"Teacher unions are an interest group that acts in defense of their own interests, which means the union bosses' interests, not the members"
About this Quote
Peter Brimelow reduces teacher unions to a classic interest group, claiming their first loyalty is to organizational leadership rather than classroom educators. The phrase "union bosses" is not neutral; it evokes machine politics and suggests a gap between leaders and rank-and-file members. Behind the rhetoric lies a familiar political science idea: the principal-agent problem and the iron law of oligarchy. Leaders control information and agenda-setting, can become risk-averse, and may prioritize dues, membership growth, and political clout over the day-to-day concerns of teachers.
The line fits Brimelow’s broader critique in The Worm in the Apple (2003), written amid early 2000s education reform battles over accountability, charters, vouchers, and tenure. Reformers argued unions blocked changes that might improve student outcomes; unions argued they defended professional standards and protected teachers from arbitrary management. Brimelow’s framing puts unions on the same plane as other interest groups in a pluralist democracy, which lobby, bargain, and trade endorsements to shape policy.
Evidence exists for and against his claim. National unions do spend heavily on politics and often align with one party, fueling perceptions that leadership priorities are ideological. Bargaining agendas can emphasize seniority protections and job security that matter to incumbents. Yet unions are member-funded and leaders are elected, often in contested races. Many tangible gains that teachers value — salary steps, smaller class sizes, planning time, due process — come from union negotiations. Recent statewide strikes in places like West Virginia and rank-and-file caucuses in big-city locals have shown members capable of pushing leaders, not the reverse.
The deeper question is not whether unions behave like interest groups — they do — but whether their internal democracy aligns leadership incentives with members, and whether the interests of teachers align with the public interest in learning. The answer depends on transparency, bargaining rules, and how well educators’ voices are represented beyond the negotiating table.
The line fits Brimelow’s broader critique in The Worm in the Apple (2003), written amid early 2000s education reform battles over accountability, charters, vouchers, and tenure. Reformers argued unions blocked changes that might improve student outcomes; unions argued they defended professional standards and protected teachers from arbitrary management. Brimelow’s framing puts unions on the same plane as other interest groups in a pluralist democracy, which lobby, bargain, and trade endorsements to shape policy.
Evidence exists for and against his claim. National unions do spend heavily on politics and often align with one party, fueling perceptions that leadership priorities are ideological. Bargaining agendas can emphasize seniority protections and job security that matter to incumbents. Yet unions are member-funded and leaders are elected, often in contested races. Many tangible gains that teachers value — salary steps, smaller class sizes, planning time, due process — come from union negotiations. Recent statewide strikes in places like West Virginia and rank-and-file caucuses in big-city locals have shown members capable of pushing leaders, not the reverse.
The deeper question is not whether unions behave like interest groups — they do — but whether their internal democracy aligns leadership incentives with members, and whether the interests of teachers align with the public interest in learning. The answer depends on transparency, bargaining rules, and how well educators’ voices are represented beyond the negotiating table.
Quote Details
| Topic | Teaching |
|---|
More Quotes by Peter
Add to List
