<<  <  >  >>

The message is

ed to unions as it is now. Teachers could

Introduction

change their choice of representative periodi-

clear enough: the

cally, perhaps every two or three years or at

state teacher bar-

Teacher unions are providers of teacher rep-

the expiration of a collective agreement.3

gaining laws have

resentation services and teachers are consumers

NEA and AFT assert that their tenure as

of them. In the 34 states that require school

exclusive representatives demonstrates teacher

resulted in a

boards to bargain collectively, the National

satisfaction with their services. As we shall

monopoly in

Education Association and American Federation

see, however, it demonstrates only the enor-

teacher represen-

of Teachers share almost 100 percent of the mar-

mous legal and practical obstacles facing

ket for teacher representation services. Inasmuch

teachers who prefer a different exclusive rep-

tation services.

as the two unions have merged in Minnesota,

resentative or none at all.

Montana, and Florida, and operate under a non-

compete agreement in other states, there is virtu-

Basic Concepts

ally no competition for the right to serve as an

exclusive representative of teachers at the local

level. In addition, NEA and AFT affiliates bargain

The proposed reforms require an under-

collectively in many school districts in seven

standing of two basic terms of art in U.S.

states in which teacher collective bargaining is

labor law: "exclusive representation" and

allowed but not required.1

"bargaining unit."

In contrast, in nine states that have not

Under "exclusive representation," the cer-

enacted teacher bargaining laws, there is real

tified representative--that is, the union--has

competition to represent teachers. For example,

the exclusive right to bargain on terms and

in three states without bargaining laws

conditions of employment for all of the

(Georgia, Missouri, Texas), independent

employees in the bargaining unit. Individual

teacher organizations enroll more members

employees or groups of employees in the bar-

than NEA or AFT affiliates.2 The message is

gaining unit do not have the right to repre-

clear enough: the state teacher bargaining laws

sent themselves or to negotiate their own

have resulted in a monopoly in teacher repre-

terms and conditions of employment.

sentation services. As will be evident, this

The "bargaining unit" consists of the

monopoly has had the same outcome as

positions that are grouped together for bar-

monopolies have generally: excessive costs for

gaining purposes. The union bargains for

services geared to the welfare of the producers.

teachers who hold those positions, which

What must be done to introduce competi-

may or may not include part-time teachers,

tion to represent teachers in states that

substitute teachers, teachers on leave, or

require school boards to bargain collectively

librarians. The scope of the bargaining unit

with teacher unions? The solution proposed

determines which positions are covered by

herein is to allow for-profit and nonprofit

the contract negotiated between the exclusive

entities of all types to compete with unions

representative and the school board.

for the right to serve as exclusive representa-

tives of teachers in collective bargaining. This

Freedom of Choice in

reform would open competition to non-

Representation

membership organizations, solo entrepre-

neurs, negotiators, lawyers, and collective

bargaining companies, to cite just a few.

A large body of scholarship demonstrates

Teachers would retain the right to go with-

that consumers are generally better served by

out an exclusive representative, and each rep-

competitive industries than by noncompeti-

resentation option would compete against

tive ones. For this reason, the burden of proof

all the others. Teacher representation in the

should be on the defenders of the status quo

34 bargaining law states would not be limit-

to explain why teacher representation should

2