Pennsylvania public schools, fair share
From Sunshine Review
Contents |
Member dues are the main sources of revenue for state-level unions like the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) (an affiliate of the National Education Association) and AFT Pennsylvania. Negotiators on the staffs of these state-level unions push hard for fair share clauses during teacher contract negotiations.
This is a negotiable item, meaning that no district is required by law to include it in a contract. However, because school boards in urban areas and almost all larger districts have accepted “fair share” provisions, the overwhelming majority of Pennsylvania teachers work under contracts with this kind of clause. According to staff at the Pennsylvania School Board Association (PSBA), no “fair share” provision, once accepted by a school board, has ever been re-negotiated out of existence in subsequent contracts.[citation needed]
[edit] Union rationale for fair share fees
The fundamental union case for fair share fees is that all members of an employee bargaining unit benefit from the efforts of the union on their behalf, both during contract negotiations and from as-needed union help in resolving employee grievances. It is unfair for “free riders” to receive all the benefits of union membership without paying their proportional share of the financial burden.
- Union spokespersons point out that unions are required by law to represent all members of a bargaining unit.
- Supporters of fair share note that employees whose objections to fair share are based on principle have other options. Those who object to union membership on religious grounds may arrange for the equivalent of their fair-share dues to go to certain designated charities. In addition, employees may request that the amounts withheld from their paychecks be reduced by whatever percentage of total dues that a union spends on political lobbying. The PSEA contends that approximately 80-85% of the dues it collects goes into member benefits, not lobbying.[citation needed]
- Fair share costs taxpayers nothing since it is paid by teachers out of their own money.
[edit] Criticisms of “fair share”
Critics of fair share offer several counter-arguments.
- Forcing employees to pay dues to organizations with whose principles or political causes they disagree, is fundamentally wrong. Moreover, the procedures for opting out of fair share contributions based on religious or other principles are so complicated that only the most determined teachers will even try to take advantage of them.
- Assertions that all teachers benefit from being part of a collective bargaining unit are false. For example, teachers who have scarce skills (e.g., ability to teach high school science or mathematics) almost certainly lose money by being unable to bargain on their own behalf and hence having to accept whatever salaries their school districts pay all teachers. The same objection applies to teachers whose their abilities would be rewarded under merit pay systems. It may be argued that fair share actually forces these kinds of teachers to subsidize those with less rigorous training and/or less talent.
- Fair share agreements relieve any pressure on unions to serve their own members cost-effectively. Just as some union benefits may be non-existent, others (like professional liability insurance) are likely to be over-priced. Similarly, having attorneys who specialize in grievance procedures on retainer may be able to represent teachers more effectively and less expensively than union officers. Unions can abandon efforts to sign on new members if they can successfully sign on new school boards.
- Because employees forced to pay union dues are likely to join unions in order to have a voice in union affairs (including contract votes), coerced dues payment creates a misleading impression of the strength of support for union positions and policies.
- Fair share provisions create a short-term conflict of interest between teachers and any state-level union employees representing them. Although the evidence is anecdotal, board members and former union officials say that union negotiators will make major concessions on salary, benefits and other contract terms in order to change a previously open shop into an agency shop.
- Over the long term, fair share clauses do cost taxpayers by increasing union political and bargaining power.
[edit] Transparency issues
Because fair share is an either/or issue, it does not lend itself to the kinds of compromises that are possible where differences between board and union salary proposals are concerned. Members of the public may favor the arguments on either side, but they are entitled to hear them discussed. Otherwise, they can be no more than passive observers if boards agree to contract terms that substantially increase union bargaining power in future contract negotiations.
