The Detrimental Influence of Teacher Unions

At their inception in the late Nineteenth Century, the U.S. labor union movement was certainly a legitimate response to real problems in a rapidly growing economy. However, unions have not always lived up to their high purpose. For example, after the Civil War a major preoccupation of the labor union was to limit the ability of black migrants from the South to compete in the labor market with white union members. For example, the Davis Bacon Act of 1931, explicitly passed for this precise purpose, mandated union scale wages for all government contracts, thus neatly preventing black workers from competing financially by offering to do the same job for less

I have no objection to unions as such, which are in fact a natural expression of the free market. Optimally, organized labor negotiates with management to establish fair and realistic wages. Ideally, this should be an adversarial, yet mutually constructive relationship.

I do object, however, to teacher unions. With whom does the teacher's union negotiate? When the person on the other side of the bargaining table is a political entity, and often dependent upon union support (especially at election time), that "healthy adversarial relationship" is obviously missing. This dilemma, of course, is inescapable with any public union. Even FDR - certainly no opponent of unions in general - was opposed to public employee unions.

Teacher unions then  make huge, huge bribes (excuse me, the polite term is 'donation', not 'bribe') to politicians. These obscenely large political donations are used solely to protect union interest. For example, whenever a proposition is put forth to allow poor families school vouchers, the unions will spend vast sums to defeat the measure. Teacher unions protect their own turf.

I have worked many years at a private school under 'at will' contract with no union representation.  I could leave my position at will any time for any reason. No questions asked. I could also be fired any time for any reason. No questions asked. Consequently, all teachers at my school knew that they had to perform at the top of their game each and every day. Not surprisingly, we had a staff of very responsible, competent teachers who took their jobs quite seriously.

Compare to the public schools where teachers are represented by teacher unions. Bad or mediocre teachers are protected by the system where it is difficult or impossible to terminate a bad teacher.  It's a system that benefits bad teachers to the detriment of students. Teachers claim: 'We need to be protected from a bad principal', to which I would answer: Every profession entails employees and bosses. Some bosses are fair, some aren't. What's so special about the teaching profession such that it is shielded from workplace realities? I say, if a teacher doesn't like his or her principal: Find another job and quit whining. I did (I got a new job, but I still whine a lot).

Union apologist argue that we need the union to enforce fairness when it comes to hiring and firing. To this argument, I would answer: No we don't.

Teachers should face the same realities as do other employees. Union rules specify that seniority dictates lay-offs. This situation benefits mediocre teachers at the expense of children. Ask yourself this: Would you want to patronize a hospital where old incompetent doctors are kept, young and more capable doctors are let go? Would you be getting the very best possible health care? Hiring and firing decisions should be left to the school's principal. If the principal habitually makes bad, unfair decisions, then he or she should be let go.

Meaningful reform will never come as long as teacher unions have any say in the matter. Unions will never voluntarily surrender control. Their tired mantra always has been, and always shall be: "Give us more money and we will fix the problem".  Teacher unions won't fix the problem: They are the problem.