Can this "new unionism" help transform the teaching trade into a true profession? Sadly for America's teachers and children, I don't think it can. At least not soon enough. There are too many leaders in the NEA and AFT at the national, state, and even local levels who have not "seen the light" like Bob Chase claims he has. Change may only come when enough of America's teachers wake up to the fact that being inextricably linked to labor unions will never allow them to receive the respect and rewards they seek. A report by Carl Van Horn of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University underscores this point. He says, "Teachers are not the sympathetic group they were 20 years ago. They used to be perceived as a profession and now they are perceived as just a union." Here's the bottom line-teachers will never get the pay they deserve if they continue to be linked with organized labor! Let me put it another way. Some teachers don't deserve as much as they're making now, but a union contract keeps them on the dole for far too long. Conversely, most teachers deserve more that they're making now, but in too many cases a union contract keeps them from making more than the worst teachers. That's the nature of a one-size-fits-all union style contract.

The irony of all this is that there was a time in this nation when organized labor was an important movement. We are all aware of the undeniable and crucial role that unions played in improving the economic stability of the working class over the first half of this century. At the same time we cannot ignore the abuse of power that has occurred in the labor movement in the last half of this century and that includes teacher unions. They have moved from a basis of voluntary membership to a system of mandatory and exclusive collective bargaining and representation requiring compulsory dues. That is a system that invites monopoly control and corruption. Even old-time liberal labor union advocate Franklin D. Roosevelt viewed monopoly unionization of the public sector as "unthinkable." Now the probability of an NEA/AFT merger means teachers will have even less of a choice of who will represent them. That is not good for education in general, or teachers in particular. But no matter how powerful the "new" NEA and AFT become, they will not be able to force the public to treat teachers as professionals. We must earn that reputation. How can we expect the public to think of us as professionals when the loudest voices representing us keep talking about labor movements? What do you think of when you hear terms like "labor movements" or "union contracts"? Do you think of a professional or do you think of blue-collar laborers? Right about now, I can picture the unions reaching into their quiver to pull out their favorite arrow of defense-that organizations like the AAE are anti-collective bargaining, anti-union, and out to destroy public education. We've never said we're against collective bargaining, just monopoly bargaining, forced dues, and exclusive representation. And when did unionism become synonymous with public education? If we object to the NEA's or AFT's militant tactics or partisan politics, does that imply that we're out to destroy public education? In their need to convince teachers that everyone is out to get them and that they must stick together to protect what they've fought so hard for, the unions conveniently ignore the fact that in right-to-work states, teachers have learned to successfully bargain "collectively" but with a difference: it's done collegially rather than adversarially.

Thank God there are a growing number of teachers out there who see how important it is for teachers to have choices, too. I'm convinced that if we (the "we" being the independent professional teachers associations) weren't here, you wouldn't be hearing all this talk about "new unionism." Still, I truly would like to see the NEA and AFT morph back into professional associations. Public education would be the winner if they do.