AHC: teacher unions popular in the United States?

I remember living in New England when there was a teachers' strike and some of the letters in the paper said, teachers get the whole Summer off! So, some of it is just flat-out jealousy.

Plus, some Republicans such as Wisconsin governor Scott Walker have been successful at positioning themselves against unions for public employees and presumably this includes teachers' unions. In addition, conservatives have been largely successful at portraying the NEA (National Education Association) as a bastion of liberalism.

But, what if things were different?
 
Last edited:
I think you need to somehow make teaching a much more respectable career. Maybe increase teachers' wages to the point that unions exist for them, but do not go on strike often? Or perhaps make it valued as a much more important career than it currently is?
 
It seems, in my opinion as a former teacher, that the general public are not aware of the type of training that teachers are expected to undergo nor are they aware of the legal and administrative responcibilities that teachers have.

Much of this comes from the general understanding that teaching historically in the United States was "womens" work, and thus they were not the primary bread winners for a family and didn't need a higher level of compensation. The same holds true with the expectation that teachers, especially in the elementary levels, would leave the profession once they had "settled down". Men in education were, and to an extent still are. derided with the jab, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Add to this the legacy of local control of schools that still exists in most states and there is a general undercurrent of dislike and distrust for outsiders in the form of unions trying to tell "our people" what the local schools need to be doing.

But that isn't to say that unions like the NEA (National Education Assocation) or the AFT (American Federation of Teacher) aren't doing good. They just have a deck more and more stacked against any type of collective economic efforts to improve wages or working conditions because colleges and universities in this country are cranking out hundreds of thousands of new teachers each year. Each willing to take a job in a poor school with poor leadership and unhelpful parents just so they can get the experience to move on to a better school, hopfully with better pay. I know from my own experiences, the positions offered to first year teachers were not in the better schools that had strong parental support. I was tossed into low socio-economic schools, sometimes with a minority majority, sometimes in a transiant community. All of this made teaching in these schools more difficult than it needed to be. Not many 22-23 year old college grads are ready for that. That's why we need unions to help those teachers.
 
Well, good teachers are way underpaid, and crappy teachers way overpaid. And in my mind, that's the basic problem.

And the vast majority of us have probably had experience with both kinds of teachers.
 

Driftless

Donor
As a non-teacher in a family full of teachers; I know right down the line, they work considerably more hours per year and for the most part are paid less than I am. Also, a good share of them substantially subsidize the cost of classroom materials - not because it's required of them, but because they feel it's the right thing to do.

I live in Wisconsin - IMO, Scott Walker and cronies are knuckle-dragging Troglodytes who have set this state back a generation.....

*edit* To be fair, the NEA has been deficient at telling a useful and truthful story about their membership, leaving them vulnerable to many cheap-shots.
 
But then, people like John L. Lewis and his big bushy eyebrows.

and Walter Reuther of the UAW, and it came out during a 1950s Congressional investigation that he paid for his own dry cleaning (David Halberstam, The Reckoning, page 337). So, he was more a boy scout. Or, more of a by-the-book type of guy, and you can get a lot done that way.

Or, even Jimmy Hoffa and his corruption is part of Americana. It's like people like the idea of living large and being a rock star.

And so, as far as disliking teachers unions, I think it's over and above trotting out the usual reasons like "union corruption."
 
I live in Wisconsin - IMO, Scott Walker and cronies are knuckle-dragging Troglodytes who have set this state back a generation.....
tell me how you really feel! ;)

And wasn't Walker "punked" by someone calling up and pretending to be one of the Koch brothers? surprised this didn't go viral and become a really big deal

With the 2008 financial institution crisis, although Democrats did share a role in the causes,fair number of Republicans tried to re-characterize the whole thing as a governmental debt crisis, and to my way of thinking that's not really accurate. And some of them focused on state pensions.
 

Driftless

Donor
tell me how you really feel! ;)

And wasn't Walker "punked" by someone calling up and pretending to be one of the Koch brothers? surprised this didn't go viral and become a really big deal

With the 2008 financial institution crisis, although Democrats did share a role in the causes,fair number of Republicans tried to re-characterize the whole thing as a governmental debt crisis, and to my way of thinking that's not really accurate. And some of them focused on state pensions.

