Bogus Allegations of Anti-Unionism

Normally I leave disagreeing with "AFTie John" in the capable hands of Eduwonk. But today's post criticizing our new report, "Echo Chamber: The National Education Association's Campaign Against NCLB" deserves comment.

John calls the report part of Education Sector's "stealth anti-union campaign." First, what's "stealth" about the report? It's an Education Sector report. It says so right on the cover. "Stealth" is when you give other people money to say what you want said, but don't bother to make that relationship plain. That's what the NEA has done, as the report documents clearly.

Much more serious is the characterization of Eduation Sector's work on collective bargaining issues as "anti-union." I won't speak for Joe Williams, who wrote the report, or anyone else at Education Sector, but my personal politics are very pro-union. I think people have an inherent right to organize and bargain collectively, including teachers. I think the creation and protection of labor rights stands as one of the great social and political achievements of the 20th century. I think teachers unions do a lot of good, advocating on behalf of public education in the face of those who would rather use much of the money that currently goes to public schools to finance tax cuts for big corporations and rich people. Teachers unions' political influence--in addition to being their inherent right in a democratic system--also does a lot of good. I used to work in state politics and I personally know a number of great candidates and public servants whose political viability absolutely depended on the organizational and financial support of teachers unions.

But supporting unions generally doesn't preclude me or anyone else from disagreeing with specific choices that unions make. And I don't think all the decisions unions have made in recent years are wise, politically or as a matter of policy. That doesn't make me or an organization that voices similar ideas anti-union, just anti-bad decisions. It's like saying the NEA is "anti-Congress" because they've criticized NCLB, or that a local chapter is "anti-school boards" because of disputes at the bargaining table. To characterize every criticism as existential--to imply that you're either with unions in all things or against them in principle--is dishonest. If you're going to stand up and make your voice heard, you have to expect that people won't always agree with what you have to say, even if they support both you and your right to say it.