After Janus, a Renewed and Relevant Teachers’ Association?
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s June ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, in which the majority ruled that compelled agency fees for public-sector unions are unconstitutional, there has been no shortage of chin-stroking “Whither the Unions?” articles. But the financial question – how the teachers’ unions will deal with the loss of revenue as teachers begin to withhold dues – that seems to be taking the most attention. Will the teachers’ unions, until now a giant in the lobbying world, be able to retain its political clout in the post-Janus landscape? After all, the two large teachers’ unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), combined to give $60 million to candidates nationwide in the 2016 election cycle, 99% of it to Democrats. This is a massive amount of money. (For comparison, the NRA, often thought of as a powerhouse on the Republican side, gave just over a million dollars to candidates in the same cycle.)
For the moment, it’s worth setting aside this question. Yes, the teachers’ unions will likely lose some influence under a voluntary-dues system, but as the NRA comparison illustrates, they will have to fall quite a long way to lose that famous political clout entirely. The more interesting question is whether the NEA will grasp this golden opportunity to re-think its role in education policy.
To begin with, the teachers’ unions are already fighting a rearguard battle against the political, economic, and technological forces shaping education policy. While they advocate for keeping traditional models of pay and pedagogy, the fact is that hot-button education issues like merit pay, school choice, charter school expansion, and education savings accounts have moved from free-market think tanks into the mainstream of the policy conversation over the past two decades. Even President Obama’s first education chief, Arne Duncan, angered the unions by adopting some of these policies in his signature Race to the Top plan.
But aside from simply losing the policy argument, the model and tactics that the NEA uses as a collective bargaining representative are out of step as well. Ironically, one of the most common complaints from both teachers and their unions is that schools and districts do not treat them as professionals. The unions insist that teachers are part of an elite profession requiring an advanced degree, just like doctors and lawyers, and should be treated as such by their negotiating partner in collective bargaining.
But doesn’t the collective bargaining process itself put the union on the hook as much as the school district for de-professionalizing the occupation? When the teachers’ contract with the school district is being hammered out via a model bettered suited to semi-skilled labor at
General Motors, the union has abandoned the pretense of professionalism already. Teachers may want to be seen through that very same “professional” lens, but their union consistently portrays them as “labor.”
What if, on the other hand, the NEA or AFT decided to work on the model of the American Medical Association? Membership in the AMA is not a requirement for a doctor, but it is certainly a mark of professionalism. In addition to being a professional organization, it’s the publisher of a prestigious scholarly journal, a sponsor of conferences and research, an accreditation partner for institutions like medical schools and hospitals, and a network for residencies and jobs.
What if all that could be said of the NEA or AFT in the education world? What if one (or both) chose to be a partner for the education industry, stand as an advocate for evidence-based pedagogy and policy, and continue to promote higher pay or better conditions for teachers as a respected voice, rather than an old-style, adversarial labor union? It might seem like a long shot, but by stepping out of the collective bargaining role, it achieves two very important ends simultaneously.
First, it cultivates a new reputation as trusted expert, rather than an advocate of simple self-interest. For example, an NEA or AFT working on a professional association model might wake up to the unfunded pension mandates threatening to swamp state budgets – an issue it has been in the unions’ short-term interest to ignore. An NEA or AFT that works to help promote a fair and sustainable alternative will help more teachers in the long run than one incentivized to hang on to the unsustainable pension system as long as possible. This single change, not incidentally, will go a long way toward the “re-professionalizing” that unions claim they want.
Second, releasing the collective bargaining reins allows innovations in salary and benefit negotiation to step in where a century-old model continues to dominate most states. As with pension reform, the unions have fought hard against merit pay in almost every form, describing it as a “risky” system that “pit[s] educators against each other.” But pay for performance is a tested concept that works well in other industries. Teachers claim their situation is different, since their performance can hinge on the quality of their students. But this principle is just as true in other careers as well. Doctors, lawyers, and sales managers are evaluated based on all their patients and clients – even the ones they sometimes wish would go away.
It’s possible that the changes already under way in education – school choice, merit pay, ESAs – will accelerate on their own. Meanwhile, there may be many more teachers ready to claw back their dues than anyone expects. A weakened, post-Janus union runs the risk of seeming even more out of touch as teachers walk away from the union and realize that sky hasn’t fallen, and
there may come a tipping point where the union finds itself wholly irrelevant, bypassed by more popular incentive and benefit structures, some being tested now in private and charter schools.