Oh, to be sure, there's plenty of responsibility to be shared...

To you central thesis, the NEA and other teachers unions did make significant progress in recasting the role of teachers in the 60's-90's, and then - to my eye anyway - kind of coasted. While the story of the importance of education in a changing economy was being told, not enough folks listened to that message. Also, the teachers unions just started to hit their stride as unions in general began their fade. You would almost need a POD in the 1930's, promoting education as a means of lifting the country out of the Great Depression. Except, there would be the strawman fear of the communists controlling all organized labor
 
Last edited:

Puzzle

Donor
I think you need to somehow make teaching a much more respectable career. Maybe increase teachers' wages to the point that unions exist for them, but do not go on strike often? Or perhaps make it valued as a much more important career than it currently is?

Part of it might be generational, in the sense Horace said that every generation is said to be baser than the last. Parents might see their children as being educated worse regardless of the truth and then take the logical step of blaming the teachers. Teaching might be a thankless job just through human nature.

Another aspect is that costs for schools seem to be rising rapidly and there doesn't seem to be much benefit. High schoolers today don't learn anything substantially more than the previous generation and the introduction of modern technology is likely seen as extravagance. Teachers unions are seen as part of the whole establishment and thus the problem.

The third and final point for me, is that teacher's unions don't necessarily share the same interests as the students, who are the ones everyone cares about. Kids are sent to schools to be educated, not to pay for teachers and if Khan or someone builds some sort of teaching robot that does a better job than 90% of all teachers there wouldn't be a reason to keep them around.

In summary, the work teachers do is appreciated however them belonging to unions is entirely ancillary. Adding this to the common perspective of schools there's no reason for anyone to like teachers' unions and they share all the standard reasons to dislike unions.
 
Well few obvious POD

Seems everyone feels that if you work for the government, you shouldn't have the luxury of a union. So change union laws very early on in the 1900's so that belonging to a union while a public servant is illegal. The government gives you a job with taxpayer's money, if you don't like it work for the private sector. Then over time, something called a "union" rises, but doesn't serve the same function as OTL unions (re: no collective bargaining, no strikes, just services).

Have them work all year around somehow, or more flexible modes of education like homeschooling or private schooling. Feelings would be ambivalent then. This is in combination with number 1.

Have some extremely powerful advocate pro-teacher's union advocates. Maybe Laura Bush. Michelle Obama follows. Make them both teachers and pro-union. That would be 16 years of pro-teacher union. Sell it as, no strikes, but better education for all (or somesuch). Bonus points if this radically changes education in some way (homeschooling, private schools, etc.) and could be a grand faustian bargain between liberals and conservatives.
 
Well few obvious POD

Have them work all year around somehow,

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

I can't answer for teachers the other side of the pond but on this side I DO work all year round (well September to July). Not only do I have regular teaching, but lesson preparation and marking which has to be done out of teaching hours, revision classes for the public examinations both during the holidays and after school. Then during the end of August I have to analyse that summers exams and the results gained by the schools students in my subject. and write a report on them.

Add to that in most jobs if you get a sniffle you take two or three days off and your colleagues cover for you. In teaching you drag yourself in unless you are bed ridden (and sometimes you go in even then) because you have to email in work for every single lesson that you cannot teach yourself. Believe me it's a lot easier to go in and suffer than do that at 7 in the morning. At least the lemsip kicks in and you can think straight!

My friends who do not work in the teaching profession are horrified by how much work I have to do at home. In all their (far better paid I might add) jobs you can leave it at work. You can't as a teacher. Even if you are not physically preparing lessons you are thinking about how to get little Jonny to actually do some work and/or get the required levels of progress in the public exams.

Apologies for the rant but the blithe assumption that we only work 9 to 3, 5 days a week for 40 weeks and no more really annoys me.

None of which answers the OP but might explain why teachers need unions!
 
You can't as a teacher.

