Friday, July 03, 2009
Should New Era of Transparency Apply to Union Finances?
In theory, the new stimulus funding will have a new level of fiscal transparency that will tell us where and how the money was spent. Time will tell whether this actually happens and whether we will learn about how the funding was used. Given that we will not know a lot about how the base funding may have been reallocated, it will be difficult know how the stimulus funds were really used. But at least in theory, we will know more about how this funding is used than prior federal investments. Perhaps it is time to shed a little more light on how union funding is used. As union dues go up, what is the additional funding being spent on? Does the public have a right to know? Are union dues going up to compenate for all of the teachers that are being lost to job cuts, or are unions increasing salaries and expanding their influence. It would be interesting to know. (here)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
So Robert, transparency begins at home. When will we expect to see your W 2 form, and the donors to Ed Sector. How much money has come to "reform" organizations from hedge funds and other Wall Street operators. When the NY Times or the Washington Post editorializes on Klein and Rhee, are they responding to the careful analysis of their education beat reporters or are they reacting with their anger at their own unions, or sucking up to developers, or the billionaires for ed reform?
Union dues don't go to policical parties or other organizations. Its special funds that are collected separately that are used to expand influence.
I just got my salary notice and with 16 years of experience and a doctorate, I'll earn $44,500. In addition to donating to our polical fund, Just like my union, I also donate to the Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood, and the Obama campaign and the other progressive organizations.
But let's back up a little. Are you saying that unions shouldn't have fought against segregation, shouldn't have supported the New Deal and Fair Deal, shouldn't have donated to efforts to expand universal health care, etc.
You are one of the fairest bloggers in you school of thought, so I'm not referring to you when I say that I get sick of those leftwing "reformers" who love the people in the abstract but who couldn't survive for a semester in my world. I'd like to hear what they think about the concept of loyalty. After decades of accepting our money and our blood sweat toil and tears, they not only want to take away our Constitutional rights as Americans (contracts, due process, academic freedom etc.) but they also question our integrity.
I disagree somewhat with John, but because ES is not the correct parallel. ES is pretty good with its disclosure, but that is NOT true with all nonprofits, and certainly not true with all sorts of private organizations, both public and private.
In reality, unions are highly regulated (and union leaders go to jail when convicted of embezzlement--see the former and late United Teachers of Dade leader convicted of mismanagement), required by law to operate democratically, and their budgets are approved by votes of their governing bodies. Any member of my union chapter has the right to look at our chapter and local budgets, and the budgets of locals are usually hot topics of discussion, in part because dues hikes are always challenged in locals where the dues are flat (i.e., where lower-paid members pay a higher proportion of their wages in dues).
But I can answer the question on what increased dues go to with three items off the top of my head:
* Increased health-care expenses of the staff that unions hire;
* Legal expenses for contract enforcement;
* Preparation for potential fights in the future in uncertain political and legal environments.
Maybe the last is just because I live in Florida, and our state government often operates by principles of magpie management ("attracted to the nearest shiny object"), as ES has noted with regard to K-12 distance learning policy). But I suspect we're not alone. And the next recommended budget for FEA cuts out a number of things to make ends meet while some of our locals are losing members. The eliminated items include some events training new union leaders, some of which I'm not unhappy seeing go, and some of which we'll inevitably pay for as the human-capital version of deferred maintenance.
Sherman,
Everyone is going to agree that you issued the more temperate, balanced and informative comment.
When the integrity of my fellow teachers and unions is questioned, I pretty much respond jab for jab and punch for punch. The linked article was just a gratutious jab, not even making serious accusations, so I just jabbed back. The Quick and Ed, Eduwonk, and Ed Sector are not like the vicious teacher-bashers.
The best thing about my comment is that it prompted yours, and I learned from it. I want my union to make every effort to compromise, negotiate thinner contracts, and reinvent the profession to better serve students. But I also want a war chest to stop Klein, Rhee, or others when they try to incorporate primitve Value Added Models, for instance. I'll pay whatever dues are necessary so that efforts to use test scores to drive evaluations backfire, costing those districts millions in legal fees and sending a message that superintendents that ignore contract law and due process are going to have short careers.
