god damn things so cut the crap. Just becasue something is the law doenst make it right. Civil disobedience has been practiced around the world as a legitimate form of protest for decades adn is taught to every student that goes throught the public school system. Dr. Martain Luther King Jr. and Mahatma. Those teachers are willing to go to jail to stand up for themselves. They are to be comended for the willingness to stand up in a world where too many people let things happen to them rather than stand up for thems selves. You people who are feeling wallowing in self pity, if this had been occuring before the ressecion no one would give it a second thought. Dont act so self righteuos.
Posted by: Conor on September 7, 2009 11:19 PM
until the stats come out detailing the massive crime wave ignited by this teacher strike. Who knows how many terrible robbers, murders, war criminals and telemarketers will come out of this!
@ Alphabet Soup (#68): Ouch! You brought me low with that one. By the way, if that last part was an offer by you to help me, "enhance," my, "position," on this site, you should know I already have a girlfriend, so no thanks.
@ Laurie (#69): That's not remotely ironic.