Three Cheers for Self-Interest!
I tend to get along better with really staunch, paleo-unionists than those of the new unionism/professional organization variety because we agree on what unions are for. Sure, we still argue about everything else, but it saves time normally wasted on how altruistic and noble we both are.
Today’s case study concerns this United Federation of Teachers television ad and a response by blogger NYC Educator:
NYC Educator parses the tag line “We have teachers in our name, but children and their families in mind,” mentioning advice he once received that “Whenever anyone says but, you can completely disregard whatever came before it.”
He goes on to say, “We are a labor union. We should have teachers in our minds. In fact, that is our purpose. To buy into the propaganda that it’s somehow evil to act in our self-interest is to lose the war without firing a shot.”
This is great on so many levels. Of course we can debate whether UFT really has children and their families in mind, but I’d rather concentrate on this concept of self-interest.
NYC Educator is right, and it’s exactly on this point where many education reformers and union opponents go wrong. “Why do the unions protect bad teachers?” is a question I hear at least once a week. “Because all teachers – bad or good – pay them for that protection,” is how I respond. But discussing public education and The Children in terms of a commercial relationship between teachers and their agents is in poor taste. So we have ongoing discussions about teacher quality and retention without adequate acknowledgement that unions are fulfilling a paid commission (and sometimes, legal obligation) by keeping their members employed.
Teachers have their self-interest, and many times it coincides with the self-interest of students and parents. Teachers’ unions have their self-interest as well, but like to pretend they don’t, which is why the UFT ad mentions class size, supplies and quality teachers, but fails to mention bumping, release time, exclusive representation, and summary dismissal for teachers who fail to pay their union dues – all things that have nothing to do with the interests of students and parents.
A hypothetical union that advertises itself as acting in the interests of itself and its members creates an equivalency between itself and other self-interested parties. Like parents. And taxpayers. And, dare I say it, management. If it’s perfectably acceptable and natural for a union to defend its self-interest, by what standard does a union demand that employers (or charter schools) remain neutral during union organizing drives?
Although we read many stories (some on this blog) about the poor academic performance of America’s students, we can be encouraged by a May 2005 Yale University study that found they learn at an early age to factor self-interest into people’s claims. Reporting on the study, Science News concluded that ”at least by age 7, children can be cynical, recognizing that people’s statements may be influenced by their own interests.”
If you believe that the unions’ statements may be influenced by their own interests, it means you are devoted readers of this blog, which fulfills my self-interest. But, of course, I have The Children and their families in mind.
June 11th, 2009 at 19:03
There must be a special place in hell for those who spend their lives mining the public’s concern for children and families for their own narrow financial interests.
June 13th, 2009 at 17:57
Yes, teachers unions are paid to represent their members self-interest. The trouble comes in, I think, in who they are defending it from. Society is comfortable with self-interest craft unions because they protect workers from companies we know to be brutally profit oriented. But when it comes to teachers unions, there isn’t so lovely a boogie man. Teachers unions find themselves opposing reforming politicians and a public calling for reform. One might even go so far as to say teachers unions tend to protect their members self-interest from the people elected to protect our self-interest. Given that this is the case, an open admission of self-interest seems a losing bet for these unions.
June 16th, 2009 at 03:58
For the record, there is no “bumping” in NYC. That was given away in 05. And I’d disagree completely that the UFT opposes “reform.” In fact, it’s done much to enable it, including supporting mayoral control at its inception and right now, with Randi Weingarten writing an editorial in the NY Post supporting it, and the paper declaring, “Right on Randi.”
I’d say Mayor Bloomberg, who’s good at nothing but PR, qualifies as that “boogie man.” But the UFT has enabled him at every step, and has given him a relatively trouble-free ride. He’s got no better pal than part-time union head Randi Weingarten.
June 17th, 2009 at 09:52
Readers should try to see The Cartel, [http://www.thecartelmovie.com/]
a documentary that the filmaker subtitles: “how American public education primarily serves its employees, not its children.”