teachers unions

Bogus Statistic from Wisconsin Union Backers Spreads Despite Repeated Debunking

by Hans Bader on February 28, 2011 · 6 comments

in Economy, Employment, Labor, Regulation

Post image for Bogus Statistic from Wisconsin Union Backers Spreads Despite Repeated Debunking

“A lie can make it half way around the world before the truth has time to put its boots on” — like a false statistic recently spread by supporters of Wisconsin’s government-employee unions, such as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. Despite being debunked by PolitiFact, it has since been widely repeated in multiple letters to the editor, and it remains uncorrected on the web sites of publications like The Economist.

On Wednesday, PolitiFact debunked the claim by Wisconsin union supporters that Virginia, which bans collective bargaining in state agencies, ranks 44th in the nation in ACT/SAT scores, compared to Wisconsin ranking 2nd. For example, it noted that in 2009, Virginia ranked 22nd in ACT scores, while Wisconsin ranked 13th. As PolitiFact notes, this claim was originally disseminated by the Wisconsin Democratic Party, which has now retracted it.

(Although PolitiFact didn’t note this, in 2010, Virginia actually beat Wisconsin in ACT scores, with Virginia ranked 12th and Wisconsin ranked 17th. Unlike Wisconsin, Virginia is a right-to-work state that bars forcing employees to pay union dues. Collective bargaining with government employee unions is currently mandated in Wisconsin, but banned in Virginia.)

[click to continue…]

Are Government Employee Unions Losing the Democrats?

by Ivan Osorio on December 10, 2010

in Economy, Labor, Regulation, Zeitgeist

Government employee unions have long been renowned as one of the Democratic Party’s most loyal and dedicated supporting constituencies. For years, Democratic politicians have supported public employee unions’ agenda of increased government spending, leading to more government jobs and thus more potential union members.

For teachers unions — which are among the most politically powerful government unions — Democrats have helped them resist popular school reform efforts that could threaten the government-school monopoly, including school choice and charter schools.

That was great deal for the unions and their political allies, but a dead weight on everybody else, as taxpayers funded a continually expanding government sector, while a growing number parents saw their children stuck in underperforming schools. Now cracks are finally starting to show in that alliance — and they may get wider in the near future.

It is perhaps no coincidence that some of the nation’s boldest education reformers have been Democrats. From outgoing Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (who was a Democrat before he re-registered Republican and is now an Independent), it is mayors in Democrat-controlled cities who have faced the most dire conditions in the schools they were elected to oversee.

Both Fenty  and Bloomberg saw the need for drastic action, thus their appointment and strong support for their respective school chancellors — Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein — both of whom pursued an aggressive reform agenda.

Now Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, also a Democrat, has joined the pro-reform chorus. Not surprisingly, his city’s teachers union, United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), wants no part of Villaraigosa’s reform efforts. Moreover, Villaraigosa himself has a teachers union background. To his credit, the mayor is striking back.  In a speech this week, Villaraigosa criticized the UTLA leadership in no uncertain terms:

Over the past five years, while partnering with students, parents and non-profits, business groups, higher education, charter organizations, school district leadership, elected board members and teachers, there has been one, unwavering roadblock to reform: UTLA union leadership.

While not the biggest problem facing our schools, they have consistently been the most powerful defenders of the status quo. I do not say this because of any animus towards unions. I deeply believe that teachers’ unions can and must be part of our efforts to transform our schools. Regrettably, they have yet to join us as we have forged ahead with a reform agenda.

By partnering with the Los Angeles School Board, we created the Public School Choice program that is now allowing non-profits, charters, teacher groups — anyone with a proven track record of success — to compete to run new or failing schools. By 2012, over 50 low-performing schools will be under new leadership, with a new chance for success.

UTLA leadership fought against this reform.

Partnering with the School Board and the charter school community, we doubled the number of charter schools in an effort to raise our test scores and alleviate overcrowding.

Partnering with the Parent Revolution, we successfully passed legislation here in Sacramento, empowering communities to shut down, reopen or takeover a failing school if a simple majority of parents petition to do so.

Working with LA Unified, I founded the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools to turn-around 21 of the lowest-performing schools.

And partnering with civil rights organizations and the ACLU, we filed a lawsuit to take a stand against the practice of seniority-based layoffs, which were disproportionately affecting our poorest schools and students of color.

At every step of the way, when Los Angeles was coming together to effect real change in our public schools, UTLA was there to fight against the change and slow the pace of reform.

Now let me pause to underscore the point once again that I come from an organizing background. I vociferously believe in the fundamental right for a worker to organize, to have a voice and a seat at the bargaining table. But union leaders need to take notice that it is their friends, the very people who have supported them and the people whom they have supported, who are carrying the torch of education reform and crying out for the unions to join them.

UTLA boss A.J. Duffy angrily dismissed Villaraigosa’s remarks, saying that, “Pointing fingers and laying blame does not help improve our schools.” Yet pointing fingers at those responsible for the dire state of public schools is what is needed.

