This is openly negotiated between boards and the unions. Depending on the size of the board and membership this might be as low as one person, the local president or as many as 9-10 in Toronto.

The central (head office) staff is totally paid from union dues.

This has been the case for decades. I know in the Toronto case the union staffer is paid “what they would have made in the classroom”  which sometimes means the lowest officer possibly a consultant or coordinator, is paid more than the president, a regular classroom teacher.

Nobody on the board side or the union side sees anything the least bit abnormal about it. The boards can always say no and the negotiations will drag on a little longer. If the board says no, the union will demand a larger raise for all members in order to finance the union staffing.

It works out as both cheaper and more efficient for all concerned.

Outsiders might be surprised to understand that boards and unions actually work very hard to have good relations. The kids benefit from a happy workforce.

Questions About Benefits Teacher Unions Enjoy

Just because a questionable practice has gone on for decades does not mean it’s either morally right or economically efficient.  An example is the arrangement of “release time” for teachers to do union work and paid, according to various formulae, by the taxpayer.  This is one small price paid for “labor peace” but it’s rather extortionary, isn’t it, as something done as part of the game of secret collective bargaining?

Here is more to the story about Pennsylvania “release time” issue http://townhall.com/columnists/andrewcollins/2016/03/05/who-ya-gonna-call-how-to-tackle-the-ghost-teacher-problem-n2128176

A question was raised in the video about why should the state pay for those who predictably take adversarial positions against those who govern?

Another question we might raise is why people don’t articulate the issue that union dues are 100% deductible from income taxes.  http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/ddctns/lns206-236/212/menu-eng.html  Dues do not affect a teacher’s income as teachers are wont to complain.

Taxpayers in effect are paying for the services and politicking unions engage in.  What about the posh headquarters of the teacher unions?  What about the school board administrative costs in providing for automatic deductions from paychecks for union dues?

In Canada teachers cannot hold public school jobs without joining a union.  In the US most teachers have a choice which union they can join, and, in many cases can get a portion retrieved that is dedicated to political work.  This is an important issue that awaits a US Supreme Court decision — Friedrichs vs CTA.

The assumptions and “standard operating procedures” relating to teacher unions in Canada bear questioning.  Especially as to how they affect not only taxpayer burdens but actually affect quality of education of our young people.

And, furthermore, here is another question.  Why are people and politicians so squeamish about pursuing questionable issues relating to teacher unions?

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that unions, all unions can do anything they want with their money.

When taxes are collected for education it is public money. As soon as it is paid in wages to teachers it instantly becomes private money. Teachers pay their unions with private money.

Closed shop provisions are the law in every province in Canada.

Governments since the 1930s have taken the position that unions are a good thing because they raise the standard of living.

“The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that unions, all unions can do anything they want with their money.”

Yes THEIR (union’s) money, which has been collected from the dues of their members - not a salary paid directly by the taxpayers.

It’s one thing if the union members (teachers in this case) decide to fork over some of their salary as union dues to pay the salaries of the administrators of their union. It is an entirely different, and obscene, thing for the board of education (i.e. the employer) to pay for the union administrators’ salaries.

That is pure insanity.

The case before the Supreme Court is known as the Levine case. It involve a teachers who worked for Hailybury school of Mines and an OPSEU member. In other words he was paid with public funds. Levine argued he should not have his union dues given to the NDP pro abortion causes and other causes he objected to.

Levine lost at the SCC. The judges said ” so long as it can be shown that the union is democratic in its internal affairs, it can spend it’s money however it likes. No restrictions.

Union dues are deducted from teacher salaries at source not from public funds. Teachers pay stubs show the deduction for union dues from the teachers pay.

Let’s be clear on this. Unions are financed by the private dues of their members. They are not financed by public money.

The logic of this is as follows:

1) We have a system of free collective bargaining.

2) The teachers bargained a free collective bargaining contract that included boards continued payment of the wages of local union officers.

3) the boards are free to attempt to remove it in future bargaining.

4) the boards and the union both agree that it is cheaper and more efficient to simply continue the pay of full time or in some cases part time local union officials.

