Skip to main content

The Oklahoma Legislature Should Shield Kids from Teachers' Union Strikes


Cheered on by teachers’ unions, State Secretary of Education Joy Hoffmeister recently proposed a statewide Covid plan that would have seen schools in 39 of Oklahoma’s 77 counties stop in-person instruction if those counties experienced just 3 Covid diagnoses. Only 3 positive tests in the entire county, and every school district therein would send kids home. Unbelievable.


Fortunately, 4 members of the State Board of Education had the common sense to vote this proposal down (the 3 board members who voted yes should be replaced).


Any excuse, including a low-risk but well-publicized virus, appears to be enough for teachers to stay home from work, but get paid, nonetheless. It seems teachers’ unions have learned well the lessons of their successful 2018 strike: unbending obstinacy and elevation of adults’ economic interests over children’s well-being and educational advancement will not be punished, but rewarded. 


The Legislature should make sure this lesson is unlearned.


It can do so by revising the state’s existing teacher strike law along the lines of model legislation proposed in 1889 Institute’s publication, released today, Walking Out on School Kids: How Oklahoma Law Enabled The 2018 Teacher Strike, And How to Prevent The Next One. The full paper is available here, and a summary is available here.


Government employee strikes have no place in American government. They are fundamentally unjust in our system because they rob the people of their sovereignty. Government can only fulfill the public’s will through the actions of its employees. If an organization such as a union can compel the government to change policy by removing its workforce through a strike, then the union is in control, not the sovereign people. This is unacceptable in a democracy.


Recognizing this fundamental principle, the federal government and most state governments prohibit strikes by public employees. Oklahoma seeks to do so through 70 O.S. Section 509.8. There is a problem, though. Oklahoma’s law is woefully ineffective.


Oklahoma’s teacher strike law does not carry a punishment sufficient to deter teachers from walking off the job. Ask yourself, do you recall any teachers—or the administrators and local school boards who facilitated them—showing any fear at all that they might lose their job when they walked out on kids in 2018? Or that they would pay any price whatsoever for their dereliction of duty? I sure don’t. I remember a festival-like atmosphere at the State Capitol where teachers sang, chanted, and generally had a grand old time at the taxpayer expense. I suspect legislators also remember being shouted down and prevented from doing the business they were elected to do.


Oklahoma’s teacher strike law also only applies in the context of active collective bargaining negotiations, not to strikes aimed at the Legislature. When you consider that the Legislature sets the minimum teacher pay scale in state law, you quickly realize any strike demanding a universal teacher pay raise will never come in the context of an individual district collective bargaining negotiation. It will always seek to influence the Legislature. That makes Oklahoma’s anti-strike law essentially useless.


A final flaw in Oklahoma’s law highlights a special wickedness laid bare during the 2018 teacher strike: the complicity of elected officials, school administrators, and local school boards in fleecing the taxpayer. The anti-strike law places the responsibility for imposing consequences for violations on the local school boards. They are empowered to stop recognizing a striking union as the collective bargaining agent for the district’s teachers. It appears not a single district did this in 2018. Instead, they almost universally adopted policies that facilitated the strike. These are the people who are supposed to be sitting on the opposite side of the bargaining table from the unions. Instead of representing the taxpayer, they bent over backward to ensure no striking teacher would even have to sacrifice to pursue his or her public temper tantrum. This is shameful.


I propose a very simple solution in my paper: a model bill that squarely and clearly bans public employees from going on strike, punishable by an automatic loss of employment and benefits, like pensions. Striking teachers would also have their teaching certificate revoked.


Texas has a very similar law. Guess what? There hasn’t been a single public employee strike in that state since the law’s passage in 1993. Incidentally, Democrats controlled Texas when that law was enacted, holding nearly every statewide elected office and majorities in both houses of the Texas Legislature. There was a day when even champions of organized labor (like Franklin Roosevelt) recognized government employee strikes for what they are, a subversion of government.


