“Public education is a partnership between schools and families.”
Travis Reep, a fifth-grade teacher in Thurston County, agrees with that statement from Washington state Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal. But in a recent Yes on Initiative 001 video, Reep says Reykdal’s actions — and those of the Washington Education Association, his union — do not match those words.
Reep is a father of four, an elected local union representative and a WEA member. He disagrees with WEA’s opposition to I-001, an initiative that, among other provisions, would restore parents’ access to school-held medical and mental-health counseling records, require prior notification when medical services are offered, except in emergencies, and require notification when schools arrange treatment involving follow-up care beyond normal school hours.
“I happen to be a teacher who wants to partner with parents,” Reep says. He wants parents to have information about what is happening at or through their children’s schools, so they can make decisions that are right for their families, which is why he's saying "yes" to I-001.
Reep’s point about partnership is hard to dismiss: Parents are their children’s first and primary educators and have both a right and a responsibility to know what happens to them at or through school. There are also protections for children in abusive home situations already in place.
This teacher’s disagreement with WEA also illustrates something every public employee and politician should understand: Being represented by a union does not always mean agreeing with its political positions — and union membership is voluntary.
WEA recommends a “no” vote on I-001 and is helping finance the opposition. Campaign-finance reports through Aug. 31 show that WEA had contributed $385,801.23 in cash and in-kind support to two committees registered in opposition to I-001. (Both committees oppose additional initiatives, so the full amount cannot be attributed to I-001 alone.)
Still, WEA is the largest donor across the two committees opposing I-001, showing that it is playing a leading role in financing the opposition.
Union dues may be used for ballot-measure campaigning without asking every member whether he or she supports a particular campaign. That means a teacher can find out that money from his or her paycheck is being used to campaign against the teacher’s deeply held beliefs.
Public employees have another option, however. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME affirmed that government workers cannot be required to join a union or pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Employees who decline membership remain in the bargaining unit and continue to work under its negotiated contract.
Too many public employees do not receive a clear, neutral explanation of that choice.
Washington law requires public employers to give the exclusive bargaining representative reasonable access to new bargaining-unit employees within 90 days of an employee’s start date for at least 30 minutes. There is no comparable requirement that public employers provide new workers with a plain-language explanation of their right to join or not join a union. Some don’t.
Washington Policy Center is compiling information about how school districts handle this responsibility. Practices vary. Some districts direct virtually every union-related question to the union that wants the employee’s membership and dues. Others mention voluntary membership in an employee handbook that a new worker is unlikely to read closely.
Those approaches fail to provide the balanced information workers deserve. Public employers should give every new employee clear and neutral information about union membership during onboarding. Taxpayers pay public employees' salaries. Many of them expect government employers to explain workplace rights to them, rather than leaving the job exclusively to a union who has a financial interest in each employee’s decision.
The point is not that every public worker should leave a union. The point is that every worker should knowingly choose whether to join one.
Campaign season makes union political activity especially visible. Reep’s disagreement with WEA provides a timely reminder that public employees can value their profession, their colleagues and even collective representation without endorsing every political position of the union representing them. Public employers should give employees clear, neutral information about their union-membership rights so they can decide whether membership reflects their interests and values.
Some will remain members. Others will not. What matters is that the decision to support a union’s political activity with their dollars belongs to them.
