Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Check Out Today’s Hot Posts on TheBlaze Blog!

Education

Maryland Democrat to Introduce Bill Forcing Non-Members of Teachers Union to Pay Dues

Jan. 14, 2013 10:52am Erica Ritz

Maryland Teachers Union Wants Non Union Members to Fair Share Dues About 68% of Members

Decorah Elementary first grade teacher Kristen Krezinski adjusts the letter “G” sign above her white board as she puts together her new classroom on Aug. 29, 2012. (AP File Photo)

As right-to-work legislation makes significant victories across the country, allowing employees to decide whether or not they want to join a union, the Maryland teachers union appears to be taking the opposite approach.

According to the Washington Examiner, the union is actively planning to make even non-union teachers pay dues in the near future.

The Washington Examiner explains:

Del. Sheila Hixson, D-Montgomery County, will introduce a bill on behalf of the Maryland State Education Association to require nonunion educators to pay a so-called fair share fee to unions equivalent to about 68 percent of the local dues.

Under Maryland law, local teachers unions are required to negotiate contracts that cover all educators, whether or not they are members of the union. They also must represent nonunion educators in grievances.

Association spokesman Adam Mendelson said the bill wouldn’t force people to join the union, just require them to help pay for the union benefits they receive.

“All school employees benefit from those services, but there’s not a companion or complementary law for fair share that requires all employees to contribute to those benefits they enjoy,” Mendelson said. [Emphasis added]

Maryland state employees have been subject to “fair share” fees since 2009, according to the Maryland Reporter, but teachers aren’t covered by the law.

A number of counties have already targeted teachers with the fees, though, and since the union already covers about 80% of Maryland teachers, the move appears to be an effort to grab the relatively small number of educators who are still not paying dues.

Mendelson assured that those who already pay “fair share” fees, also referred to as “agency fees,” will not have to pay twice with the new legislation. In total, according to the Maryland reporter, the fees average between $400-$500 per year for each teacher.

But Sen. David Brinkley, a Republican who represents Frederick and Carroll counties, says the change will mean that unions do not have to earn their paychecks the way every other business does. Not only that, he argues, but it is essentially a “tax” on teachers.

“My argument is every professional organization worth its salt earns its dues and earns membership, and the union leadership is imposing a tax on people who want to teach and padding their own pockets,” he stated, according to the Washington Examiner.

(H/T: WeaselZippers)

–

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (78)

needanotherReagan
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:55am
Get the communist led unions out of our schools. The public school system in this country is a disgrace. There are far too many incompetent teachers who just don’t care, and it’s impossible to fire them. Merit pay now.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Le Sellers
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:20pm
  What we need to get out of the government-run, tax-funded welfare schools is not the unions — let ‘em have ‘em.
  
  What we need to get out of the grtf-welfare schools is the children.
  
  Children simply do not belong there. They are (and have been since Horace Mann imported them from Prussia in 1852) indoctrination centers designed to divorce children from their parents’ values, especially religious and moral values.
  
  If you value your child, you cannot afford a “free” education. It costs ‘way too much: it will cost you that child.
  
  Mr. O’bama, will there ever BE any Jobs?
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:42pm
  The Government can’t Mandate that you do ANYTHING !!!!!!
  
  The Government is a TRUST !!!!
  
  ALL public officials and employees are TRUSTEES.
  
  We the PEOPLE are the Executor and Beneficiary of this TRUST.
  
  A TRUSTEE has NO AUTHORITY over a BENEFICIARY !!!!
  
  That is why you could tell Curious George aka ODUMBO, to go F#@K himself, if he ordered you dance.
  
  The only way a TRUSTEE can administrate Authority over a Beneficiary is when another Beneficiarie’s rights have been violated.
  
  NOTICE to ALL TRUSTEES.
  
  You can not force me to give you Money, much less ANYTHING ELSE
  You can NOT take my Guns.
  You can NOT breach the TRUST by not following YOUR GUIDELINES (Employees handbook of rules and regulations), The BILL of RIGHTS and the CONSTITUTION FOR the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  “Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees. And both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.”
  – Henry Clay
  
  Henry Clay, Sr. (April 12, 1777 – June 29, 1852), was a lawyer, politician and skilled orator who represented Kentucky in both the Senate and in the House of Representatives. He served three different terms as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and was also Secretary of State from 1825 to 1829. He lost his campaigns for president in 1824, 1832 and 1844.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:58pm
  *Correction
  
  The Government can’t Mandate that you do ANYTHING, UNLESS another Beneficiary has a Claim against you.
  