5) There is no known objection. No petitions, no speeches by trustees, no objection from central organizations of trustees, no objection from ANY political parties, no objections from parents’ groups, no media outcry, ... nothing.

Doug, I have no idea what you’re going on about.

The issue at hand is that it’s wrong for a union executive to be paid directly by the taxpayers (i.e. board of education).

I’ll repeat my previous sentiments so it can become clearer for you. If the union members (teachers in this case) decide to fork over some of their salary as union dues to pay the salaries of the administrators of their union that’s OK.

However, it is an entirely different, and obscene, thing for the board of education to pay the union administrators’ salaries directly.

The lawsuit that’s been launched in Pennsylvania addresses the latter situation. And the latter situation has absolutely nothing to do with the Levine case according to your outline.

And if this is going on in Ontario, I hope someone takes the appropriate boards and union to court as well!

Teacher Unions A Parallel Government?

Conspiracy theories claim that secret groups are really behind most of the trouble-making in this world.  That is something that is not such a hush-hush topic anymore with whistle-blowers like Assange and Snowden revealing clandestine operations.

What we do know is that, in the field of public education and public service generally, teacher unions have considerable clout.  Some say they are THE power in public education. This power and influence is felt not only relating to the favorable benefits these unions extract through “free” collective bargaining but also in the policy and political realm. 

In education unions have considerable power relating to issues as curriculum, funding, management of schools, etc.  They also use considerable funds to support political work as in elections and mounting disruptive strikes in public services.  They are also opposed to parental choice and use considerable voice and energy, including the courts, to thwart, for example, charter schools, voucher plans and education savings accounts.

That is why the Friedrichs vs California Teachers Association case is considered important to watch. If there is to be a win for the Friedrichs side teacher union power would be somewhat curbed, as mandatory union membership would be turned to voluntary membership.  When Wisconsin enacted this change, half the teacher unionists dropped their memberships.

Some of the issues surrounding teachers and unions is summarized in this article about the Friedrichs case   http://edsource.org/2015/what-you-need-to-know-about-friedrichs-v-cta-before-supreme-court-on-fair-share-fees/89260?utm_source=Michael’s+daily+email+Oct.+21,+2015&utm_campaign=Daily_4-24-15&utm_medium=email

Tym

The teachers union represents the teachers. The elected school board represents the public, the taxpayers the parents, all of the public.

The board (read the public) signed a legally binding contract to pay the local leadership of the teachers union.

All the boards in Ontario do it. All the boards in Ontario have been doing for decades. With all of the public catholic French and English boards in Ontario I have never heard of a single trustee who opposed the provision in the contract.

Trustees in Ontario span the political spectrum from right to left. Political opposition to this is non existent.

Doug,

And I’m saying it’s asinine, morally corrupt, and definitely not in the best interests of the taxpayer.

If what you say is true, “All the boards in Ontario do it. All the boards in Ontario have been doing for decades”, then It’s time the public spoke up - via a lawsuit if necessary.

Our friends south of the border have no fear of speaking up for what’s right. It’s time more of us did the same - before Ontario completes its free fall into the next Greek banana republic.

Tym

The issue has been well known and we’ll understood by all trustees including very conservative trustees. Nobody cares. A contract is a contract. To be perfectly frank, people tend to spend their time on many far more contentious issue.

Doug,

So now that you admit the issue as I described exists, you try to justify it by saying “nobody” cares.

School board trustees and other political patsies may not care, but a lot of Ontario taxpayers care.

And lots of Ontario taxpayers know about McGuinty and Wynne’s corrupt dealings with gas plants, Ornge, and other issues too numerous to mention.

Someday karma will come home to roost for those crooks.

The case Doug refers to is called Lavigne v. OPSEU, and can be found here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii68/1991canlii68.html

The interesting point in Doug’s description of the case is “so long as it can be shown that the union is democratic in its internal affairs…”. An article by Michael Lynk on union democracy makes some interesting points in this regard. There is no legal framework for enforcing democracy in the internal affairs of unions; Lynk calls it an area of “judicial abstinence.” http://www.justlabour.yorku.ca/volume1/pdfs/jl_lynk.pdf

Many judges, like Doug, continue to believe that unions raise the standard of living. In fact, what they were designed to do is to save politicians from having to face down the big industrialists of their day to improve labour conditions by political means. Unions were a convenient tool, and the face-off between them and politicians was always a pageant to sustain political careers.

