Are Unions Helping, or Hurting Its Members?

When I was a full-time teacher and forced to be a member of my local, state and national teacher's union, I highly resented it.

Not only were they taking monthly dues out of my paycheck, but when it came to presidential campaign season, the only union postings in the teacher's lounge were for Democrats. If any conservative teachers complained, they told us to quit whining and pound sand.

In the first third of my 30 year career in the classroom, my state legislature announced that because of the disparity of pay between the western region versus the eastern region of our state, the legislature in their infinite wisdom would take all school districts off of the levy system that individual districts imposed on taxpayers' property and put all teachers in the state on the allocation model set by them. Teachers across the state would get the same pay whether they lived in Ritzville on the east side and paid only $500/month rent for their crash pad, while teachers on the west side of the Cascade mountains paid $950/month for the same.

I made a prediction based on what I analyzed about the situation back in the mid-80s. Eventually, this statewide allocation model would revert back to the levy system. Sure enough, this is precisely where we've arrived at today. In doing so, the union has created its own financial problem.

Not too long ago a U.S. Supreme Court ruling went in favor of those who didn't want to be forced to pay union dues; the Janus decision. However, as a response to this ruling the unions are now getting laws in state legislatures to make it next to impossible to get out of unions, and have contributed to essentially erasing the gains made by the McClary decison in WA state Supreme Court only last year.

While teachers may have gained a massive percentage increase in their salaries, they may find themselves resenting getting it in the future.