- Lead to the demise of public education
- Help the affluent at the expense of poor children
- Exacerbate racial and economic stratification
- Violate the constitutional separation of church and state
- Foster extremist schools that would teach antidemocratic doctrines

     Just about everyone is aware of NEA/AFT opposition to public funding for private schooling, and the reasons they cite for their opposition. Very few, however, are aware of the fact that in 1947, the NEA/AFT and American Federation of Labor (AFL) supported federal aid to education that would have provided substantial federal aid for private schooling.
     This fact raises some interesting questions. If federal aid for private schooling was a good thing in 1947, why is it a threat now to our way of life? Conversely, if it is such a threat now, why wasn't it then? My only point here is that the inconsistency is not discussed, either in teacher union publications or in the media generally. The NEA/AFT may have a satisfactory explanation for the shift in position, but what is it? Neither the public nor the union membership is aware of the change, let alone any explanation for it. And if the public as well as the rank and file membership can be as uninformed about a matter of such importance, we should not be surprised that they are uninformed about a host of other matters as well.
     The preceding example underscores the importance of the distinction between teachers and their unions. The unions characterize any criticism of unions as a criticism of teachers. This strategy was evident in the NEA/AFT reaction to Bob Dole's acceptance speech at the 1996 Republican national convention; despite Dole's explicit disclaimer that his criticisms of the teacher's unions should not be interpreted as a criticism of teachers, the NEA/AFT immediately charged that Dole's speech had attacked teachers. The union charge was false but politically effective. On some matters, the union interests coincide with teacher interests, but on others, there is an actual or potential conflict of interest. For example, the teachers are consumers of representational services. The unions are producers of them. In this capacity, it is in the unions interest to be paid more, in the teacher's interest to pay less. The union's interest lies in persuading members that they are receiving excellent service for their dues; the member interest lies in getting all the facts, not simply those which strengthen the union's position. In short, criticism of the teacher unions cannot be equated with criticism of teachers, much as the NEA/AFT characterize it this way.

An Overview

     By the time readers come to the end, this book reaches the following conclusions:

 
The most important outcome of teacher unionization is its effect on the way public policy is made. This outcome overshadows the effects of teacher unionization on teacher welfare and student achievement.

 
The NEA and the AFT are among the most powerful interest groups in U.S. society; their influence on noneducational issues at the federal and state levels is arguably more important than their influence on educational issues per se.

 
Public and academic opinion vastly underestimate NEA/AFT influence partly because private sector unions have been declining since the 1950s. Meanwhile, the public sector unions, especially the NEA and AFT, have experienced huge increases in membership and influence. Failure to distinguish the trends in the two sectors leads to neglect of the explosive growth and consequences of teacher unionization.

 
Jointly considered, the NEA/AFT enroll over three million members and their dues revenues exceed one billion dollars annually. In addition, the revenues of NEA/AFT subsidiary organizations, such as their political action committees (PACs) and foundations, probably amounts to $ 100 million annually, and the revenues over which the teacher unions share control with others are much greater.

 
On a full-time equivalent basis, I estimate that the NEA/AFT employ more political operatives than the Republican and Democratic parties combined. My estimate is based upon NEA publications, especially those specifying the duties of UniServ directors. AFT staff perform the same work, but the AFT does not publish manuals on the subject.

 
About 3,000 NEA/AFT employees, including the officers elected at various levels, earn more than $ 1 00,000 annually in salary and benefits. Teacher union compensation plays a major but widely neglected role in shaping educational policy in the United States.

 
Collective bargaining in public education was initially advocated because political action was ineffective in protecting teacher interests. Ironically, collective bargaining has greatly increased the political influence of teacher unions, far beyond the expectations of its early proponents. - Collective bargaining by public sector unions shares all of the important characteristics of political action and should be subject to the legislation governing political action.

 
U.S. Supreme Court decisions which distinguish collective bargaining in public education from political action were legal blunders with far-reaching negative consequences for our political and educational systems.

 
The NEA is engaged in questionable accounting practices to understate their financial support for their political operations and to maximize the revenues they can require nonmembers to pay to the unions.

The NEA and the AFT illustrate the tendency of producer groups to rely on government protection or regulation instead of better service at lower cost to protect and promote their interests.

School boards and school administrators are largely unaware of the ways that collective bargaining contracts in public education maximize union revenues and political influence.

