conditions and the betterment of black teachers, most of whom had been limited to being “full-time basis substitutes.” 24 In order to continue that fight, Johnson helped restart a Black Caucus—which he now heads.
The union has made the issue of racial inequality central to its day-to-day work in a way that speaks to the concerns of both teachers of color and parents in communities of color whose children bear the brunt of decades of disinvestment in their schools and neighborhoods. By doing so, they have wrested the banner of racial justice and the trust of communities of color out of the hands of the neoliberals in Chicago.
Social Movement Unionism in American Labor
Most American unions have long seen their central task as the defense of their members’ interests. This contrasts sharply with unions throughout the rest of the world, many of which see themselves as defenders of the interests of the working class as a whole. Labor scholar Kim Moody describes the two models—business unionism versus social movementunionism: “The former’s vision does not extend beyond ‘bread-and-butter’ issues related to workers’ compensation; the latter identifies itself as a vehicle for society-wide transformation on issues that affect communities beyond individual workplaces.” 25
The tension between those two visions has been present since the birth and throughout the history of American teacher unionism. Since its earliest days, liberal and radical members have attempted to push unions’ agendas to the left, toward a unionism that defends public education and fights for progressive reform; conservative unionists have stuck to fighting over compensation and have largely won out.
Social movement unionism that aims to push a broadly transformative agenda for all should be pursued because it is, from a left perspective, the proper thing to do. But for labor as a whole and teachers unions in particular, the experience of the CTU shows that it is also the
only
thing to do. Teacher unionism cannot survive the attacks it is currently facing by neoliberal education reformers without answering those attacks head-on, taking up an agenda that both defends teachers
and
fights for students’ and communities’ best interests through a defense of public education.
Just as conservative business unionism and liberal reform unionism has failed to “bring home the whole hog” for members in contract fights over the last decades, so have they failed to help create broad movements for justice that engagethe working class beyond unionized workers. Teacher’s unions’ fates in the twenty-first century will rest on their ability to represent the concerns of the students, parents, and communities they serve while arguing forcefully that free market forces do not serve these groups. Anything less will be suicide.
1 “CTU’s Karen Lewis: People Don’t Always Get Everything They Want in a Contract,” WBEZ, September 18, 2012, wbez.org .
2 Assumably, the CTU would have made class sizes and other non-monetary concerns an issue during bargaining, but education reform legislation, including SB7 and the Chicago School Reform Amendatory Act of 1995, made such issues “non-mandatory” bargaining issues—CPS was not legally compelled to negotiate over them. See Yana Kunichoff, “Effects of SB7 Collective Bargaining Provisions Being Felt in CTU vs. CPS Negotiations,”
Chicago Reporter
, July 19, 2012.
3 For an extensive critical discussion on the final negotiated contract and other aspects of the strike, see David Kaplan, “The Chicago Teachers’ Strike and Beyond: Strategic Considerations”
Monthly Review
, June 2013.
4 A central critique of prominent liberal defenders of public education—like education historian and former US Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch—is that they do not identify current efforts to introduce free market reforms in education as part of this broader neoliberal project; public school
The union has made the issue of racial inequality central to its day-to-day work in a way that speaks to the concerns of both teachers of color and parents in communities of color whose children bear the brunt of decades of disinvestment in their schools and neighborhoods. By doing so, they have wrested the banner of racial justice and the trust of communities of color out of the hands of the neoliberals in Chicago.
Social Movement Unionism in American Labor
Most American unions have long seen their central task as the defense of their members’ interests. This contrasts sharply with unions throughout the rest of the world, many of which see themselves as defenders of the interests of the working class as a whole. Labor scholar Kim Moody describes the two models—business unionism versus social movementunionism: “The former’s vision does not extend beyond ‘bread-and-butter’ issues related to workers’ compensation; the latter identifies itself as a vehicle for society-wide transformation on issues that affect communities beyond individual workplaces.” 25
The tension between those two visions has been present since the birth and throughout the history of American teacher unionism. Since its earliest days, liberal and radical members have attempted to push unions’ agendas to the left, toward a unionism that defends public education and fights for progressive reform; conservative unionists have stuck to fighting over compensation and have largely won out.
Social movement unionism that aims to push a broadly transformative agenda for all should be pursued because it is, from a left perspective, the proper thing to do. But for labor as a whole and teachers unions in particular, the experience of the CTU shows that it is also the
only
thing to do. Teacher unionism cannot survive the attacks it is currently facing by neoliberal education reformers without answering those attacks head-on, taking up an agenda that both defends teachers
and
fights for students’ and communities’ best interests through a defense of public education.
Just as conservative business unionism and liberal reform unionism has failed to “bring home the whole hog” for members in contract fights over the last decades, so have they failed to help create broad movements for justice that engagethe working class beyond unionized workers. Teacher’s unions’ fates in the twenty-first century will rest on their ability to represent the concerns of the students, parents, and communities they serve while arguing forcefully that free market forces do not serve these groups. Anything less will be suicide.
1 “CTU’s Karen Lewis: People Don’t Always Get Everything They Want in a Contract,” WBEZ, September 18, 2012, wbez.org .
2 Assumably, the CTU would have made class sizes and other non-monetary concerns an issue during bargaining, but education reform legislation, including SB7 and the Chicago School Reform Amendatory Act of 1995, made such issues “non-mandatory” bargaining issues—CPS was not legally compelled to negotiate over them. See Yana Kunichoff, “Effects of SB7 Collective Bargaining Provisions Being Felt in CTU vs. CPS Negotiations,”
Chicago Reporter
, July 19, 2012.
3 For an extensive critical discussion on the final negotiated contract and other aspects of the strike, see David Kaplan, “The Chicago Teachers’ Strike and Beyond: Strategic Considerations”
Monthly Review
, June 2013.
4 A central critique of prominent liberal defenders of public education—like education historian and former US Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch—is that they do not identify current efforts to introduce free market reforms in education as part of this broader neoliberal project; public school
Similar Books
