DPS Sickout Judged Not a Strike

A judge has ruled that DFT's 'sick out' was not a strike, but was free speech.

I applaud DFT's effort to call out the conditions, but feel that calling a work stoppage 'speech' is a stretch. By this logic, can any action be called 'speech'?

The Freep does not identify which the court, reporting being what it is. DY's legal panel will have to tell us if this is likely or possible to be appealed.

Freep: http://www.freep.com/story/news/educ...ling/88970526/

I don't understand the whining over this.

The State of Michigan got the DPS reform it wanted. At this point, who cares what happened in the past?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

I don't understand the whining over this.

The State of Michigan got the DPS reform it wanted. At this point, who cares what happened in the past?

---

I do. Because it sets precedent for the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I applaud DFT's effort to call out the conditions, but feel that calling a work stoppage 'speech' is a stretch. By this logic, can any action be called 'speech'?

---

Not all actions are 'speech.' But many actions are protected under the constitutional right to 'freedom of speech,' including symbolic actions.

http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federa...rces/what-does

In this case, Judge Stephens is saying that the action of the teachers is protected free speech because the sickout wasn't a 'strike' in the fairly narrow legal sense defined in the law they were accused of violating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judge Stephens, via FreeP article linked above

"Here, the vast majority of the speech attributable to defendants concerns complaints to the state government to rectify educational, financial and structural problems in the Detroit Public School District, and not issues concerning the rights, privileges or conditions of their employment," she said.

---

Compare that with the law that the teachers were being sued under, which broadly defines the proper mechanism for having a labor dispute:
[[http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...36-of-1947.pdf)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PARA 423.201 [[1) [[j)

[[j) "Strike" means the concerted failure to report for duty, the willful absence from one's position, the stoppage of work, or the abstinence in whole or in part from the full, faithful, and proper performance of the duties of employment for the purpose of inducing, influencing, or coercing a change in employment conditions, compensation, or the rights, privileges, or obligations of employment. For employees of a public school employer, strike also includes an action described in this subdivision that is taken for the purpose of protesting or responding to an act alleged or determined to be an unfair labor practice committed by the public school employer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gvidas

Not all actions are 'speech.' But many actions are protected under the constitutional right to 'freedom of speech,' including symbolic actions.

In this case, Judge Stephens is saying that the action of the teachers is protected free speech because the sickout wasn't a 'strike' in the fairly narrow legal sense defined in the law they were accused of violating.

Compare that with the law that the teachers were being sued under, which broadly defines the proper mechanism for having a labor dispute:

---

"Complaints to the state government to rectify educational, financial and structural problems in the Detroit Public School District" .... are not complaints about one's own employment, but I presume how the district interacts with others.

Thanks for that. It does help me understand the judge's thoughts.

So in simple terms, you can use sick-outs to call attention to district problems, but not for your benefit.

The two ideas seem quite intertwined to me. But it makes some sense. Also seems like its nothing but permission to go on strike-by-another-name so long as you say you're striking because the students are somehow suffering -- but oh, no, its not about us teachers. We're just 'pointing out' a deficiency.

I think the parents mostly knew the schools were deficient and didn't really need the help.

Let the teachers strike, let the cops strike, let the firemen and liberians go out on strike. I have no problem with this at all. All I want is for it to be fair. Let both sides walk away from the table. On one side of the table is the government an it's employees and on the other side is the taxpayers. Once the government and its employees stop serving the customers, let the customers step away from the table also. This means immediately stop collecting any and cancel all taxes that went towards paying the striking employees. When the government and its employees settle their strike, the customers can then decide if they want to resume paying taxes or not. This is no different than say the UAW striking an automaker. Customers can decide after the strike if the service or product offered by the automaker is a good value or not. So yeah, let government workers strike and let's be fair and let the customers decide if they want back after the strike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Smiles

Let the teachers strike, let the cops strike, let the firemen and liberians go out on strike. I have no problem with this at all. All I want is for it to be fair. Let both sides walk away from the table. On one side of the table is the government an it's employees and on the other side is the taxpayers. Once the government and its employees stop serving the customers, let the customers step away from the table also. This means immediately stop collecting any and cancel all taxes that went towards paying the striking employees. When the government and its employees settle their strike, the customers can then decide if they want to resume paying taxes or not. This is no different than say the UAW striking an automaker. Customers can decide after the strike if the service or product offered by the automaker is a good value or not. So yeah, let government workers strike and let's be fair and let the customers decide if they want back after the strike.

---

Great idea!

I have always thought that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Each public sector union should have the cost of their wages and benefits* itemized on an online statement delivered with their tax bill, letting the citizens know what the actual total and per head cost is for each bargaining unit. Good police and fire, for example, cost a lot of money. But it should be an informed taxpayer decision.

* including accrued benefits under a standardized calculation developed by accountants, not politicians.

Mark, the only amendment to your plan I'd suggest is that no retroactive pay be allowed. Otherwise, as you see often, the cost of the wages during the strike are simply paid back by the government, so as to not harm the workers in any way. If there's no harm to either side, then there's no fair negotiation with the taxpayers.

Strike away!

Wow, this thread is already on track to set a record amount of idiotic concepts on DetroitYes.