• CHAPTER 1 -- Introduction: The Rationale and Point of View
  • The point of view
  • NEA/AFT merger

    • Table 1.1
    • Merged Membership and Budget

  • Differences between the NEA and AFT:Do they matter?

CHAPTER 1 -- Introduction: The Rationale and Point of View

This book is an effort to describe the structure, operations, and influence of teacher unions, especially the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The context should make it clear whether the organization titles include their state and local affiliates. The authors believe that an NEA/AFT merger will take place in the 1990s, but whether or not this happens, the emergence of strong teacher unions is an important development in education, in the labor movement, in the economy, and in American politics. Because their role is so pervasive but also so widely overlooked, a brief comment on the subject may serve as an introduction to this book.

Ostensibly, school boards formulate educational policy, whereas terms and conditions of teacher employment are negotiated with teacher unions. In the real world, however, employment terms and conditions inevitably impact educational policy; indeed, in many situations, a term or condition of teacher employment is simply an educational policy viewed from an employment perspective. For instance, suppose a school board decides to assign its most experienced teachers to schools in which pupil achievement is especially low. The board may characterize this as an educational policy; to the teacher union, however, the board would be changing transfer and/or assignment policies, matters normally considered terms and conditions of employment. As such, the school board is required to bargain with the teacher union over the change, which frequently does not materialize as a result of teacher union opposition to it. Thus the unions play a critical role with respect to educational policy, and they do so even when such policies can be distinguished from terms and conditions of teacher employment. Most school district expenditures are for teacher compensation, and collective bargaining contracts set forth the policies under which teachers are employed and compensated. With over 70 percent of the nation's 2.9 million public school teachers employed pursuant to collective bargaining agreements, teacher unions clearly play important roles in making and implementing educational policies.

The educational importance of teacher unions is especially evident in controversies over educational vouchers, privatization, and efforts to introduce market-oriented reforms in public education. Indisputably, the teacher unions are the major obstacles to such efforts. Despite their pivotal role in such controversies, there is little public awareness of the dynamics and modus operandi of teacher unions; their critics especially reveal a remarkable lack of sophistication about how and why they function as they do.

The unionization of teachers also marks a basic change in the character of the American labor movement. For instance, in 1953, public employees constituted only six percent of union membership. By 1994, approximately 40 percent of union members were public employees, and we anticipate that the public sector unions will soon enroll a majority of union members in the United States. Actually, public sector unions will be predominant in the AFL-CIO if and when the NEA, the nation's largest public sector union, becomes affiliated with the Federation. As will be explained shortly, however, it is a fundamental mistake to think of public sector bargaining and public sector unions as merely an extension of private sector concepts to the public sector.

Politically, teacher unions are major players at all levels of government. One of every ten delegates to the 1992 Democratic National Convention was a member of the NEA or the AFT, and no serious observer doubts their important role in state and local politics. Inasmuch as elected officials shape policy on noneducational as well as educational issues, the political influence of teacher unions extends far beyond the field of education. Although teacher unions are usually the most influential interest group on educational issues, their impact on noneducational issues may be even more important from a public policy perspective.

To illustrate, the teacher unions play a pivotal role in the politics of health care. First, they were a key element of the coalition that carried Bill Clinton to victory in the 1992 Democratic primaries and in the general election. Not surprisingly, the Clinton administration's emphasis on health care is also a major union interest. Unfortunately, the media treatment of health care often fails to reveal the union stake in the issue; a casual observer might think that the union's interests are concern for the poor or the uninsured or some other humanitarian concern. In the real world, however, the union interest is a practical one, based on union interests as perceived by the unions. As they consider health care, they see the following union benefits in government's absorption of a larger share of its costs and of forcing all employees to share the costs:

1. To the extent that government spends more and employers spend less on health care, more funds would be available for wages and other economic benefits. If the federal government absorbed some of the costs of health care that are currently paid by school districts, the teacher unions could negotiate for the savings to be distributed to teachers' salaries.