  The Higher Courts MUST recognize Common Law. Under Common law, a Plaintiff or Claimant with evidence of damage must be present, for a conviction of a Statutory Infraction or Crime.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 2:05pm
  I find it amusing that people don’t even realize that This Government has slowly morphed into a UNION.
  
  By claiming to be a U.S. “Citizen”, you are Claiming to be a union member of a corporation.
  
  YES, Our “Government” formed a Corporation in 1871, and have been running this Corp from the Corp Headquarters – Washington D.C., ever since.
  
  Taxes are your Membership dues. You are FORCED into paying for WARS you may not agree with.
  You are Forced by the “Union” to Pay for schools that you never attended or will never use, due to no children.
  
  These are referred to as Unapportioned Taxes, and are UNCONSTITUTIONAL !!!!!
  
  The list goes on.
  
  I am an American. I was Born here. I am a Beneficiary of this TRUST called the United States of America. I am an Individual.
  
  I AM NOT a U.S. “CITIZEN”.
  
  Report this comment
- Trigus
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 4:43pm
  “When Hitler came to power in January 1933, he saw trade unions as exercising more power over the workers than he could. Therefore, trade unions were seen as a challenge to be dispensed with. Hitler knew that he needed the workers to be on his side but he could not allow trade unions to exert the potential power they had. Therefore, trade unions were banned in Nazi Germany and the state took over the role of looking after the working class.”
  
  “Just months after Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he took the decision to end trade unions in Nazi Germany. On May 2nd, 1933, police units occupied all trade unions headquarters and union officials and leaders were arrested. The funds that belonged to the trade unions – effectively this was workers money – were confiscated.”
  
  Pelosi is right – Barry does not have to worry about getting re-elected. Toss out the Constitution and guess who is next: Unions.
  
  Report this comment
- pdw
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:08am
  Looks like the control freaks are at work.
  
  Report this comment
Owt_Raged
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:53am
The constitution provides for the right to free association, which includes the right to NOT associate with someone or a group. If this state allows their government to force them to associate, support or contribute to a group they do not want to, then they get what they deserve, another Constitutional protection, handed over without so much as a whimper.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ranepowel
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 2:37pm
  How does this go against the Constitution? The teachers there are not forced to work at the school. If they don’t want to join a union or pay union dues they can work for a private school, tutor or home school.
  
  Problem solved. All it took was 30 seconds of thinking.
  
  Report this comment
DZ-015
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:52am
At least make sure that the union is audited on an annual basis by an independent firm, Any funds spent on political campaigns or lobbying, and any funds spent on the salaries or extra benefits for union fat cats should not count as part of the agency fee. I have a feeling this will come to less than 68%.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
I support God's Israel!
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:51am
When will you people contact your politicians and tell them to STOP THIS WOMAN?
Is it too much for you?
Are you an armchair quarterback?
Are you lazy like your children?
Are you thinking that this doesn’t matter?

ALL OF YOU WHO DO NOTHING, ARE SIMPLY PATHETIC.

YOU SHOULD BE ON THE PHONE, RIGHT NOW, TELLING YOUR POLITICIAN TO PUT PRESSURE ON THIS WOMAN TO STOP WHAT SHE IS DOING.

Civil revolution is coming, folks and you do not want to be on the receiving end.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Thighmaster
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:37am
It appears now that the federal government has health care under it’s belt we will all now face union coverage. Freedoms are best taken inch by inch. It’s not too late to stop it, soon we will be like the countries we pity…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dustbunnieskill
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:29am
Unions, Need to go bye-bye. If not for them we would not have to put up with the Man from K.E.N.Y.A.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
brovet
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:28am
Communists!!! This is just another way for the Dems to bring more $$ to the teacher’s union so the money on then be spent on Dem elections. What a scam!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- booger71
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:48am
  Mostly the union bosses want that money for themselves. Union bosses live off the labor of teachers, but the supposedly intelligent teachers are too stupid to see it.
  
  Report this comment
Nevermind
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:27am
This is easy to fix. All non union teachers that dont want to pay shoudl then have their salaries reduced back to account for all raises unions negotiated for them, then moving forward they can try to get their own raises. You cannot recieve the increased salary due to union negotiations but complain that the union wants $$ since they got you more.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Rowgue
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:33am
  Only incompetent workers see any benefit from union wage negotiations. Competent teachers wouldn’t need a third party to advocate for why they should still be employed let alone deserving of a raise.
  
