Labor Unions: Lies at the Picket Lines (part 1)

American labor unions have a turbulent history. Fighting for tangible benefits with little to no federal assistance, early union activities were highly romanticized and encouraged important reforms to a nearly unchecked capitalism. Union influence throughout the early part of the last century was driven by a manufacturing-based economy, domestic industries protected by high tariffs, and a lack of overseas labor markets. The Great Depression and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal greatly enhanced union rights by legalizing collective bargaining, permitting strikes, and reducing management intimidation. Union membership soared to over 36%, enhanced by a favorable political realignment in Washington as well as increased federal investment in infrastructure and military production.

The economic system, however, underwent profound changes in the next three decades. The end of the Second World War saw the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, which forbade such unfair union practices as coercing nonmembers and imposing excessive initiation fees. American isolationism came to an abrupt end with the start of the Cold War, as military protection from Communist expansion went hand in hand with greater openness of the domestic market to foreign goods. Stagflation (a double phenomenon of increasing inflation and unemployment), which plagued the US economy in the 1970s, further aided the move toward deregulation and free trade. The rise of Western Europe and Japan as competing trade blocs undercut domestic industries. The US underwent a shift away from manufacturing and toward a service-based economy. Faced with these new pressures, union membership dropped to only 13% of salary and wage workers.

A drop in membership paralleled changes to union activities. What were once the only viable means to achieve benefits in an environment of few alternatives have become corrupt and rigid obstacles to the consumer, the national economy, and the transforming labor force. Infighting among union leaders and ties to organized crime have led to fraud, money laundering, widespread corruption, and murder. A particularly infamous incident occurred in 1969, when assassins hired by the President of the United Mine Workers William Boyle murdered competing labor leader Joseph Yablonski and his family due to disagreements about union organization and Yablonski’s popularity among members. Most of the insidious effects of today’s unions are, however, far less dramatic. Using political influence, appealing rhetoric, and disciplined organizational structures, they have undermined reform and stifled progress at almost every turn. In creating inflexible sets of employment responsibilities for members, they have reduced individual initiative and cost businesses millions in grievance payments.

Teachers Unions and the Demise of American Education:
The American public education system is a colossal wreck. American students place near the bottom of most mathematics and science exams, losing out to an increasing number of developing countries. Pointing to the results of a Time Magazine study, economist Thomas Sowell has argued that, “American students spend about as many hours in school annually as students in England, France and Germany. But the number of hours that American students spend on serious subjects like history, science and math is only about half what the students in these other countries spend on these kinds of subjects.” According to a 2003 report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States had among the highest rates of public and private education expenditures (more than 2.5% of GDP), but ranked near the bottom in math and reading proficiency. The results of a study by the National Center for Education Statistics demonstrates that their OECD counterparts outperform even the top 10% of American students and that the US has a larger percentage of students below level 1 in math and reading than almost any other country. To add insult to injury, a CATO Institute study has demonstrated that per pupil spending in the public school system has nearly tripled in the past four decades. According to studies reviewed by the Christian Science Monitor, school districts in some of America’s largest cities (e.g. New York and Detroit) have graduation rates below 40%.

Into the arena come America’s two largest teachers unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, who claim to be leading the struggle to combat these sobering figures. These groups masterfully advance the mantra of protecting student interests, fighting for a “fair and strong” public school system, working closely with parents, and aggressively tackling everything from drop-out rates to extra-help programs.

The truth behind the facade is that these same unions have undercut education reform at every turn. As organizations whose first priority is the financial well-being of paying union members (and union leaders more so), teachers unions demonstrate little genuine concern for whether a public school student is actually receiving a worthy education. In bringing school boards under their influence and enlarging districts, they have excluded parents from any sizable role in the education process. In New York City, a major battleground for education reform, the United Federation of Teachers under Randy Weingarten has backed social promotion for failing lower school students and opposed merit-based pay for better performing teachers. That is expected, since the union is interested in all its members getting the same financial benefits and cares little about individual achievement. With $15,000 going to school districts in states like Massachusetts, thousands of signatures are still needed to get new books and laboratory equipment. The bureaucracy in the school boards, having near total job security, is practically untouchable by concerned parents and students. In the inner cities, where the problem is most acute, money poured into the system goes toward removing graffiti and enforcing discipline instead of educating. Contracts negotiated by union operatives seek a minimum of individual initiative and a maximum of narrow responsibilities. The 1998 contract negotiated by the Milwaukee Teachers Education Association contained 174 pages and 2000 amendments, replete with cases under which members may apply for grievances if asked to work beyond their negotiated duties! Such an inflexible and rigid system is sorely incapable of effective problem solving.

National teachers unions and their local chapters have fought hard against private vouchers and state supported charter schools, where the lack of Parent-Teacher Associations (under heavy union influence) and paying union members allows for more flexible curricula, rewards for improved teacher performance, and greater parental involvement in the learning process. It also frees parents from mandated school zones and gives them access to facilities within commuting range. The primary beneficiaries of competition to the current system are low-income and minority students, the teachers unions’ sacred cows, who currently suffer from restricted access and poor learning environments.

While claiming to fight for better education, teachers unions are the torpedoes sinking the ships of reform. By attempting to limit alternatives to the existing public school system, they make an already massive problem worse. With little genuine concern for the academic well-being of students, unions focus on narrow material self-interest. Negotiated contracts are filled with rigid guidelines and causes for grievances, stifling individual initiative. Massive expenditures are poured into the system, but the destination of the funds varies greatly across districts. As the American public education system remains an embarrassment and graduation rates continue to plummet, the influence of teachers unions must be substantially curtailed if serious improvement is to occur.