Dear Commons Community,

Dan Kaufman, a writer and musician, has an op-ed piece in today’s New York Times, commenting on Governor Scott Walker and the “destruction of progressive Wisconsin”. The piece concentrates on Walker’s recent proposals to change the civil service system. Here is an excerpt:

“SHORTLY after his exit from an abbreviated presidential run last fall, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin returned to a more successful undertaking: dismantling what remains of his state’s century-old progressive legacy.

Last month, Mr. Walker signed a bill that allowed corporations to donate directly to political parties. On the same day, he signed a law that replaced the state’s nonpartisan Government Accountability Board, a body that is responsible for election oversight and enforcing ethics codes, with two commissions made up of partisan appointees. Now a new bill supported by Mr. Walker, which is expected to clear the Republican-dominated Legislature with a Senate vote soon, threatens to corrupt Wisconsin’s Civil Service.

In 1905, Wisconsin became the third state to enact Civil Service reform, helping establish it as a national model for clean government. The reforms were one of the many achievements of Gov. Robert M. La Follette Sr., who later founded the Progressive Party and ran for president on its ticket. But Mr. Walker’s new Civil Service bill replaces anonymous exams with résumés, opening the door to political or racial bias that would prove almost impossible to detect because personnel files are not part of the public record.

The bill lengthens the probationary period for new employees, during which they can be fired for any reason (or no reason). And it centralizes hiring within the Department of Administration, the most politicized agency in the state’s government. Incoming résumés would be judged by one of the governor’s appointees.
Besides rewriting the hiring process for new employees and the work rules that govern some 30,000 current state workers, the bill highlights Wisconsin’s role as a laboratory for a national conservative strategy to destroy the labor movement. That experiment began in 2011 with the passage of Act 10, which all but ended collective bargaining for the state’s public employees and helped inspire more than a hundred bills across the country attacking public-sector unions.

Last year, Mr. Walker signed a “right-to-work” law that weakened private-sector unions and also marked a significant national turning point: Half of the 50 states are now right-to-work. A national right-to-work bill, which already has 18 co-sponsors in the Senate, including Senator Ted Cruz, appears increasingly possible under a Republican president.

By adding the Civil Service bill, Mr. Walker brings Wisconsin closer to the achievement of a long-sought goal of the libertarian right: universal “at-will employment.” Unlike union workers or state employees, whose collective bargaining agreements or Civil Service rules generally require employers to demonstrate “just cause” for them to be fired, at-will employees can be terminated at any time for any reason. At-will employment is promoted by the Heritage Foundation and American Legislative Exchange Council, which disseminates model bills to state legislators benefiting its corporate members and conservative private backers.”

Governor Walker has brought much pain to the people and especially the workers in Wisconsin. He and his legacy will be vilified for years to come.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

This past week, the media focused on the Republican presidential debate with so much negativity directed at President Obama and his policies.  New York Times columnist, Timothy Egan, yesterday reflected on the President’s accomplishments.

“… Obama can shape only so much of his own legacy. A big part of the 44th president’s place in the national narrative will depend on what happens to the forces of darkness that were unleashed in his time — things that can’t be quantified by a government agency.

Much of the country is now more openly intolerant, quick to hate and nasty. One reaction to Obama has been the rise of an opposition party that is a home for xenophobes, defeatists and alarmists. They are the Eeyore Party with a snarl. As we heard again during the Republican debate on Thursday, Obama’s opponents are drawn to the “siren call of the angriest voices,” as Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina artfully put it. If the majority follows those voices, the Obama presidency will shoulder a sizable amount of the blame.

Is that really his fault? Did his presidency give rise to a bigoted billionaire with know-nothing followers? Part of the ugliness seems a reaction to the straitjacket of political correctness, which preceded Obama, and got worse in some corridors, mainly academia. But it may also be that the country was not ready for a transformational president; rather than sweep away the last racial barrier, his years in office showed just how deep-rooted the sentiment behind those barriers remains.

These are tricky questions, ones that cannot be answered with certainty. But give Obama, the rare politician who is prone to honest self-reflection, credit for raising the issues himself. One of the “regrets of my presidency,” he said on Tuesday, was that the “rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better.”

Could Obama, with that first-class intellect to go with a first-class temperament, with that pitch-perfect sense of humor, have been a better schmoozer and deal maker? Certainly. He was never very good at hiding his condescension for Republican leaders. But that party was united in a single goal — to defeat him at every turn.

