Thanks for your comments so far — I appreciate a dialogue and am careful not to ignore alternative points of view. Clearly these are issues which can polarize if parties are unwilling to keep open minds.
Yes, I believe in the right to organize, but not the requirement. I believe in laws requiring payments to an organization before one is allowed to earn a living are unconscionable.
Teachers who want to work for San Diego Unified (paid for by taxpayers) must, as I understand it, pay money to the union. Without paying money to the union, they do not have the right to work at San Diego Unified.
And I need to be clear — I do not now, nor have ever suggested the use of ICBMs. I appreciate the chance to clarify — not sure why that was necessary.
The SDEA is, of course, always seeking new members — without a constant income stream, the union is significantly less powerful. Lobbyists are expensive.
The popularity of charter schools that don’t require SDEA contracts is on the rise, and the union is losing its grip — teachers are happily teaching and students are happily learning without affiliation with the union. And that’s what’s making charter schools so popular — their ability to cast off the tired paradigms so precious to the union, and begin the true reform our children desperately need.
Not surprising to me is that both comments ignore children completely. Not a single mention of children in either post. In all fairness the union does not exist to help our children, the needs of our schools, or the needs of the community. The union exists to serve the needs of the union.