Abstract:

Flanagan considers how unions and the idea of professionalism function together.

Flanagan, N. (2004). Thinking about unions on the fourth of july. Teacher Leaders Network diaries. Retrieved from the Teacher Leaders Network 8 Apr 2008. Link: http://www.teacherleaders.org/old_site/diaries04_05/other/NF04_04_05.html 

Full Text:

Thinking About Unions on the Fourth of July

I should begin by saying that my father was a Teamster. At my house, the union made us strong and protected the little guy. Although my parents were as conservative and even fundamentalist as they come—hardly leftists. I grew up with a bred-in appreciation for fair pay for hard work, and bone-deep respect for all honest labor. If you're digging ditches, my dad used to say, make them the best ditches around, then count on the union for decent pay.

I've spent my whole life in a state that is imbued with unionism, the labor-management principle, the idea that people at the bottom of the power pyramid have an obligation to struggle for their human rights. I believe in my very core that this great country was built on the backs of the disenfranchised: the poor and uneducated, the slave and the immigrant, the soldier who joins the army because college isn't an option, the mother of six, clinging to her line job at the cotton mill. When employees organize to provide better wages and a say in their own working conditions, it's more than mere redistribution of wealth. It's standing up for yourself.

I've never been convinced, however, that the labor-management model was the best way to structure schools. I've been a union member since the first day I taught, more than 30 years ago, but I can't say I ever gave joining the union much thought. All public school teachers in my state are union members, nominally at least. (The phrase used to be "agency shop"-as opposed to "right to work"-illustrating the power of language to shape thinking.)

I spent the first few years of my career seeking leadership opportunities through the union hierarchy. I've done it all: negotiated contracts, processed grievances, interviewed prospective school board members. I've seen the power and the glory, students and teachers well-served. I've also seen the ugly underbelly.

It's odd. My colleagues who live in states where teachers speak of their "associations" or openly criticize teacher unions undoubtedly think I'm a raving unionist. In my own land, however, I'm more outlier than prophet. I have often been the person who asks the uncomfortable question, bucks tradition or points out eventual, unintended consequences of policy made for the right reasons. I once brought a union meeting to a dead halt by saying out loud "Well, what's good for teachers isn't always good for students"—a faux pas equivalent to telling new parents their baby is ugly. It just isn't done.

Teachers often think their personal mental model of the way schools are run is the way schools should be run. School cultures, practices and mores—with and without strong unions—are vastly divergent, however, across state and local boundaries. What seems strange, unfair or pushy to some is situation normal, the way things get done, to others. When it comes to thinking about teacher unions, geography may be destiny. Still, I believe it behooves all teachers, as models of critical thinking, to draw up a personal, thoughtful balance sheet on teacher unions.

The major flaw in the labor union model is the inescapable temptation to divide the world into us and them. "They" don't want to give us more resources or power. "We", on the other hand, are hard-working, generous and totally dedicated to student learning (with the "we" and "they" often being interchangeable parties). It's hard to sit across the table and work cooperatively on creating new curriculum with someone you are obliged to see as the other side. Adversarial relationships are black and white, and building a healthy, productive school culture requires a sincere respect for the nuances of grey.

Some teachers believe that "professionals" do not organize for better salaries and working conditions. Of course, you can't feed your family on dignity, so this argument is often advanced by those earning a second income, who "knew going in" that teaching would never pay the bills. I don't buy this argument, and teacher professionalism is my life passion.

Defining the parameters of professionalism isn't a matter of decorous public behaviors, wearing a tie or other trappings of educated success. Insisting on what we need to improve our practice is ultimately professional. One of those things is reasonable compensation for demonstrated efficacy, but there are others-ongoing training, moderate class size, a telephone and computer to put teachers on an equal footing with the rest of the world. Waiting for someone to notice that your working conditions are primitive is not professional-it's senseless. It doesn't do anyone—teachers, students, administrators—any good to suffer disadvantage, no matter how nobly, especially in the belief that nothing will ever change. Professionals in all fields endorse activism.

So why can't we leverage these professional demands as teacher leaders, without formal organization? Well—there's power in numbers, and union-based access to policymakers and a communications infrastructure are already in place. Unions have been effective—teachers make more money and enjoy better benefits and protections in strong-union states. There's no reason to apologize for that. I see belonging to a union the same way I belong to my church. When I don't like something, it's my job to speak up, because I'm a contributing member, a partner. I have the power to help steer the boat.

As for the word "union"-I'm going to keep using it. I like its etymology and history. It's never wrong to stand up for yourself.

• Tagged
• XML
• BibTex