Duffy’s reaction, while unfortunate, is not surprising. For he and other government union bosses to change course, the incentive structure under which the UTLA, and government employee unions in general, operate needs to change.

As the late president of  American Federation of Teachers, Albert Shanker, so honestly put it, “When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.” Until they do, Villaraigosa’s call on UTLA leaders to drop their opposition to his administration’s reform efforts and join him in making L.A.’s public schools better is likely to continue falling on deaf ears.

Likewise, government employee unions exist to represent the interest of their members, not of taxpayers. And government employees benefit from the growth of government, so the interests of public sector unions and those of taxpayers are fundamentally at odds.

Adding to the problem is the fact that it is on union-friendly politicians’ interest to give the unions what they want, since — in the classic concentrated benefits/diffuse costs public-choice problem — they’re more likely to protest at being denied greater compensation than taxpayers are likely to protest seeing their taxes go up gradually. Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, also a Democrat, recognized this, though unfortunately once he was safely out of office:

The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life. But we politicians — pushed by our friends in labor — gradually expanded pay and benefits . . . while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages.

In government, unionization is greater at the state and local levels. For years, state and local governments were able to sustain their unionized employees’ generous compensation packages, as long as their economies continued growing. But since the nation’s economy went south, states and localities are struggling, and state and local politicians — Democrat and Republican alike — must face this crisis.

Indeed, in New York, Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo — yes, also a Democrat — may be headed for a showdown with government employee unions over wages and pensions. The unions won’t like it, but the taxpaying public will. In that regard, I think left-leaning Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum gets it right:

I sometimes wonder if [UTLA head A.J.] Duffy understands just how widely his union is loathed? Somebody should correct me in comments if I’m wrong, but as near as I can tell UTLA literally has no support anywhere from anybody that it doesn’t directly give money to. Everybody else hates them with a passion. That doesn’t mean Villaraigosa can win a big public battle with UTLA, of course, since they give lots of money to lots of people, but he might. If Villaraigosa plays his cards right, he’ll have about 90% of the city on his side. Pass the popcorn.

Indeed, this and other similar fights will be worth watching.

For more on public sector unions, see here and here.

131,000 Jobs Lost in July; Obama Aide Abandons Ship; Economists Criticize Obama; More Bailouts

by Hans Bader on August 6, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Labor, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade, Zeitgeist

“Non-farm job losses hit 131,000 in July,” on top of a loss of 97,000 jobs in May and June.  Another Obama economic advisor is abandoning ship.

Nobel Prize-winning economists Gary Becker and Vernon Smith criticized the Obama administration’s economic policies, such as its massive deficit spending and politicization of the economy.  Last year, Obama advisor (and economist) Martin Feldstein warned that Obama’s policies would lead to “serious inflation and higher taxes down the road.”  Administration economists botched deficit projections by at least $2 trillion.

The House is expected to pass a $26.1 billion bailout of state and local government sought by public employee unions, which will aid bloated and mismanaged school districts.  There is talk that the Obama Administration will give away billions of dollars in new mortgage bailouts at taxpayer expense, as a way to buy votes.

The stimulus package is costing $75 billion more than predicted.  It also inadvertently wiped out thousands of jobs in America’s export sector.

Obama’s polices would add $9.7 trillion to the national debt, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

LibertyWeek 103: Katherine Mangu-Ward Edition

by Richard Morrison on July 26, 2010

in CEI Projects, Features, Podcast, Zeitgeist

Richard Morrison and Marc Scribner welcome very special guest Katherine Mangu-Ward to Episode 103 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We discuss the Pentagon’s brownie recipe, the organic food police, the war on online classrooms and Katherine’s chapter in the recently released book from Templeton Press, New Threats to Freedom.

Obama Administration Pushes More Bailouts at Taxpayer Expense; America to Bail Out Corrupt Union Pension Funds

by Hans Bader on June 2, 2010 · 2 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Employment, International, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

The Obama administration and its congressional allies are now pushing for billions more in bailouts for mismanaged union pension  funds, and teachers unions.

The union pension bailout bill “would transfer tens of billions of dollars worth of retiree liabilities” from unions “to taxpayers.”  It would bail out the massively underfunded pension fund of the SEIU, a corrupt left-wing union that uses mobs to intimidate, and occasionally beat up, its critics and creditors. (The SEIU serves as a security force for Obama allies and liberal Congressmen seeking to keep Tea Party protesters away from their events.)  The union pension funds are estimated to be underfunded by $165 billion.

The Obama administration is also proposing a multi-billion dollar teacher bailout sought by the teachers’ unions.  Although education spending per student has quadrupled, after inflation, since 1960, and teacher class sizes have shrunk considerably, the Obama administration wants to increase spending even further to prevent states from laying off any teachers.  Even the The Washington Post, which endorsed Obama and has endorsed every Democratic presidential candidate since 1952, considers this unwise and financially reckless “wasteful spending.”  (The SAT has been “recentered” in recent years to hide the fact that SAT scores have effectively gone down even as education spending has skyrocketed.  My 1986 SAT score of 1520 out of 1600 would be a perfect 1600 on the relevant portions of today’s SAT, thanks to “recentering.”)  Ironically, no additional spending would be needed to prevent layoffs if teachers would simply accept small pay cuts.  (The average school teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland, makes $76,483 in base pay–which hasn’t stopped school officials from threatening to sue the County for supposedly inadequate school funding.)

