[EPI welcomes
reader
feedback.]
Union Or Political Party -- Or Both?
As NEA and AFT staff spread throughout the land to help
elect Democratic candidates at all levels of government, a
question arises: What is the difference between a public
sector union and a political party? The main objective of
both is to persuade public officials to take certain
actions. In the case of teacher unions, the objective is to
persuade school boards to adopt personnel policies supported
by the union. When adopted by the school board, the
personnel policies are public policies, like speed limits,
zoning ordinances, or regulations governing land use. In
fact, boiler plate teacher union proposals often request the
school board to agree to the following: "This agreement
shall constitute school board policy for its duration, and
may not be changed without negotiation and agreement by the
union."
It is also noteworthy that the strategy and tactics
utilized by the teacher unions in collective bargaining are
the same as are utilized in political campaigns. Teachers
demonstrate and try to get attention in the media to
generate favorable public opinion. They set up phone banks
and letter writing campaigns to show rank and file support
for the union's proposals. They picket the school board
office building and pack school board meetings to exert
pressure on the school board to do what the union wants it
to do. These activities are perfectly legal if not carried
to excess (such as by disrupting board meetings); the point
is that they are much the same actions that we ordinarily
associate with political campaigns.
In recent years, there has been a great deal of
controversy over union use of member dues for political
activities. With public sector unions, such as the teacher
unions, the distinction between "collective bargaining" and
"political activity" is a distinction without a basic
difference, despite the fact that courts and legislators
categorize these activities in different boxes. Actually, in
a case in which a divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of agency fees in public employment,
Justice Lewis Powell stated:
"An individual can no more be required to affiliate with
a candidate by making a contribution than he can be
prohibited from such affiliation. The only question is
whether a union in the public sector is sufficiently
distinguishable from a political candidate or committee to
remove the withholding of financial contributions from First
Amendment protection. In my view, no principled distinction
exists.
"The ultimate objective of a union in the public sector,
like that of a political party, is to influence public
decision making in accordance with the views and perceived
interests of its membership. Whether a teacher union is
concerned with salaries and fringe benefits, teacher
qualifications and in-service training, pupil-teacher
ratios, length of the school day, student discipline, or the
content of the high school curriculum, its objective is to
bring school board policy and decisions into harmony with
its own views. Similarly, to the extent that school board
expenditures and policy are guided by decisions made be the
municipal, state, and federal governments the union's
objective is to obtain favorable decisions -- and to replace
persons in positions of power who will be receptive to the
union's viewpoint. In these respects, the public-sector
union is indistinguishable from the traditional political
party in this country.
"What distinguishes the public-sector union from the
political party -- and the distinction is a limited one --
is that most of its members are employees who share similar
economic interests and who may have a common professional
perspective on some issues of public policy."1
The only disagreement I have with Powell's statement is
that it did not take into account the breadth of NEA/AFT
political objectives. Anyone who peruses the hundreds of
resolutions adopted by the NEA and their role in supporting
or opposing candidates for political office, must conclude
that the NEA's political agenda is much broader than the
agendas of the Republican and Democratic parties.
In this connection, EPI has a practical suggestion to
make. Readers are asked to track the political activities of
the NEA/AFT from now to November 7. Such tracking should
cover:
- Use of union facilities for political activities
- Deployment of union staff for political activities,
especially in highly contested states and electoral
districts
- Union participation in voter registration, GOTV
campaigns, transporting voters to the polls, and absentee
voting
The above list does not include every political activity
of the teacher unions, but it may be a good start. We can
summarize the situation as follows: In the private sector,
unions are primarily economic actors whose political
activities are of lesser importance, although significant.
In contrast, public sector unions are primarily political
actors, whose economic role, although significant, is of
lesser importance.
At any rate,
send us your
record of the political activities of your union. We'll
try to publish the most interesting responses for the
benefit of our readers.
|
Building a Competitive Education Industry
