Randi Weingarten didn’t ascend to the presidency of the powerful American Federation of Teachers (AFT) without learning how to mask lies in half-truth.
Last September, Weingarten appeared on The Brian Lehrer Show to promote her new book, “Why Fascists Fear Teachers: Public Education and the Future of Democracy.” During the broadcast, an active New York City teacher named Tom called in to object to the union’s endorsement of Zohran Mamdani for New York City mayor and expressed dissatisfaction that the union had become very political.
Her response was technically accurate but despicably incomplete.
Weingarten told Tom, “(T)he union can be as political as it wants as long as it’s democratic.”
She added that if he disagreed with the union’s political direction, he could reduce or stop his contributions to the Committee on Political Education (COPE), a union-administered political fund to which teachers can voluntarily contribute.
She also suggested that dissatisfied members could work to change the union’s leadership through internal elections.
That much is true.
What Weingarten didn’t tell the caller — and what far too many teachers still don’t know — is that there’s an even more satisfying option that not only frees public employees from union control but puts money back in their pocket.
They can opt out.
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case that Illinois state employee Mark Janus could no longer forced to join or support with dues or fees a union whose policies he did not support. Even though Janus was not a union member when his lawsuit was filed, state law required him to pay fees to cover collective bargaining and other union activities.
Janus argued that because public-sector unions engage in political advocacy, forcing him to financially support the union violated his First Amendment rights.
The court agreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito affirmed that public-sector union speech is inherently political because it involves public policy, government budgets and workplace rules negotiated with the state.
For that reason, compelling employees to subsidize that speech amounts to forced political expression.
The ruling further stipulated that silence does not equate to consent. Teachers and other public employees must affirmatively agree before dues can be deducted from their pay.
Unions cannot simply assume a worker wants to pay for its representation just because he or she hasn’t yet successfully navigated the opt-out process.
The burden rests with the union to prove they do.
This decision did not merely give teachers the right to stop funding union political activity. It gave them the right to stop paying union dues altogether.
Unsurprisingly, Weingarten was reluctant to advertise this unfortunate truth.
The caller isn’t merely free to stop funding political activity. He has a First Amendment right to decline union participation entirely — including all dues and fees — without fear of losing his job or being harassed by union operatives.
Lastly, telling teachers they can simply change the leadership mischaracterizes reality. Unlike the real world, where even presidents serve limited terms and stand for election at regular intervals, union elections are infrequent, heavily controlled and often corrupted by entrenched leadership backed by union resources.
For many teachers, waiting to be asked their opinion is neither a realistic nor timely remedy. Opting out is.
Teachers deserve the full truth, not half-answers.
If union leaders are confident in their politics, they shouldn’t fear informed teachers.
Real choice only exists when people are told all of their options. Visit www.optouttoday.com to learn how to exercise your rights and make your own decision.
