Shadowbosses: Government Unions Control America and Rob Taxpayers Blind

by Mallory Factor

  When this same young teacher moved to a school in Alabama a few years later, she was firm in her decision not to join the union. Shortly after she arrived at her new school, she was teaching a lesson to her kindergarten class when two other teachers barged into her classroom. Was there a fire or an emergency that demanded her immediate attention? No, these teachers were representatives of the teachers union. They proceeded to bully this young teacher in front of her class, urging her to join the union and help them achieve “100 percent participation” in the school. This teacher, experienced in the ways of union representatives by now, bravely refused. But although her experience of union intimidation may be typical, she’s the exception in staying out of the union—when pressured, teachers tend to join unions.

  Unified Dues

  In many right-to-work states—especially the A-grade states that forbid collective bargaining over teachers—most teachers will tell you that unions don’t affect their classroom experience at all. But is it really true that the teachers unions have little power over education in these states?

  Of course not. Teachers unions have woven a web that spreads over the entire United States, covering every state and nearly every locality. The teachers unions’ “support at the local level plays a major role in political campaigns.”20 Stanford professor Terry Moe notes, “While the stereotype is that the teachers unions are ‘weak’ in the states without collective bargaining, this is usually far from true. In any absolute sense, the unions tend to be quite powerful—just not as powerful as their counterparts in collective bargaining states.”21 But how have the unions built their state and local operations in states that have little dues income? They do it with an innovative funding technique called “unified dues.”

  Here’s how it works. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the teachers union bosses realized that they had a problem. Teachers were joining their local unions in droves, but not many teachers were joining their state and national teachers unions. After all, most education was local—so why pay to join the state and federal teachers unions?

  The bosses found a solution: they forced local affiliates to charge unified dues. Now when teachers joined the local union, they automatically joined their state and national unions as well. Voila! Unified dues send tons of cash upstream to the state and national unions, giving these upper-level unions more funds for political activity and infrastructure building. The unified-dues system is now common to all government employee unions.

  Here’s an example of how unified dues works in practice. For example, a full-time teacher in Westport, Connecticut, pays $852 in dues for the 2011–12 school year, of which $178.00 is sent to NEA national headquarters, $484.50 is sent to the state-level NEA-affiliate union, and $190.00 is sent to the local NEA-affiliate union.22 The national union then redistributes a portion of its funds to build infrastructure and fight important union battles all across the nation. The national teachers unions send representatives and resources to “underrepresented” right-to-work states where there are fewer union members, less dues income, and more limited teachers union infrastructure. Teachers union representatives invade right-to-work states like kudzu, colonizing new territory and taking it over: organizing workers, influencing educational policy, and supporting pro-union candidates there.

  One observer explained, “In some states, the teachers unions [have] become the functional equivalent of a political party, assuming many of the roles—candidate recruitment, fund-raising, phone banks, polling, get-out-the-vote efforts—that were once handled by traditional party organizers.” 23 And, of course, the teachers unions overwhelmingly support Democrats. When you look at the teachers unions, former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett said, “you’re looking at the absolute heart and center of the Democratic Party.”24 E. J. McMahon of the Manhattan Institute adds, “NEA and American Federation of Teachers have been powerful forces in the Democratic Party for decades.”25

  Teachers Unions Dominate Politics

  If you are surprised by the connection between teachers unions and politics, don’t be. Teachers unions, like all government employee unions, survive only by putting their loyal friends in our government. The degree to which teachers unions influence state politics is so extreme that in many states “the legislatures, no less than the educational bureaucracies, function as wholly owned subsidiary of the teachers union,” according to one education commentator.26

  If you are surprised by the connection between teachers unions and politics, don’t be. Teachers unions, like all government employee unions, survive only by putting their loyal friends in our government.

  Nationally, teachers unions have political operatives in every congressional district in the United States. These political operatives have a dual job—assisting in day-to-day union work and managing teachers union political activity in the congressional district. These operatives are the backbone of the Democrat Party machine. They manage turn-out-the-vote efforts in local school board elections and Presidential elections alike.

  In all fifty states, teachers unions elect their own bosses—the district school boards and other educational decision makers who can give unions power over teachers and educational policy. In his book on teachers unions, Terry Moe points out that under this corrupt system, “democracy is turned on its head.”27 Even in states with few union members, “the teachers unions can use their political power to help choose the very people who will be running their districts and making all the authoritative decisions about money, personnel and policy,” explains Moe.28 Because few local taxpayers pay close attention to school board elections, for example, teachers unions elect their candidates almost every time. Eighty-four percent of school board candidates that the unions endorse in heavily Republican-controlled districts actually win their elections!29 And let’s be serious—who among us bothers to investigate school board candidates and votes in local school board elections?