Republicans who would not applaud the creation of 14 million jobs, an unemployment rate cut in half, 17 million people given health care, a global climate change pact, the strongest military in the world and a rousing call for a “moonshot” to cure cancer are incapable of taking a fair measure of Obama’s achievements.

This Congress is done with him. That was as clear as the blank prairie stare on the face of House Speaker Paul Ryan. What was a dysfunctional, bickering relationship is now a divorce. Call in the lawyers. Obama could propose Grandmother Appreciation Day and not get a single vote from Republicans because, well, he proposed it.”

Well-stated!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

CUNY’s Professional Staff Congress updated its membership today on the draconian CUNY budget reductions called for by Governor Andrew Cuomo earlier this week. Below is a news brief on the status of the negotiations between Governor Cuomo and NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio.’

Tony

————————————–

Dear PSC members,

Yesterday, the mayor responded forcefully to governor Cuomo’s plan to shift responsibility for funding 30% of CUNY senior colleges from the state to New York City. New York Times and Daily News editorial boards weighed in, and by the end of the day, the governor and the mayor were talking about working together to find “efficiencies” at CUNY. The PSC-CUNY contract and funding for some retroactive pay remains part of the discussion.

“Cuomo to Continue Shrinking State’s Share of CUNY’s Costs” ran this morning in the New York Times. The article exposes the real story about CUNY–that the University has been subject to a long history of underfunding, which has continued under Cuomo. Here are a few excerpts:

…But the budget’s trumpeting of a $6.9 billion “investment” in CUNY and the State University of New York system papers over a decline in overall state financing over the past several years, leaving the CUNY unions torn between cheering for Mr. Cuomo’s decision to make money available for a possible labor agreement and protesting what amounts to a $485 million cut in state funding….

Barbara Bowen, president of the Professional Staff Congress, said the squabbling between the city and state over who should pay for what obscured a more urgent problem.

Responding to a persistent budget shortfall that stood at about $51 million last year, CUNY has cut down on courses, jettisoned part-time faculty members and skimmed money from student services and even laboratory supplies. What classes remain are getting larger, Ms. Bowen said, and faculty members frustrated by the lack of raises have moved on to other jobs.

“It’s just a constant, constant austerity, even though we’re way past the recession,” she said. “That’s why we say that the discussion should be about increasing resources to CUNY after this long starvation, not just who’s going to take responsibility for already inadequate funding.”

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZAURJ1-lHc[/youtube]

Dear Commons Community,

Last night’s Republican presidential nominee debate was one for the ages.  The Fox News moderators fed the candidates lots of red meat questions for the candidates to spout nasty rhetoric at President Obama and at each other.  National security, terrorism, the economy, immigration, and gun control were the main topics.  Education was mentioned once by Marco Rubio and Chris Christie both panning the Common Core Curriculum.  However, the moment that was most riveting for me was the exchange between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz for the second time this week bashed New York “values” as pro-choice, gay marriage, Wall Street, and a liberal media.  In rebuttal, Donald Trump brushed off the criticism by invoking the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. “When the world trade center came down I saw something that no place on earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York,” he said.  Trump went on to mention the people who gave their lives that day and concluded with:  “Mr. Cruz what you said was very insulting.”  In the split screen, a viewer could see that Cruz was floored by Trump’s response and left speechless.

A win for Trump and a big loss for Cruz!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The New York Times has a page one article this morning exposing what might be a serious problem for Senator Ted Cruz’s Republican presidential nomination. Here is an excerpt:

“…in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago.

A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign. What it does show, however, is that in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained a low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose.

Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns.”

I am sure that other Republican candidates and especially Donald Trump will jump all over this revelation.  The debate tonight should be a gem.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

New York Governor Cuomo yesterday gave his state of the state address yesterday that includes highlights of his Executive Budget proposals.  The New York Times has an excellent summary.  However, Politico had an article last night that focused entirely on what the Governor’s budget proposals mean for the City University of New York.  The full text of the article appears below.  A critical element of the Governor’s budget is that a portion of state funding ($485 million) for CUNY senior colleges be assumed by the City of New York. This would undo four decades of full funding by the State of New York for the senior colleges.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio might be amenable and will have the next move on this.  My sense is that it will not be an easy negotiation between the Governor, the Mayor, and the State Legislature.

Tony 

=============================

Politico

CUNY cuts would fund union contracts under Cuomo budget!

