News Release

August 28, 2002

Media Contact: (202) 842-0200 ext. 800

Teacher union monopoly harmful for teachers, school choice
State legislation necessary to foster competition for collective bargaining representation, study says

WASHINGTON -- In recent months, several teacher unions across the country have been challenged in court for engaging in abusive practices and have found themselves on the losing side of the battle. Dissatisfied teachers, who feel they have been bullied by these organizations, are finding the courts to be an increasingly friendlier forum for airing their grievances. A study released today by the Cato Institute analyzes the current system of teacher representation and proposes reforms to create a better, more equitable system.

In "Liberating Teachers: Toward Market Competition in Teacher Representation," Myron Lieberman, senior research scholar with the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, Bowling Green State University - Ohio, contends that the virtual monopoly afforded the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) in representing teachers at the local level is a grave disservice to teachers and impedes progress on school choice. He argues, "For-profit and nonprofit entities of all types should be authorized to compete with membership organizations -- that is, unions -- for the right to serve as the exclusive representative of teachers in collective bargaining."

Although the AFT and NEA assert that their tenure as exclusive representatives demonstrates teacher satisfaction with their services, in reality, teachers desiring a different exclusive representative, or none at all, face enormous legal and practical obstacles. To end the AFT/NEA monopoly, Lieberman proposes that states enact legislation to:

1. Reduce the number of votes required to trigger an election to determine the bargaining agent,
2. Explicitly allow individuals, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations to compete for the right to represent teachers, and,
3. Enable all members in the bargaining unit to vote on the key decisions affecting their terms and conditions of employment.

Teachers would benefit significantly from competition in collective bargaining representation. Those benefits include lower dues, better service, increased choice and more input in the key decisions affecting their employment. "Allowing various types of entities to compete with the NEA/AFT for teacher representation would create a more powerful consumer role for teachers wishing to purchase those services," Lieberman explains. "Introducing competition into teacher representation is the best way to ensure that unions work for the benefit of teachers." And in demonstrating the benefits of competition to teachers in their consumer roles, the author maintains that they will recognize its value to parents and students. "Paradoxically, the most effective way to achieve school choice for students may turn out to be to provide choice of representation for teachers," Lieberman concludes.

"Liberating Teachers: Toward Market Competition in Teacher Representation"