Harvey Silverglate wrote an article for WGBH where he describes his attempt, as a parent and taxpayer, to see what was going on with the City of Cambridge’s negotiation with its teacher’s union. Background: The city spends about $27,000 per year per student but that doesn’t include capital costs, so the total cost is probably closer to $40,000 per year per student.
Here are some excerpts:
I obtained the necessary permissions and showed up to the first negotiating session. When the head of the union saw me, she announced that the union would not bargain while I was in the room. The teachers’ negotiating team walked out. My letters from two School Committee members were soon revoked, and the contract negotiations proceeded comfortably in private.
It was at that moment that I became an opponent of public sector unions. Why? Because, it suddenly occurred to me, the public interest was not represented at the contract negotiations. The teachers were arguing for their own self-interest in terms of work conditions and compensation, as was to be expected, but the School Committee and school administrators were dealing with the taxpayers’ money, not their own. And it was in the pols’ political interests for there to be labor peace. The children and their parents figured very little in the whole enterprise. And so an outrageous number of provisions found their way into the contract year after year, seemingly all of them more protective of the teachers’ wallets and comfortable work-schedules – and the School Committee members’ elective prospects – than of the educational interests of public school students.
“it suddenly occurred to me, the public interest was not represented at the contract negotiations. The teachers were arguing for their own self-interest in terms of work conditions and compensation”
No kidding! Perhaps the governor of Wisconsin was on to something, after all.
Next thing you will tell us there are prostitutes to be found working in brothels. I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!
Aren’t unions actually supposed to defend the interests of the people they represent? Here, in Europe, this statement wouldn’t shock anyone…
Vince – the problem is not so much the unions as the people sitting on the other side of the table, who are supposed to defend the interests of the taxpayers. If both parties to a “negotiation” collude to represent one side and the other side (the side that is actually footing the bill) is not really represented (or even allowed to hear what is going on) then the system breaks down. This is not even in the interest of the union workers because in the long run they will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
That’s a good point, Vince. In Europe and other western countries, such as Australia, even leaders of the main conservative policies recognize that unions have a role to play in the economy. Here in America, the private sector unions were crippled a few decades ago and now the same folks behind that effort would like to complete the project by doing the same to public sector jobs.
This is yet another issue that causes me to wonder why similar concerns are never raised regarding defense spending. Why do never hear about concerned citizens trying to get a seat at the table when the Pentagon is negotiating with defense contractors?