And that is where I think you and the public at large split ways. In comparison with the private sector, you can. No doubt teachers do great work, and teacher's unions are essential. But that's not really the OP or the ask. The OP is to get teacher's unions more popular, so to do that you have to get to the root of the jealousy / envy (if you want to call it that). In particular, what would happen to a teacher who didn't do any of the things you say? He might not win any awards and might be badmouthed by his colleagues, but take your average corporate worker bee with superior office survival skills and put him in that sort of situation / environment and he would figure out a way to weasel his way out of doing anything but the bare minimum (9 to 5) and may even ass-kiss his way to management. In particular, what mechanisms / oversight are there to completely remove teachers who underperform? My information is, short of breaking the law, absolutely nothing. Maybe that is a good thing, because education takes time and education is not business, but it is what it is and for OP to be satisfied it has to be addressed.

Also I have a problem with this line of reasoning. It's akin to saying, someone in the IT field should be obligated to spend his off hours improving his skills and getting better. He's not, and neither are teachers. It is a choice. If they were, they would be paid for the time. If they are not paid for the time, then either A. they are getting ripped off and B. the slackers who don't do it, are not identified and C. the system does not correctly reward effort. So actually, there is a way to fulfill the OP. Make teachers as highly regulated as lawyers and doctors and engineers, have them paid six figures or close to that and make sure the number of hours they work are fully paid and identified. The way that nurses are obligated to work 12 hour shifts, formalized and paid, not unofficial because governments / school boards are too cheap to pay or turn a blind eye.
 
Also I have a problem with this line of reasoning. It's akin to saying, someone in the IT field should be obligated to spend his off hours improving his skills and getting better. He's not, and neither are teachers.

But we are!
Perhaps it's not written into our contracts but it IS expected of us.

Every profession has its slackers but those in teaching don't tend to stay teachers. They don't survive the students let alone the other teachers and management!

That is one of the reasons that so many qualified teachers leave teaching before 5 years. The other is that they want a normal life-work balance which is exceptionally hard to manage if you wish to be conscientious. In twenty five years plus of teaching in the UK I could count the slackers that I have worked with on the fingers of my hands (and one of those was an exceptionally inspiring teacher he just couldn't be bothered with all the paperwork that goes with the job nowadays).
 
But we are!
Perhaps it's not written into our contracts but it IS expected of us.

Every profession has its slackers but those in teaching don't tend to stay teachers. They don't survive the students let alone the other teachers and management!

That is one of the reasons that so many qualified teachers leave teaching before 5 years. The other is that they want a normal life-work balance which is exceptionally hard to manage if you wish to be conscientious. In twenty five years plus of teaching in the UK I could count the slackers that I have worked with on the fingers of my hands (and one of those was an exceptionally inspiring teacher he just couldn't be bothered with all the paperwork that goes with the job nowadays).

Well maybe it's not possible to fulfil the OPs requirements without some ASB. Because in business especially private sector, a requirement is either formalized, or it's not. The only people into working tons of extra hours without pay are either fresh grads / new to the country / people with something to lose, and this would be the same in any first world country. Especially since if you want to work for free there's tons of volunteering options and honorable options (such as ironically, working with children). Education not being a business, the general public that works for the private sector may never see or understand, unless unions take to purging non-performers on their own (and then it's not a union, but a professional association like doctors, lawyers, engineers etc.) In other words, the only way to have a popular union in a highly capitalist country like the USA, is have a non-union.

A business that did not reward its employees for enormous extra hours yet allowed slackers to survive for a few years however low in number would either go bankrupt, or everyone in the organization would get the message that extra work was pointless and change accordingly. Unless it's curing cancer or working with kids or some other noble purpose, people work for money and career. Of course you simply can't "fire" underperformers (children / teachers) so education is not a business and never will be.
 
Even if you are not physically preparing lessons you are thinking about how to get little Jonny to actually do some work and/or get the required levels of progress in the public exams.
I know you might think of this as simply the ordinary, steady eddie work of teaching, but it's pretty impressive to me! And thank you for your good work. :)

Do you think people could accept a union as a useful counterweight to government, with collective bargaining, and even the possibility of a strike as an ace in reserve and on rare cases to be played?
 