2. Privatization would be less attractive because contractors could not offer fewer benefits to their employees. All employers would have to share whatever costs of health care devolve on employers per se. Employers would be required to pay for health care for employees of independent contractors working for a single employer.

3. Unions could bargain for the employer to pay for any costs of health care not included in the federally subsidized plan (AFL-CIO News, 1993).

Citizens not familiar with collective bargaining often fail to appreciate the importance of health care issues to unions and employers. At the present time, health care is a frequent obstacle to agreement in both the private and public sectors. Disagreements over who should pay for the rising costs of health care sometimes lead to impasse or even strikes. The point here is not whether the Clinton administration's health care policies are good or bad public policy; it is that teacher unions play a critical role in how the health care issues are resolved. By the same token, the teacher unions play a major role on other domestic policies as well.

Because of their educational and political roles, teacher unions inescapably play a major role in our nation's economy. The sheer size of our educational system means that every major educational interest group is also an economic actor of some importance. More importantly, many educational issues are also economic issues, or should be so regarded. For example, the maximum age of compulsory education affects the extent of public and private expenditures, the level of taxation, lifetime earnings, social security funding and benefits, and labor markets, to cite just a few of its economic aspects. The field of education involves scores of such issues; their economic ramifications are often more important than their educational ones. In short, the teacher unions are major actors in the nation's economy, and like all such actors, should be subject to critical analysis.

Needless to say, the influence of teacher unions, as distinguished from the rationale for their positions, can be a controversial issue in its own right. Quite often, it is impossible to characterize the unions' influence with any degree of confidence. Nonetheless, uncertainty over their role in specific situations does not invalidate the rationale for this book; the latter is based on what is known, not what is uncertain.

The point of view

The authors' point of view toward teacher unions should be laid on the table at the outset. We believe that the absence of competitive markets in K-12 education is a major weakness of our educational system. The teacher unions are opposed to competitive markets in education; they could hardly do otherwise and remain viable unions. Consequently, we are at times critical of union positions; the positions and our criticism of them are not always articulated in this book. In some instances, our criticisms are not limited to union efforts to stifle competitive markets in education.

Despite our objections to the anticompetitive policies espoused by teacher unions, we recognize that organizations that represent public employees have a legitimate role to play. Public employees need an organization to protect themselves against unjust government action. In totalitarian socie-

ties, governments control the organizations that represent public employees. Consequently, the latter are unable to resist unjust government action, whether directed against themselves or others. In a democratic society, the problem is that the power to oppose government action for legitimate reasons is or becomes the power to promote the interests of public employees for indefensible objectives. Our view is that teacher unions illustrate both the positive and negative aspects of public employee organizations. The discussion of one aspect is not a denial of the existence of the other.

Has our point of view resulted in a biased treatment of teacher unions? We define "bias" as the omission of data and arguments that might reasonably be expected to influence the conclusions of a reasonable person on the issues at stake. While recognizing the possibility of bias, we have tried to consider the data and arguments that support conclusions different from our own. Of course, bias may be reflected in what issues are selected to analyze as well as the way issues are discussed; we have tried to avoid both kinds of bias. Of course, readers must decide for themselves whether we have succeeded in doing so.

Throughout this book, we use the term "NEA/AFT" (1) to refer to the organization that results or would result from a merger of the NEA and AFT, or (2) as a term applicable to both unions. Thus "the NEA/AFT" position on contracting out is the position taken by both unions. In some contexts, both meanings are appropriate because the positions the unions have adopted separately will be the positions adopted by the merged organization. Where only one meaning is intended, the context should clarify any ambiguity in the meaning.