By Conor Skelding

6:26 p.m. | Jan. 13, 2016

Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to cut $485 million in state funding to the City University of New York and wants the city to make up the difference, according to his executive budget.

The state would then redirect $240 million from its cuts toward settling long-expired contracts with CUNY’s unions, per the plan.

Under the budget’s cost-sharing arrangement, the city would “pay a share of financial support that aligns with the City’s participation in the governance of CUNY.”

Under the state’s education law, the governor appoints 10 trustees to the CUNY board and the city five. But in fiscal year 2015’s adopted budget, the state provided $1.2 billion in operating funding to CUNY’s senior colleges, whereas the city paid only $32.3 million. (Tuition and other revenue accounted for $1 billion.)

That set-up “dates back to a time when New York City was experiencing a fiscal crisis,” according to Cuomo’s budget briefing book[link.capitalnewyork.com].

“New York City is no longer in a fiscal crisis — it ended 2015 with a multi-billion dollar surplus and billions in reserves,” the book said. “Commensurate with the percentage of CUNY appointments, the Budget requires that the City of New York assume a 30 percent share of CUNY senior college net operating and debt service expenses, totaling $485 million in the 2016-17 City fiscal year.”

At a press conference Wednesday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said he anticipated having “some specific concern” with the arrangement but had not yet had time to “read the fine print.”

According to the governor’s briefing book, enacting the arrangement would let the state “provide $240 million from the General Fund to CUNY to support retroactive salary increases needed to ensure fair and affordable agreements with CUNY’s labor unions.”

Tens of thousands of faculty, professional staff and non-professional staff have worked for six years without a contract and five without a contractual raise.

“We welcome and hope to build on the Governor’s acknowledgement of the need to provide funding for retroactive raises for CUNY’s 25,000 faculty and staff — who have not had a raise in six years — but are alarmed at what appears to be a massive funding cut,” Professional Staff Congress president Barbara Bowen said in a statement. “We look forward to working constructively with the governor and the Legislature in the coming weeks to restore full funding for CUNY and enable the resolution of our contract.”

Rudy Orozco, a spokesman for DC37, which also represents many CUNY employees, said he would have a statement Thursday.

CUNY spokesman Mike Arena said in a statement, “We are deeply grateful for the support of both the state and the city.”

In his Wednesday address, Cuomo did mention the plan, placed last in the higher education section of the briefing book.

His budget also gives the trustees of CUNY and SUNY the authority to keep raising tuition year by year, as they requested.

The so-called “rational” or “predictable” tuition plans had allowed for five years of $300 increases since 2011. Cuomo’s budget would extend that authority for another five years. (In-state tuition at SUNY and CUNY is currently just under $6,500. It has risen by $1,500 since 2011.)

“Additional revenue generated by any tuition increase could need to be put in a ‘lockbox’ to support faculty, improve instruction and provide tuition credits for TAP-eligible students,” the book said.

The budget also extends state Tuition Assistance Program grants to undocumented students. Currently, they are open only to citizens.

It also expands performance funding at CUNY and SUNY and provides $15 million for a clean energy workforce development program at SUNY, $5 million for apprenticeships at SUNY and $1.5 million to increase services at community colleges.

In a statement, SUNY chancellor Nancy Zimpher said Cuomo had proposed “an ambitious education agenda.”

His budget does not include “maintenance of effort,” which would require that the state guarantee certain annual increases such as collective bargaining costs, rent and utilities.

SUNY Student Assembly president Tom Mastro said in a statement he was “disappointed” the governor did not include that provision.

“When the Governor vetoed the state support bill passed by the legislature, he made it clear that it would be revisited during budget negotiations. Well, we’re ready to talk,” he said.

Dear Commons Community,

President Obama gave his last state of the union address last night.  It is hard to believe that his tenure in the White House is coming to an end. The last state of the union for an outgoing president is basically just a rah-rah talk with little chance of proposals being enacted during his lame-duck year.  Still President Obama was uplifting to a degree.  The New York Times has a good summary (see below). Of interest to readers of this blog, Obama called again for more education investment specifically:

“We agree that real opportunity requires every American to get the education and training they need to land a good-paying job. The bipartisan reform of No Child Left Behind was an important start, and together, we’ve increased early childhood education, lifted high school graduation rates to new highs, and boosted graduates in fields like engineering. In the coming years, we should build on that progress, by providing Pre-K for all, offering every student the hands-on computer science and math classes that make them job-ready on day one, and we should recruit and support more great teachers for our kids.