While pushing an unnecessary teacher bailout, the administration has shown little interest in the plight of the unemployed.  It deliberately removed from the $800 billion stimulus package billions in transportation spending that would have stimulated the economy, after feminist leaders complained that such projects would employ blue-collar men, many of whom are now unemployed (80 percent of those who have lost their jobs in the recession are men).   The transportation spending was replaced with wasteful welfare spending, and other provisions of the stimulus package largely repealed the limits on welfare passed in the reforms of 1996.

The Obama administration earlier lifted a $400 billion limit on bailouts for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two mortgage giants known as the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). It was just the beginning: “Late last year, the Obama administration pledged to cover unlimited losses through 2012 for Freddie and Fannie,” reports The New York Times.

At the direction of the Obama administration, Freddie Mac ran up more than $30 billion in losses to bail out mortgage borrowers, some of whom have high incomes. Federal regulators sought to make Freddie Mac hide the resulting losses from the SEC and the public.

Fannie and Freddie helped spawn the mortgage crisis by buying up risky mortgages and repackaging them as prime mortgages, thus creating an artificial market for junk. ”From the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime.” They paid their CEOs millions, and engaged in massive accounting fraud–$6.3 billion at Fannie Mae alone–to increase the size of their managers’ bonuses. As Government-Sponsored Enterprises, they were exempt from the capital requirements that apply to private banks, so they did not have enough reserves to cover their losses when their mortgages started defaulting.

The Obama administration refuses to reform these mortgage giants, saying it is “too hard” to do. Earlier, Senate Democrats blocked reform of the mortgage giants in a party-line vote.

(Obama received $125,000 in contributions from these mortgage giants as a Senator, second only to the corrupt Senator Chris Dodd, who is retiring this year due to his financial scandals. Dodd is the chief drafter of the financial “reform” bill.)

The financial “reform” bills recently passed by the House and Senate do nothing to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But they will increase pressure on banks to make risky loans in depressed neighborhoods, and increase credit card costs.

The Obama administration also recently provided billions for the international bailout of Greece, which came close to bankruptcy thanks to its socialist policies and pensions for people who retire as early as age 50 (in many ordinary occupations, like hairdressers).

How Much Harm Do Teacher Unions Do?

by Ivan Osorio on October 14, 2009

in Labor, Politics as Usual, Regulation

Plenty, according to the new film, The Cartel. The film purports to show “educational system like we’ve never seen it before. Behind every dropout factory, we discover, lurks a powerful, entrenched, and self-serving cartel.” Trailer below.

In fact, the power of teachers unions is part of an even greater problem: the growing ranks of unionized government workers, a phenomenon that creates a permanent constituency favoring the growth of government — one that is well organized, motivated, and well funded.

For more on public sector unions, see the study, “Vallejo Con Dios: Why Public Sector Unionism Is a Bad Deal for Taxpayers and Limited Government.”

DC on the School Reform Front Lines, Again

by Ivan Osorio on March 2, 2009

in Economy, Labor, Regulation

Today’s Washington Post features an editorial that strongly criticizes Congressional Democrats’ rush to kill the District of Columbia’s school voucher program, which enjoys bipartisan support in the heavily Democratic nation’s capital, and is considered a success by those whose opinion should most matter in this debate: schoolchildren and their parents.

We would like Mr. Obey and his colleagues to talk about possible “disruption” with Deborah Parker, mother of two children who attend Sidwell Friends School because of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. “The mere thought of returning to public school frightens me,” Ms. Parker told us as she related the opportunities — such as a trip to China for her son — made possible by the program. Tell her, as critics claim, that vouchers don’t work, and she’ll list her children’s improved test scores, feeling of safety and improved motivation.

The school vouchers main opponents are, of course, the teachers unions that contribute heavily to Democratic politicians. But this should not be a partisan issue. Adrian Fenty, D.C.’s Democratic mayor, has already shows great resolve in taking on the District’s troubled public school systems in his appointment of Michelle Rhee as Schools Chancellor, to whom he has granted considerable authority. As a recent profile of Rhee in The Atlantic noted:

Rhee, responsible not to a school board but only to the mayor, went on a spree almost as soon as she arrived. She gained the right to fire central-office employees and then axed 98 of them. She canned 24 principals, 22 assistant principals, and, at the beginning of this summer, 250 teachers and 500 teaching aides. She announced plans to close 23 underused schools and set about restructuring 26 other schools (together, about a third of the system). And she began negotiating a radical performance-based compensation contract with the teachers union that could revolutionize the way teachers get paid.

Mayor Fenty, to his credit, has stood by his Schools Chancellor’s decisions against an onslaught of criticism from teachers unions. This is precisely the kind of boldness he needs to display now to defend the voucher program. If the program is lost, so will be many of the District’s educational improvements.

For more on teachers unions, see here.