Readers who are familiar with previous books about teacher unions will be aware that we have not relied heavily on them. One reason is that their data are no longer accurate or fail to take account of recent developments that are critical to a realistic assessment of the issues. In addition, we believe that several of these earlier books are characterized by a naive point of view that impedes an objective analysis; this is true for favorable as well as unfavorable books about the teacher unions (Berube, 1988; Blumenfield 1985; Donley, 1976; Johnson, 1984; Kerchner, 1988; Lieberman, 1956; McDonnell, 1988; Reed, 1980; Selden, 1985; and West, 1980). In addition to the fact that such matters as membership, revenues, and organizational structure have changed considerably, changes in the political and demographic context impact several organizational issues in unprecedented ways. Our analysis is more akin to a sketch than a comprehensive analysis; indeed, one of our objectives is to call attention to various dimensions of the teacher unions that deserve intensive research and analysis.

NEA/AFT merger

In view of the influence of the teacher unions, the possibility of their merger is not to be taken lightly. It would be overly optimistic to treat merger as a fait accompli; at the same time, an analysis that assumed that the NEA and AFT will continue as separate organizations might be out of date when published. Our solution to this dilemma is to describe the status of merger in early 1994 as best we can, and leave it to the reader to assess the likelihood that it will materialize. We will offer our assessments of both the issues in the merger talks and the prospects for merger, but reiterate the importance of teacher unions, merger or no merger.

For present purposes, the critical event relating to merger is the NEA's invitation to the AFT to engage in merger talks. This invitation was included in New Business Items 1993-A and 1993-B, adopted by the NEA's Representative Assembly (RA) on July 2, 1993. In our view, the adoption of these items, especially since it was by a substantial margin, renders it likely that an NEA/AFT merger will take place in the next three to five years.

The size and resources of a merged organization would be awesome, yet retain the potential for substantial growth. Table 1.1 provides some idea of the membership and revenues that would result from an NEA/AFT merger.

Table 1.1

Merged Membership and Budget

Merged Membership and Budget National Organization Only NEA/AFT
	1993-94 Membership	Budget
NEA	2,100,000	$173,206,000
AFT	820,000	$60,000,000
Total	2,920,000	$233,206,000

The figures in Table 1.1 overestimate the membership and underestimate the revenues of the merged organization; since the revenues will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, we will comment here only on the membership figures.

From its Strategic Plan and Budget, Fiscal Year 1993-94, the total NEA 1993-94 membership figures includes the following:

Active Professional Education Positions	1,605,000
Active Educational Support Positions	202,000
Active Life	105,000
Agency Fee	23,000
Retired	98,500
Associate and Reserve	4,100
Student	50,000

For some purposes, these categories differ from the regular full-time teachers who constitute the overwhelming majority of NEA members. In addition, it should be noted that the NEA does not categorize its membership publicly into "professional" or "teacher" on the one hand, and educational support personnel on the other, although the distinction is made in the NEA budget.

The AFT membership figures must be interpreted even more cautiously. As shown in Table 1.1, the AFT claimed a membership of 820,000 in 1993. The Federation also stated that its members are in one of five divisions. Although the AFT did not provide an official breakdown, its informal breakdown to one of the authors was as follows:

Public and Private School Teachers	600,000
Paraprofessionals and School-Related Personnel (PSRP)	110,000
Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals (FNHP)	50,000
Federation of Higher Education Faculty	*60,000
Federation of Public Employees (FPE)
*Author estimate

Nevertheless, just prior to the October 1993 AFL-CIO Executive Council meeting in San Francisco, the AFL-CIO released a report that showed the AFT with 574,000 paid up members, a gain of only 1000 over 1992. Meanwhile the AFT was claiming that its membership was 796,000, a gain of 50,000 over 1990-92.

Undoubtedly, some of the discrepancy is due to the fact that the AFL-CIO

counts only fully paid up members who are included in the count for determining union representation at the AFL-CIO convention; in contrast, the AFT is counting all members, whether or not they are included in the membership count for convention purposes. Furthermore, the AFT does not pay the full per capita tax on certain categories of membership, such as associate members. This is another reason why the AFT membership figures released for public relations purposes are much greater than the AFT membership figures cited by the AFL-CIO. It is possible, however, that the AFT's larger membership figures may be a more accurate guide to its political influence, since the Federation is often successful in persuading retirees to be campaign activists for union candidates and causes. It should also be noted that a small number of teachers are members of both the NEA and AFT, hence the memberships and revenues of both groups would have to be adjusted downward to reflect this fact if and when an NEA/AFT merger materializes. Nonetheless, even on the most conservative estimates of membership and revenues, the NEA and AFT would constitute a towering presence in education, the labor movement, politics, and the economy.

