<<  <  >  >>

be limited to unions. Nonetheless, teacher rep-

argument that teachers are free to choose a

resentation by unions is widely taken for

different exclusive representative ignores the

granted in the United States, except by parties

daunting legal and financial obstacles and

opposed to collective representation per se.

huge funding disparities facing challengers to

Most people assume that teachers already

incumbent NEA/AFT affiliates.

have freedom of choice in representational mat-

Three reforms would remedy these dispari-

ters because they can choose a different union

ties and replace the status quo with a genuine-

or no union if that is their preference. As a prac-

ly competitive market for teacher representa-

tical matter, however, real choice rarely exists.

tion. First, state bargaining statutes need to be

Defending the status quo are the NEA and

altered to eliminate or dramatically reduce the

AFT, with about $1.5 billion in revenues from

minimum showing of interest required to trig-

unified membership dues, more than 6,000

ger an election, thus making it much less

full-time staff, the capacity to reach all teachers

expensive to mount a challenge to the incum-

repeatedly in school or at home, and strong

bent. The "showing of interest" refers to the

incentives to avoid competition.4 Thus, teachers

percentage of teachers who designate a differ-

who wish to change their exclusive representa-

ent union to serve as their representative; 30

tive face a virtually insuperable problem. First,

percent is the usual minimal requirement.5

The argument

they must finance the campaign for an alterna-

Second, individuals, partnerships, for-profit,

that teachers are

tive to NEA/AFT representation from their per-

and nonprofit organizations must be eligible

sonal resources, while most of the benefits go to

to serve as exclusive representatives; they could

free to choose a

teachers who have spent nothing to oust the

provide sources of funding that could enable

different exclu-

incumbent union. If necessary, the NEA/AFT

dissatisfied teachers to compete effectively

sive representa-

locals can call upon their state or national affil-

against NEA/AFT affiliates.

iates for media assistance or litigation that the

The third reform would be to allow all mem-

tive ignores the

challengers cannot afford to fight. Moreover, as

bers of the bargaining unit, not just union

daunting legal

will be evident, existing union contracts often

members, the right to vote by secret ballot on

prohibit other teacher organizations from uti-

the following critical issues:

and financial

lizing district facilities, such as meeting rooms

obstacles and

or the district mail system. These prohibitions

(1) initial authorization of an exclusive

huge funding dis-

preclude a serious challenge to NEA/AFT rep-

bagaining representative

resentation.

(2) reauthorization of an exclusive repre-

parities facing

sentative at two- or three-year intervals

challengers to

(3) an employer's final contract offer

Introducing Competition

(4) strike authorization, if strikes are per-

incumbent

mitted

NEA/AFT

Suppose for a moment that, with outside

(5) contract ratification

affiliates.

help, challengers to NEA/AFT representation

(6) dues and fees for representational ser-

were able to install their organization as the

vices6

exclusive representative in a local area. The vic-

tory would not be likely to trigger uprisings

In other words, the state bargaining statutes

elsewhere without additional infusions of exter-

must separate membership in an organization

nal support. Even where the decertification

from the right to vote on the key decisions

effort was successful, survival is problematic

affecting employment. The reasons for the sep-

because the NEA/AFT will spare no expense to

aration of union membership from eligibility

reverse the outcome as soon as possible.

to vote on key bargaining issues can be summa-

In short, the argument that NEA/AFT

rized as follows:

affiliates must be doing a good job because

· All

teachers have not exercised their right to decer-

teachers should have the right to

tify them is simply not tenable. The NEA/AFT

vote on the key bargaining decisions,

3