Then, we can get back to the hard, collaborative work of turning around schools.
Your comment reminds me of Van Rockel's speech at the NEA:
"We must be able to mobilize active members at a moment's notice, just as our opponents can do," he said. "NEA needs to have 50 activists in every congressional district by 2010. ... Whether it is health care, reauthorization of [NCLB], or any other federal legislation that affects our members, we must be able to move at Internet speed."
I don't want to over-emphasize the belligerance but I want to make sure that NCLB II is different than NCLB II. If cell phones, for instance can be used to bring down the Ukranian dictatorship and challenge the Mullahs, we teachers can use digital technology to drive a stake through the heart of NCLB-type accountability. I don't want it to come to this, but if teachers have any self-respect we need to make it clear that we won't take it anymore.
And as I wrote in Friendly Advice, reputable believers in data-driven accountability ought to separate themselves from thier vicious allies and stop undercutting reformers in unions with their gratuitious slaps at our integrity.
Those interested in Education Sector's finances should look at the "Our Funders and Finances" section of our Web site, which contains a complete list of our funders, past and present, as well as our audited financial statements.
http://www.educationsector.org/whoweare/whoweare_show.htm?doc_id=336558
Robert and Kevin,
Clearly I need to apologize. I apologize. An explanation, I should have known, is not enough.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I jumps Robert for taking a cheap shot. I often jump you guys for taking cheap shots. I wish you guys would stop doing it.
But included in the appropriate part of my comment was c cheap shot. Again, I'm sorry.
John
John, as a prior public employee my salary was always publically available although, it was never high enough to really insight anyone to care much about it. Similarly every teacher’s salary is basically publically available, and certainly a district’s salary schedule is available. The question to consider is whether unions are a quasi-governmental organization that should have a similar level of transparency or whether they are a private organization. So, while it might be fine for there not to be transparency for the United Auto Workers, does the fact that teachers unions are public employee union require a higher level of transparency?
Of course, transparency of benefits is an area where there continues to be a lack of transparency through out government, but I save that discussion for another day.
My prime concern was not transparency but the strangeness of your post and the article. The article didn't even make any charges against unions, but you spun it as if you did. So, let's try again. The Ed Sector takes money from the Broad school. I've seen first-hand the damage that occurs when a superintendent from the Broad school tries to adopt the policies recommended by the Broad school's "research." I have also made arguments based on evidence and logic showing how ill-conceieved the Broad models are.
You are free to debate on the merits, but you prefer to attack your opponents, not your opponents arguments.
You don't care much for higher education. I'd prefer that we fight these issues out according to the scholarly conventions developed over the centuries. In such a debate there is room for wit, even barbed wit, and we all cross lines as I did. But those conventions work.
So, here's a question I asked at Eduwonk but I don't expect an answer. Maybe you'll check it out. The CCCR reprt says that the congressional prosposal on Comparability explicitly rules out forced transfers. Do you guys have a source for that statement? Do they have a source for that statement?
Which reminds me, I asked previously about the inaccuracy in the last TNTL report on dismissals in Toledo and whether there is a pattern with them making so many mistakes in their reports. Have you bothered to check the accuracy of your allies' statements?
Similarly, I wrote a critique of the methodology of the latest McKinsey report partially funded by Broad. Did you read them with an open mind? If you conclude that I'm right and the McKinsey report's methodolgy was awful, have you guys discussed with Broad the need for better methodology?
These debates on the evidence happen every day in academics.
Robert,
Correction. I meant to say "you guys" when I said you don't like higher academics and don't debate on the evidence. Actually, you like Tom Toch before you, argue using evidence. That was the first time I'd seen you personally use a tactic that I'd call spin. And if you check my comments to your posts, I think you'll see I always used evidence and logic. The people I needle are people who keep using rhetorical tactics rather than evidence.
And that's why I reconted the last few debates. You seen to be more interested in checking out the reliablity of arguments so you might take my challenge.
Robert,
You get the benefit of my 10 minutes' research this afternoon: Go search to your heart's content. Would be willing to correct the misleading statements in the main entry?
Post a Comment