pudge's Journal: Teachers Union Violates Children's Rights

In Washington State it is the paramount duty of the state to provide education to its children. To not do so violates the right of the children. For that reason and others, it is illegal for public school teachers to strike. That doesn't stop the teachers union from doing it, though, and as a result, violating the right of the children to get that education.

The teachers in Kent are currently violating the rights of their district's children.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Contract

[Talinom]

I may be way off of base right here but as I understand it the teachers are under contract to the state (through the district) to perform educational duties as requested. Currently the teachers in Kent are not under contract so are not subjected to union busing legislation. Current employees under contract are.

How can I be sued for not doing a job I do not have a contract for? That said if they are under contract currently then they may be breaking the law. Some contracts even have in them a non-strike c

Re:

[pudge]

I may be way off of base right here but as I understand it the teachers are under contract to the state (through the district) to perform educational duties as requested. Currently the teachers in Kent are not under contract so are not subjected to union busing legislation. Current employees under contract are.

Not quite, no. They are not under contract, but they are still employed. As you say, they can quit, but they can't strike.

This has gone to the courts many times in this state, and every time, the union has lost: the courts consistently and unequivocally reject a right to strike (as opposed to a right to quit).

Now, that said, there is, I believe, some confusion over whether they have a RIGHT to strike, versus being DISALLOWED from striking. Obviously different, and there's some debate in the law (though n