  State-level teachers unions present themselves as educational policy think tanks and the defenders and reformers of the public schools. These sham policy institutes provide legislators and decision makers with research, support, and guidance on educational issues from the “teachers’ perspective.” Well, maybe not actually the teachers, but at least the teachers unions! Many government officials rely on these teachers union policy institutes for “objective” advice on educational issues. The teachers unions even set up front groups “to give the impression of public support of NEA policies,” reports Phyllis Schlafly.34 Often these faux-independent educational associations are funded by teachers union funds and staffed by current or former teachers union officials, but present themselves as nonpartisan, pro-education groups.35 Generally, no strong pro-parent and pro-taxpayer organizations exist at the state or local level to counter these front groups, or if they do exist, they certainly don’t have the funding and organizational power of the teachers unions or their front groups.

  Even in the right-to-work states, state teachers unions are hard at work pushing their agenda and lobbying their legislatures. In Texas—one of the A-grade states—the Texas affiliate of NEA known as the TSTA explains on its website that “our lobbyists work with legislators before, during and after the biennial legislative session. They keep members informed of developments and alert them when action is needed, and they equip members with the skills and knowledge to elect pro-education candidates to national, state, and local office.” And if the state teachers union does all that in right-to-work Texas, just imagine what teachers unions do in heavily unionized states like New York and California.

  THE NEA’S POLITICAL ARMY

  The NEA stations about 1,800 UniServ directors, who are paid political organizers, in every congressional district in America.

  What does this political army do for the teachers unions? UniServ’s official function is to help local unions negotiate contracts and manage grievances. But UniServ directors are also there to make the federal, state, and local unions work together like one huge, well-oile
d political machine. They organize local political action programs, including turn-out-the-vote efforts and other electioneering activities. They lobby for legislation and interview local candidates for mayor or school board.30 A former teachers union boss explains that UniServ’s “political role is at least as important as their bargaining role.”31 The NEA’s own policy manager confirmed that UniServ is the political arm of the NEA when he told attendees at an NEA conference in 2003, “Politics move our policy. We work through UniServ.”32 UniServ directors are the backbone of the NEA’s powerful political organization in all fifty states.

  Like much political spending by unions, the NEA’s spending on UniServ directors is considered nonpolitical spending by IRS rules. Even the NEA’s spokesperson agrees that a reasonable person might consider UniServ spending to be for “political activity in the general sense of the term.”33 Try that sort of creative accounting yourself with the IRS, and you’ll find yourself in jail. Try it as a union boss, and you’ll find yourself with a comfortable seat at the State of the Union Address.

  Keeping the Bad Apples

  There’s an old joke about doctors. What do you call a doctor who graduated in the bottom of his class in medical school? Answer: Doctor. The point of the joke is obvious—just because your doctor has his M.D. doesn’t mean he’s competent.

  The same is true of teachers. Most teachers are good, but there are a few bad apples in every barrel. And unfortunately, teachers unions make it extremely difficult for school districts to separate the good apples from the bad, and to turn out the bad apples. Poorly performing teachers generally remain in the classroom for their entire careers, wasting the time, talent, and effort of countless American children.

  Most teachers are good, but there are a few bad apples in every barrel. And unfortunately, teachers unions make it extremely difficult for school districts to separate the good apples from the bad, and to turn out the bad apples. Poorly performing teachers generally remain in the classroom for their entire careers, wasting the time, talent, and effort of countless American children.

  Teacher quality is a leading driver of student achievement, concluded consulting firm McKinsey & Company in a report on why some nations have more successful K–12 education systems than others.36 The report noted that “students placed with high-performing teachers will progress three times as fast as those placed with low-performing teachers.” The report also explained that students placed with low-performing teachers for several years in a row tragically face an “educational loss which is largely irreversible.”

  Good teachers can even improve students’ future earnings. As the Hoover Institute’s Eric Hanushek concluded, excellent teachers can significantly increase students’ lifetime earnings, whereas low-performing teachers can decrease their earnings.37 Firing the bottom 5 to 10 percent of teachers based on their classroom performance and replacing them with average ones would improve student achievement significantly.38 In fact, the world’s best K–12 education systems intentionally weed out the lowest-performing teachers based on their classroom performance.39 But in the United States, teachers unions stand in the way and prevent this from happening.

  Teachers unions represent all teachers and protect the job security of good and bad teachers alike. As one school principal said of Randi Weingarten while she was head of New York City’s powerful teachers union, “Randi Weingarten would defend a dead body in the classroom. That’s her job.”40 And she sure does it well, now as the head of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

  Teachers unions make sure that teachers who have taught for a few years are given tenure, making it almost impossible to fire them. Even in the case of serious wrongdoing, separating teachers from their government paycheck and benefits requires a lengthy, union-ordained legal process that can take years and can cost the school district hundreds of thousands of dollars. And it is virtually impossible to fire teachers who are merely incompetent—they are usually just left in the classroom, boring your children half to death.

  When teachers are laid off, the last teachers hired are the first to be fired. This “last in, first out” firing policy doesn’t take teacher merit and classroom performance into account, just seniority. This means that a young teacher who wins teacher of the year will be fired before all teachers hired before her, even the bad ones. It sounds fair to teachers unions at least.

