|
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Abolish the Nashua Teachers Union
Nashua New Hampshire is still being rocked by the threat of a public school teachers strike. Nashua union chief honcho Bob Sherman threatened a strike by March 31 unless the city acceded to a contract that included retroactive pay going back to 2006 and an enhanced health insurance package. While the strike has been averted for now, the phenomena of public teachers unions holding municipalities hostage with their various demands is being played out in cities and towns across the country.
In the case of Nashua, the terms of the contract that averted the strike has not been made public which raises several questions. How much does Bob Sherman and his staff, none of whom are teachers, cost the taxpayers of Nashua? What sort of extra financial perks are being afforded to the union management? Why is the teachers union opposed to merit pay increases for good teachers? Is there a clause in the contract that would assist in the removal of bad teachers? Does the contract include tenure and, if so, who qualifies and what are the terms? What pensions are offered in the contract?
As a Nashua radio talk show host I weighted in by calling on Nashua Mayor Donnalee Lozeau to fire the union and to offer the teachers individual contracts that would include pay raises based on merit and that would be within the previously approved city budget. I contend that the teachers would be better off in the long run without the union as the Nashua taxpayers would no doubt be willing to pay more than competitive rates to good teachers. Nashua is a very civic minded community, one that appreciates the value of high educational standards and one that would prefer to maintain property values.
The very existence of public teachers unions is a conflict of interest. Public unions try to get the best deal for their members which means they've got a vested interest in advocating for the expansion of the city budget and this can only be accomplished by raising taxes. This explains why public unions put their political muscle behind candidates who support high taxes and why union dues go toward indirect "in kind" support of candidates who promise to do their bidding. It also explains why public unions overwhelmingly support the tax and spend Democratic Party. The result has been a classic definition of corruption and the taxpayer fueled corruption is spreading like wildfire across the country as public unions grow in numbers and in financial clout.
The teachers unions are more than just giant political machines funded by taxpayer money. They are also heavily invested in influencing education itself and this influence almost always tilts in the liberal direction. In this regard, teachers unions accept their marching orders from the National Education Association which sends out annual memos following their national convention. Both the NEA and the local affiliates contribute large sums to liberal causes that have nothing to do with the education of children. Funds also go toward stopping competing educational systems such as charter schools, home schooling, and tax vouchers for inner city students.
Whether or not the local taxpayer prefers a more liberal or a more conservative education for their children is beside the point. The democratic approach is for the local taxpayer to re-assert control over the education of their own sons and daughters by driving out the nationally directed public unions which feed on tax money. Let the local school committees, elected by the citizens, determine the mode of education for the children in the community, a mode that reflects the values of the community whatever they may be, and let the elected school committee determine teacher pay and benefits. Perhaps the savings that would result in dumping the union could go toward music, art, and athletic programs. Lets behave like a confident democratic society and get rid of the un-democratic public teachers unions.
Chuck Morse
Archived Page for Article Above
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
