This paper examines public sector labor relations with a focus on teachers' unions and their contested effects on education. Drawing on scholarship by Dan Goldhaber, Andrew Coulson, Michael Lovenheim, and Joan Lafferty and Paul Pynes, the paper reviews arguments both for and against teachers' unions as forces in educational reform. It highlights Goldhaber's finding that empirical evidence on either side of the debate is inconclusive, notes Lovenheim's modest finding that unionization increases teacher employment by 5–9 percent, and surveys Pynes and Lafferty's objective overview of union security provisions in local government labor relations. The paper concludes by contrasting the analytical depth of these sources.
Labor relations are continually changing. The initial labor force was fragile in its construction and frequently discriminated against by factory owners. Today, however, the labor force is protected by legislation and by shifting features within the market, such as globalization and increasing levels of competition.
The changes in labor relations are observed not only at the level of the private sector, but also within the public sector across all possible industries and fields. A key area of focus in this discussion is the role of unions and their impact on students within the educational system.
Dan Goldhaber considers both sides of the argument regarding teachers' unions. On the one hand, there is the perception that teachers' unions represent "impediments to educational reform and improvement." On the other hand, there is the belief that teachers' unions are in fact beneficial for the overall well-being of students, as they support educational development for all teachers, students, and the educational system as a whole.
In assessing this debate, Goldhaber reviewed the specialized literature and the sources behind these competing opinions, ultimately finding that the beliefs on both sides — both pro and against teachers' unions — are not well substantiated. They are drawn from inconclusive analyses and reflect independent, and even manipulated, interpretations by researchers.
As Goldhaber himself states:
"As it turns out, the rhetoric on both sides of this issue rests on rather shaky empirical grounds. Relatively little empirical work directly links unionization and student achievement. Furthermore, the causal impacts of teachers' unions on students are difficult to establish since unions do not arise randomly. Consequently, findings from research that directly links unionization to student outcomes are open to interpretation" (Goldhaber).
The findings of Dan Goldhaber are particularly pertinent when considered alongside additional research in the literature. Andrew J. Coulson at the Cato Institute assessed the impact of teachers' unions on education, but placed his emphasis on wages, demands, and political impacts rather than on actual implications for students. Michael F. Lovenheim at Stanford University found that teachers' unions have little impact on the education system, with the exception of teacher employment, which is increased by 5 to 9 percent.
"Pynes and Lafferty on union security types"
All in all, the approach taken by Pynes and Lafferty does not leave much room for discussion and interpretation. It is a clear and direct project focused on the objective presentation of issues linked to union security provisions. This work is informative and educational in character, in contrast to the writing of Dan Goldhaber, which is supported by more extensive research and by the inclusion of personal findings and conclusions. Together, these sources illustrate the breadth of approaches scholars bring to the study of collective bargaining in the public sector.
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.