  Report this comment
- love the kids
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:33am
  Why move their salaries back first? They were forced to be a part of that to work in the first place.Then if I was to make a bet, I would wager that the non-union teachers that negotiate their salaries in the future would be at a higher pay rate, and then the union members would be complaining.
  
  Report this comment
- Clownzilla
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:39am
  @Nevermind
  
  So they don’t get the raises that they received when they paid into the union? How is that fair?
  
  Report this comment
- Liberalismsamentaldisorder
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:08pm
  I agree, let’s roll back all government employee salaries to pre-public sector union rates.
  You seem to be very pro-government. Why would employees of the government need protection from such a benevolent entity?
  
  Report this comment
EllieR
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:26am
So, Mafia is asking for protection money, aka Pizzo, what’s new?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
beekeeper
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:25am
Representing non-union teachers is a cost of doing business, the non-union teachers should not be forced to pay the fee. Cable companies are forced, by law, to provide some level of basic cable TV and Internet to public schools, libraries, gov ‘t offices, etc., and they can not demand any payment for those services – this is the same thing.

Non-union teachers benefit from union negotiations, but they have no vote in picking who heads the union.

I’m curious about that 68% number – what do the other 32% of dues go for if not covering the expenses of negotiating on behalf of, representing teacher’s grievances, and defending accused teachers? If I were in the union, I’d ask that question and demand a 32% cut in my dues instantly.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Liberalismsamentaldisorder
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:24am
The liberal definition of the word “fair” is mind-boggling.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TheGrtDcptn
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:22am
‘democrat to introduce bill FORCING.’

Just another form of wealth redistribution…

M U S T

F I L L

T H E

T R O U G H

…as if the boars and sows aren’t already fat enough…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
gyro
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:21am
no one yet seems to of seen the big picture
force them to pay go to court /apeal /court/ apeal/ supreme court get a faverable judgment then imploment it everywere
its the patern
if you fail try try again

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BODYBAG
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:29am
  Here’s some more BIG PICTURE for you:
  
  NY Has Tentative Deal on Gun Control: AP
  http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Gun-Control-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Magazines-Limit-Cuomo-NY-186794151.html
  
  “The tentative agreement would further restrict New York’s ban on assault weapons and limit the size of magazines to seven bullets, rather than the current 10. Other elements, pushed by Republicans, would refine a mental health law that allows for civil confinement of people determined to be a threat to others.”
  
  Questions:
  What is “civil confinement” and who determines what “threat to others” means ?
  
  Time for the Savage Hordes [We The People] to take action.
  
  Report this comment
RodT82721
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:20am
As we sink slowly into that quagmire of government corruption, this is no longer a secret.

Democrats need the unions to fund their re-election campaigns, and that requires a law to make sure adequate dues money is available to fund those campaigns.
In the Nov elections, unions provided about $500,000,000.00 to Democrats and thoiusands of man hours.
Where did they get all that money? They got it from either their members dues, or a direct payment from elected government members, through “special” laws for their union banks.

Quid Pro Quo, would be called a bribe in the private sector, but never in government.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
kickagrandma
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:17am
That’s simple, really.
Teachers who love teaching and love the kids need to attend PRIVATE SCHOOLS, preferably CHRISTIAN, then they need to teach in PRIVATE CHRISTIAN schools.
Simple.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- G-WHIZ
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:22am
  Agenda21.
  
  Report this comment
- 1FreeVoice
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:02pm
  We have IRA’s and we have Social Security accounts tied to our SSN’s…. how about having individual education accounts? You can draw on money raised from tax revenues to pay your local public school, or private school etc. If you homeschool, you can get a rebate on your tax returns. There would be audits to be certain that all monies claimed went to educational purposes, including art, music, science camps, physical education et all.
  
  So called ‘separation of church and state’ means that they can’t force you into a school run by a specific religious group (eg catholic school if you are a Mormon), the clause “nor prohibit the free exercise thereof” …. they can’t stop you from spending your money on a Catholic or Baptist school.
  
  The freedom from religion types are a secular version of the Sharia purists who want to be protected from hearing about views that contradict their own. Freedom to express your views cannot co-exist with freedom from hearing about the views of others.
  