A business that did not reward its employees for enormous extra hours yet allowed slackers to survive for a few years however low in number would either go bankrupt, or everyone in the organization would get the message that extra work was pointless and change accordingly.
I like these kind of discussions, although I think we might be coming at it from different directions. One thing I'm fascinated with is the huge gulf between theory and practice. And this includes government, business, medicine, academia, religion, and pretty much every other human endeavor.

And no, I don't think private business gets some kind of huge pass on this, even though per theory it should. For example, several years ago there was an article in Time magazine about how some Walmart stores had cut labor hours so much that these stores were having trouble physically moving merchandise from the back of the stores onto the shelves. This article was called "Walmart's empty shelves" or something very much like this
 
Keeping unions strong overall would probably be the best bet, especially if you can get public sector unions to be seens as just another union (which they are). Change the Boston Police Strike and make FDR friendly to public sector unions, snd if you have managed to avoud the decline of unions in general, teacher's unions will be nothing special to be hated on.
 
Well maybe it's not possible to fulfil the OPs requirements without some ASB. Because in business especially private sector, a requirement is either formalized, or it's not. The only people into working tons of extra hours without pay are either fresh grads / new to the country / people with something to lose, and this would be the same in any first world country.

Many white collar workers in ROK, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, etc would beg to differ. I am a lawyer and I am on my way to go to office on Sunday.
 
A business that did not reward its employees for enormous extra hours yet allowed slackers to survive for a few years however low in number would either go bankrupt, or everyone in the organization would get the message that extra work was pointless and change accordingly. Unless it's curing cancer or working with kids or some other noble purpose, people work for money and career. Of course you simply can't "fire" underperformers (children / teachers) so education is not a business and never will be.
That's the issue though. No teacher who actually gives a crap will 'work to rule', because first their kids suffer, and then their employment prospects will too. Not to get all Dead Poets, but people don't go into teaching for the pay. Many go into it to make a difference. If that means doing an extra hour or two to work out how the heck to get these kids up to the next standardised level, or a higher exam grade, then they very often will. Even the ones who don't care know that it matters if they want to keep working in the profession, and act accordingly. If this was business, you'd find a rival who paid overtime. That doesn't work here, for none of the other schools do it either.

In the UK, the government is increasingly treating the process of teaching like a business, while ignoring the fact that underachieving pupils still need to go to school, so have to go to school somewhere. Having to run a successful business, while having little to no control over one of the integral parts of that business, is not particularly easy.

However, under-performing teachers are not kept on the staff of schools in the UK for very long. At one point, that may have been the case, but my experiences recently suggest that it certainly isn't now.
I know you might think of this as simply the ordinary, steady eddie work of teaching, but it's pretty impressive to me! And thank you for your good work. :)
It is impressive, but it is also expected. If Lindseyman is, as his posts suggest, a Secondary School teacher, then he needs to make sure that his subject isn't out-performed by rival ones. If other subjects get better exam results, and help move the school further up the league table, then they'll be prioritised, at the expense of his own subject.

It's self preservation, professional pride, and actually wanting the kids you teach to succeed. Normally in vaguely equal measure.
 
If Lindseyman is, as his posts suggest, a Secondary School teacher, then he needs to make sure that his subject isn't out-performed by rival ones. If other subjects get better exam results, and help move the school further up the league table, then they'll be prioritised, at the expense of his own subject.

It's self preservation, professional pride, and actually wanting the kids you teach to succeed. Normally in vaguely equal measure.

I am and I'm proud of it!

I teach Maths which means teaching every student up to the GCSEs taken in Year 11 (15-16 year olds) (as do English and Science). This makes it harder, as we have to teach the uninterested (when am I ever going to use this in life?) and get the results from them.

As to the OP Unions are necessary if only to help protect teachers from malicious accusations and to help protect our terms and conditions. In the current political climate I'm not sure that you can get them better regarded. For heaven's sake the British Medical Association has been portrayed as a bunch of left wingers by our beloved government in their dispute over hours and conditions. What chance do the teaching unions stand when everyone "knows" that we ARE a bunch of woolly liberals at best and communist subversives at worst!
 
Top