The future of a state law that bans unions from deducting dues from teacher paychecks is now in the hands of three Davidson County chancellors.
That panel of Chancery Court judges heard arguments on the payroll deduction ban Thursday afternoon from the Tennessee Education Association (TEA) and the Tennessee Attorney General’s office. Chancellors temporarily blocked the ban earlier this month and are expected to provide a ruling on it in the coming days.
The payroll deduction ban is a component of the recently passed “Teacher Paycheck Protection Act” that raised the minimum teacher salary to $42,000. Supporters argued the ban was needed to keep taxpayer dollars from being used to collect union dues and to ensure teachers aren’t coerced into supporting unions like the TEA.
The TEA filed a lawsuit last month to challenge the payroll provision, calling it unconstitutional. Attorney Rick Colbert told the panel of judges Thursday that the payroll deduction ban is also unnecessary.
“These explanations…are divorced from reality. No local education agency has ever been forced by the state to offer payroll deduction of dues to teachers. Teachers already have control of their paychecks. Teacher membership and payment of dues by any means is completely voluntary,” said Colbert.
An estimated 46,000 teachers used the automatic deduction process to pay their TEA dues this year. The union uses that money to fund its political operations.
Assistant State Attorney General Miranda Jones did not provide the court with an estimated dollar amount that local school districts are spending to facilitate these deductions, but she argued the cost is certainly there and taxpayers are paying it.
“Dues don’t spontaneously deduct themselves. Someone has to be responsible for processing these fees,” said Jones. “It’s trying to simply require individual employees and unions to take responsible for their own union dues.”
Jones argued there are already several alternative methods teachers can use to pay their dues, including an EZ pay option unions are already encouraging.
TEA attorneys argued to the panel of judges that there’s no evidence dues deductions are presenting taxpayers with a real expense. They also made the case the ban itself runs afoul of both the state and U.S Constitutions.
Jones told judges one big problem is the caption for the legislation that references “relative to wages” but doesn’t mention dues deductions.
“Nothing in the caption suggests that it encompasses voluntary payroll deduction of association dues. Nothing in the caption suggests that it impacts teachers’ rights,” said Colbert.
Jones countered that argument, saying the bill was captioned in a way that encompassed both the pay raise teachers would receive through it and the payroll deduction ban.
“Relative to wages remains a very broad term and would encompass anything related to salary or payroll because ‘relative to wages’ would touch on payments to employees, how those payments are processed,” said Jones. “There was absolutely nothing hidden or secretive about this act.”
Chancellors did not discuss what impact, if any, the TEA’s lawsuit might have on teacher raises.
The legislation lacks a severability clause that guarantees teacher raises remain if another section of the act is challenged, meaning the Court could additionally have to decide whether the TEA’s challenge should also put a hold on teachers raises.
