Are Teacher's Unions Good or Bad for Students?

Are Teacher's Unions Good or Bad for Students?  The answer, in my opinion, is both.  Both sides make very convincing arguments.  Here is how I view the teachers unions.

Overview of my union:

In my school district (Santa Monica/Malibu Unified) we have a "closed shop" in that you do not have to be a member of the union but if you choose not to be you will still have that $70 a month taken out of your paycheck.  I have no idea where that money would go. I would imagine we have 100% membership in the union.  The $700 a year that I pay to be a member of the union is tax deductible.

THE GOOD:

Teacher's unions protect teachers from abusive principals.  Unfortunately there are some pretty bad principals out there, they are known as "lemon principals".  Without the union enforcing the contract these principals would be able to abuse their power at will.  

Ask any teacher if their principal plays favorites and I'll bet they will say "yes", if they don't it's probably because they are the principal's favorite.  Principals have certain decisions to make at their discretion and they have to make some hard choices and when they do they are often accused of favoritism.  The union and the contract help limit these choices.  Unions certainly do protect teachers from abusive or "lemon" principals.  Unions also provide legal council should a teacher require it.

Take a look at teacher's salaries and benefits.  Do you really think they would be anywhere near where they are if it were not for the union who negotiates these issues?

Our union makes it almost impossible to fire a tenured teacher but very easy to fire an untenured teacher.  The trade off we made was that if you are not fired (they call it "not renewed") in the first 2 years you are automatically tenured.  However, within that first two years you are working in the district you can terminated with "no cause" in which the administration does not have to provide you with a reason for your firing, they just say "thanks for coming but we don't need you next year".

THE BAD:

Most unions, in the name of protecting their members, end up protecting some members who may not be particularly qualified or effective employees.  Is there anyone out there who would not argue that the union protects inferior teachers?  Thanks to unions and contracts teachers are not held accountable for their performances.

Allow me to ask you a question, "Who do unions protect/look out for?"

Answer:

1.  The union itself

2.  Teachers

3.  Students

Make no mistake, the union's first priority is to look out for itself.  Here in California, Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger decided to take on the teachers union a few years ago.  He put initiatives on the ballots that would have prohibited the unions from using membership dues from being used for political purposes and the California teachers unions were able to convince voters that he was attacking teachers.  I can certainly see this argument but it brings up the question, "Can you be anti-teachers union and pro-teacher?"  It's much like asking if you can be against the war in Iraq and pro-troops?

Supposedly our union has a piece of paper that you can sign that ensures that your dues are not used for political action.  I have asked for this paper several times and have never been given it.  The union does not like to be told how to spend it's money.

In the end, I do feel that unions are necessary to protect teachers and negotiate on their behalves but they have become too powerful and politically driven.