  Money not claimed can be used for college or trade school, including online classes.
  
  Report this comment
love the kids
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:16am
I received a memo from work the other day with the terms “American Taxpayer Relief Act (H.R. 8)” and the “Affordable Care Act (Health Care Reform)” used in them to explain why I am actually receiving less money in my paycheck than I did last year.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- raabhimself
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:21am
  I did also…
  
  Report this comment
- beekeeper
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:28am
  Obama’s temporary payroll tax cut expired, the Bush tax cuts (well, 98% of them) were made permanent.
  
  Did your note explain it in those terms?
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:39am
  @BEEKEEPER
  
  No, that’s a completely separate issue.
  
  Report this comment
- love the kids
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:50am
  Beekeeper, You and I know that, but the “Follower Dems” think Obummer took care of them again. It is so sad to see people not willing to think for themselves. They blame the money trouble on the Bush tax cuts, but nobody says that Bush’s record spending, more regulations than ever before in history, or the Dems “Community reinvestment act” that allowed people that couldn’t afford homes to be allowed to buy them and the federal govt. MANDATED the banks back them were the real problem.
  
  Report this comment
love the kids
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:12am
What will the name of this legislation be, “The 2013 Extorsion Act”?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- naughtycal
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:17am
  No it will be the civil liberties violation law suit the teacher will file. No way is it constitutional to force people to pay just for the priviledge of working and supporting their families.
  
  Report this comment
- love the kids
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:19am
  Would any other legislature propose legislation that the parents have a right to have their children taught by Non-union members???
  
  Report this comment
- love the kids
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:25am
  But isn’t it just like charging people for not buying healthcare??? Why don’t we make every person buy automobile insurance and pay a road tax, after all, doesn’t everyone use the road system in one way or another in this country at least sometime in their lives in this country?
  
  Report this comment
- Unbelievable
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:25am
  Exactly!!
  
  No one should be FORCE to pay for their job!
  
  Report this comment
dublinthewagons
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:10am
Charge for something when you are not a member. Kinda like paying for someone else eating out at a restaurant you don’t like and wouldn’t eat at. Sheila Hixson needs to be b***h slaped HARD

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- love the kids
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:21am
  Good point, kind of like being taxed for not buying something, which could never be done in this country, RIGHT???
  
  Report this comment
stopprintn
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:07am
My money seems to be best spent on RTW, because they do the work republicans are to weak to do. If you kill the unions power, the democraps feel the pain. If we are going to defeat the commies the public sector unions must die, or become disabled.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
scootervanneuter
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:03am
The left is waging all-out war on freedom – they absolutely abhor it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- redfish52
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:08am
  This bill will pass because its the only way to force those who do not want to join the union to do so. I think its called blackmail….
  
  Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:01am
Rather change the law to make it so the Union does not have to perform services for non-union members? Why is it Dems only side for freedom when it involves infanticide, or deviant sexual promiscuity?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Rowgue
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:18am
  Exactly. It would be a much more sensible solution to adjust the law already on the books so that the union wasn’t responsible for providing any benefits no matter how minimal to non-members. The union are the ones that put that into the current law to begin with. There wasn’t some lobbying group representing non-members that demanded they be provided union benefits.
  
  Report this comment
- BODYBAG
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:20am
  It is time for the rise of the “savage hordes” [We The People].
  Sack the Unions & this government by force.
  There is no other way to reclaim Liberty.
  
  They arent going to volunteer to give away power & control.
  
  Report this comment
barber2
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 10:59am
Political payback. Check this guy’s donations to his last campaign coffers….if the investigators can find this information. After all, he is a ” transparent” Democrat ( wink, wink )…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Gonzo
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 10:58am
Democrats never get tired of telling you what to spend your money on, do they?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:22am
  No they don’t as “that guy ” says.
  “ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO” lmao
  
  Report this comment
Fubared
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 10:58am
Peeps Republic of Merryland. Makes sense in the theft column.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The American
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 10:56am
Have you had enough of unions yet?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- raabhimself
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:06am
  Pretty soon… we will all be paying into unions… where does it end… kinda sounds like the… Soviet Union?
  
  Report this comment
- Female
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:34am
  United States Of America: 50
  
  Union States of America: a comprehensive article w/map and rating strongest union to weakest
  
  http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/how-strong-are-us-teacher-unions.html
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.