Snowflake Schools: A More Perfect Union

I’m not much of a joiner, so when I started teaching in 1979, I was initially reluctant to become a member of the teachers’ union at my school.  But once I did join the Education Association of Itasca (affiliated with the Illinois and National Education Associations—IEA/NEA) early in my career at F.E. Peacock Junior High School, I quickly came to understand the union’s worth.  Contract negotiations, job protection, and legal rights are the benefits most obvious to members, but as my teaching time wore on and I chose to become more involved, I learned of the other, subtler, and sometimes more significant benefits that unions provide.

I was reminded of this when I heard about the a campaign to form a union in my old district, Hinsdale Township High School District #86 (Hinsdale South and Central High Schools), recently.  The teachers in Hinsdale #86 have been unionized since the 1950s, and I was an active member during my twenty-five years working at Hinsdale South: Contract negotiator, president, newsletter editor, and grievance chair were the main positions I held.  During that time, however, the support staff (secretaries, custodians, aides, student supervisors, and para-professionals) had no union representation except for a brief period in 2001 when they voted to unionize, only to vote the union out in 2004.  So for all but three of the over 100 years the district has existed, support staff members have been “at will” employees.  (“At will” means that they keep their jobs only if their employers want them; there need not be any “just cause” for firing someone as long as the firing isn’t based on something illegal like race or religion.) 

But now, some of these underpaid and underappreciated individuals are trying to improve their lots by reforming their short-lived union.  And although I know that the Illinois Education Association (IEA, the state organization with which they would be affiliated) will be informing them of all the obvious benefits of union membership, I hope the lesser known but equally important advantages won’t be overlooked.  For me, one of the most vital services that unions provide for members is support from their fellow workers. 

Any time a worker is dealing with a boss in a situation where there is disagreement; it is very difficult to overcome the power inequity of the two positions.  One person evaluates the other and can make recommendations on assignments, raises, promotions, and termination.  The other has to curry favor, ideally based solely on job performance, but often personality, attitude, and a myriad of other subjective characteristics can influence how the underling is viewed.  Good bosses recognize the humanity everyone possesses and will treat those under their supervision with respect, courtesy, and decency, while listening to what they have to say.  Unfortunately, based on my experience, those bosses are not as numerous as one would hope.  Just as common is the boss who sees himself as above those “under” him.  This can be exhibited in both subtle and blatant ways:  Non-verbal behaviors (especially facial expressions), tone of voice, unrealistic expectations, rudeness, and an unwillingness to see things from employees’ perspectives can demonstrate this person’s “superiority” to those of lower status.  And when a boss like this and his employee have to confront one another over something on which they disagree, the employee is at a huge disadvantage, regardless of the rightness of her position.

But with a union on site, that employee can have someone with her during uncomfortable disciplinary meetings.  Many unfamiliar with how unions work assume that some hired gun is brought into these situations to bully the hapless employer with outrageous demands based on twisted interpretations of absurd work rules, but that isn’t how it works at all.  Yes, the state and national organizations can and do provide resources for their locals (and in my time, I availed myself of IEA lawyers on a couple of occasions), but in the vast majority of circumstances, the responsibility to assist the employee will fall to one of her fellow workers who has voluntarily agreed to help.  It might be the grievance chair or department rep or even the president of the local, but that union person is a fellow employee.  Most union workers volunteer both their time and their expertise because they believe that everyone deserves to be treated fairly, that the provisions of a contract need to be enforced uniformly, and that nobody in a subservient position should have to confront her boss without somebody there to even things out just a little.

And another thing most don’t comprehend is that union reps often serve the interests of those bosses.  Many times in my roles as grievance chair or president, I was the one who explained the limits of what a union member could expect.  A teacher would confront me with some perceived outrage about which he wanted to file a grievance or lawsuit, only to have me deflate his ire with the news that his issue wasn’t covered by the contract and thus not subject to the grievance procedure.  Or I would calm him down to the point where he recognized that his boss had every right to do whatever had so enraged him in the first place.  Or I would have an off-the-record talk with another administrator who could influence the situation positively.  Or I would outline the complicated process which would have to be followed to file a grievance and honestly assess its chances of success, after which the member might choose not to proceed.  Union representatives regularly have to be the bearers of realistic but bad tidings to members as well as understanding how to finesse the system, saving the bosses time and money, not to mention the reputation as being the heavy in every conflict.