Commentary: Unions vs. Teachers: Thoughts After Janus

By Rob RoperRob Roper

Following the Janus vs. AFSCME Supreme Court decision that ruled public sector unions can no longer force non-members to pay agency fees, both the unions and Vermont’s teachers have some questions to reflect upon. The big one for teachers is, are my union dues really worth it?

According to statements made to the media by VTNEA spokesperson Darren Allen, the difference between the agency fee charged to non-members by the teachers’ union ($454) and the full union dues ($629) was just $175.  Before Janus, the question potential members had to ask themselves was, if I’m going to be forced to pay $454 anyway is the extra $175 worth it to be a full voting member of the union. Now the question is, is that worth over $600, or am I better off just pocketing all that cash?

The unions, on the other hand, have to figure out ways to refocus their priorities and create real and perceived value for potential members.

Teachers’ unions now operate primarily as political entities focused on influencing elections with a specific partisan bias toward Democrats, which not all of their members necessarily agree with. That didn’t matter when workers of all political stripes were forced to pay up regardless. It matters now.

The union sees its power as coming from the ability to raise money and mobilize people to the polls. As such, the union benefits most by advocating for policies and legislation that expand its membership. More members mean more dues and more voters. But this model isn’t necessarily in the best interest of teachers. In their quest to expand membership, “teachers’” unions have evolved into what would more accurately be described as district employee unions, which incorporate not just teachers, but administrators and other staff. As such, the focus on teachers’ interests are diluted.

For example, most people think that classroom teachers (and, when most people think of “teachers” they think of the people in the classroom) deserve more pay. Anyone who’s spent eight hours trying to get one kid to concentrate on a task that he or she would rather avoid can sympathize with the challenge of getting twenty kids up to speed on how to multiply fractions or diagram a sentence. The ones who are really good at this – the ones we can all look back upon as having changed our lives – are highly valuable members of society and should be so compensated. In Vermont, we spend roughly $20,000 per pupil. Think of that number this way: if there are twenty kids in the classroom we are spending $400,000 a year on that classroom. Where does all that money go? Not the classroom teachers’ salary. Those resources are being used to expand the number of employees outside the classroom.

Over the past few decades, the national trend has seen the number of non-teaching staff in public schools skyrocket, well out of proportion to increases to student population. The number of classroom teachers, on the other hand, has remained steady with student population growth. In Vermont we have the lowest staff to student ratio in the nation at 4-1. Total pending on K-12 has exploded too. This is good for the union – more people equals more dues and more voters – but, it’s not necessarily in the best interest of teachers. Or students, or taxpayers, for that matter.

Teachers (and, again, students and taxpayers) would benefit more from policies that directed resources into the classroom. Unfortunately, this is a low-to-no growth proposition for the unions because there are only so many adults you can put into a classroom and only so many kids to serve. But, you can fill skyscrapers with backroom staff, so that’s the priority. From the union’s perspective, ten low to moderately paid members is better than five highly paid members. Those whose compensation is being held back by this dynamic may disagree.

By putting unions in the position of having to work harder and prove value to their membership, teachers, students and taxpayers will benefit. Unions, if they’re up to the challenge, will benefit too. After all, a membership made up entirely of people who have enthusiastically volunteered to take part in an organization will be stronger than one in which a large proportion of its members were dragged in against their will.

— Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute.

 

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

Deanne October 2, 2018 at 1:43 am

How the forced-union-payment was endured so long without a challenge is beyond me. It will be interesting to see what happens next. I hope you will keep us up on what you observe.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

Do Vasectomies Prevent Dictators?

November 16, 2018 By David Flemming George Plumb claimed in a November 9 VTDigger commentary that men should feel obligated to get vasectomies to prevent authoritarians from using booming populations...

Dealing with Pre-Existing Conditions

November 15, 2018 by John McClaughry During the last national election campaign Democrats scored points by attacking Republicans for wanting to deny health insurance to people with pre-existing...

When a Liberal State Rejects a Carbon Tax

November 14, 2018 By David Flemming When asked bluntly, even the most liberal voters hate carbon taxes. That was made evident in the state of Washington on Election...

Climate issues fared poorly on state ballots 

November 14, 2018 by John McClaughry The very liberal Washington Post ran a story on November 7 on the fate of climate change issues on state ballots. Their...

How I Voted Three Times. Or not.

by Rob Roper I voted three times last Tuesday. Or maybe I didn’t. My point is, you have no idea. You see, I have two kids who recently...

Video