[EPI welcomes
reader
feedback.]
Why the NEA/AFT Support and Oppose Privatization
Simultaneously
Like many others who have written about privatization in
education, I have characterized the NEA and AFT as adamant
opponents of it. This characterization is valid as far as it
goes, but it doesn't go far enough. A more complete picture
would show that the NEA and AFT, to cite just a few unions
that organize public employees, are the biggest proponents
of privatization. This apparent contradiction disappears
when we go beyond the labels.
In collective bargaining, the NEA/AFT invariably propose
binding arbitration of grievances. A "grievance" is a claim
by a covered employee or the union that the school district
has violated the contract (or misinterpreted or misapplied
it, which is the same thing). Some contracts define
"grievance" more broadly, but the heart of the union
proposal is that the terminal point of the grievance
procedure should be final and binding arbitration by an
impartial third party, typically an arbitrator chosen
according to the rules and regulations of the American
Arbitration Association (AAA).
Ordinarily, if a party violates a contract, and refuses
to acknowledge the fact or compensate you for the violation,
your remedy is to take the offending party to court, where
an impartial third party (judge or jury) will render a
decision. What, then, is the union's argument for binding
arbitration? If the union or an employee has violated the
contract, management doesn't need an arbitrator to uphold
its contractual rights; management can simply take action to
remedy the violation -- disciplinary action if appropriate.
This is why allegations that the contract is being violated
are invariably made by the union. Thus, the NEA/AFT
affiliates invariably seek binding arbitration as the
terminal point of the grievance procedure.
The NEA/AFT assert that arbitration is a much faster and
much less expensive way of resolving disputes over whether
management has violated the contract. "Do you really want to
force us to initiate a lawsuit to decide whether you didn't
give a teacher her thirty minute duty free lunch period?"
the UniServ director will ask. "It isn't in your interest or
ours to be involved in litigation for years over these
matters."
There are valid objections to this argument, but they do
not affect the point I wish to make. It is likely that over
half of the public school teachers in the U.S. are covered
by contracts with NEA/AFT affiliates that include binding
arbitration of grievances. Essentially, binding arbitration
of grievances is privatization. The union is arguing that
private, that is nongovernmental, disposition of claims of
contract violations is superior to having the claims
resolved through court proceedings, that is, governmental
processes. The arguments made by the union are that private
dispute settlement is faster and more efficient than
governmental resolution of them -- precisely the same
arguments for privatization that are made in other
government services as well as in education.
We need not look very far to understand why the NEA/AFT
promote privatization of dispute settlement while
simultaneously opposing privatization of teaching,
transportation, food service, and several other services
required by school districts. Judges and court personnel are
not NEA/AFT members, nor is there any realistic possibility
that they will be. In contrast, teachers and school support
staff are union members, either in fact or potentially.
In short, it would be fair to say that the NEA/AFT
support privatization when it enhances union interests, but
oppose privatization when it adversely affects them. "Union
interests" are not to be regarded as the same as "teacher
interests." "Teacher interests" would lie in reducing the
cost of support personnel, so that more district funds would
be available for teachers. The union interest lies in
maximizing its dues revenue, and this means maximizing its
membership base. This forces the union to appeal for support
from the support personnel, and this appeal is simple: "Join
our union and it will protect you against having your jobs
contracted out," that is, privatized. It is a mistake to
assume that privatization is tantamount to wage reduction,
but that is the way the NEA/AFT want their members to think
about it.
Now, there is nothing especially repugnant about the
NEA/AFT efforts to protect the union interest on these
issues. Within certain limitations, every group, even
prisoners, is allowed to do this, and probably most "special
interests" do so in ways that are sometimes contrary to the
public interest. Obviously, if the real reason for NEA/AFT
opposition were laid on the table, it wouldn't get anywhere;
the union can't achieve its goals legislatively or in
bargaining by saying that it opposes privatization because
the latter is bad for the union. Instead, the NEA/AFT have
to camouflage the reason, and they do this by labeling
contracting out as "privatization," and then demonizing
privatization. Sometimes the strategy works because
education reporters are a gullible group who take the
union's arguments seriously. And because the media do, many
citizens do also, to the detriment of all of us.
|
Building a Competitive Education Industry
