Teachers' unions - it's all about politics

By John Rapley

A couple of years ago, I attended a colloquium on economic development at Stanford University. Most of the presentations were by Stanford scholars, but a small number of external guests, like me, were invited to join the meeting. One of the papers looked at the poor outcomes of education investment in Latin America, a continent in which there has been a chronic imbalance between the input of funds and the output of quality.

During the question-and-answer session, Anne Krueger, a former chief economist at the World Bank, who was sitting next to me, made a bold declaration. She said that Latin America's slow development could be laid squarely at the feet of its teachers' unions.

I've been reflecting on Prof Krueger's claim these last couple of weeks as I follow the debate in the press over the Jamaica Teachers' Association's (JTA) battles with the Government over its austerity programme. Public-sector unions occupy an unusual position in any democracy. Since their members get to vote in elections, it is as if they elect the board of directors with which they negotiate their contracts. Moreover, because Government is, for the most part, a monopoly provider of the services they offer, the board can simply raise its prices (taxes) to meet the union's compensation demands.

Teachers' unions, meanwhile, have tended to be unusually strategic in democratic politics. As a large, highly organised constituency, they have tended not only to turn out the vote, but to provide foot soldiers in election campaigns. Parties everywhere have found teachers' unions to be unusually attractive allies, or simply too powerful to challenge.

This has given rise to the rule that Krueger was, perhaps inadvertently, putting her finger on: keep the teachers happy, and you keep power.

FEATHERING OWN NEST

Since every union tries to get the best deal for its workers - higher pay for less work - that means that teachers' unions will argue in a manner contrary to the public interest. That may be their remit. However, their ability to sway democratic outcomes such that their advance is the nation's retreat is troubling.

Add to that simple rule that we live in an age of declining voter turnout, which means that groups that can still maintain their numbers and turn out their members on voting day, and you have a situation in which a small, well-organised community can capture power and subvert the collective interest. It doesn't mean it will. But it can.

Historically, in Jamaica, teachers have tended to line up behind the People's National Party. PNP governments, in turn, have tended to treat this loyal support base well. Minister Thwaites' decision to take on the JTA is quite an act of courage. Long known not to let party loyalty trump principle, if the lessons elsewhere are anything to go by, Minister Thwaites has a fight on his hands. Teachers' unions have clipped the wings and even ended the careers of erstwhile allies who recently took them on, from Ontario to Chicago.

One of the most significant developments of the last quarter-century or so has been that private-sector unions have declined dramatically in most Western societies, while public-sector unions have expanded. In short, those with an interest in demanding more bang for the buck from the public sector have weakened as those arguing for the contrary have strengthened.

Across the West, in the age of austerity, the persistent power of public-sector unions has created a particularly acute conflict. Public-sector union leaders make much of how they defend working-class interests, but their members tend to be middle class. And as they dig in their heels on concessions in the face of austerity, they have forced governments to target weaker constituencies. Public-sector salaries and pensions still improve. Welfare payments get slashed.

So much for sticking up for the working class. There's nothing illegal or undemocratic about the activities of public-sector unions, but it's time they be recognised for what they've become: extraordinarily powerful vested interests.

John Rapley, a political economist at the University of Cambridge, is currently on a visiting professorship at Queen's University in Canada. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and jr603@cam.ac.uk.