Inside the Vermont-NEA, Part IV: How Effective?

So how much power does Vermont-NEA really have?  Quite a bit.   Clearly its own members, and, in many cases, local school board members and state legislators are carefully manipulated by the Vermont-NEA.  Vermont-NEA’s loyal followers are a lot like the puppets in the picture with Angelo Dorta.

Vermont-NEA is a powerful lobbying group in Montpelier, easily the most powerful.  Chief lobbyist Joel Cook sits in at every key committee meeting, jumps into discussions as if he were a member of the committee, and is eager to assist the chairwoman of the House Committee on Education, a non-educator, with any legislation writing that needs to be done.  In small hearings, he gets scheduled to speak after all the other witnesses depart.  At large public hearings, he fills Room 11 with his entranced followers.

Though usually thought of as a teacher's union, Vermont-NEA, it turns out, doesn’t always lobby for teachers.  It has to worry about its paraprofessional members.  It has to look out for its staff.  And sometimes the interests of the groups collide.

The 65-cent concept clearly would have benefited teachers, but it might have meant cuts in paraprofessional dues-paying members. This proposal would have set a benchmark of 65 percent for tax money actually reaching the classroom instead of administrative overhead.  In Vermont, it would have been a voluntary benchmark.  But NEA and its affiliates killed the idea – even the voluntary version proposed by 28 legislators in Montpelier. 

Another concept that’s dead on arrival is the idea of a statewide teacher contract.  A statewide teacher contract would put $75 million of new money in teachers’ hands.  But it would mean a layoff of  NEA “UniServ” directors.  These are the people who work with each local association to secure a good contract.

Because of the threat to these jobs, Vermont-NEA will always make sure that the statewide contract idea will never see the light of the Montpelier sky.  For Chittenden County teachers, who make above the national salary average, the status quo works well.  But for the other 80 percent of Vermont teachers, making much less than the national average, the status quo is long on quo and short on status.

Several times, Vermont-NEA has indicated that it would give up the right to strike for binding arbitration.  Binding arbitration is a safer way for Vermont-NEA to continue to play the school comparison game they play so well.  The game is basically to get one area contract up and then use it as a comparison for other area schools.  Arbitrators use local comparisons, so the strategy would still be effective.  And it wouldn’t mean laying off UniServ directors.

Four legislators recently co-sponsored a bill to delay the two-votes provision of Act 82 another year.   Buy more time.  And buy it with Vermont-NEA money.  What happens to Act 82 could be a symbolic indicator of Vermont-NEA’s power – at least in Montpelier.

It may appear that Vermont-NEA is wasting political capital on Act 82 since the law will do very little to curb spending on public K-12 education.  But a seasoned observer recently told me, “They have to win this one.  It’s about power and pride.”

Vermont-NEA has done a terrific job of obstructing cost containment measures, thereby continuing to feather the state's 19,000 public school staff positions.  Nevertheless, it’s easy to argue that the increased number of non-teaching staff positions has suppressed teacher salaries.  From 2001 to 2005, teacher salaries went up an average of 2.6 percent per year while education spending averaged 6.04 percent increases.  Clearly, it isn’t the teachers who are plundering the public treasury.

Vermont-NEA has a certain amount of influence over school boards. In some states, they actually run candidates in big-money school board races and while that is not the case here, there are other ways it exerts influence.  The Vermont School Board Association (VSBA) lobbyist in Montpelier, John Nelson, is in constant consultation with Vermont-NEA’s Joel Cooke.  And Nelson holds serious sway with Vermont’s lay school boards.

Additionally, Vermont-NEA members sit on school boards. See my July article in the Vermont Education Report  (“Is Your Local School Board Representative a VTNEA Member?” ). These are people who teach in nearby districts, who benefit from their school-of-residence having a higher salary when it comes time for their school-of-employment to look at neighboring schools' salaries. And they push hard for agency fees, which force non-members to pay, often up to 80 percent of the union dues, for the privilege of working at the same school.  Why?  Because they’re told to by Vermont-NEA.

Vermont-NEA has been better at negotiating salaries for Chittenden County schools, as I’ve already noted.  What’s interesting is that salaries aren’t a huge private concern of Vermont-NEA officials.  They don’t charge dues based on a percentage.  In general, the union will do better if their teachers are doing better.  But it’s easier to sit back and benefit from more staff positions being created, thus increasing the pool of members.  And it’s easier to increase revenue by forcing teachers to join through agency fees.  That’s why UniServ directors will tell locals that it’s worth it to leave some salary on the table for agency fees.  Worth it for them, they mean.

There’s money in the illusion that Vermont-NEA protects teachers. Fear of being fired is the number one reason teachers join their union.  But each case is costly.  So Vermont-NEA is happy to let teachers think they’ll be covered by their lawyers, but the truth is they aren’t necessarily.  Vermont-NEA is not required by law  to cover legal expenses on behalf of a teacher.  The union does claim it will cover one-half of a local’s arbitration costs, but the local association decides whether to represent a member in arbitration, and Vermont-NEA will often discourage the local from doing so.  UniServ directors are trained to tell locals they probably won’t win  -- even when they have a pretty clear case.

In the last contract period, teachers in my school sent in over $18,000 in dues.  Not one penny back did they receive in arbitration costs.  Not one single time did a Vermont-NEA lawyer give our local association or its members any legal advice.  Almost never did the UniServ director visit the campus.   And he wasn’t even good at returning phone calls in a timely fashion.

Perhaps the best way to check the enormous power of Vermont-NEA is to convince its teachers  they're really getting a lousy deal.

(This is the last article in a four-part series on "Inside the NEA."  From an insider who knows!)

Comments

[Curtis Hier]

I wrote this piece before the current effort to repeal the two-votes provision. We're about to see what NEA's power really is.

[Jeffrey Pascoe]

Corroborating evidence to Mr. Hier's essay can be found on the Vermont NEA website. Old back issues of VermontNEA Today are there and are particularly informative.

Unfortunately, the VTNEA stopped posting those newsletters about a year ago and non-members cannot subscribe to them.

Also not posted, but almost certainly of even greater interest, is the Vermont NEA e-newsletter called V.O.T.E., "devoted to politics and public issues." There's also a "members-only" Monday morning e-newsletter.

If someone obtained and posted copies of these publications, I believe they'd be doing a great public service.

[Mary Perkins]

Being new to the "agency fee" concept, I can hardly believe it is legal! In 19 years as a teacher I have never belonged to the Union because of the strong-arm tactics they employ. This one takes the cake. I will be paying an 80% "agency fee" but still will not be forced into joining!

[GreggB]

How do the unions get 80%? I thought they could only charge dues minus what is spent on lobbying, PACS, and picnics. And that the number had to figured out not guessed at.
Curtis, the union owes you and everyone else paying dues a duty of fair representation. If you want to bust their balls and make someone rich find a teacher who has been fired and not properly represented by the union and sue for breach of the union's duty to represent. The court has allowed lawsuits for failure to represent to go after union treasuries. Forget Montpelier and public opinion go get the unions money.

[Curtis Hier]

There is no limit on what they can charge for agency fees. Rep. Kilmartin proposed an amendment to set a reasonable limit on it. It was defeated. I think we linked to the roll call on that vote.