The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against the Service Employees International Union in the Knox case, and its effort to forcibly collect union dues from non-members for political campaign activities without their permission has plenty of ramifications in the school reform universe. For one, it will likely lead more Republican governors to support or sign legislation that would allow for teachers and others who aren’t members of National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers affiliates to opt out of paying such charges — and, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s victory earlier this month over those attempting to recall him from office, will even convince them to go further and ban forced dues payments altogether. This, in turn, puts more pressure on centrist Democrat counterparts and their reform allies to consider doing the same thing. As Dropout Nation Editor RiShawn Biddle noted earlier this month, abolishing forced dues collections strips away the money that sustains NEA and AFT influence, weakening them just enough for reformers on both sides of the political aisle to finally support reform-minded candidates and advance systemic overhauls for the decade to come. Given this reality, centrist Democrats can’t help but consider pursuing the same course themselves (or quietly allowing Republicans to do the work for them on their behalf).
One way centrist Democrat reformers can play upon the forced dues collection issue is playing upon the money-is-free-speech argument articulated in the majority ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito. After all, it makes sense. Forcing those teachers who aren’t members of a union to financially support candidates they don’t want to back in any way is as much a stifling of the voice of individual teachers as In fact, reformers can go even further by proclaiming that when NEA and AFT affiliates are being irresponsible, both politically and financially, when they use member dollars in ways that have nothing to do with improving conditions in the districts in which rank-and-file members work. Such an approach, which also plays off on the litany of financial scandals that have plagued AFT and NEA affiliates over the past couple of years, would resonate strongly with younger, more reform-minded teachers who don’t think the old-school industrial model embraced by the two unions works in their favor. One can imagine surrogates for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, whose is in a tough fight with the AFT’s Second City local, using such an argument, as could reform outfits such as Educators4Excellence that are working on behalf of younger teachers.
But let’s be clear, centrist Democrats certainly have their concerns about ending forced union dues. After all, the NEA and AFT remain the biggest financiers within Democratic Party politics — and even reform-minded Democrats such as Colorado U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet has had to seek out teachers’ union largesse in order to win close campaigns. Cutting off a source of funding, no matter how much it hurts other reform efforts, is tough to do. But as the Democrat’s collapse during the last election cycle two years ago has shown, the marriage of convenience between the party and the NEA and AFT no longer works for either side. This provides centrist Democrat reformers with a new opportunity to become the prime financiers of Democrat candidates; given the considerable dollars in the hands of big-name reformers such as Bill Gates, Eli Broad and former Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-No Labels guy Michael Bloomberg, along with the free hand on the campaign finance front resulting from the Citizens United ruling two years ago, reformers could become a more-prominent source of funding for Democrat candidates so long as they choose to do so.
The Knox ruling may prove to be one more decision that weakens NEA and AFT power. And reformers, especially centrist Democrats, should take advantage of the opportunity.