The smart money instead is on a new, professional NEA or AFT poised to be a partner and player in helping schools and districts navigate a new technological and pedagogical landscape, rather than an outmoded labor union consistently applying the brakes on any innovation that threatens the collective bargaining status quo.
For the moment, it’s worth setting aside this question. Yes, the teachers’ unions will likely lose some influence under a voluntary-dues system, but as the NRA comparison illustrates, they will have to fall quite a long way to lose that famous political clout entirely. The more interesting question is whether the NEA will grasp this golden opportunity to re-think its role in education policy.
To begin with, the teachers’ unions are already fighting a rearguard battle against the political, economic, and technological forces shaping education policy. While they advocate for keeping traditional models of pay and pedagogy, the fact is that hot-button education issues like merit pay, school choice, charter school expansion, and education savings accounts have moved from free-market think tanks into the mainstream of the policy conversation over the past two decades. Even President Obama’s first education chief, Arne Duncan, angered the unions by adopting some of these policies in his signature Race to the Top plan.
But aside from simply losing the policy argument, the model and tactics that the NEA uses as a collective bargaining representative are out of step as well. Ironically, one of the most common complaints from both teachers and their unions is that schools and districts do not treat them as professionals. The unions insist that teachers are part of an elite profession requiring an advanced degree, just like doctors and lawyers, and should be treated as such by their negotiating partner in collective bargaining.
But doesn’t the collective bargaining process itself put the union on the hook as much as the school district for de-professionalizing the occupation? When the teachers’ contract with the school district is being hammered out via a model bettered suited to semi-skilled labor at
General Motors, the union has abandoned the pretense of professionalism already. Teachers may want to be seen through that very same “professional” lens, but their union consistently portrays them as “labor.”
What if, on the other hand, the NEA or AFT decided to work on the model of the American Medical Association? Membership in the AMA is not a requirement for a doctor, but it is certainly a mark of professionalism. In addition to being a professional organization, it’s the publisher of a prestigious scholarly journal, a sponsor of conferences and research, an accreditation partner for institutions like medical schools and hospitals, and a network for residencies and jobs.
What if all that could be said of the NEA or AFT in the education world? What if one (or both) chose to be a partner for the education industry, stand as an advocate for evidence-based pedagogy and policy, and continue to promote higher pay or better conditions for teachers as a respected voice, rather than an old-style, adversarial labor union? It might seem like a long shot, but by stepping out of the collective bargaining role, it achieves two very important ends simultaneously.
First, it cultivates a new reputation as trusted expert, rather than an advocate of simple self-interest. For example, an NEA or AFT working on a professional association model might wake up to the unfunded pension mandates threatening to swamp state budgets – an issue it has been in the unions’ short-term interest to ignore. An NEA or AFT that works to help promote a fair and sustainable alternative will help more teachers in the long run than one incentivized to hang on to the unsustainable pension system as long as possible. This single change, not incidentally, will go a long way toward the “re-professionalizing” that unions claim they want.
Second, releasing the collective bargaining reins allows innovations in salary and benefit negotiation to step in where a century-old model continues to dominate most states. As with pension reform, the unions have fought hard against merit pay in almost every form, describing it as a “risky” system that “pit[s] educators against each other.” But pay for performance is a tested concept that works well in other industries. Teachers claim their situation is different, since their performance can hinge on the quality of their students. But this principle is just as true in other careers as well. Doctors, lawyers, and sales managers are evaluated based on all their patients and clients – even the ones they sometimes wish would go away.
It’s possible that the changes already under way in education – school choice, merit pay, ESAs – will accelerate on their own. Meanwhile, there may be many more teachers ready to claw back their dues than anyone expects. A weakened, post-Janus union runs the risk of seeming even more out of touch as teachers walk away from the union and realize that sky hasn’t fallen, and
there may come a tipping point where the union finds itself wholly irrelevant, bypassed by more popular incentive and benefit structures, some being tested now in private and charter schools.
The smart money instead is on a new, professional NEA or AFT poised to be a partner and player in helping schools and districts navigate a new technological and pedagogical landscape, rather than an outmoded labor union consistently applying the brakes on any innovation that threatens the collective bargaining status quo.
Comments