2. PARALYSIS OR POSSIBILITY: WHAT DO TEACHER UNIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BRING?

Abstract

Certain features of collective bargaining have, over time, promoted uniformity and sometimes inflexibility in teacher policy and negotiated contracts. From the start, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) – passed in 1935 to regulate unionization and collective bargaining in the private, industrial sector – served as the template for state labor laws regulating education. The framers of the NLRA never had the needs of the public sector or schools in mind. Yet the 35 states that now require collective bargaining for teachers have drawn on the NLRA’s procedures and standards. For example, they have used the NLRA for defining how teachers organize and are represented; what constitutes an unfair labor practice; and how obligatory membership or dues provide union security (e.g. agency shop, union shop). They have also drawn on the NLRA to define what range of issues can be bargained; whether strikes are legal; and what processes are used to resolve an impasse (e.g. mediation, fact finding, binding arbitration, or all three).¹ Although the laws of the 35 states show some important variations, their similarity is more striking than their differences. Jessup (1985) concluded that the narrow scope of bargaining established by New York’s Taylor Law “severely restricted the range of concerns teachers could productively bring to the bargaining table” (p. 195).

Citation

Moore Johnson, S. (2004), "2. PARALYSIS OR POSSIBILITY: WHAT DO TEACHER UNIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BRING?", Henderson, R.D., Urban, W. and Wolman, P. (Ed.) Teacher Unions and Education Policy: Retrenchment of Reform? (Advances in Education in Diverse Communities, Vol. 3), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-358X(04)03002-5