Friedrichs Is Kind Of A Big Deal, Kingsland Turns The Tables, Coleman, Poker And Ed, A Sex Ed Debate, Remembering Dale Bumpers, Ford Foundation And More…

Friedrichs plaintiffs speak in WSJ. This Friedrichs case is kind of a big deal. The unions hated Abood, now in the face of Friedrichs they love it. Maybe with time they’ll learn to love Friedrichs? In any event, I get the hit it will put on their fiscal model and there isn’t a scenario where a decision against them isn’t a problem for them. But, I’m not convinced on this deterministic point that closed shop unions are always stronger than right to work ones in practice. There is something to be said for an organizational culture that requires convincing people to join. Better organizers and all that. My take on implications here.

Mike Petrilli on IUDs. Jennifer Borgioli Binis says stop, please!

New assessment policy floated in Oregon – some good ideas but also some you can eat cake and lose weight! Overview of upcoming state issues here.

Is anti-Common Core energy waning? New Yorker deep dive on the Ford Foundation. Sally Kilgore on James Coleman. A new Morrill Act for education or training? Ed terms Bellwarians hate. Got to go? Gone.

Aces? Poker and education reform.

Dale Bumpers has passed. Good friend to public schools and children and great public servant.

This Neerav Kingsland post is a good exercise. I am continually astounded at people’s inability to articulate an argument (not agree with, just make real points) against whatever it is they’re for. There is an argument against pretty much everything. Related: You run into a lot of people who are more comfortable telling you what they do than why they do it.

Flashback: My predictions for 2015. (There was some good stuff for rural in the ESSA law).

Skating goat.

3 Replies to “Friedrichs Is Kind Of A Big Deal, Kingsland Turns The Tables, Coleman, Poker And Ed, A Sex Ed Debate, Remembering Dale Bumpers, Ford Foundation And More…”

  1. Erich was quoted in the Washington Post.

    Elrich also appears to revel in his contrarian ways:
    Recently in California they had the vote on same-sex marriages. I am against same-sex marriages, and from my understanding the union put a lot of money into supporting them. And they have put money into many Democratic candidates, all the way up to presidential elections — candidates I do not support.
    I never knew I could opt out until a few years ago.
    Well, whose fault is that? Were you deceived or simply ignorant? Does the union have an obligation to hold your hand, or are you an adult who can figure these things out for yourself?

    According to the CTA’s brief, all employees are provided with a “Hudson notice,” which allows them simply check a box to receive the rebate of their dues that go toward non-negotiating activities. Furthermore, by simply checking another box, that employee triggers a process, entirely at the union’s expense, where they can challenge whether the agency fee is properly set. It’s absurd to think Elrich was in the dark for years except for his own indifference.

    As to Elrich’s objection to same-sex marriages: hey, this is America, and everyone is entitled to be as bigoted as they want. Abood made certain that Elrich doesn’t have to have his dues go toward supporting to right of two people who love each other to get married: that’s the whole point of the ruling. He only has to pay for the union’s activities as related to representing him in bargaining. Does Elrich even understand what this case is actually about?

    Apparently not:
    Q:You have opted out of the portion of union dues that goes to political activities. You’re just paying for the union’s collective bargaining activities, which directly benefits you. But you say that you’re still subsidizing the union’s political speech. Explain that.
    Elrich: I believe they’re using my money for politics, whether they say they are or not. I just think they’re putting my money into other things besides the negotiations and they call it collective bargaining. I don’t feel good about it. Pretty much everything the union does is political.
    If Elrich thinks his agency fees are being used to advance other sorts of political activities, he’s making a different argument than the one found in the petition that bears his name. Because the central argument there is not that the unions are calling other sorts of political activity negotiating — it’s that negotiating, in and of itself, is an inherently political activity.

    Again, does Elrich even know this?

  2. Well, despite Elrich’s worries about strains on district finances, he’s not suing the state of California for its chronic underfunding of schools. And his concern for the cash-strapped families of his district doesn’t seem to be accompanied by tales of how he donates his undeserved “extra” salary for their aid. Still, that’s not necessarily something you trumpet in public.

  3. That has to be the expectation. Neither Friedrich nor Elrich or any of the rest seem to be arguing, “Look, you guys go ahead and negotiate a contract without me, and if that means my wages get cut in half or I’m the first to be laid off, I’m okay with that because at least I won’t have to pay you dues.” No, the expectation is that the union will be left hamstrung and unable to wreak the unjust havoc caused by organized workers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.