[EPI welcomes
reader
feedback.]
Making Election Day a Holiday
Close elections are like close football games; you can
think of dozens of factors that made the difference between
winning and losing. One such factor in Michigan was a
contract provision negotiated by the United Auto Workers
(UAW) with the large carmakers (General Motors, Ford,
Daimler-Chrysler). The provision converted Election Day into
a paid holiday for union members, and there is widespread
agreement that without it, the Democratic candidate for the
U.S. Senate in Michigan would have lost instead of won the
race. A significant number of UAW members used the "holiday"
for a GOTV (get out the vote) campaign that carried the day
for the Democratic candidate. As a result, other unions are
likely to bargain for the treatment of Election Day as a
paid holiday, and we can expect NEA and AFT affiliates to
emphasize the provision in bargaining in 2001 and
thereafter.
It is not generally realized that political action is
much more important to teacher unions than to auto workers.
Public officials are decision makers on only a small number
of issues that are important to UAW members, but in public
education, public officials resolve all the terms and
conditions of employment for teachers. This is one of the
reasons why the percentage of teachers who vote is higher
than the percentage of eligible voters generally.
Furthermore, the teacher unions have members in every
political unit in the nation -- a consideration not lost
upon candidates for national office. One of the ironies
about teacher bargaining is that it emerged from the
legislative approach to terms and conditions of employment
in public education. Because the NEA enrolled administrators
before collective bargaining, it did not encourage strong
local teacher organizations. Nevertheless, it had to
identify a way to improve the working conditions of
teachers. Efforts to persuade legislatures to enact teacher
welfare legislation that applied to everyone, like state
teacher retirement benefits that were applicable to school
administrators, was the natural result.
One trouble with this approach was that in many school
districts, strong teacher organizations could have achieved
certain benefits without waiting for all teachers in the
state to have them. What happened, however, was that
collective bargaining strengthened teacher union political
power immensely -- as anyone who follows contemporary
politics can testify. This week's Inside AFT asserts that a
post-election poll of members shows that 70 percent voted
for Gore, 25 percent for Bush, and 4 percent for Nader;
also, that the AFT percentage for Gore was 7 points above
the percentage for all union members. The division among NEA
members was probably slightly less favorable to Gore, but
substantially similar. Of course, the NEA/AFT cash and
in-kind contributions were unquestionably major factors in
the Gore vote.
My expectation is that NEA/AFT locals in Michigan will
try to negotiate an Election Day holiday in Michigan. With
their potential to reach parents, and their impressive
facilities, the teacher unions would become even more
influential than they are now. Large numbers of teachers
will drive voters to the polls, canvas hospitals, senior
citizen centers, and perhaps even prisons to identify and
transport voters expected to vote the union line. They will
be poll watchers and vote counters and telephone bank
members. Future elections will not be like elections in your
parents day, or even your own in the recent past. The
escalation of teacher union influence can be neutralized,
but only if doing so is a high priority among conservatives.
If it isn't, the 2002 elections may turn out to be a
conservative disaster.
|
Building a Competitive Education Industry
