Trotting out the old canard...

The canard about teachers unions being the root of all evil has been around for a while. The Republicans worked very hard to create it and unfortunately it has stuck. There is this ridiculous article in the Republic today. Before I get into this I would like to say a couple of things about our esteemed paper of record:

1. The Republic has some obvious bias. The first is for old style moderate Republicans (see Grant woods). I think they look back wistful to the good ole days when they were a more powerful cog in the (Republican controlled) power structure. The moderate Republican power structure is dead in Arizona (see Grant Woods). There are a variety of reasons that moderate Republicans are irrelevant. The first is that they are irrelevant pretty much everywhere. The GOP is no longer a moderate party. The clean elections system in AZ has also given a stronger voice to activists and pushed the party even further right. Last, but not least was the Republican purge of moderates from the legislature in 2004, like Slade Mead.
   
2. They still trumpet anti-union sentiment without much thought. After all, even moderate Republicans hate unions.

Now, back to the supposed fight between the Teachers Union and this supposed near perfect superintendent. First, nearly all administrators/managers hate unions because they are a check on their power. I would argue an important check on power. Workers don't form unions when everything is peachy in the workplace. They are formed when workers feel like they have no voice. Contrary to popular belief, most workers vote for unions for a voice in the workplace, not for more money. The teachers union has a very high percentage of members within that district which is a testament to the desire of the workers in a right to work state. Teachers first and foremost want to do their job, which is to educate children. The unions are all about making sure they can do that. There are of course disagreements about certain issues, that is to be expected.

I have a real problem with the implication that newly elected board members are somehow under the control of the union because of their endorsement. Contrary to popular belief, union endorsements are often meaningless. Without resources to back endorsements they are especially meaningless. SO, that being the case, show me the disclosures where the union spent large amounts of money to elect these people.

Or better yet, tell the most likely story. Mavrick superintendent comes into a school district to try to fix things and does some good things and bad. In the process, he run roughshod over the teachers in the district and unites them. The teachers then use the only recourse at their disposal (their union) to protect themselves and their ability to properly do their jobs. After the teachers start pushing back the administrator gets upset because we live in a democracy and he lost the election (and how could this happen because he is infinintely wise. How could the people not see it? Boooo hoooo). The bottom line is that good relations with your staff is part of the job. You cannot keep everyone happy, but if a majority are unhappy you are not doing your job...