The EFF reports that Attorney General Rob McKenna has issued a formal opinion that "State and local public employees, including teachers, have no legally protected right to strike" in this state.
The AG's opinion gives a green light to bill HB 2808, sponsored by Rep. Toby Nixon and other House Republicans, that would impose specific penalties on striking teachers and their unions. This bill deserves our support. And this time I can say without irony: it's for the children.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 01, 2006 02:15 PM | Email ThisState unions do, however, have the power to influence politicians. Winess Queen Chrissie re-paying the unions for their support by sending out all those pink slips to state workers who decline to be union members.
Posted by: Libertarian on February 1, 2006 02:39 PMThis is why you vote Republican - Republicans love this country, this state and will fight for the people!!!
I am so proud of my Attorney General!!!
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 1, 2006 02:56 PM2003 Marysville
Who was AG? Mrs. Christine "Chris" Gregoire
What did she do? Fire off one - just one - letter to the teachers' union and school district saying that they could for all practical purposes run thru the kids' summer break before she and Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry Bergeson took action.
Folks, this is why we vote GOP!!!
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 1, 2006 03:13 PMThe D's would never do more than offer lip service to the fact that every court considering the question has done as the AG has now done -- decided that the teachers don't have the legal right to strike.
The teachers strike anyway, and they have nothing to fear from the D's.
If the majority of people in WA think the teachers ought to say in May whether they will be at their jobs in September (just as the districts must commit to continuing their employment as of mid-May for the coming September), and then actually show up and fulfill their teaching duties, then the GOP has offered the obvious solution to make sure the teachers do as they should.
True: When the D's are the majority party in the legislature and have a member of their party in the governor's mansion, a bill like this has little, if any, chance of being enacted.
But isn't that the point of having two major political parties? When there's a problem, and one party prefers to ignore it, shouldn't the other party offer to solve it?
If the voters want the problem solved, and if they believe the offered solution is appropriate, they would then know whom to put in office.
If that's not why we hold elections, we should cancel them until further notice and save the money and aggravation of campaigns and managing elections.
If the GOP legislators are supposed to sit on their hands waiting for some distant future day on which they are in the majority, what reasons would the voters have to vote for them? If they are supposed to offer bills only when there is substantial support from the D's, what would make the GOP solutions different from the D's?
Posted by: Micajah on February 1, 2006 03:46 PMWhile you might be right, we must support Toby Nixon in his effort even if we are not in his district.
The only way to change the insanity in Olympia is to do something different, like get involved.
Posted by: TH on February 1, 2006 03:47 PMI say: Let's raise some heck and block like Seahawks for Toby to get this bill passed!!!
GO SEAHAWKS!!! GO REPUBLICANS!!!
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 1, 2006 04:04 PMNot sure McKenna should get much credit for this...he is just validating what the courts have already decided.
Posted by: Palouse on February 1, 2006 04:13 PMHaving an AGO means, and this is from an acquaintance of mine who is an Assistant Attorney General, you can take this to any judge and they will consider this as "persuasive" evidence. Translation = they will respect this and be very, very unlikely to buck this.
We will see just how... off the WEA is soon enough. I notice they're on the "Unsound Institutions" list... and for good reasons.
Right now, A.G. Rob McKenna just became the friend of the K-12 student... and the family of the K-12 student. I was honored to vote, doorbell and opine for him and will happily do so again in 2008!!!
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 1, 2006 04:29 PMA “TEETCHERS” STRIKE WAS FAR UNDER HER AS WELL AS HER STAFFS RADAR… I KNOW, IF SHE KNEW ABOUT THE STRIKE, SHE WOULD HAVE RESPONDED…HEY …RIGHT!!!
FOR SALE: 1000 ACERS OF LAND ON LAKE (DRY) ONLY TWO-HOUR DRIVE ON PRIVET RD. (DIRT) FROM PALM SPRINGS, MUST SELL. LEAVING TOWN NO OFFER REFUSED…
IF THAT QUESTION IS ASKED OF ME… SON NUMBER ONE HAS A B.S. AND AN M.S. DEGREE FROM SAM HUSTON INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY IN ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY AND WORKS FOR BOEING. SON NUMBER TWO HAS A B.S. IN COMPUTER SCIENCE ALSO FROM SAM HUSTON; HE IS A FREELANCE VIDEO GAME DESIGNER. DAUGHTER NUMBER ONE WILL GRADUATE FROM BYU THIS YEAR. DAUGHTER NUMBER TWO ATTENDS PRIVET SCHOOL IN TACOMA.
