Ask Auntie Pinko
November 6, 2003

Dear Auntie Pinko,

Do you think unions contributed to the decline of public education?

For perspective, I am a lifelong progressive Democrat. I would rather have a limb cut off than vote Republican. However, as a former educator, I time the decline of public education with the rise of hard-core unionism among teachers. The AFT comes to mind. The concept of unionism is less production for more money ("money" could be benefits, vacation, job security, etc.). This is antithetical to the concept of education - teach the student no matter what it takes. What is your opinion?

Bob
Raleigh, NC

Dear Bob,

Auntie Pinko does have to wonder about the quality of our educational system when it fails to teach people about the inherent dangers of forming assumptions based on generalizations and emotions, reaching conclusions from far too cursory an analysis of the data, and then using those assumptions to prove the conclusions. Clearly, we are failing our citizens by not providing them with empirical analysis and critical thinking skills.

But is it "the unions'" fault? Are they even a significant contributing factor? And if they are a factor in this postulated "decline" (which has yet to be empirically established, regardless of our feelings about it,) does this negative effect outweigh any positive effects?

(Don't get upset, Bob - the practical truth is that Auntie does in fact agree with some of what you say, and I'll get to that later. But I can't let sloppy communications slide past when public discourse is affected!)

Let's start with this hypothetical "decline." The fact is, we have no way of accurately measuring the performance of public education today against (for example) public education back when Auntie was in school. Too many critical factors have changed. Just as an example, back when Auntie was in fifth grade, students who had physical or cognitive challenges never shared a classroom with me, and my school was not expected to meet their needs. However you may feel about the mainstreaming of students with special needs (Auntie supports this in principle but is quite cranky about how we are actually implementing it, just for the record) it is a significant factor in our definition of schools' success, and the structure and resources we provide them to achieve that success.

The body of knowledge today's students need for competency in an increasingly complex economic and social environment is vastly larger and more multi-dimensional - and there is less consensus about just what the essentials actually are for measuring academic outcomes. And we have defined a whole new constellation of non-academic goals regarding socialization, character-building, 'learning to learn,' etc., as desirable outcomes.

Even back when I was in fifth grade, there was plenty of moaning about "the decline of public education." Auntie suspects that on the second day after public education was invented, there were people lamenting how much better the first day had been.

Without being able to empirically establish a "decline" in public education, there is little point to assigning blame or identifying causes.

Now, rhetorical quibbling aside, is there much to concern us about the ability of our public education system to meet our children's needs today? I certainly think so. As to the role of teachers' unions in meeting those needs (or failing to meet them) you bring up an important point, Bob, and one that relates to a concern Auntie Pinko has had about unions in America for some time now.

This concern is illustrated by your assertion that "The concept of unionism is less production for more money" a statement so dramatically at odds with my understanding that it's like a 10,000-watt spotlight on the problem.

If I could recommend a little Googling around on the Internet, you'll find many excellent historical references and documents that will explain the concepts behind unionism and its rise in industrial society. I think you'll find the research worthwhile for its own sake, but for the sake of discussion I'll summarize what you'll find: the fundamental idea behind unionism is to balance the interests of labor with the interests of capital, and shape economic structure to meet the needs of both.

By empowering workers to bargain collectively for their interests in the economy, unionism actually builds stronger economies, by creating larger markets for an ever-expanding array of products. Of course, like so many important concepts, the devil is in the definitions, here, particularly the definition of "workers interests."

It is undeniable that one aspect of workers' interests is simple compensation at a fair value for their labor. Back in the early days of unions, this interest was primary and pressing, based on nearly two hundred years of industrialization in a largely unchecked laissez-faire system that overwhelmingly favored the interests of capital. Issues of safety, too, were far more critical than most workers today can even imagine. Unions had huge, difficult battles to fight simply to redress the accumulated imbalance.

As a result, many unions seem to have grown to define themselves solely in terms of their ability to negotiate increasingly more favorable compensation and working conditions for their members.

This shortsightedness, while understandable, has had the same corrosive economic effects as the shortsightedness afflicting capital with the need to improve this quarter's bottom line at any cost. Many unions have lost sight of the larger view - making the economy work for labor as well as capital. By hanging on to outdated organizational structures based on industry or job category, and defining success as short-term gains for today's workers, they lock themselves into a counterproductive and ultimately losing battle against the new economic realities of a globally expanding marketplace, increasingly sophisticated competition, and the demands this makes for flexibility, mobility, adaptation to change, and continual development of new skills among workers.

The reality is that many unions have not kept up, and they are serving neither their own members, nor the larger community of labor, very effectively. Sometimes, yes, they are even damaging those interests for the sake of immediate gratification.

But the solution is not to eliminate unions. For one thing, there are large numbers of workers who still face the kind of near-feudal working conditions that obtained in the worst days of the Gilded Age. Here, the fundamental battles for fair compensation and safe working conditions are as pressing as ever, especially in a time when we are directing our government to abandon its role in enforcing standards of safety and equity in the name of deregulation.

And even among workers for whom the basics of equitable compensation and workplace safety are not current, critical issues, how long do you think that will last without the rights to organize and bargain collectively and fairly? Who will guard those rights, without unions? In a world where corsair capitalism is running increasingly unchecked, and buying its way into government power?

The solution is not to eliminate unions, but to transform them. And some unions are recognizing this and beginning the process of self-transformation. But the process will never really take hold until union members transcend their own narrow short-term interests and tell their leadership "Look here, what we want is not an extra dollar an hour in the pay envelope, but a chance to compete effectively in larger market places by raising standards everywhere, having constant access to the training needed to upgrade and learn new skills, benefits that travel with us from job to job, and a genuine stake in the results our labor produces."

And union leadership, in turn, needs to educate members about the importance of long-term expectations and fundamental issues. Finally, both membership and leadership, while maintaining the priority of their interests, need to address capital from a stance that rejects adversarial zero-sum conflict in favor of win-win negotiation. I hope this helps you understand unions better, Bob, and thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!

View Auntie's Archive

Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?

Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for everything.

Just send e-mail to: [email protected], and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.