[EPI welcomes
reader
feedback.]
How and Why the NEA Avoids the Union Label
In the early years of teacher bargaining, the NEA
insisted upon recognition and acceptance as a union. Not
just any union, but a tough, hardnosed union that was
successful in negotiating a plethora of benefits, in
addition to the benefits achieved through legislation. In
recent years, however, the NEA has studiously avoided
referring to itself as "a union." The reasons for the change
in semantics merits scrutiny.
During the takeoff period for teacher bargaining (1962 to
about 1975), the NEA and AFT were involved in an all out
battle to represent teachers in collective bargaining. Both
organizations were aware of the fact that it is very
difficult to oust an incumbent union. For this reason, as
soon as states authorized collective bargaining, the NEA and
AFT made strenuous efforts to be chosen as the bargaining
agent; the loser in each school district was likely to be
the loser on a permanent basis. In fact, one union seldom
replaced the other as the bargaining agent because the
advantages of incumbency were usually too much to overcome.
The rapid spread of teacher bargaining was due in large part
to the intense rivalry between the NEA and AFT. Had there
been only one union, teacher union bargaining would have
emerged at a much slower pace.
For several years prior to en enactment of state
bargaining statutes, the NEA had adamantly opposed
unionization and collective bargaining. The AFT quickly
capitalized on the fact, especially in the large urban
districts. The federation ridiculed the idea that an
organization that was not a "union" could represent teachers
effectively in collective bargaining. As its losses
continued to mount in representation elections, the NEA
increasingly portrayed itself as a tougher, meaner,
strike-happier union if need be. By and large, this tactic
was successful in the thirty-three states that authorized
teacher bargaining.
The early years of teacher bargaining were characterized
by high inflation, but both the NEA and AFT attributed the
substantial salary increases to collective bargaining. In
more recent years, teacher shortages have led to the same
result. Nevertheless, private sector labor unions have lost
a great deal of support and prestige in American society.
For example, private sector union membership has dropped
from about thirty-five percent of the private sector labor
force in 1956 to about nine percent today. "Unions" are no
longer viewed as white knights, but as self-seeking interest
groups who sacrifice the welfare of the larger community for
special privileges for its members or the union or both.
Paradoxically, the NEA is rated higher in public esteem
than labor unions generally. The reason is that the NEA is
not always perceived as a "union." Its pre-bargaining
professional image persists in many states. Its bargaining
and public relations strategy is usually to characterize
every bargaining proposal as essential to pupil welfare. The
NEA is well aware of the fact that the term "union" has lost
its cachet. In fact, the convention packet distributed to
delegates at the NEA's 1999 and 2000 conventions rarely, if
ever, refer to the NEA as a union. An unsuspecting delegate
would never have known that he or she was attending a union
convention.
The most dramatic evidence on what the NEA is all about
comes from the NEA and its state and local affiliates. The
NEA's legal position is that about sixty-two percent of its
expenditures are for collective bargaining, contract
administration, and processing grievances - in short, for
traditional union activities. The NEA's state and local
affiliates assert that an even higher percentage of their
expenditures are for the above activities. Inasmuch as the
remaining expenditures pay for all other NEA activities and
projects, professional activities obviously are only a very
small part, if any, of the NEA's total program. Furthermore,
the NEA's efforts to distance itself from the union label
are completely inconsistent with the fact that it has
approved state mergers with the AFT, and hence the AFL-CIO,
in Minnesota, Montana, and Florida, and more such mergers
are in progress.
The loss of prestige associated with the union label may
be mitigated by the trend toward the unionization of
doctors. This trend is not due to any issue associated with
"professionalization"; it is due solely to the fact that a
growing number of doctors are employed by HMOs instead of
practicing medicine as independent fee-takers. As
fee-takers, doctors had several employers (patients), but by
exercising strong control over medical licensure, doctors
obviated the need for most other union strategies to enhance
their compensation. With the emergence of HMOs, groups of
doctors are employed by the same employer, hence collective
representation on the terms and conditions of medical
employment was more or less inevitable. It remains to be
seen whether the end result will be a loss of prestige
associated with medical practice, an increase of teacher
prestige, or some combination of these two trends.
At any rate, the NEA's efforts to shed the union label
are now in full swing. The strategy to achieve this
objective consists of characterizing conventional union
actions intended to benefit union members as motivated by
pupil benefits. Thus small class size is not advocated
because it makes the the teacher's job easier and because it
results in more union members and revenues; allegedly, it is
essential to individualize instruction. Higher teacher
salaries are needed to attract better teachers, and so on.
When the UAW demands more from the carmakers, everyone
understands that the demands are for the benefit of auto
workers, but the NEA has been remarkably successful in
concealing its self interest behind a wall labeled "pupil
welfare." How much longer the NEA will deny, or refuse to
acknowledge that it is a union, is anyone's guess, but its
semantic antics may end up confusing its members more than
association critics.
|
Building a Competitive Education Industry
