What the teachers’ unions did was not merely harmful. It was illegal.
Brittany Bernstein reports that parents in Massachusetts are suing local teachers’ union leaders for the harm they caused by going on strike last year. “When teachers go on strike, they are placing their own demands ahead of their students’ needs,” their attorney said. “Families endured real harm, and they deserve justice. These unions need to be held accountable to show others nationwide that these actions will not be tolerated.”
He’s absolutely correct, but as he also acknowledged, what the teachers’ unions did was not merely harmful. It was illegal.
Strikes by public-school teachers are illegal in 37 states. Massachusetts is one of them. In fact, all public employees in Massachusetts are prohibited from striking.
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E, Section 9A(a) says, “No public employee or employee organization shall engage in a strike, and no public employee or employee organization shall induce, encourage or condone any strike, work stoppage, slowdown or withholding of services by such public employees.”
The way punishment works for breaking this law is that the employer files a petition with the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations. The Beverly, Mass., school district did that. Then, the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (CERB) determines whether an illegal strike occurred. Considering that the union publicly voted to strike, that was easy.
The CERB’s report on the Beverly strike shows complete disregard for the law by the teachers’ union and its president, Julia Brotherton:
At this point, the CERB report says, “In light of the Union’s representation that it has run out of monies to pay the fines, it appears that some other order besides coercive fines is required to bring the Union into compliance with the Law.” Correct. This is where, if Massachusetts cared about its students or taxpayers, a criminal prosecution of the union leaders would have begun.
Brotherton and any other union leader encouraging the strike (as encouraging a public-sector strike is also illegal and was forbidden by the court orders) should have been arrested for criminal contempt of court. Persistent disobedience of multiple court orders in denying public services can and should be treated as a crime against the community.
But Massachusetts union leaders know that their Democratic allies in government aren’t really going to enforce the laws on the books against them. So they behave as the Beverly teachers’ union did.
The union is fully aware that its actions were illegal. It didn’t dispute the findings of the CERB. And a Massachusetts Teachers Association FAQ document clearly states, “According to the current law, it is illegal for public employees or employee organizations to engage in a strike.”
The FAQ document goes on to describe the enforcement process and concludes, “If the injunction is granted, failure to comply with the judge’s order could result in a finding of contempt, which could be accompanied by an assessment of coercive fines and, in very rare instances, even jail time.” The union willfully and knowingly broke the law, but it knows actual punishment for its crimes is “very rare,” so it breaks the law anyway.
Imagine the outrage if a corporation behaved this way. Such outrage would be justified. But even if a corporation disregarded the law just as recklessly, the consequences of the union’s lawlessness are worse, because the union is a government-backed monopoly. Parents of students in the Beverly school district don’t have anywhere else to go to receive public education.
That means the government has an especially strong obligation to enforce the law against illegally striking public-sector unions. But Massachusetts politicians would rather curry their favor than serve the public. It’s disgraceful.
And also, abolish public-sector unions.