Parents' outrage as teacher's union seeks $10,000 severance for teacher who molested their son


How can any Union justify this atrocity?


Erickson was convicted over the summer of raping the young student over a three year period
How can it be that it went on for 3 years and the parents didn’t know? I believe they’re not any less guilty than the teacher.

Also, The union’s claim for Erickson stems from an offer the school district made to teachers in March, which offered the $10,000 buyout to teachers to encourage them to quit rather than being laid off as the district needed to reduce staff due to budget cuts.
No-one is justifying it, he’ll get his 15 to 30 years in prison all right.


It’s not as preposterous as it sounds, teachers exert quite a bit of power over students.


They’re retained, via union dues, representatives. That creates a legal obligation that they must represent the contract (NOT him), which unfortunately included that monster. As to the claim, by the very article it appears there’s a strong likelihood an arbitrator will state he was contractually entitled to the severance as unfortunately it appears he was still employed when the offer was proposed and accepted.


The union and the school district signed a contract. The union no matter what the issue represents all employees and former employees in the enforcement of that contract. The school district and the union can not ignore the law and refuse to carryout their part of the contract because any employee did wrong.

Just like if I were caught stealing from my employer I would still be entitled to my final pay check and all benefits like a 401(k) and cobra benefits.

The victim of this crime can sue the teacher that abused them and collect damages against the teacher.

This is the protection of all of US citizens in upholding the rule of law. The law is the law is the law.


But they didn’t lay him off or buy him out, they fired him for cause. Big difference that I hope the courts will take into consideration.


From the sound of the article, there’s a good likelihood that he formally accepted the buy out before being terminated. If that wasn’t the case, the union wouldn’t be obligated to represent him and push for this. Nor would there be grounds to challenge it.


On what grounds do you make such a public accusation against the parents? Kids have the potential to get involved in all kinds of stuff that their parents have no clue about regardless of curfews and parental due diligence - all kids - except those kept on some kind of leash or in some sort of confinement.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit