[EPI welcomes
reader
feedback.]
No Union or Different Kind of Union?
Over the past twenty years, I have expressed several
criticisms of teacher unions, especially the NEA/AFT. This
does not necessarily mean that I am opposed to teacher
unions, any more than I am opposed to democratic
representative government because I criticize a public
official for one reason or another.
Of course, from the standpoint of the NEA/AFT and the
individuals criticized, one way to defend themselves is to
allege that I am opposed to the broad objectives of unions,
or that I am "anti-union," or opposed to unions per se. This
can be easy to do because some critics are "anti-union," but
many others, such as myself, are not. Bear in mind that a
"union" is an organization that represents, or seeks to
represent employees on terms and conditions of employment.
In fact, this is the definition of a "union" under the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA is not
applicable to teacher unions because the latter are governed
by state, not federal law, but the state bargaining laws
usually adopt the NLRA definition of "union." Paradoxically,
many "anti-union" teacher organizations are unions
themselves even though they are not aware of the fact.
When I was a candidate for president of the AFT in 1962,
I was very critical of the incumbent president and of
affiliation with the AFL-CIO; however, nobody seriously
accused me of being "anti-union." For example, as I had made
clear in a 1960 book, I wanted the AFT to terminate its
affiliation with the AFL-CIO because I believed -- correctly
as it turned out -- that affiliation with the AFL-CIO was an
organizing handicap for the AFT. In short, my criticism was
intended to strengthen, not weaken the AFT.
Then as now, however, there are critics of the teacher
unions who wish to abolish them. Understandably, the NEA/AFT
would like to put me and others in that category. Their
basic objective is to discourage union members from giving
serious consideration to our criticisms. "Are teacher unions
dues excessive?" "Pay no attention because the persons who
allege that they are excessive are really out to destroy the
union." Of course, many union officers and staff members are
simply unable to distinguish their personal welfare from the
welfare of the union -- a problem that can arise in any
organization.
In any event, the underlying issue here is of tremendous
strategic as well as substantive importance. Should our
objective be no union -- or should it be a different kind of
union? The answer to this question is likely to have a
significant impact on education and politics in the United
States.
This column lacks adequate space to set forth all the
pros and cons on the issues involved. Because I will discuss
these issues from time to time, let me comment here only on
one very important consideration supporting a different kind
of union.
The comment goes to the heart of the conflict between
democratic and totalitarian societies. In the latter,
individuals are helpless to oppose unfair, arbitrary, and
discriminatory treatment by government. The reason is that
there are no organizations that have resources and are
sufficiently independent of government to protect
individuals. Denominational, political, business, and
employee organizations are controlled by government. The
history of education in the United States reveals a plethora
of cases in which teachers were treated unfairly, even
illegally, but lacked the resources or support groups to
challenge their treatment. Of course, many persons and
organizations are rightly concerned about NEA/AFT ability to
thwart any government action that is deemed prejudicial to
the unions. This does not necessarily justify the conclusion
that we should abolish teacher unions. Perhaps we can
establish teacher unions that fulfill the legitimate
functions of a teacher organization in an open and cost
efficient way. There are such organizations now in several
states without a bargaining law (for example, Georgia,
Missouri, Texas). The question is whether it is possible to
establish such organizations in the bargaining law states.
|
Building a Competitive Education Industry
