Teachers unions get Discovery Channel to cancel 'Bad Teachers' show

After a pressure campaign by teachers unions, the Discovery Channel has knuckled under and canceled the program "Bad Teachers." The true-crime series, which examines cases where teachers became sexually involved with their students, aired its only episode last week.
Steve Dembo, director of social media for the cable channel's Discovery Education website, said in a statement Tuesday to the "millions of dedicated professionals" in education that "we share your concerns" with the Investigation Discovery program "Bad Teacher."
"We appreciate the support of the educational community for bringing [their objections to the show] to our attention and we are pleased to share that Discovery Communications has decided to immediately cancel this program, removing it from ID's on-air and online schedule," Dembo said.
The National Education Association touted the news of the cancelation, and American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten celebrated it:

I was surprised to learn, through a barrage of tweets Sunday night after "Bad Teacher" aired, that Discovery would use its brand to promote such an offensive program. However, I am heartened that it has taken steps to cancel the show and publicly affirm that Discovery Education's mission is to celebrate and support educators.

Every day, educators go into the classroom to make a difference in the lives of our children. Their work should be honored and valued, not bashed, and we hope to work with Discovery to showcase the real work teachers do every day to help kids achieve their dreams.

The network presumably feared that a backlash from the unions would hurt sales of the many educational products that it provides to schools.

Discrepancies between Benghazi emails released to Congress, watchdog group

EXCLUSIVE: Documents reviewed by Fox News show there are differences between Benghazi emails released through the federal courts to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch and emails released to the House oversight committee as part of its investigation into the attacks.
The discrepancies are fueling allegations the administration is holding back documents to Congress.
"The key question is whether Congress now has all the documents," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of the oversight committee, said. As for differences between the two sets of documents, Chaffetz alleged: "They are playing games. The classification and redactions are different. Why should Judicial Watch get more than Congress after issuing a subpoena?"
The emails published by Judicial Watch last week, which showed additional White House involvement in shaping the public explanation of what happened, helped trigger the announcement Friday by House Speaker John Boehner of a select committee to investigate.
Two of the emails, from Sept. 14, 2012, appear to be part of the deliberations in advance of then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's Sunday show appearances were she linked an anti-Islam video to the Benghazi attacks. The emails released to Judicial Watch include the names of those who participated in the email chain.
The same emails provided to the House committee do not include names.
While the text and subject line are redacted in full for both Judicial Watch and Capitol Hill, there are unexplained differences in the classification. The emails, originally marked "unclassified," were retroactively classified in February by the Department of State.
The email released to Judicial Watch is now marked "SECRET," and the same email released to the Oversight Committee is marked "Confidential." Both are marked to "DECLASSIFY" on Sept. 13, 2037 -- 25 years after the terrorist attack which killed four Americans.
Fox News also reviewed an email from Sept. 12, 2012 from Rice to members of the U.S. team at the United Nations where Rice was U.S. ambassador at the time. This unclassified email, whose subject line and text are also redacted in full, was retroactively classified on April 16, 2014, one day before it was released. While the contents and subject line were redacted in both versions, the email released as a result of the federal lawsuit to Judicial Watch does include the names, while the other does not. 
Fox News does not have access to all the emails released to the House committee to assess whether this is part of a broader pattern. A spokesman for the oversight committee said they are still reviewing the 3,200 pages.  
The spokesman said: "By withholding information, this Administration has only itself to blame for the continued questions about the before, during, and after of the Benghazi attacks. Removing information from documents subpoenaed by Congress, while the same documents with more information are released publicly, underscores the games the State Department continues to play as Congress presses for full and truthful answers about the deaths of four brave Americans."
When asked about reported differences in the released emails, White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week that the administration was forthcoming.
"We have, again, in a rather unprecedented way, provided documents that normally White Houses and administrations have not or would not provide because they were being mischaracterized," he said.
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said there was no effort to slow-walk the release of the emails.
"The notion that we are somehow deliberately doing any of that is just false. We've produced tens of thousands of documents. We've done nine hearings, 46 briefings. Everything we've seen come out in these document releases and on the Hill has underscored the exact same set of facts as we talked about yesterday about what happened in Benghazi and what happened since," Harf explained.
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

Economy

NLRB rules workers must pay year's worth of dues to decertified union

If you are a worker trying to sever your relationship with a union, you have to make extra certain you didn't make even the tiniest error when you do it. That's what the National Labor Relations Board said Tuesday when it ruled that nine workers who decertified their union in 2012 still had to pay it another year's worth of membership dues because they sent in some of the paperwork too early.
The case involved nine workers for a Brooklyn condo complex who voted unanimously on Sept. 26, 2012, to get rid of United Workers of America Local 621 as their bargaining representative. The following week, the workers individually sent the union letters announcing that they "elected to terminate any and all such membership obligations" with it.
However the NLRB did not officially recognize the decertification vote until Oct. 11, 10 days after the union received the workers' letters. On the basis of that, Local 621 claimed it never received proper termination letters. The union was able to get the workers' employer to continue to deduct membership dues from their paychecks for another full year after they had voted to get rid of it.
The workers filed a complaint, and an administrative NLRB judge ruled in their favor in July, finding that the letters should not have been invalidated just for being a few days early.