And we have to make college affordable for every American. Because no hardworking student should be stuck in the red. We’ve already reduced student loan payments to ten percent of a borrower’s income. Now, we’ve actually got to cut the cost of college. Providing two years of community college at no cost for every responsible student is one of the best ways to do that, and I’m going to keep fighting to get that started this year.”

We wish the President well as he concludes his presidency and we await his successor!

Tony

———————————————————————

New York Times

President Obama’s Call to America’s Better Nature

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD JAN. 12, 2016

In his final State of the Union speech, President Obama endeavored on Tuesday to lift Americans above the miasma of a brutally negative presidential campaign to reflect on what the nation has endured and achieved since he took office in the midst of a dire recession.

The speech was, of course, a summary of his accomplishments, but more important, a reminder that the optimism that made him the first African-American president and then the resilience that helped the nation weather economic and global crises over the past seven years are what position it best for the future.

“Our unique strengths as a nation — our optimism and work ethic, our spirit of discovery, our diversity, our commitment to the rule of law — these things give us everything we need to ensure prosperity and security for generations to come,” he said.

In his speech, the president said much depends on Americans’ ability to address several key challenges: ensuring that opportunity is equally shared; harnessing technology for the greater good; keeping the nation safe without becoming the world’s police force; and having political leadership that reflects the country’s best values.

While acknowledging the Republicans’ determination to block most, if not all, of his initiatives, Mr. Obama noted some accomplishments that got through in the past year, notably last month’s budget agreement and a permanent extension of middle-class tax cuts. He credited the Affordable Care Act, his most important legislative achievement, for reducing the number of uninsured Americans.

But so much remains to be done, obstructed by a Republican leadership implacable in its hostility to Mr. Obama, determined to oppose just about everything he proposed from the day he entered office.

Efforts to curb gun violence remain on the White House agenda, though executive actions may be all that the president can manage, given congressional intransigence. He spoke of the importance of immigration reform, despite his record deportation rates and the administration’s harsh response to an influx of families fleeing Central American violence. Through executive action, Mr. Obama has given temporary deportation relief to hundreds of thousands of young immigrants, but his bid to expand it to parents is in legal limbo.

On the chaos of the Middle East, Mr. Obama pointed to Congress’s failure to authorize war against the Islamic State, or ISIL, saying: “If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, authorize the use of military force against ISIL. Take a vote.”

He reflected on the administration’s success achieving global agreements, foremost being the nuclear deal with Iran. “As we speak,” he said, “Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war.”

If the accord proceeds as envisioned, it may emerge as Mr. Obama’s most transformative foreign policy accomplishment, though that bright promise is clouded by Tehran’s bad-faith tests of ballistic missiles.

We often hear about immigrants and refugees who are unable to assimilate to our values. Which values do we mean? Democrat or Republican?…

With virtually no help from Congress, the administration achieved an impressive environmental record. It acted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and power plants while presiding over a major expansion and investment in renewable energy sources. Mr. Obama also persuaded the Chinese to join the fight against climate change — an agreement that did much to ensure the success of the Paris climate accord in December.

“Now we’ve got to accelerate the transition away from old, dirtier energy sources,” he said. “That’s why I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.”

On jobs and the economy, the president pointed to a 5 percent unemployment rate and sustained growth. But Congress has blocked many job-creation initiatives, including more spending on energy and infrastructure. Still, the administration’s failure to provide meaningful mortgage relief in the financial crisis meant that many homeowners never got the help they needed.

The president closed his speech with an exhortation to improve the deplorable quality of the political debate now.

“My fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, whether you supported my agenda or fought as hard as you could against it, our collective future depends on your willingness to uphold your duties as a citizen. To vote. To speak out. To stand up for others, especially the weak, especially the vulnerable, knowing that each of us is only here because somebody, somewhere, stood up for us. We need every American to stay active in our public life and not just during election time, so that our public life reflects the goodness and the decency that I see in the American people every single day.”

Those are inspiring words for Americans who are yearning for more civility from those in political life.

Dear Commons Community,

Teachers in Detroit staged a sickout yesterday to call attention to “unsafe, crumbling, vermin-infested and inadequately staffed buildings, and the failure of state lawmakers to agree on a plan to rescue the system”.  As a result, 64 of the 100 Detroit public schools were closed by officials.  As reported in the New York Times:

“Teachers said the action, which was not organized or authorized by their union, was intended to pressure officials in Lansing into helping the schools.

For nearly a year, Gov. Rick Snyder and the Legislature have been discussing a deal to restructure the school system and put it on a sound footing, but they have been unable to reach agreement.

The faction of teachers behind the sickout has been talking of the possibility of a full-fledged strike, and while the union has played down that possibility, it could be addressed at a membership meeting called for Thursday.

The district said it had ordered 64 of its about 100 schools closed for the day, because so many teachers had called in sick.

Ivy Bailey, the interim president of the union, Detroit Federation of Teachers, said of the sickout, “I don’t support the method,” but she refused to condemn the teachers who had taken part, saying she understood their anger.

“There are rats, there’s rodents, there’s dripping water, there’s holes,” she said. “This is unacceptable. This is black mold. Our children are in that building breathing this day in and day out. This is third world.”

Last week, Darnell Earley, the emergency financial manager in control of the district, warned that job actions by teachers “serve no purpose other than to harm and disrupt the efforts intended for those who can ill afford to lose instruction time, social building time and time in the classrooms.”

Some parents and administrators noted that for the large number of Detroit students who participate in subsidized meal programs, school closings may mean they have little or nothing to eat.

Mr. Earley acknowledged Monday that “working for an organization in distress, especially the level of distress facing D.P.S., is not easy,” but he described the job action as counterproductive.

“This sickout resulted in more than 31,000” of the 46,000 district students missing a day of instruction, he said, adding that it could cost the district more than $1 million in state funding that is based on attendance.”

It is sad to see how the Detroit public schools have been allowed to fall into such disrepair.  State lawmakers need to address the problem.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case this morning (Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association) that threatens to overturn a four-decade-old ruling that upheld a key source of funding for public-sector unions, the last major bastion of unionized workers in America. The New York Times had an editorial yesterday summarizing what is it at stake for public sector workers. Here is an excerpt (the full editorial is below.)

“In the 1977 decision Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the justices ruled that public unions may charge all employees — members and nonmembers alike — for the costs of collective bargaining related to their employment. For nonmembers, these are known as “fair-share fees.” But nonmembers may not be compelled to pay for the union’s political or ideological activities.

The Abood ruling was a sensible compromise between the state’s interest in labor peace and productivity and the individual worker’s interest in his or her freedom of speech and association. Before the decision, strikes and labor unrest in the public sector were far more common, as workers struggled to have their voices heard in the absence of meaningful organized representation.

Stronger unions have not only helped ensure that essential public services are more efficient and effective; they have also led to higher wages and better benefits for workers. According to a report by the Economic Policy Institute, public employees in states with fair-share fees enjoy nearly the same compensation as their private-sector counterparts, while those in states that have banned such fees get 9 percent less.

But leaders of the “right to work” movement — which is funded largely by corporate interests and has helped 25 states ban fair-share fees — have been gunning from the start to overturn the Abood decision. Today they have a good friend on the court in Justice Samuel Alito Jr., who has written two majority opinions since 2012 calling the ruling into serious doubt.

The latest challenge targets the California public-school teachers’ union, which gets fair-share fees from about 29,000 employees, or a little under 10 percent of the work force. After Justice Alito suggested in 2012 that he would be open to striking down all fair-share fees, the anti-union activists rushed their case through the lower courts.”

This challenge to nearly 40 years of legal precedent on public sector union fees has shined a particular spotlight on a group of libertarian-minded public interest lawyers known as the Center for Individual Rights. The center is backed financially by a number of prominent conservative foundations. Conservative organizations and politicians, some of whom have received funding from Koch Industries and Charles and David Koch, have submitted more than one dozen amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs.

Tony

=========================================
New York Times
At the Supreme Court, a Big Threat to Unions
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD JAN. 9, 2016