Generally speaking, the activities of state and local affiliates of the NEA and the AFT are governed by state, not federal, legislation. The state legislation does not include the safeguards for union members and the public that have been included in federal legislation regulating unions in the private sector. The absence of these safeguards renders it virtually impossible for teachers to monitor union activities or expenditures, especially the total compensation of union officers and staff

Like unions generally, the NEA and the AFT are adamantly opposed to competition in their labor markets, and to any policy that would shrink the market for teacher services. Thus the NEA/AFT oppose vouchers, tuition tax credits, contracting out, home schooling, or lowering the compulsory age limit for education. On the theory that the camel must not be allowed to poke its nose into the tent, the NEA/AFT are as adamantly opposed to "trial projects" or "demonstration projects" as they are to large scale programs to allow competition in the education industry.

The NEA completely dominates the policies and programs of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, widely referred to as "the PTA." As long as the PTA is unwilling or unable to abolish NEA domination, parents will need either a new parent organization not controlled by the NEA; or school choice plans that enable parents to enroll their children in a wide range of private schools.

The teacher unions are highly vulnerable in several ways, but their critics have failed to recognize and hence to exploit these vulnerabilities. Union revenues, membership and political influence experienced substantial growth during the twelve years of the Reagan and Bush administrations; the post-November 1994 conservative emphasis on school prayer and abolition of the U.S. Department of Education merely continues conservative ineptitude on education issues.

The NEA and the AFT overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates for public office. The NEA's claim to be "bipartisan' is based upon its endorsements of a minuscule number of liberal Republican candidates for public office. The basic causes of overwhelming teacher union support for Democratic candidates are not likely to change; however, the NEA may increase its contributions to Republican party organizations to preserve the appearance of bipartisanship when it cannot identify any Republican candidates to endorse.

There are some important differences between the NEA and the AFT, but they have little or no bearing on educational or political policies. The neoconservative notion that the AFT is a more enlightened union or more hospitable to educational reform or innovation resulted from AFT President Albert Shanker's ability to manipulate media, not to any substantive differences between the unions. The latter overwhelmingly endorse the same candidates for public office, and adopt the same positions on legislative issues. Internal union issues, not differences over educational or political policy, are the main obstacles to an NEA/AFT merger.

In the private sector, it is taken for granted that basic changes in our system of employment relations are essential to union viability. Labor relations experts often disagree about the changes that should be made, but few, if any, antic' pate a union resurgence under prevailing labor law. In education, however, the NEA/AFT are trying to neutralize the factors responsible for the decline of private sector unions. The NEA/AFT are winning some battles but are not likely to win the war.

Because of competitive factors, private sector unions are beginning to emphasize productivity over redistribution. It is unlikely that teacher unions can do the same.

The Point of View

Because this book is often critical of both teacher unions and their critics, readers should know my basic attitudes toward unions generally and the NEA/AFT in particular.
     First, I believe that employee organizations are essential in both the private and public sectors. It is especially not desirable that government be able to treat employees with impunity. Employee organizations should be strong enough to challenge government but not able to cripple it in the pursuit of the special interests of their members.
     Private sector unions have been declining in members and political influence, not only in the United States but in most if not all Western industrial nations.3 Some of the reasons are not applicable to teacher unions; for instance, the latter are not threatened by competition from products made by cheaper labor in other countries. This is why generalizations about organized labor do not necessarily apply to the NEA/AFT.
     Indisputably, the NEA/AFT are the main political opponents of privatization. Any study of the NEA/AFT that ignored their antiprivatization activities would be substantially incomplete. Nevertheless, although I support market oriented changes, promoting them is not the purpose of this book. Because the NEA/AFT are so heavily involved in antiprivatization activities, discussion of them is unavoidable in a book about the unions, but my purpose is to raise different and broader issues.
     For example, school boards allow payroll deductions to NEA and AFT political action committees (PACs) and transmit the amounts to the union PACs at no cost to the unions. Many citizens who are opposed to market oriented changes in education also believe that school boards should not collect and distribute PAC funds for private organizations. This is the kind of issue that should not be overlooked in the conflict over privatization issues.
     Although critical of the NEA and AFT, my analysis often diverges from Popular criticisms of them. For instance, the Heritage Foundation, Forbes magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and a host of other union critics have alleged that public school teachers enroll their children in private schools in higher proportions than the public at large. This allegation is frequently cited to demonstrate that NEA/AFT opposition to privatization is not justified. Aside from the fact that the allegation is false, it has no bearing on the issues to be discussed. As a matter of fact, NEA/AFT critics typically embrace the same babble ("Every child can learn"; "Parental involvement"; "world class standards") as their union counterparts, and their policy prescriptions just as frequently serve only symbolic or narrow interest group purposes.

