Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
I’ve had a lot of exposure to industrial unions, of all stripes, including striking papermakers in my hometown. In spite of that (very negative) experience, I’ve had positive experiences. I’m most impressed with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, due to their dead-serious approach to apprentice training. I’m least impressed with the auto-maker unions. (And the union bailout in 2008 infuriated me, as it allowed those pathologies to persist.)
Very informative!
Thanks, Guillietta.
While I would never voluntarily belong to one, I don’t have a major problem with Private sector unions.
Public sector unions should be killed with fire.
I feel the same. There was a time when private sector unions helped improve worker safety. However, unions are often financially and politically corrupt. These days, workers are best protected by a growing economy and a consumers that care about workers.
Public sector unions should be outlawed as their is no good faith negotiator to represent tax payers and consumers don’t have a choice.
The value of the article to me was that it gave an inside look at a public sector union, and it revealed to us outsiders that they can
* do good for the citizens (that is, improve education) and
* act as a check on incompetence and abuses of power by public sector managers.
We non-teachers have no more idea about the day-to-day problems and abuses of teaching than we who are not welders or police officers do in those domains. In our ignorance, our opinions are distorted by a few sweeping generalizations (union bad, union good) driven in part by this or that ideology.
That said, these unions have great power to do evil. On the whole I believe that they do far more harm than good, and ought to be outlawed or better yet, constrained by free market choices: if a given school district’s union is behaving badly (e.g., conspiring with the administration to spread Marxist/Racist propaganda, as Guillietta showed that they are now in her old district, or demanding above-market compensation for their contractually specified labor) there should be no obstacles whatsoever to voters electing school boards that will fire the union.
The best solution of all would be to privatize education, with the powers of government to interfere limited to what is absolutely necessary, according to local democratic values and local conditions, which may vary from state to state, county to county, and municipality to municipality.
[EDIT: I neglected to mention the argument against permitting public sector unions that DonG mentions above: With compulsory government-school attendance, there is no one representing the voters’ interest in negotiations with unions. The union simply buys the support of politicians at whatever price they demand, recovering the costs by demanding higher wages from the dishonest pols, or virtually extorting the wages from the public by strikes.]
How you can impose a check on the power of public unions at this point? At its best the union checked the behavior of school admin and rules of the larger school system which was important in a huge system like CPS. There is no accountability outside of the teachers who pay dues for the CTU. There seem to be elections to fill delegate positions TO the CTU, but not for the people who run the CTU and that should be a concern to stakeholders in the city like parents who are unhappy about remote learning and pay taxes to support a system that is hemorrhaging money.
Interesting post. I’m generally death on unions, but it seems that these guys did help y’all push back against the follies of administration.
Never been in a union myself, and never worked in a school system, but I recognize the pathology described. There are smart ways and stupid ways to go about continuous improvement.
What do you think makes the approach of the Electrical Workers different from school unions?
I think the city and elected government is supposed to be the good faith negotiator but I think it’s fair to say that no one feels Lori Lightfoot represents the interests of taxpayers in these scenarios. And certainly as mentioned in another comment here, there is no real check on how the unions conduct themselves either though the Janus decision by SCOTUS might be a way that people can check out of union membership if they disprove of how it is run.
My former wife was a physics teacher in a very good suburban school district here in Pittsburgh. I have many stories she shared about union issues.
The issue I have the most trouble with is the pension plan, and how the unions and school boards mutually corrupt the system and bankrupt our state. The school board provides contracts to the teacher’s union with a pool of money. How that money is dealt out to individual teachers is the union’s responsibility. Pensions are paid by the State, not by the local government. Pension contributions are pooled, and pension payouts are 80% of an average of the last two years of a teacher’s salary. The unions have devised a scheme where in the last 2 1/2 years of a teacher’s career, they will have massive step raises every six months. In this school district, teachers at the high end of the scale (based upon advanced degrees and seniority) might reach salaries around $70K, before they entered the magic near retirement age. During the last 2 1/2 years of their career, they receive five $10K step raises, increasing their final pay to 120K, and giving them a 2 year average of 100K. The 80% calculation of their average results in a pension payout of $80K. Since this is a State obligation the local government turns a blind eye to the scheme. In the event the school board wants to retire these super earner teachers early, to hire additional teachers, they bonus them the money they would have earned, and that amount is also used in the pension calculations. The pension contribution shortfall is dramatic. It is my understanding that this practice is common with many government employee unions.
I don’t think voters can impose a check on their power except by eliminating their unaccountable monopoly position.
The pensions are an enormous liability for of the public sector employees in Illinois. It’s a roiling mess. A policy website tells me the following: The average career (30 years of service) teacher who retired recently (within the last three years) receives a $71,000 pension and will collect over $2 million over the course of her retirement.
