Union Fees

I see we’ve heard from another of the “me generation” in (letter, June 7). Jo Seker, the director of Concerned Educators Against Forced Unionism, seems primarily concerned about getting a free ride on the backs of dedicated union workers.

People like Seker never seem to complain when collective bargaining provides better benefits and higher wages, only when they are expected to contribute their fair share to the effort. Fair share means exactly that: payment of a proportional share of the expenses of the collective bargaining process. It is not a charge for services that are unwanted and/or refused by non-union teachers; that is, unless we have some teachers who are refusing to accept their pay raises.

Any teachers who believe that their pay would be nearly what it is today without collective bargaining--that’s right, unions--ought to turn in their credentials. Not only wouldn’t they have the pay and benefits, teachers probably wouldn’t have any contract at all.

I think it’s outrageous that these so-called “concerned” educators refuse to take minimal financial responsibility for paying their own way, and then attempt to portray themselves as morally superior. They are so smug. It’s easy to be smug when you get something for nothing.

Except for winning contests such as the lottery, which benefits schools, getting something for nothing is usually stealing.

JAMES L. SANDEL

Los Angeles