The Plan of This Book
     With several detours and add-ons, the plan of this book is as follows:
     Chapter 2 is devoted to the emergence of teacher unionization, especially Since the early 1960s. Having participated in this emergence as an author, professor, union activist, and true believer who interacted frequently with the key personalities in the situation, my account cites both personal experience as well as historical records.
     Labor unions bargain collectively on behalf of the employees they represent; in this process, their objectives are to maximize employee and union benefits. Chapter 3 is an effort to explain the NEA/AFT political and social agendas as well as their so called "bread and butter" objectives. Chapter 4 discusses the way NEA/AFT objectives are implemented through collective bargaining. Without an understanding of this process, it is impossible to understand how the NEA/AFT fund their local, state, and national activities; without an understanding of how union operations are funded, it is impossible to appreciate their sources of power and their vulnerabilities.
     Chapter 5, which is devoted to NEA/AFT political operations at the national level, documents the interaction of union political and bargaining objectives; also the way union objectives affect their political preferences. These interactions are also evident in Chapter 6, which takes up NEA/AFT political operations at the state and local levels; as we shall see, it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish collective bargaining from political activity in public education. This point is further expanded in Chapter 7 by an analysis of NEA/AFT opposition to contracting out by school boards. Chapter 8 is devoted to the compensation of union staff, which I regard as the most important neglected fact in American education. Chapter 9 then tracks union revenues; the data show that representing teachers is a billion dollar industry, perhaps much more. The teacher unions control huge member benefit corporations and insurance trusts that have yet to be thoroughly scrutinized. Chapter 9 also explains how the NEA maximizes its revenues by means of dubious accounting practices.
     Having considered the NEA/AFT role in collective bargaining and political action, Chapter 10 challenges the distinction between these two processes. Chapter 10 also discusses teacher rights to disassociate from union policies and programs. These issues are especially salient in the light of NEA/AFT political and social agendas.
     Chapter 11 explains the unique role of AFT President Albert Shanker. Shanker's prestige in education, the labor movement, and politics is shown to have deflected critical inquiry away from his modus operandi, a topic with significant implications for the future of teacher unions. The discussion of Shanker, who died on February 22, 1997, leads into Chapter 12, which sets forth my assessment of the impact of teacher unions on teacher welfare and pupil achievement. It then takes up some of the unintended consequences of teacher unionization, such as its effects on the PTA. On most issues, my assessment challenges both pro and anti-union critiques, partly because of the limited range of the outcomes they consider.
     Even without merger on the horizon, it is unlikely that the NEA/AFT will continue to function as they do now. With due regard for the speculative nature of the issue, Chapter 13 takes up the likelihood of an NEA/AFT merger and affiliation with the AFL-CIO. Chapter 14 concludes by assessing how teachers, parents, and citizens can address the issues raised in the preceding chapters.

Definitions and Dimensions
     Legally, a union is an organization that exists in whole or in part to represent employees to their employers on their terms and conditions of employment. In the United States, unions ordinarily fulfill this role through collective bargaining, which is defined in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) as: ". . . the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement, or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession."4 Although this definition includes terms which require further clarification, it is the one adopted or followed since 1935 under federal and most state statutes on the subject.
     Throughout this book, I refer to "teacher unions" or "teacher bargaining" or some other phrase that limits the discussion to teacher unions or public education. In many cases my comments would be just as applicable to other unions representing state and local employees; however, repeated discussion of applicability to other unions would have been distracting in a book about the NEA/AFT For this reason applicability issues are usually left to the reader with no comment from the author.
     Technically, we might distinguish unions that bargain collectively from unions that try to promote employee welfare through other means. In about one-third of the states, there are teacher organizations that oppose collective bargaining and would be dismayed at being categorized as "unions" merely because they try to represent teachers on employment issues. At the same time, the NEA/AFT would ridicule the idea that organizations opposed to collective bargaining should be categorized as "unions." Consequently, I refer to teacher organizations opposed to collective bargaining as "nonunion," even though they engage in some union type activities.