The long reach of teachers unions


At one time teachers unions were professional organizations. Now they have been transformed into the same type industrial trade union that represents autoworkers or steelmakers, with the same political clout and parochial interests. This is at the same time that teachers demand respect for being professionals.

The Education Next article The Long Reach of Teachers Unions: Using money to win friends and influence policy is a must-read for those who think the teacher union is a benign fraternal group looking out for the interests of schoolchildren.

Even those familiar with the teachers union and their political activity may be surprised to learn that the National Education Association (NEA) has become the largest political campaign spender.

(In Kansas, the NEA affiliate is Kansas National Education Association, or KNEA.)

Its spending is mostly on politically liberal organizations and candidates, even though that doesn’t represent the will of all teachers. Internal NEA polls, says the article, show that union members are slightly more conservative than liberal. Other polling show that there is significant support (not majority support) among teachers for charter schools and merit pay. The fight against these two items, both supported by President Obama, consumes much of the union’s energy.

The problem is that the teachers union leadership is liberal and out of step with their members.

According to a Harris poll, Americans like and have respect for teachers, but they don’t trust union leaders. As the article explains, when union leaders can say they’re doing things “for the kids,” they can get a way with a lot. Newspaper reporting doesn’t help: “Press coverage of the teachers unions is usually assigned to an education reporter, which ensures the story will be framed around education issues.”

The article recommends giving the political activities of teachers unions their proper perspective: “Coverage of teachers unions needs to emerge from its current position as an afterthought on the education beat, and assume its place alongside national fiscal and political reporting. Only then will the public see that Big Oil and Big Tobacco have a brother called Big Education.”

The Long Reach of Teachers Unions

By Mike Antonucci

When the Florida legislature, on April 8th, passed a bill that sought to replace teacher tenure with merit pay, the Florida Education Association (FEA) sprang into action, organizing members and community activists to lobby Governor Charlie Crist to veto the measure. FEA, with the help of its parent union, the National Education Association (NEA), generated thousands of e-mails, letters, phone calls, and Internet posts in opposition to the legislation. When Governor Crist delivered his veto on April 15th, the union ran television and Internet ads, thanking him. A few weeks later, FEA gave a much-needed boost to Crist’s independent bid for a U.S. Senate seat by endorsing both Crist and Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek.

If you think it’s far-fetched to suggest that a teachers union could play the role of political kingmaker, think again. The largest political campaign spender in America is not a megacorporation, such as Wal-Mart, Microsoft, or ExxonMobil. It isn’t an industry association, like the American Bankers Association or the National Association of Realtors. It’s not even a labor federation, like the AFL-CIO. If you combine the campaign spending of all those entities it does not match the amount spent by the National Education Association, the public-sector labor union that represents some 2.3 million K–12 public school teachers and nearly a million education support workers (bus drivers, custodians, food service employees), retirees, and college student members. NEA members alone make up more than half of union members working for local governments, by far the most unionized segment of the U.S. economy.

Continue reading at Education Next


One response to “The long reach of teachers unions”

  1. Randall Batson

    This furthers the argument for privatized schooling however administered, be it home schooling or private business. Competition brings out the best in us. Public schooling often fills the pockets of higher office personnel. The argument of concern for children’s education does not change whether it is private or public. Let there be an account set aside specifically for the students education bottom up instead of top down for the schools to compete for those dollars. Accountability will rise, as well as quality, and expenses will fall. Indirect investment is revenue value lost. For those paying on mill levies, these taxes may be eliminated. Public monopolies are always inefficient.
    Once again dive into the message once again. Taxpayer dollars that fund teachers, ends up funding local chapters of campaign contributions against the taxpayer for more Union squandering, less student.
    Eliminate indirect funding, and reward us all the direct wealth of that individual of knowledge, for it grants occupation. The Free Market is the answer to help the intended benefactor, the individual, the student.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.