When collective bargaining moved into the public sector, the same pageant using the same lines continued, but it makes far less sense in this setting. People are starting to figure this out, and are acting accordingly. When they care enough, enough of them will go to court, and when enough of them go to court, the courts will begin to make changes in the script.

Tym

As you can see with the recent statements by Patrick Brown , I knew his father well, I’d moving the PC Party to the center. No more fights with teachers unions, no more threats to 100 000 jobs and no more talk of funding faith based schools. He says this talk cost the PC the last two elections.
If the PCs won’t take up these causes, who will I ask? Answer? Nobody.

On the legal matter, the Candian Supreme Court has been far more liberal than American courts and Justin Trudeau will be appointing the judges for the next 10 years

Doug,

So clearly your moral compass points the opposite direction. You like the current situation, and now gloat about the fact that it will be difficult to change given the current crop of corrupt people in power.

And if I interpret one of the previous posts correctly, you were a judge at one time? Now THAT’S scary!

Immorality Reaches Its Zenith With Teacher Unions

There are three courts where injustice is judged:  legal courts, courts of public opinion or the heavenly court of destiny — karma. 
 
The Bible (James 3:1) says:  “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”  If presumptuous teachers will be more harshly judged, won’t their protection agencies, the unions, be even more harshly dealt with?

Look up — rent-seeking teacher unions — and you’ll find a whole category of economics showing how teacher unions and their “insider” dealings (rent-seeking) lead to: dominance; lowering school productivity; efficiency-reducing; compromising democracy; higher taxes; extortionary practices; funding left-wing political groups; opposing choice and alternative schools; etc. 

This is an international behavior of teacher unions.  They learn from each other how to “game” their communities.

Newspaper eye-openers may garner 1000s of comments of outrage to little effect. Which of the three courts will finally judge and stop this man-made human disaster, which harms children and society?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-teachers-union-pushes-for-140-million-strike-fund/article29091123/

[Above is my comment, #100, to the G&M story.]

If that was from my comment, Tym, no - I didn’t mean to infer that Doug was a judge (although I have no idea if he was or is). I meant to infer that many judges hold the same beliefs he does.

Tym

I also have a moral compass. My moral compass says unions are the heart and soul of the middle class and the only instrument that stops us becoming a complete Plutocracy.

I believe the Sermon on the Mount the Beatitudes and the Biblical preferrential option for the poor tells us that Christianity and democratic socialism are essentially the same thing. I am my brothers keeper. Tommy Douglas came to my church when I was young and showed far more people than me what morality meant.

Unrestricted capitalism however is the opposite. It is based on greed and selfishness.

We all have our morality Tym. Mine is not the same as yours it seems. Insinuation that others are immoral if they don’t agree does not take us far.

Tym The only thing I ever judged was a public speaking contest.

I was a teacher, a professor, a school trustee, an education writer, and a teachers’ union official.

Doug,

Well no big surprise that we may have different moral compasses. I’m assuming Hugh Hefner’s compass is different than the Pope’s, LOL.

By the way, I’ve had the unfortunate experience of working with (not for long) management teams that tried to take advantage of shop floor employees by any means possible. It was unbelievable. And even though my personal beliefs are definitely capitalist, the experience cemented my belief that unions are necessary.

But that’s not the point.

This discussion is based on the premise that it is wrong that the board of education pays the salaries of the private union’s executive staff, instead of the union members’ dues financing those salaries.

So even though you may believe unions “are the heart and soul of the middle class”, the taxpayers who pay this sacred middle class should not be paying the union leaders who will ultimately be on opposing sides come negotiation time. That’s just insane. And obvious.

What’s fair and right can be spotted a mile away. Many prefer to ignore or lie about what they see, but it’s still there.

And the things you and your compass promote are definitely not right or fair for today’s education system.