Few public figures in Oklahoma distinguished themselves when teachers left parents, employers, and most of all, kids, in the lurch in 2018. While school officials conspired against the citizenry and legislators appeased unions, many parents quietly seethed. And students learned unproductive lessons from prominent adults in their lives about how to get what you want by throwing a fit. 


If legislators decide to correct that shameful lesson and avoid hostage negotiations with teachers going forward, there is a way to do so. It will require them taking their duty to all citizens seriously and enacting something that does more than take up space on a page.


Benjamin Lepak is Legal Fellow at the 1889 Institute. He can be reached at blepak@1889institute.org.

Popular posts from this blog

1889 Institute's Statement Regarding School Closures

The 1889 Institute, an Oklahoma think tank, has released the following statement regarding Joy Hofmeister’s proposal to keep schools closed for the remainder of the school year. We at the 1889 Institute consider Joy Hofmeister’s proposal to close Oklahoma’s schools for the rest of the school year a gross overreaction to the coronavirus situation. Even in the best of times and circumstances, suddenly shifting every student in the state from traditional classrooms to online distance learning will have negative educational consequences. This in addition to the economic burden on two-earner families forced to completely reorder their lives with schools closed. We believe many of our leaders have overreacted to worst-case scenarios presented by well-intended health experts with no training or sense of proportion in weighing the collateral damage of shutting down our economy versus targeting resources to protect the truly vulnerable. We say reopen the schools and stop the madness. ...

Can Government Force You to Close Your Business?

1889 Institute takes no position on whether any or all of these measures are warranted or necessary, or whether their economic fallout would inflict more human suffering than they prevent. We are simply evaluating whether they are legal.   With the unprecedented (in the last 100 years at least) reaction surrounding the outbreak of Covid-19, questions that few living legal scholars have considered are suddenly relevant.   Can a quarantine be ordered?   Can a mass quarantine, lockdown, or “cordon sanitaire” be ordered? Can businesses be ordered to change their behavior?   Can businesses be ordered to close? Can state governments order these measures? Can local governments order these measures? My legal brief addresses these issues from a statutory point of view; it is clear that state law gives the governor and mayors broad authority in a state of emergency. They must, of course, do so in a neutral way that they reasonably believe will help preve...

COVID-19 Exposes TSET’s Uselessness: Let’s Get Rid of It

After more than a month of COVID-19 house arrest , Oklahoma is reopening. However, the government-created economic disaster that shutdown orders have caused will be studied by epidemiologists, economists, and other social scientists for decades to come. In the meantime, we have to deal with the consequences as they occur, everything from a lack of toilet paper on store shelves (hopefully, that’s over) and hair that’s grown too long to what will undoubtedly be a host of bankruptcies. In the meantime, there is a timely question that truly ought to be answered in Oklahoma. Where has TSET (Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust) been in this time of crisis? Recall that TSET was created as a quasi-independent government by constitutional amendment as part of the 46-state tobacco settlement wherein tobacco companies agreed to pay states as reimbursement for the Medicaid costs of treating tobacco users for tobacco-induced illnesses. Instead of using the money to reduce taxes for Oklahom...

Will the United States Supreme Court Stand Up For Lawyers’ First Amendment Rights?

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical. Oklahoma law requires attorneys to join and pay dues to the Oklahoma Bar Association in order to practice their occupation. The folly of this this requirement lies not just in the financial burden imposed on lawyers, but in its affront to their First Amendment rights. This is because the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) routinely uses the money it receives in mandatory dues payments to support political causes. As a result, attorneys are forced to subsidize political activity and opinions they may disagree with. Over the Christmas holiday I filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief urging the United States Supreme Court to weigh in. You can read my brief here . The case in question involves a North Dakota attorney, Arnold Fleck, who sued North Dakota’s mandatory bar association for using his mandatory dues to engage in the same type of activity th...