Michigan Education Association: We Can Endorse Candidates, But You Can’t
by Education Action GroupThe local Republican Party made the unusual move of endorsing 4 of the 15 school board candidates who were on the ballot this year in Michigan’s Plymouth-Canton school district, according to the Detroit Free Press. What’s even more amazing is that the local teachers union found something wrong with that.
Teachers unions are infamous for trying to hire their own bosses by closely vetting and endorsing school board candidates in just about every district in the nation. Their strategy is to elect a majority of union-friendly board members who will give them their way at the bargaining table, and hire administrators who will let them call the shots at work.
While that certainly sounds like a conflict of interest, union participation in school board elections is clearly protected by the First Amendment.
But Ken Fistler, president of the Plymouth-Canton teachers union, had the gall to suggest that First Amendment rights shouldn’t apply to the local Republicans. He said the party’s endorsement of certain candidates “takes away the ability from anyone who isn’t affiliated with a party to run.” Ha! Local unions not only pick their favorite school board candidates, but provide funding and manpower to assist their campaigns.
The two largest national teachers unions, the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers, spent a combined $71 million on candidate and issue campaigns during the 2007-08 election cycle, according to Education Week, and a percentage of that money went to local school board candidates. Teachers unions are very partisan as well, spending a great deal of time and money supporting Democratic candidates for local, state and national offices. There is a current scandal in Sussex County, New Jersey, where a group of union teachers apparently used a middle school classroom to make campaign calls on behalf of local Democratic candidates.
But here’s the real punchline: When reminded by a reporter how local teachers unions endorse and support their own preferred school board candidates, Fistler said his union only recommends candidates for office, it doesn’t endorse them!
Thanks for clearing that up, Ken.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
23 Comments
Anything that gets in the way of the states power (which is course the union is just an arm of) is wrong. Logic, reason, common sense, the Constitution, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with this.
It helps that most of the proles are also too stupid to even notice. Look around you.
I "recommend" that the Unions go to Europe to see how that is working……….and STAY THERE!!!
I would argue that the conflict of interest inherent in public sector union's political action campaigns outweighs their First Amendment rights. It is not in the public interest to allow public sector unions free rein in electoral and referendum campaigns. Having that much influence over the highest leadership levels within public organisations and over public finances (in the form of millage referendums) is clearly self-serving and would not be tolerated in a private organisation. It virtually crushes the concept of management rights.
I've wondered many times how it works at Government Motors, and the other Government Motors, now that the UAW is a significant shareholder w/voting rights AND is seated on the Board of Directors. In every company in which I've worked or consulted, the Board of Directors requires management to at least present their collective bargaining strategy to the Board before they even enter talks with their unions. It's through this process that management understands how much leeway they have in negotiations. So that begs the question, how do you approve a high-level bargaining strategy with union members sitting on the Board? Do the union members have to be excused from that discussion? If so, they aren't full members of the Board, then. If they're allowed to stay, then are they sworn to silence? How's that enforced?
This just shows more proof that the Constitution is viewed as an annoyance to the Unions instead of law. We need an attorney general of the US who actually has a pair to investigate the unholy alliance between unions and the DNC and sue. Bust the unions now.
"Fistler said his union only recommends candidates for office, it doesn't endorse them"……um…WHAT???
Privatize ALL education.
That last bit really sums up the problems with liberals/unions/progressives/marxists. They think using a different word to describe their actions is going to hopey-changey their actions.
The only way LibMarxists can win is by superseding the law.
Public sector unions are thieves of the public treasure. They conspire and act against the interests of the citizen, to their own benefit. They do not represent the worker against 'evil corporation', they represent the union leadership at the expense of the citizenry. The union leadership, and even more so the Democrat party.
They need to be outlawed.
They are correct. Look for the Union Label and vote the opposite. It is up to electorate to become more informed. A death nill should be a Union endorsement.
I'll endorse that recommendation.
Because Unions spend over 90% of their politician purchasing money on Democrat Party candidates, that makes them all but officially the Democratic Party.
Endorsements, no. Recommendations, yes. Dumb as a bag o' rocks, yes.
Heads you lose, Tails I flip over the table. It's the Marxist way.
I'd be willing to let them represent public sector employees on matters regarding wages, hours and conditions of employment, but only if:
a) they were restricted from political action as described above,
b) only if the government employer didn't already have a bona fide civil service system.
I do a fair amount of labour relations work and I've consulted with a number of public sector employers who have (and have had for decades) civil service systems which provide predetermined rules regarding employment matters such as promotion, demotion, transfers, discipline, hiring, termination and compensation. With all those rules in place, there's no need for a union to provide 'double' coverage.
I am so sick of this widespread corrupt union BS,,,
It's the public sector part here that is key. If you want more money and benefits and opportunity then go to the private sector. The public sector is not about enriching the participants, it's about getting a job done at the most efficient cost to the citizen, public sector implies public service.
The fact is I could give a crap if unions are legalized or not, as long as they do not interfere with the right of the individual to negotiate on his own behalf – that is they need to be voluntary.
But they have no business whatsoever in a public sector setting.
We need a union experiment. Give the Unions a whole state to be 100% unionized…then lets see how long it takes for them to bankrupt the whole state. Because now they have a current excuse. They can say that if there were more unions it wouldn't be so bad. so give them a state as a test case.
Call it the Grand Union Experiment.
Then we can show them exactly how unions bankrupt things.
Union dues should be going to beef-up failing pension funds of the unions instead of dues going to corrupt politicians and union thugs.
Unions are obsolete…. a remnant from the old Industrial Age as we enter thr Information Age.
No need – two examples: California and Illinois, the later is Obama's corrupt home state.
We have another 11 months to expose screwups by obama. What a ride!
Remember, Marxists don't believe in freedom of speech.
I'll recommend his endorsement.
This is precisely why leftism is a mental illness than any civilized society should shun. These SOBs genuinely think that they're special and get to be held to a completely different set of standards just because they brand themselves with labels like "compassionate" that they don't have to make any sacrifice of their own to earn.
This is something I'm noticing more about the leftist Dem party. It is no longer ok to be anything other than a card carrying member of their party. Dissent will not be allowed in any form. If you don't agree with them and their agenda then not only are you wrong in their eyes but you must be destroyed. They did this with Palin and you can see this being done to all the Republican candidates. Heck it was even done to a US citizen (Joe the Plumber). This is scary stuff indeed!
You must be logged in to post a comment.