On Feb. 21, 2012, Kalamazoo Public Schools fired a teacher — not for poor performance or for inappropriate conduct — but because she didn't pay her union dues.

According to court documents, Lori Erk went on medical leave in May 2011. Though the district initially approved the leave, it was subsequently unapproved, meaning that Erk had no source of income after June 2011. (Note: Use "Search Form" on MDE website to search for Erk.)

Though Erk was not receiving income from KPS that year, the Kalamazoo Education Association tried to collect $411.25 in dues from her for the 2011-12 school year.

After several written requests, the KEA made its final request in January 2012, when KEA President Millie Lambert sent Erk an email requesting that she pay the $411.25. Erk responded:

I HAVE NO INCOME!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why are you coming after me??? I have always supported KEA and you personally!! I had so much respect for you.

Five weeks later, Erk was terminated.

All of KPS' and the KEA's actions were perfectly legal. Though teachers unions have fought to keep heavy protections for teachers in Michigan's Teacher Tenure Act, many school districts have collective bargaining agreements that result in quick dismissal of teachers who do not pay union dues or fees. 

The KPS collective bargaining agreement, for example, states that teachers who do not want to be a member of the KEA are required to pay the union a "fee" that is the same amount as the its dues.

Teachers who do not pay that fee, the agreement states, "...shall be dismissed from their employment by the District..."

Other school districts have similar provisions. Hale Area Schools’ agreement with the Hale Federation of Teachers states that a teacher who does not pay union dues or an equivalent fee to the union within 30 days of being hired can be fired within a week.

Compare these quick terminations to the generous protections and processes provided to teachers, even those who are found to be intoxicated while working.

No serious argument can be made that the practice of firing teachers who do not give money to the union helps students learn. The only possible reason for these terminations (and the threat of termination) is to preserve the power of a single union within the district. Indeed, in the Hale contract, the firing of teachers who do not pay union dues is stipulated under a section labeled “Union Security.”

In Missouri, some districts allow teachers to choose between two unions. Teachers can choose the Missouri Education Association, or the Missouri State Teachers' Association, which is opposed to union members being forced to pay dues to a national union. Some teachers have testified that they choose MSTA because it does not take positions on social issues.

The teachers in the Kalamazoo and Hale school districts have no such option. It is deplorable that some Michigan school districts provide no choice to teachers by agreeing to contracts that require teachers to pay money to the union as a condition of employment.  It is worse still that public school districts act as the union’s enforcer when teachers step out of line.

(Editor’s Note: The following is excerpted and abridged from the text of a speech delivered by Michael LaFaive, director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative for the Mackinac Center, to various groups around the state about the ballot proposals on the Nov. 6 ballot. We'll post one part each day this week explaining Proposals 1 through 5.)

Monday: Proposal 1 a Referendum on PA 4

Tuesday: Proposal 2: More Power for Government Unions

Wednesday: Proposal 3 Would Cost Taxpayers Billions

Thursday: Prop 4 Would Put Union Scam in Constitution

Proposal 5 is arguably the most straightforward of all the proposals on the Nov. 6 ballot.

A "yes" vote would mandate that any vote to raise state taxes in Michigan be approved with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. This supermajority mandate is commonly known as a Tax Limitation Amendment and some 17 states have them.

The idea behind a Tax Limitation Amendment is to make it more difficult for the political class to pilfer the pockets of taxpayers. Research — most notably by scholar Mancur Olson — has shown time and again that in democratic nations the wishes of an electorate are often ignored by narrow special interests that seek costly "favors" from the government. Politicians all too frequently accommodate those favors (be they subsidies or tariffs or spending hikes or other items) in part because their contributors and powerful constituents support them. Increasing taxes also is often a path of least resistance.

Constitutional restrictions are an effective way to handcuff politicians and stymie the special interests who lobby them for more money. Academic research on balance seems to show that such restrictions do check the growth of government and tax burdens, too.

Backers of the proposal — from the Michigan Alliance for Prosperity — have argued that tax burdens are 8 percent to 23 percent lower in states with such protections compared to those without.

Opponents argue that it should not be so difficult to raise taxes to fund important government services, but such an argument fails to consider cutting unnecessary spending. Do governments really need to continue providing hyper-generous fringe benefits to public employees?

In Michigan, the state does not need to raise taxes because there is plenty of room to cut without gutting programs or laying off employees. The Mackinac Center has long demonstrated more than $5 billion in possible savings from simply benchmarking public sector fringe benefit packages to private sector averages.

This proposal may not be perfect, but on net balance a yes vote would raise Michigan's taxpayer protections to a new level.

A "no" vote keeps the status quo intact.