Intercepts
A listening post monitoring public education and teachers’ unions.

Click here to read:

1) Josh Billings’ America

2) Last Week’s Intercepts

3) Quotes of the Week

I was wondering under what budget line-item does the California Teachers Association account for their own specially labeled bottled water?

I’ve taken up the question of those who don’t know much about collective bargaining, as have much more prominent commentators, such as Ben Smith of Politico and Mark Blumenthal of the Huffington Post. But in light of non-stop media coverage of the Wisconsin battle, there is something that should sober up those of us who spend an inordinate amount of time following this stuff, or advocating for either side.

The general public doesn’t much care.

How else to explain the Pew Research Center News Interest Index for February 17-20? The pollsters asked:

How much if anything, have you heard about each of the following? Have you heard a lot, a little or nothing at all?

…Protests in Wisconsin over a plan to reduce the bargaining rights of government employee labor unions.

The response: 26 percent had heard a lot, 34 percent had heard a little, and 40 percent had heard nothing at all.

That should curb your enthusiasm. Have a great weekend!

Yesterday, Matt Yglesias caused a bit of a ruckus when he half-jokingly suggested that laying off teachers at random might be better than using seniority. While making his point, he wrote, “But of course doing layoffs by lottery would be a pretty silly way to run an organization.”

Sara Mead and Chad Aldeman quickly pointed out that laying off teachers by lottery is actually a common practice enshrined in collective bargaining agreements. It is used as a tiebreaker when teachers have equal amounts of seniority. This happens more frequently in larger districts, where hundreds of new teachers begin work on the exact same day. (If you’ll indulge me in a bit of self-reference, I noted the practice back in November 2005.)

If we’re really serious about all this collaboration talk, it seems to me that even the most reactionary school board and hidebound union can agree on a method to break seniority ties that is superior to a random lottery. You wouldn’t hire teachers by lottery. Laying them off by lottery is a dereliction of duty.

ignorant adj. lacking knowledge in a particular area or matter.

As the crowds in front of the state capitol in Madison go home, the media attention on public employee collective bargaining has shifted to the rest of the country. And when you want to know what the rest of the country thinks, you poll. Much of today’s coverage deals with the cognitive dissonance resulting from a USA Today/Gallup poll showing 61% of Americans would “oppose a law in your state taking away some collective bargaining rights of most public unions, including the state teachers union.”

The results were contrary to those reached by a Rasmussen poll a few days earlier, leading to the inevitable, unproductive commentary on polling itself, and who has it “right.”

My take is that all the polls are accurate, in terms of reflecting the actual responses of a statistically representative group of actual people. Holding conflicting positions at the same time is as American as Vespucci. During last year’s health care reform debate, it was Republicans trying to stall a Democratic bill, and Democrats were the ones citing their electoral victory as a mandate. Now the sides are reversed.

Only John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine asks the correct question: “How many people whom Gallup polled actually know what is meant, in public-policy terms, by the words ‘collective bargaining rights’?”

With more than 93 percent of our private workforce non-union, is there any reason to believe they even know what collective bargaining is? If you think I’m overstating the situation, check out today’s Yahoo News story, “What is a labor union?”

This phenomenon isn’t unique to labor issues. Past polling has shown us that Americans don’t know much about charter schools, the No Child Left Behind Act, teacher pay and education spending. This may be unfortunate, but it’s also a fact of life, since we don’t test voters on Election Day. It’s also not a reflection of education. We all fall into the ignorant bloc on one or more issues. I know very little about immigration policy. If I were polled on it, my answers might not seem too coherent to someone more knowledgeable.

Voter ignorance of particular public policy issues doesn’t redound to the benefit of either side. Unions can claim that voters don’t know about the benefits of organized labor, but opponents can claim they don’t know about the costs.

What we’re left with, then, is both sides trying to gain the support of this bloc through selective information – or propaganda, to be less charitable.

The winner of this long-overdue debate about public sector collective bargaining will be the one who better sways the bulk of the ignorant bloc to its side. So regardless of the votes in the legislature, or who holds the governor’s office, or the rock-solid support of the base, I would never, ever, count out the teachers’ unions when it comes to such an existential battle.

Click here to read:

1) NEA to Double Member Dues Contribution to Political War Chest

2) Media Bullpen Throws a Complete Game

3) Last Week’s Intercepts

4) Quotes of the Week

I know which side I’m betting on now.