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

Popular posts from this blog

Dear GT Bynum, Let the Children Play

I live close to a large City of Tulsa park that has a golf course, walking trail, green spaces, and a couple of playgrounds. My (almost) three-year old son loves the playgrounds, and often begs us during walks in our neighborhood to detour to “for-chun” (LaFortune Park). This seemingly innocent request can become a hassle when we don’t really have time, but we indulge him as much as possible. It’s good for kids to play outside, especially with other kids they might not otherwise come into contact with. But sometimes we have to contend with an upset toddler who doesn’t understand why we can’t go to the playground right this minute. I’m not complaining, every parent of young kids deals with similar stuff. But during the COVID lockdown, we’ve had to contend with an altogether different LaFortune Park situation with our son. As part of the mayor’s shelter-in-place overkill, all city-owned playgrounds were closed “ indefinitely .” This wasn’t a guideline or suggestion, the city meant busine

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each episod

COVID Inspires Tyranny for the "Good" of Its Victims

The Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, once said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." The moral busybodies C.S Lewis warns of reminds me of those who would have Americans give up their liberty to combat COVID-19.   A recent Oklahoman op-ed compared COVID-19 to World War II, stating that the number of deaths from COVID-19 is approaching the number that died fighting for this country and the freedoms it protects. This comparison is, of course, nonsense. This suggests that a virus with a high survivability rate is an equivalent threat to the Nazi and Japanese regimes that brutally murdered millions. The piece uses wartime rationing of meat and cheese, a sacrifice necessary to ensure men on the front lines had adequate nutrition, to justify Americans accepting counterproductive lockdowns in exchange for additional stimulus c

The High Duty of Elected Officials and Ways They Fall Short

With an election just completed (the alleged voting, anyway), a legislative session coming up, constant talk of spending to offset the impacts of COVID-19, and elected officials trying to mandate our way out of a disease, the duty of elected officials in their official positions is worth considering. The 1889 Institute recently published a booklet for state lawmakers that discusses various issues and possible solutions. Included in that booklet is a short discussion of the central duty of elected officials, which is expanded here. What is the central, over-arching duty of an individual after having been elected to public office? Public oaths of office give a strong hint, and the Oklahoma Constitution is a good place to start. Article XV includes the oath of office, which states that an Oklahoma public official swears to “support, obey, and defend” the constitutions of the nation and the state, that the official will not take bribes, and that the official will discharge duties as best