Quick Contract Questions
for the Expert
Pitfalls abound in the contracts unions negotiate for teachers. We asked Myron Lieberman, a researcher with decades of experience with teachers unions, what people need to look out for.
Q: You’ve been following the issue of education union contracts for a long time. How well are these contracts understood?
A: For over thirty years, I have been called by one or more reporters when a strike is going on or seems to be imminent. My first question has always been “Have you read the contract?” and I cannot recall a single instance of an affirmative answer. There do not seem to be any data on teacher readership, but I would be surprised if 3 percent of the teachers covered have read the contract; of these, perhaps 1 percent fully understand what it says—and what it doesn’t say. In my experience as the chief negotiator for about fifty school boards in six states, most school board members and school administrators, like the teachers, are very knowledgeable about a few items and only dimly aware of others. And truth be told, I doubt whether more than one or two percent of education reporters have read the contracts in the districts they cover.
Q: What have teachers found when they carefully read their contracts?
A: Surprising as it may seem, the overwhelming majority of teachers in mid-size or larger school districts do not study the contracts. But from time to time a union member will scrutinize his or her contract with far-reaching results. By this time, most people are aware of the 2002 scandal in the Washington Teachers Union. The diversion of WTU funds over a five-year period came to light when a union member noticed that his dues deduction had gone up but there had been no union action to raise the dues. The discovery triggered an investigation that revealed that the WTU dues were excessive; millions in dues revenues were being diverted to the private use of union officers, but union members did not recognize any diminution of union services. The dues were much higher than were required for the level of services received by union members.
Q: In general, is there a problem with teachers paying their union representatives well if they do the job well?
A: Unlike some others who are critical of high salaries and liberal expense accounts for union staff, I am not especially concerned about high salaries and liberal expenses for union staff, provided one condition is met. That condition is that the rank and file members have full information on the total compensation of union staff and a full opportunity to approve or disapprove, whatever it is. If teachers want to pay their representatives generously, it’s their money and they can spend it on their representatives as far as I am concerned. The problem is that they rarely know what they are paying and are not in a position to do anything about it in the rare situations in which they do know.
Q: The Center for Union Facts has been contacted by teachers upset about items that appear in their contract that seem to help the union more than the member. Have you come across this phenomenon?
A: Frequently. Consider contracts that give the union the right to designate the insurance carriers. The union argument is: “This is money spent for the benefit of our members (more accurately, for anyone covered by the contract). Therefore, the union should have the right to make sure that teachers are getting the best coverage from the funds available.” This appears to be reasonable to school boards; they aren’t being asked to spend more, only to allow the beneficiaries to make sure of the best services from these funds. Many school boards agree to the union demand for this reason. A few years later, it turns out that the state teacher union is receiving a kickback from the insurance carrier, based on the number of employees covered by the contract. This raises the question of whether the carrier was chosen for teacher welfare or union welfare. It does not necessarily matter that the choice of carrier was discussed or even voted upon by the membership. Union officials typically control the flow of information and analysis on such issues, and the more locals that accept a particular carrier, the easier it is to convince other union members to choose the union’s favored carrier.
Q: What other kind of conflicts of interest may be hiding in union contracts?
A: The reality is that whenever you have an agency relationship, you have potential conflicts of interest. This is why the National Labor Relations Act imposes reporting and disclosure requirements applicable to unions. Union officers may not accept “anything of value” from employers. This is a precaution to avoid “sweetheart deals,” in which union officers take bribes to sell out their members. Any commercial transactions between union officers and the union are limited and must be reported. Union members are entitled to access to union financial records, and so on.
Q: Do teachers get the same kind of governmental safeguards afforded to the average union member?
A: Unfortunately, the NLRA safeguards do nothing to protect teachers because teacher unions are regulated by state, not federal bargaining laws. The state teacher bargaining statutes were initially drafted by union lawyers, who naturally left out the safeguards against union abuse of employee rights. The state legislatures did not have the resources available to members of Congress, and most state school board associations did not have a clue as to what they were getting into. Consequently the safeguards, although badly needed, were overlooked, and their inclusion now encounters intense opposition from the state teacher unions, who are typically one of the two most powerful interest groups in the state legislatures. For this reason, teacher unions are more able than private sector unions to conceal union-paid benefits for union staff and officers.
Q: Have you come across examples of luxury items hidden in contracts?
A: In education, the problem is that the contracts and/or perquisites of union staff and officers are hidden. Sometimes the problem is that the entire contract is hidden to conceal luxury items. For example, the NEA’s UniServ staff is typically represented by a union of their own which bargains with the state associations, the employers of record. Inasmuch as most UniServ members represent multiple districts, they are required to use a car a great deal. The contracts with the state associations usually specify an attractive car; union pick-up of gas, oil, insurance, and repair charges; liberal private use provisions; and the UniServ member right to purchase the car at the Blue Book price or lower after one or two years. One UniServ representative told me years ago that the automobile clause in the UniServ contract was worth $10,000 a year, and it would be worth much more today. The teachers represented by most UniServ directors know nothing about this for two reasons. One is that the UniServ contracts are negotiated by the state association and the UniServ union, hence the teachers in the local affiliate have no occasion to consider how much their representative is being paid. Second, if a teacher or a local wants to know, the car allowance will not be shown as an employee benefit. Instead, the allowance is carried on the union books simply as a union expense, like utilities, facilities, taxes, and insurance.
© 2008 Center for Union Facts