  What Teachers Unions Negotiate For

  When teachers unions negotiate teachers’ contracts, they demand single salary schedules and limits on class sizes, as well as tenure and “last in, first out” layoff policies, as we have seen. Even in those districts in which unions don’t have collective bargaining power over teachers, teachers unions still promote these same inefficient policies using their political influence.41

  The single salary schedule requires school districts to pay teachers based on their level of education and their years at the desk. They aren’t paid more for good performance or because their teaching area is in high demand. Physical education teachers are paid on the same scale as physics teachers. As a result, the single salary schedule generally drives teachers who have more in-demand skills right out of the teaching profession, and it creates shortages of specialists in math, science, and other subjects. As a scientist, would you rather work at Lockheed Martin and be paid based on your skills and performance, or work as a teacher and be paid based on seniority and on the same scale as teachers with less marketable skills?

  But, you say, at least the single salary schedule pays teachers with more education more salary. Don’t we want to encourage teachers to get graduate degrees to improve their teaching? Well, there’s a problem with that idea: teachers get the bump in pay regardless of whether their graduate degree relates to anything that they actually teach in the classroom. If your degree is in modern dance but you are a math teacher, why should the extra degree entitle you to a raise? Plus, research shows that having a master’s degree or additional professional development credits does not make teachers more effective in the classroom.42

  Teachers unions also have been unrelenting in their demands for smaller class sizes. A recent report shows that the ratio of student-to-educational staff (both teachers and assistants) nationally has dropped from 18-to-1 in 1960 to less than 8-to-1 currently.43 Sounds great, right? Except that our children are just as poorly educated as they were before, even though the drop in class size has more than doubled the “labor intensity” of public schooling.44 Out of the 112 studies researching the impact of class size on student performance, 103 studies concluded that smaller class size did not improve student performance at all.45 So reducing class size doesn’t appear to benefit students much at all, and existing teachers would certainly prefer education dollars be spent to increase their own salaries or on other priorities. But making class size smaller has driven up teachers union membership substantially because of increased teacher hiring.46 So the main beneficiary of smaller class sizes seems, once again, to be the teachers unions, who have more teachers to unionize and collect dues income from.

  Putting America in a Rubber Room

  The union rules against firing tenured teachers are so extreme that many school systems have to warehouse hundreds of teachers who can’t be trusted in the classroom but have to be put on paid leave for years until they can be fired. Seriously. “Rubber rooms”—offices that suspended teachers report to each day pending disciplinary and termination hearings—would seem to be the stuff of urban legend. Only they were real.

  Required to report there every day during regular school hours, except for school holidays and vacations, suspended teachers found ways to pass the time. Some practiced yoga, some painted, some got into fights with other teachers to quell the boredom.

  In New York City, these holding pens for errant teachers cost New York City taxpayers an estimated $30 million to $65 million annually for the seven hundred or so teachers assigned there at any one time. Some teachers were on leave for sexual harassment, corporal punishment, or
insubordination; some were even suspended for sexual misconduct in the classroom.47

  Bad publicity about rubber rooms led Mayor Michael Bloomberg to officially abolish them in New York City in 2010.48 But union contracts still require school districts to give teachers years of expensive and extensive due process before they can be fired, about two to five years in New York City. The city is still putting errant teachers on paid leave for years, and the city is now sending them back to the classroom, giving them administrative duties, or sending them home instead of penning them in rubber rooms.49

  Of course, teachers aren’t the only ones we put in the rubber rooms. By leaving bad teachers in the classroom, we’re essentially relegating our children to thousands of rubber rooms across the country in our public schools. As we have seen, America’s public schools could be greatly improved by simply taking our worst-performing teachers out of our classrooms. With this change, American students could jump ahead of most countries in the world in mathematics,50 instead of falling below students in almost all Asian and Western European countries as they do now.51 But teachers unions are consistent in their position that this must never happen, and so far they are winning on this point and many other points.

  Teachers Unions Win—And Kids Lose

  In 2008, Michelle Rhee, then chancellor of the Washington, D.C., public schools, looked at D.C.’s schools and saw that they were a full-scale nuclear disaster area.52 She recognized that many teachers performed so poorly that they didn’t deserve to keep their jobs. So she offered D.C. area teachers unions a deal: teachers could choose one of two new compensation options, the green tier or the red tier. Under the green tier, teacher compensation would jump dramatically, increasing almost 100 percent, with much of the pay increases financed by private sources. But in return, the teachers would have to give up their tenure for a year, and at the end of the year, they would need the recommendation of their principal to continue teaching or face dismissal. Under the red tier, teacher compensation would jump a little less, and teachers would have to waive seniority rights that would help them keep their jobs in the case of layoffs ahead of more junior teachers. “Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions,” Rhee told the New York Times. But it has “no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. If we can put veteran teachers who have tenure in a position where they don’t have it, that would help us to radically increase our teacher quality. And maybe other districts would try it, too,” she said.53