I’m happy to report that the Pasadena City College chapter of the California Teachers Association has, at long last, made the brave move to impose the "fair share service fee" on all of our full-time faculty. Our union engages in collective bargaining with the district, and is the sole representative of faculty interests during that process. For years and years, membership in our local CTA chapter has been optional. About half of the current faculty (including myself) are members, but about half choose to get a "free ride" by enjoying the benefits CTA negotiates without paying dues to the union. (Dues are steep, mind you: I pay a base of about $850 annually, and I also add in a bit extra for our local political action committee.)
Since 2001, California law has permitted public employee unions to collect fees from non-members. The principle is simple — no full-time teacher ought to receive for free the benefits that his or her colleagues have paid to negotiate. Membership in the union itself, of course, is voluntary — and those who will now have the fair share fee automatically deducted from their paychecks will not be obligated to participate in union activities.
I confess I have mixed feelings about forcing some of my virulently anti-union colleagues into paying for union activities. (Yes, Virginia, there are tenured faculty members who loathe the very idea of employee unions. Some of them are even my friends.) I have to confess that when union membership was voluntary, I took a small amount of pleasure in gently reminding the non-payers in the department that my voluntary dues were subsidizing their benefits! Now, I expect to hear their outrage.
Ultimately,of course, I support fair share implementation. Like it or not, faculty are laborers. Though our individual relationships with college administrators may be warm and cordial, we cannot forget that under the rules of collective bargaining, they are the management whose primary charge is to lower costs (which means limiting salaries and benefits.) In this (admittedly civil and friendly) adversarial atmosphere, faculty ought to stand together. Those who don’t like collective bargaining don’t have to give a minute of their time to the process — but they don’t have the right to reap the benefits without having paid for them.
The good news for those of us who have been paying dues is that once fair share is implemented, our monthly deductions will decline (slightly), as we will no longer need to cover the hundreds of faculty who have so far refused to stand with us.
I’m curious to know how many other teachers out there belong to "fair share" collective bargaining units. How many other states permit this practice?
I tend to mistrust people who work alongside unionised employees but feel that unions are bad. Are you prepared to negotiate your own salary and benefits without discussion of what the unionised folk have?
I also don’t quite understand them, though people have suggested this is a class issue: unions aren’t for professionals.
Whaddya mean, “since 2001?” The CTA helped itself to my “fair” (according to them) share when I taught in the 1990s, and had been doing so for years by then. Legally and, I believe, constitutionally, they were only supposed to steal … er, collect … enough to pay the costs of collective bargaining. No one I knew, union or non, seriously believed the CTA was abiding by that rule. After all, they had plenty of money for political ads and campaign contributions, despite charging members exactly the same amount they “needed” from non-members like me.
And, by the way, the answer is no, I didn’t benefit from the collective bargaining agreement, either, as its primary effect was to maintain a merit-free, seniority-based spoils system that I was on the wrong end of.
And, by the way, the answer is no, I didn’t benefit from the collective bargaining agreement, either, as its primary effect was to maintain a merit-free, seniority-based spoils system that I was on the wrong end of.
I believe a share of the fees have been imposed on all full time teachers for years in my district. We had to pay a fee regardless… but did not receive the benefits of “protection” against lawsuits, etc… unless we were a member.
I did eventually join… but I do dislike CTA always telling me who I should vote for in elections… and stuffing liberal political agendas down my throat.
XRLQ, my 2001 date comes from our local chapter document that references something called govt. code Section 3254 (enacted 2001). I have no idea what that is.
Neither do I. According to the California Legislature’s web site, Government Code Section 3254 does not exist.
Apparently, it was part of John Burton’s bill SB 1960, if that helps.
Yes, it does. That statute amended Sections 3540.1, 3543 and 3583.5, and repealed and replaced Section 3546. From the legislative summary:
Translation: unions have even more rights than they did before, and both the public institutions and the individual employees the unions “represent” have even less.
Lovely.
Looks like something more liberal than a closed shop.
Hugo - your union at PCC does you more harm than good.
From what I remember from pops, last time you guys had a negotiation, you were offered a hair less than 10, wanted 11, and held out…Budget crisis made a turn for the worse, and you were left with a COLA… YEA CTA!
Your union representation sucks Hugo. Like it in theory or not, you’re represented by amatures!
My high school had an interesting half-way system. All teachers had union dues deducted from their salaries, but anyone who didn’t want to join/support the union could have their share of the money directed to some other cause. For example, one teacher always donated his “union dues” to the public library.
Stentor, I would guess that the “union dues” were deducted were any portion of dues that don’t directly cover the costs of representation.