Editors: Much of what has appeared in Rethinking Schools about teacher unionism makes sense, in particular the need for "social justice unionism." But what's been absent from the critique of teacher unionism - and too often from the unions themselves - is a clear analysis of how the union's responsibility to serve its members meshes with "social justice unionism."
In the 1960s, tens of thousands of teachers risked their livelihoods and arrest to build teachers unions, to democratize the schools, to give classroom teachers a voice in school policy. In state after state, teachers won formal recognition of their unions as bargaining agents, but at a cost of accepting legislation that sharply curtailed the scope of bargaining to salary, benefits, and class size.
The proponents of the "new teacher unionism" speak to teachers' continuing desire to work in schools that tap their knowledge and judgment, to participate in decision-making that, despite collective bargaining, has remained beyond their reach. But the "new teacher unionism," like the management-labor collaboration in private industry that it imitates, proposes to cede important protections, like seniority, for no real power in deciding the most fundamental aspects of school life.
It's critical to understand that the unions today aren't bad because they're too combative, too confrontational, too "industrial." They're just bad unions, in most cases bureaucratic shells. To fight well for teachers, they'd have to be more democratic and active as organizations. To win on big issues, they'd have to develop solid relations with parent and advocacy groups that want to improve the schools.
Yet the unions protect teachers in ways no other agency or organization does, not only bread and butter issues, but also from administrative fiat and malfeasance. Teachers deserve and need an organization that will bring these issues to the public.