4 things the teachers’ union likely doesn’t want teachers to know

September 4, 2025

It’s back to school time again and it’s also time for Minnesota teachers to decide about union membership.

From now until Sept. 30, Minnesota teachers can opt-out of the union if they believe that is the best decision for them, as financially supporting Education Minnesota and its affiliates is no longer required in order to keep teaching. (Prior to 2018, Minnesota educators and other public employees were required to pay either agency fees as non-union members or dues as members if they wanted to work in the public sector.)

Thousands of Minnesota educators have been saying “no thanks” to the union for years, growing tired of its politics and prioritization of ideologically-driven policies.

But lack of information — or misinformation — may be keeping Minnesota teachers from exercising their right to opt-out of union membership.

Below are four things the union likely doesn’t want teachers to know.

Liability insurance is available outside of union membership.

This is a big one. One of the union’s main talking points is that it is needed to protect teachers from the administrators or parents who may come after them. Union membership includes liability insurance (provided by the national teachers’ union but administered by the state union) intended to protect educators from personal financial liability stemming from employment-related lawsuits. But the union isn’t the only entity to offer liability coverage — there are several national professional associations designed just for teachers that offer liability coverage and other protections for a fraction of the cost of dues and without the politics.

Employers cannot discriminate against teachers based on union membership status.

Educators cannot be fired from their job, penalized, or retaliated against for belonging to a union, or not belonging to a union. It is illegal for a school district or other employer to discriminate against a teacher for exercising this right. It is also illegal for the union to retaliate or discriminate against employees who exercise their constitutional right not to join or support the union.

Union membership dues are used for politics.

Teachers who are union members are charged a $25 Political Action Committee (PAC) contribution that automatically gets pulled out of their dues total. While only the union’s PAC can directly contribute to political candidates and political parties, there are many other ways the union spends dues indirectly on politics — from get-out-the-vote drives and election mailers to public marketing campaigns and lobbying. In the union’s 2023-2024 federal filing, the most recent available data, Education Minnesota self-reported spending over $2.4 million on “political activities and lobbying,” which is separate political spending from the union’s PAC, which spent just under $3 million in 2024. Additionally, a portion of union dues gets sent to two national affiliates, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, who also engage in a host of political spending. Union dues are used for all types of political purposes.

Government unions fought to represent all workers, so “freeloader” claims are disingenuous.

Back in the 1970s, when lawmakers enacted Minnesota’s Public Employee Relations Act, government unions fought for — and won — the right to represent all employees in a bargaining unit, regardless of membership status. This made the teachers’ union the “exclusive representative” over both union members and non-members. The union speaks for them, in their name, and on their behalf. This forced representation creates the “freeloader” claims the union complains about and is why such claims are completely disingenuous. The union disparages the public employees they fought to represent.

If the teachers’ union no longer wants to represent non-members, then it can lobby — as it does on many other things — to have exclusive representation rights amended so it only has to represent its dues-paying members. But that would involve the union giving up its monopolistic privilege of exclusive agency. So, the union continues using a red herring argument against solutions that would encourage and expand worker freedom.

Instead of assuming the worst in our civil servants by calling them “freeloaders,” shouldn’t unions ask themselves why these public employees are looking for an exit?