Differences between the NEA and AFT:
Do they matter?

At various times, we refer to "teacher unions." This usage implies that there are no significant differences between the NEA and AFT on the issues under discussion. Elsewhere, the analysis points out how the NEA and AFT differ in some way. To avoid any misunderstanding, let us explain our perspective on the similarities and differences between the two national unions.

Clearly, the NEA and AFT differ in membership, resources, governance structure, and leadership personnel, to cite some of the more obvious differences. In addition, the demographics of the two unions differ considerably; the AFT's strength is more concentrated in large urban centers; the NEA is much stronger in suburban and rural areas. These demographic dif-ferences sometimes result in policy differences that are erroneously viewed as different concepts of unions or union objectives. Also, the AFT is af-filiated with the AFL-CIO; the NEA is not, although its policies on noneducational issues are invariably supportive of or consistent with AFL-CIO policies.

Some differences between the NEA and AFT are important, but they are not necessarily the ones that receive the most attention in the media or among academicians. Generally speaking, the NEA is perceived as the more conservative in terms of teacher militancy but the more liberal in terms of social policy generally. In our view, this perception is unwarranted, or at least requires significant modification.

At the district level, the local affiliate of either union bargains for the objectives of its membership. To illustrate, suppose the teaching staff is composed predominantly of senior teachers dissatisfied because the salary schedule does not offer high maximum salaries for teachers with many years of experience. These senior teachers will seek higher maximum salaries, regardless of whether they are represented by an NEA or an AFT affiliate. Younger teachers are more likely to emphasize reducing the number of steps required to reach the maximum salary. If and when they reach the maximum, their bargaining objectives will change, but at any given time, the bargaining objectives of a local union are a compromise between such conflicting interests. Similarly, if most teachers are concerned about extra- duty pay or school safety, the local union that represents them will emphasize these objectives. These objectives are not affected by whether the union is an NEA or AFT affiliate. Inasmuch as the demographics will be the same, willingness to engage in hard bargaining or strike action is likely to be the same or very similar, regardless of national affiliation. In short, the local union's national affiliation rarely plays a significant role at the bargaining table.

Of course, the NEA and AFT assert that their affiliates are more effective than their rivals. The NEA claims that its support services are superior to the AFT's; the AFT asserts that its affiliation with the AFL-CIO enables AFT locals to gain labor support for teacher objectives. Neither reason is very persuasive.Teacher salaries and benefits are public information; in any given district, an AFT negotiator is as likely as an NEA negotiator to know how much teachers in comparable districts are being paid. As for AFL-CIO affiliation, many AFT locals are in districts where there is no AFL-CIO organization; even where there is, its active support cannot be taken for granted. In short, from a bargaining standpoint, it makes little or no difference in theory or practice whether teachers are represented by an NEA or AFT affiliate.

In the era when the NEA and AFT were competing for bargaining rights, their rhetoric greatly exaggerated the differences between the unions from a bargaining perspective. Today, however, displacement of an NEA affiliate by an AFT local (or vice versa) is relatively rare, and neither national union is making a systematic effort to replace the other at the local level. This truce would not continue to exist if either union were superior to the other in achieving benefits in the bargaining process.

Although not critical from a bargaining standpoint, NEA/AFT differences are important from other standpoints. We shall discuss these differences, but one caveat should be emphasized at the outset; the differences are not necessarily a guide to which union is "better" from either a teacher or public interest point of view. These are complicated issues that must often be resolved on the basis of the circumstances facing the decisionmaker. Furthermore, the NEA and AFT, like other unions, constantly undergo changes that might affect one's assessment of them.

e-mail (info@educationpolicy.org)