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on February 1, 2006 07:19 PMIt means the school boards can bully the unions, make demands, and the teachers can't do anything.
The way it should be in the first place. Power belongs in the hands of elected officials, not bureacrats.
Trivia question: who ended Bill Backlund's political career?
Rob McKenna plays the reformer role well, but is one of the most corrupt public servants in WA State history. Luckily for you guys, he is smart, and is quite good at getting away with it.
Posted by: GarySea on February 2, 2006 12:18 AMhttp://www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=365
Sounds like a terrorist-hugger to me.
Posted by: GarySea on February 2, 2006 12:21 AMCharles Hasse, president of the Washington Education Association, respectfully disagreed with McKenna and said neither the Legislature nor state courts has ever established a definitive rule concerning teachers' strikes.In his opinion, McKenna mentioned several state laws prohibiting public employee strikes but Hasse, whose organization represents K-12 teachers statewide, said each of those laws specifically targets a certain kind of state employee, such as police or firefighters, and K-12 teachers have never been mentioned in anti-strike laws.
"It just seems to us that people do have a right to collectively withhold their labor in the absence of a fair agreement. The Legislature repeatedly has chosen not to directly address the issue in the law," Hasse said Wednesday.
Will be great to see one union (state patrol for example) refuse to arrest the other union (leachers) while we pay for the whole sad circus after we get a court order from the last judge in the state that can think rationally.
If the WEA was so sure of their position, why haven't they appealed higher than the superior courts?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 2, 2006 08:49 AMGreat comment, but I don't see teachers being arrested. I do however see them garnering injunctions if they go on strike - injunctions that if violated could cost them thousands, if not millions collectively.
I also see counter-strike litigation. Last autumn, British Columbia suffered under an illegal teachers strike province-wide. The Canadian Taxpayers' Federation has filed a class action lawsuit to recoup costs for taxpayer$. EFF also had a good policy highlighter on the BC illegal teachers' strike.
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 2, 2006 08:55 AMThat's because the WEA leaders are cowards and want to hide behind their flimsy rhetoric. Rhetoric General Rob "RMK" McKenna just pushed down like RFK did for civil rights 40+ years ago!
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 2, 2006 08:58 AMTeacher strikes are rare in our state, but when they happen, there are legitimate reasons.
Posted by: rwood on February 2, 2006 01:41 PMrwood@washingtonea.org
Rich Wood of the Washington Education Association just spoke a day later.
Rich, there is NO legitmate reason for violating the law, a law set by almost 30 judges that your association has never, never appealed.
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 2, 2006 02:04 PMYear School District Strike Length Court Action? Outcome
1972 Aberdeen 3 days Yes Injunction
1973 Evergreen 10 days Yes Injunction; Union leaders jailed 45 days
1973 Elma 6 days No Replacement teachers used
1973 Edmonds 1 day Yes Injunction
1974 Mead 8 days Yes Injunction; schools remained open
1974 Yelm 1 day No Schools remained open
1974 Goldendale 1 day Yes Injunction
1974 Central Kitsap 1 day No Planned 1 day walkout
1974 Kelso 2 days No Strike ended before court hearing; schools remained open
1974 Federal Way 19 days Yes Injunction; Teachers defied injunction; schools remained open
1974 Tacoma 12 days Yes Injunction; Teachers defied injunction; schools opened 1 day with replacements
1974 Mukilteo 2 days Yes Court ordered delay of school year
1975 Clover Park 13 days Yes Court appointed special master
1975 West Valley 12 days Yes Injunction; Teachers defied injunction
1975 South Kitsap (lockout) 3 days No School year delayed
1976 Evergreen (lockout) 5 days No School year delayed
1976 Everett 5 days Yes Injunction
1976 Seattle 12 days Yes Injunction
1977 Sunnyside 1 day No Teachers staged sit-in
1977 Renton 1 day No N/A
1977 Bainbridge Island 4 days Yes Injunction; Teachers defied injunction
1977 Central Valley 6 days Yes Injunction; Teachers defied injunction
1977 Methow Valley 6 days Yes Injunction; Teachers defied injunction
1977 Ellensburg 1 day No N/A
1977 Granger 2 days No N/A