I haven’t looked at the pay scales for CPS in a little while (I have to see if I can still access it) but I believe there are similar jumps in Chicago to what you describe in Pittsburgh. I recall hearing that it was very profitable to”hang in there” during the last years before retirement because the salary was very good (certainly it wasn’t for the teaching conditions) but I do know that around January we would receive emails pushing early retirements. The benefit:”retire as young as 55 years old, receive up to 75% of their final average salary in pension benefits and have 3% compounded annual post-retirement increases regardless of inflation. That 3% permanent annual raise doubles the size of the first-year pension benefit after 25 years.”
It is only 95% of the Unions that give the other 5% a bad name.
Anything, anything, that interferes with the rights of an employee to work for an employer is wrong.
If some group wants to create a certification process and employers like that, like Phil mentions, great. You don’t need the government to protect wage negotiations.
Also, it is only 95% of the employers who give the other 5% a bad name.
Everyone is evil, everyone is out to screw everyone else all the time.
Thanks for the informative post, @giuliettachicago.
Did you ever find yourself wishing you could just sit down one-on-one with your boss (the principal?) and hash out your issues like two professional, civilized people?
The idea of farming out my employment negotiations to a large organization gives me the heebie-jeebies.
I do think about that. And yet in every line of work there are honest brokers and dishonest ones. The honest ones can talk and have a reasonable conversation where even if it doesn’t go your way, you still respect them. The dishonest ones give you blowback afterwards and that’s when in teaching it felt better to have the union standing behind you to make sure that you wouldn’t lose your job for one of those conversations. It feels dramatic, doesn’t it?
Thank you for this inside view of teachers’ unions!
That is a very interesting question. Teachers apprenticing with other teachers, more than just getting a degree in teaching etc, could be a big improvement.
Perhaps the single biggest problem with these public sector unions is that the most expensive bargaining usually ends up being about future benefits – especially pensions – that cost the current pols nothing during their terms of office. The chickens come home to roost later, sometimes much later, by which time the pols who set it up may also be getting a pension…
The irony of this is that the huge increases in pay that the politicians like Lightfoot promise the union have enormous costs. To cover pay increases for the teachers (not to mention the other public sectors), property tax hikes will have to be on the table. That will hit lower and middle-class families hard and they will leave the city (they already are leaving) and school enrollment numbers will shrink even further. The union will claim that the city has become too expensive and they will demand cost of living raises for the next contract, ignoring the shrunken tax base- rinse and repeat. And no one in power calls them on it.
If I felt like that, I wouldn’t bother to get out of bed in the morning.
It is liberating. People are no damn good. Once you accept it, you can be pleased when folks do better on occasion.
Sounds like you and @fakejohnjanegalt need to get together and go bowling.
As others have pointed out, the IBEW has to compete in the private sector. In particular, they have to not drive their employers out of business. Public sector unions negotiate with a counterparty that is using Other People’s Money. Not good.
And why they have so much power. And thenpass the cost down 20 years.
I am curious, how much did you pay in union dues per paycheck?
Do you think it was worth it, given your working conditions?
By taking advantage of Janus v. AFSCME to opt out of paying agency fees to unions, as well as working to enact right-to-work legislation.
Union dues are based on one percent of the Lane 1, Step 6 salary schedule for 40 weeks plus AFT and IFT per capita assessments. Here are is the full salary scale with the lanes and steps. My salary was less than the $66K in the example but you get a rough idea.
Was it worth it? The union was helpful in certain ways as I mention in my post. But I lost my job because CPS decided that my classes were too small (15-20 students) and the other French teacher had 14 more months on me so they kept her even though her evaluations and attendance records showed she was struggling. The union did nothing; it didn’t protest that the class sizes were actually ideal for teaching, or that my evaluations and attendance record were good.
The school’s union rep did tell me that I had a right to another teacher’s job- a friend, incidentally- in the English Dept because I had seniority over him by one year. It felt morally shady to take a friend’s job especially when as an untenured teacher, I still could be fired easily the next year and he seemed to be getting on really well. I was told though that if I wanted his position, the union would back me in the fight against the principal so I suppose the dues would have come in handy there. Alienating admin seemed like a really bad idea and so I left and went to private school.
The union rules for intervening in cases like mine are unclear. I was two years away from tenure with good ratings so I thought the union would have helped but the reaction from my colleagues was “that’s bad luck”. You hear a lot about how public schools have a hard time keeping teachers, but I’m skeptical because CPS cut me and the union let them. So I am not sure how to answer your question accurately about whether the dues were worth it- it’s just complicated any way you slice it.
I guess one question might be, would you have taken the other class if that teacher hadn’t been a friend?
It’s a good question. I might have, but I think I also felt the principal might have tried to cut me again the next year as payback for getting the union involved. She was a vindictive character.
Because the reality that admin change, and are also at the disposal of their own superiors, the cost of the association membership is well worth it.
A teacher has no protection from the fickle whims. It happened once to me, and pray I never need the association to support me again.
I don’t vote with the nea or my state association, and in 35 years, never have. I toss their propaganda. I dont give them money beyond the membership. I do my work to benefit students, which is often thwarted by administrivia.