Washington Education Association (WEA) misspends teachers' dues.

WASHINGTON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
ILLEGALLY SPENDS MEMBERS' DUES
TO FIGHT SCHOOL CHOICE

Home

Overview

     Washington state's attorney general filed suit against the Washington Education Association (WEA) on February 12th, 1997, alleging that the NEA affiliate illegally spent teachers' dues on a political campaign (Seattle Times, p. A1).

     As in most states, Washington public school teachers are compelled by law to contribute to the union whether or not they are members. This legalized extortion is supposed to be mitigated by restrictions on the use of the contributions. In particular, teachers' unions are prohibited from spending the money they coercively extract from educators for political purposes. According to investigations by both the attorney general's office and the state Public Disclosure Commission, the WEA illegally funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in dues into an unregistered political action committee in order to help defeat a pair of citizen's initiatives on school choice. The initiatives, one for school vouchers and the other for charter schools, were defeated by two to one margins at the ballot box in November of 1996. The WEA was the chief contributor to the "No" campaigns.
     For more information on the WEA's alleged illegal activities, see the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's website

In the spring of 1998, the WEA conceded that it had broken the law, and settled the case with the Attorney General of Washington. It did not admit wilfully violating the law, however, stating that its violation was purely accidental, and the fine assessed by the state was limited to the actual amount of money the union had misspent, thus providing no disincentive to future infractions.

This story may seem sensational, but in fact it is only routine. For years, unions in other states have been collecting more money from teachers than is permitted by law, some of which they have been forced to repay. The real tragedy is the law itself. The common legal requirement that public school teachers contribute to a union they may not personally have chosen to join, known as "agency shop," is in direct violation of the thirteenth amendment to the U.S. constitution prohibiting involuntary servitude. When a teacher is forced to work to pay a union he or she does not wish to support, that is involuntary servitude. The existence of agency shop is an embarrassment to anyone who cherishes individual liberty, as nominally enshrined in the constitution.
The argument behind agency shop is as follows: when teachers' contracts are the result of collective union bargaining, all teachers benefit, even those who are not members. Since these non-members benefit, they should be forced to pay, even if they have not asked for and do not want the putative benefits that union bargaining confers. A simple example should illustrate the ridiculous nature of this argument. Let's say one of your neighbors is an avid gardener. After years of work, she transforms her yard into a splendorous Eden that brings you joy and enhances your quality of life. As a corollary benefit, it raises property values slightly, since your neighborhood is now a more pleasant and beautiful place to live. Under the logic of agency shop, your neighbor could legally extract payment from you if you sold your home and reaped a financial benefit from the presence of her garden, even if you never asked her to take up gardening and do not wish to pay her. In other words, she could force you to pay for an activity she voluntarily undertook, and about which you were not even consulted. The mind boggles.

Buy Xenical Buy Xanax Buy Phentermine mp3 players Buy Phentermine mp3 player Buy Cheap Phentermine Penis Enlargement Cialis Buy Cialis