1977 Omak 6 days Yes Injunction; Teachers defied injunction
1977 Aberdeen 7 days Yes Injunction
1978 Leavenworth 23 days Yes Injunction; Schools remained open
1978 Raymond 2 days No N/A
1978 Tacoma 29 days Yes Injunction
1978 Central Kitsap 5 days Yes No injunction issued; Schools opened with replacements
1978 Riverview 1 day No N/A
1978 University Place 14 days No N/A
1978 Seattle 21 days Yes Injunction
1978 Everett 13 days Yes Injunction
1978 Oak Harbor 4 days No N/A
1978 Lake Washington 2 days No N/A
1979 Northshore 1 day No N/A
1979 West Valley 9 days No Schools remained open
1979 Pasco 13 days Yes Court delayed ruling; Schools opened with replacements
1979 Spokane 23 days Yes Unknown (no comment on whether injunction was issued)
1979 Renton (lockout) 4 days No N/A
1980 Riverview 7 days No Schools opened with replacements
1980 Castle Rock 3 days No N/A
1980 Bellevue 20 days No N/A
1980 Auburn 4 days No N/A
1981 Richland 1 day No N/A
1981 Evergreen (strike + lockout) 12 days No Lockout for 1 week then the strike
1982 Steilacoom 0.5 day No N/A
1983 Steilacoom 1 day No N/A
1983 Cheney 17 days No Schools opened with replacements
1983 Stanwood 12 days No Schools opened with replacements
1983 Clover Park 21 days Yes Injunction
1983 Snoqualmie Valley 3 days No Schools remained open
1983 Renton 6 days No N/A
1983 Highline 1 day No N/A
1983 Sunnyside 5 days No N/A
1984 Longivew 2 days No N/A
1985 Seattle 24 days No N/A
1986 Steilacoom 15 days No N/A
1986 North Kitsap 5 days No N/A
1987 Edmonds 29 days Yes Settled on day of court injunction hearing
1987 Renton 8 days No N/A
1989 Moses Lake (lockout) 2 days No N/A
1989 Bellingham 12 days No N/A
1990 Lake Washington 10 days No N/A
1990 University Place 8 days No N/A
1990 Castle Rock 1 day No N/A
1990 Mukilteo 32 days Yes Injunction; Teachers defied injunction
1990 Yakima 1 day Yes Injunction
1992 Kennewick 2 days No N/A
1992 Pateros 6 days No N/A
1993 Soap Lake 8 days No N/A
1994 Bremerton 16 days Yes Injunction; Teachers defied injunction
1994 Federal Way 6 days No N/A
1994 Concrete 18 days No N/A
1995 Fife 37 days Yes Injunction; Teachers defied injunction
1998 Lake Stevens 13 days No N/A
2001 Prosser 1 day No N/A
2001 Hoquiam 14 days No N/A
2002 Issaquah 20 days Yes Injunction; Teachers voted to defy injunction but settled prior to first contempt
2002 Snohomish 21 days No N/A
2003 Lake Stevens 14 days No N/A
2003 Marysville 49 days Yes Injunction
Table is from Public Employment Relations Commission, BTW.
Rich, I'd like to ask the following:
a) Why hasn't the WEA appealed a Superior Court Judge's injunction?
b) Why should I condone you striking while fellow Washingtonians would be denied the same public education he is entitled to?
c) Why did the WEA run to British Columbia, Canada and aid citizens of a sworn ally of America in breaking their laws last autumn?
Rich, I will hold my nose and vote "YES" for the school levy. But I'd like answers please to these now that you've came to our little forum.
Thanks.
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 2, 2006 02:11 PMI guess obeying the law doesn't matter if you're a member of the WEA.
Yes, there are problems in our schools. But illegal teacher strikes only exacerbate the problem and alienate the taxpayer$ whom approve school levies, Rich.
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 3, 2006 09:11 AMThe thing that cracks me up about the type of comments made by rwood is how nonsensical and internally contradictory they are. If the WEA is such a useful and important union to teachers, given all of the overwhelming power they have garnered for themselves, why are they so utterly incapable of promoting so-called teachers issues?
rwood says, "Washington's per-pupil spending is 42nd in the nation. Our class sizes are ranked 46th. The average Washington teacher's base salary is dead last among West Coast states."
Assuming these numbers are true . . . it seems clear that we need to rid our state of the union and put a different system in place that will actually improve education. Why continue to promote a union that is failing?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on February 4, 2006 04:03 PMIn tune with your earlier post, it is hilarious how tone-deaf liberals are about any debate.
Rich Wood states a lie, and then leaves because whjatever he says is supposed to be good enough.
As you say, "Aaah, deafening silence. Life is good." Silence speaks like a thousand words.
For Wood, obeying the law doesn't matter if you're a member of the WEA. Rich Wood is a liar and he will be held accountable for his lies.