The Idaho Freedom Foundation recently filed a lawsuit against the Boise Independent School District for diverting funds from the classroom to union leaders' salaries and activities, a practice not exclusive to Boise.  The Idaho Press Tribune has editorialized in favor of the lawsuit and notes that Northwest Professional Educators (NWPE) offers teachers an alternative to the political activism of the Idaho Education Association.  Although the editorial writer mischaracterizes NWPE as a union (it is not), it correctly notes that NWPE offers many of the same advantages but without the controversial politics.  See the entire editorial below. 

The Gem State’s most visible conservative lobbying group, the Idaho Freedom Foundation, has taken some positions on policy that just don’t add up. Like the group’s defense of instant horse racing machines that clearly violate state laws against gambling, or objections to increases in education and transportation funding.

But there are times when the group is right, such as its criticism of the way members of the Idaho Legislature can use their positions to slide into cushy state jobs for only a few years and pad their state pensions, or IFF’s advocacy of the elimination of the state tax on groceries.

The latest target of the organization’s ire is the Boise School District — and this time, the gloves are off. Director Wayne Hoffman and company are taking the district to court over the way it pays employees while they conduct union business. A complaint filed in district court alleges the school district is paying at least $35,932 this year to the president of the Boise Education Association, the teachers union that represents the district.

The IFF is right on this one. Taxpayers are paying for educators to educate kids, not participate in union activities. If educators want to do that, they must do so on their own time and dime.
Granted, some $35,000 is but a tiny drop in the bucket for a district with total expenditures that eclipsed $200 million in 2014-15. It’s about one one-hundredth of a percentage point — a rounding error, and a small one, at that.

But this case, as all cases, should be based on principle and the law, and on both counts, it’s a solid case.

Let’s start with principle. Unions don’t teach. Period. And as much as teachers union officials will claim that everything they do is all about the kids, the reality is that unions exist for one purpose — to get as much as they can (money, benefits, etc.) for their members. In this case, teachers.
And that’s not a bad thing, in and of itself. And “union” shouldn’t reflexively be dismissed as a dirty word.

Private-sector unions, in particular, played an important role in the early history of American labor, fighting for safe working conditions and reasonable pay for employees at times where they really needed it.

And we all know that teaching is an honorable profession which, especially in Idaho, offers rather modest levels of compensation, especially at entry level. And given the uniqueness and challenges of the job, unions offer valuable services to teachers, such as legal defense in the event they face legal charges.

And contrary to what some may think, there are alternative unions that refrain from political activism that many would characterize as “liberal.” The Northwest Professional Educators, for example, promise the same advantages other unions offer “without paying for controversial political agendas.”
The money that you pay in your taxes for education should only be covering what happens in the classroom. It shouldn’t pay for teachers to engage in outside political activity. Even if it’s just a fraction of a percent, what the Boise School District is doing is wrong.

And they aren’t the only ones. Other districts do it, too, and if successful, this lawsuit should serve as a “cease and desist” notice to them, too. To their credit, the Nampa and West Ada (formerly Meridian) school districts stopped doing it.

Now let’s look at the law. The Idaho Constitution (Article VIII, Public Indebtedness and Subsidies) forbids school districts and other public agencies from using state money “in aid of any individual, association ... or corporation.” It’s hardly a stretch to read from that that taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing unions, which are associations of individuals who are engaging in activities outside their stated duty — educating children.

Educators who are members of unions would argue that having better resources makes them better teachers. That’s fine, and if they believe union membership will assist them in that regard, they’re free to join. Nobody should stop them.

But it shouldn’t be something you as a taxpayer should have to pay for. They can attend conferences on their own free time and pay their union leadership with voluntary dues. When they’re on “school time,” they should be teaching kids, and that’s all.

— Phil Bridges

email to friend

Print

comment

Permalink

Comments (0)