“A case the Supreme Court will hear on Monday morning threatens to undermine a four-decade-old ruling that upheld a key source of funding for public-sector unions, the last major bastion of unionized workers in America.
In the 1977 decision Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the justices ruled that public unions may charge all employees — members and nonmembers alike — for the costs of collective bargaining related to their employment. For nonmembers, these are known as “fair-share fees.” But nonmembers may not be compelled to pay for the union’s political or ideological activities.
The Abood ruling was a sensible compromise between the state’s interest in labor peace and productivity and the individual worker’s interest in his or her freedom of speech and association. Before the decision, strikes and labor unrest in the public sector were far more common, as workers struggled to have their voices heard in the absence of meaningful organized representation.
Stronger unions have not only helped ensure that essential public services are more efficient and effective; they have also led to higher wages and better benefits for workers. According to a report by the Economic Policy Institute, public employees in states with fair-share fees enjoy nearly the same compensation as their private-sector counterparts, while those in states that have banned such fees get 9 percent less.
But leaders of the “right to work” movement — which is funded largely by corporate interests and has helped 25 states ban fair-share fees — have been gunning from the start to overturn the Abood decision. Today they have a good friend on the court in Justice Samuel Alito Jr., who has written two majority opinions since 2012 calling the ruling into serious doubt.
The latest challenge targets the California public-school teachers’ union, which gets fair-share fees from about 29,000 employees, or a little under 10 percent of the work force. After Justice Alito suggested in 2012 that he would be open to striking down all fair-share fees, the anti-union activists rushed their case through the lower courts.
The plaintiffs say being required to pay anything at all to the union violates their First Amendment rights. And when the government is the employer, they argue, all union activities are inherently political.
The court rejected these arguments in Abood, in part because the government has more leeway when it acts as an employer, and in part because unions are required by law to represent all employees. As Justice Antonin Scalia explained in a 1991 case, “where the state creates in the nonmembers a legal entitlement from the union, it may compel them to pay the cost.”
In other words, mandatory fees eliminate the problem of free riders — employees who enjoy raises and other benefits negotiated by the union without paying for them. In a 2014 ruling, Justice Alito dismissed the free-rider concern and claimed that those who support a union will willingly pay its dues, but this is contradicted by both common sense and experience.
States should continue to be free to fashion their own arrangements for handling labor relations. More than 20 have fair-share fee systems which encompass thousands of negotiated contracts representing millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public workers. All this could be upset by a ruling for the plaintiffs.
At the least, the court should be extremely wary, as it usually is, of upending long-settled precedent. The Abood ruling has stood, and been repeatedly reaffirmed, for nearly 40 years. It would be troubling if it was now reversed by a deeply divided vote.

Dear Commons Community,

David L. Kirp, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley,  has an op-ed piece in today’s New York Times, commenting on the school reform initiatives in Newark and Union City, two school districts in New Jersey. Here is a summary:

“A QUARTER-CENTURY ago, Newark and nearby Union City epitomized the failure of American urban school systems. Students, mostly poor minority and immigrant children, were performing abysmally. Graduation rates were low. Plagued by corruption and cronyism, both districts had a revolving door of superintendents. New Jersey officials threatened to take over Union City’s schools in 1989 but gave them a one-year reprieve instead. Six years later, state education officials, decrying the gross mismanagement of the Newark schools, seized control there.

In 2009, the political odd couple of Chris Christie, the Republican governor-elect, and Cory Booker, Newark’s charismatic mayor, joined forces, convinced that the Newark system could be reinvented in just five years, in part by closing underperforming schools, encouraging charter schools and weakening teacher tenure. In 2010 they persuaded Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, to invest $100 million in their grand experiment. “We can flip a whole city!” the mayor enthused, “and create a national model.”

No one expected a national model out of Union City. Without the resources given to Newark, the school district there, led by a middle-level bureaucrat named Fred Carrigg, was confronted with two huge challenges: How could English learners, three-quarters of the students, become fluent in English? And how could youngsters, many of whom came from homes where books were rarities, be turned into adept readers?

Today Union City, which opted for homegrown gradualism, is regarded as a poster child for good urban education. Newark, despite huge infusions of money and outside talent, has struggled by comparison. In 2014, Union City’s graduation rate was 81 percent, exceeding the national average; Newark’s was 69 percent.

What explains this difference? The experience of Union City, as well as other districts, like Montgomery County, Md., and Long Beach, Calif., that have beaten the demographic odds, show that there’s no miracle cure for what ails public education. What business gurus label “continuous improvement,” and the rest of us call slow-and-steady, wins the race.Slow-and-steady was anathema to Mr. Booker and Mr. Christie, who had big dreams for Newark…

“The real story of Union City is that it didn’t fall back,” Mr. Carrigg told me. “It stabilized and has continued to improve.” …

Newark’s big mistake was not so much that the school officials embraced one solution or another but that they placed their faith in the idea of disruptive change and charismatic leaders. Union City adopted the opposite approach, embracing the idea of gradual change and working within existing structures.”

An important lesson for school reformers throughout the country.  Continuous improvement wins the day.

Tony