Connect With Us!
Staying Connected with Social Media
By Manny Otiko | California Black Media
The Supreme Court struck a major blow to the power of public sector unions yesterday. In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that public sector unions could not collect dues from non-union members. Before the decision, workers who did not decide to join a union were still charged “agency fees” for services such as collective bargaining. (This describes the practice of large unions negotiating wages and benefits that affect all employees, regardless of their union membership.)
The ruling was motivated by a case between Mark Janus of Illinois and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Janus argued that the union supported collective bargaining, which was a political issue. He said since he was paying union fees, he was forced to support a political stance and that was a violation of his First Amendment rights.
This decision could affect public sector unions which usually support Democratic candidates. Many Republicans have railed against public sector unions for several reasons. Some of them don’t like the idea of state and federal workers being able to influence lawmakers about their salaries. Other Republicans have argued that charging non-members union dues is unfair.
The 5-4 decision was split along partisan lines with the liberal wing of the court voting against it and the conservative wing voting for it.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote that taking money from non-union members was unconstitutional.
"It is hard to estimate how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment. Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely," he said.
Justice Elena Kagan worried how the new ruling could affect public sector unions.
"State and local governments that thought agency fees furthered their interests will need to find new ways of managing their workforces," wrote Kagan. "Across the country, the relationships of public employees and employers will alter in both predictable and whole unexpected ways."
However, Senator John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa) supported the Supreme Court’s decision.
"I commend the United States Supreme Court for freeing public employees from paying mandatory union dues with the Janus decision. This decision will have a profound impact on the lives of many California employees who want the choice of where to spend their hard earned money without being forced to subsidize public employee unions that do not represent them or their beliefs,” he said.
But SEIU 721 based in Los Angeles said the Janus ruling would take away employees’ bargaining power. SEIU 721 is the largest public sector union in Southern California.
“By tricking workers into dropping their membership, greedy special interests will make sure workers have less power at the bargaining table – ultimately taking everything away in your contract,” said a news statement on its website. “Today’s decision is the culmination of a decades-long scheme by the greedy rich (who funded this court case and many others) to get rid of good union jobs once and for all by pitting workers against workers.”
The California Teachers Association (CTA) was also unhappy with the Janus ruling. The CTA said the Supreme Court had sided with wealthy interests over working people.
“Today’s ruling is an attack on working people that attempts to further rig the economy and that reverses four decades of precedent,” said CTA
Sorry for the bad news….
Connect With Us...
California schools are failing the vast majority of students.
By Bill Lucia
President and CEO, EdVoice | Special to California Black Media
Close your eyes for a moment. Imagine if only one in six African-American students in an entire state could read at grade level. Imagine if fewer than one in five Latino students were performing at grade level in math. Imagine if less than one third of students were proficient in either subject. Would you be outraged?
Wake up! This is the reality of California public education in 2018. The results from the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) – better known as the Nation’s Report Card – paint a disturbing picture: California schools are failing the vast majority of students.
In fourth and eighth grade math and reading – according to this month’s NAEP results – California once again falls near the bottom of the nation. Eighth grade girls rank 41st in math. Latino eighth graders rank 43rd in reading. Low-income fourth graders rank 50th in math. Low-income students represent nearly 60 percent of California’s K-12 enrollment.
Administered since 1990, the NAEP is highly regarded because it provides periodic snapshots of student performance while tracking progress over time. The latest results are flat, with a persistent achievement gap, and only minor gains in 8th grade reading. These results confirm what we already know from our own annual statewide testing -- millions of students in California are below grade level in math and reading.
The lack of significant progress for students of color, now a majority of California’s school-aged children, should make failure to close gaps deeply troubling. African American eighth graders’ average reading score is 28 points lower than whites. That gap has not significantly improved since 1998 – 20 years ago. Latino fourth graders scored an average of 23 points lower in math than whites – a gap that hasn’t budged since 2000.
Some blame dismal performance on inadequate school funding. While California could prioritize more resources for education, the state’s per-pupil funding situation is made far worse when no one really knows how the money is spent. Since the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was adopted four years ago, the state has carved out $20 billion in new funding to educate low-income students, English learners and foster youth and is now slated to spend $96 billion per year on K-12 education, or $450,000 for every 28 kids.
In fact, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, adjusted for inflation, California’s per-pupil funding level is now at its highest level in 30 years. The California Department of Education disperses funds to each of the state’s 1,024 school districts. But the there is no uniform transparency requirement to show parents and local stakeholders how funding is spent beyond the district headquarters.
When it comes to extra help for kids in poverty and English learners (disproportionately Latino and African American) nobody knows if the extra state grants going to districts are reaching the teachers and kids in the classrooms that need the most help. Without financial and program transparency within districts there’s no ability for parents and stakeholders in the local community to work collaboratively with educators to overcome the inertia of the bureaucratic status quo in persistently failing schools.
The reality of continuing dark clouds of low academic performance on the horizon for the millions of students of color and English learners in California public schools is reason enough to be concerned that state funding is getting swallowed up by bureaucracy before it reaches the classroom. Sacramento simply writes a check to each school district and wishes them good luck and buena suerte.
If California doesn’t embrace transparency and bring sunshine to what’s broken so it can get fixed, we will not be able to close the persistent achievement gaps plaguing millions of students in poverty and English learners in California public schools. Is the district helping teachers in schools with high proportions of disadvantaged students? Equitably allocating retirement liabilities across schools? Nobody knows.
By examining how money is being allocated and spent, everyone can better determine together which uses of resources are most effective for students and invest more in those. Otherwise, we shouldn’t be surprised if academic proficiency stagnates for another 20 years, especially for students of color against whom, recent data again tragically reveals, the system is obviously already stacked.
Latino Victory Project Statement on SCOTUS Muslim Ban Decision
Washington, D.C. – Latino Victory Project issued the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s discriminatory travel ban targeting travelers, immigrants, and refugees from Muslim-majority countries.
“Time and again, President Trump has demonstrated that his policies are motivated by deep-seeded bigotry against immigrants and communities of color. The Muslim ban is an integral piece of this Administration’s plan to reverse the demographic trends that have made America one of the most diverse and vibrant countries in the world,” said Mayra Macias, political director for Latino Victory Project. “The Supreme Court’s decision today to endorse the president’s xenophobic agenda sets a dangerous precedent and will have devastating consequences for Muslim-American families.”
Become part of the voice community
Join us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Connect with us on Linkedln
Connect with us on Pinterest
Copyright © 2018 • central valley voice online news • A division of Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
PO Box 1298 • Winton, CA 95388 • (209) 357-3718 • email: email@example.com
Get Central Valley Voice Delivered
A Minority Publication
A Unifying Factor In The Valley’s Community