Very true.

The responsibility of the unions in all of our current fiscal woes is nothing compared to the responsibility of the criminal banking syndicates that have come to hold an effective stranglehold over the apparatus of our government. It is morally outrageous hypocrisy for these banking syndicates to have been bailed out in recent years to the tune of literally trillions of dollars in public funds, while at the same time the Federal Reserve declares that it will withhold the mere few hundred billion dollars required to bail out the budget deficits of the various states (thus also securing the interests of these unions at least temporarily).

More generally speaking, I have been waiting in vain for over two years now for even a single word of denunciation from Weigel and others of like mind on the pervasively criminal character of our financial and banking system, especially in its most powerful echelons. Yet this strikes me as the single most important moral issue affecting the course of public events today. The reality is nothing less than that our government is effectively being operated from behind the scenes by a band of criminals.

How on earth have we arrived at the undemocratic status quo in public education where the only free education is at state run schools that mandate secular neutrality. In Newark, NJ, we have failing public high schools that probably run the taxpayer close to $30,000 per student per year. Also in downtown Newark, Saint Benedict's Prep costs roughly $8,000 per year and graduates nearly all of their students (85% of whom are black and hispanic) directly to four year colleges and universities. But of course we can't have our kids going to Saint Benedict's on the public's dime because Saint Benedict's teaches kids that the earth is flat, right? And of course the rich Liberals who can afford to purchase homes in wealthy communities with excellent public schools or pay both their property taxes AND private school tuition wouldn't dream of subjecting their little ones to the often lousy public schools that the children of the poor are subjected to. What a disgusting joke.

J Bob has a valid point to make in that the banking industry should not have received a bail out. Neither should have the auto industry, and neither should the budget deficits of the various states. One can argue about how the states got in such poor position but, if honest, the public employee unions have significantly contributed to the deficits in the cities, countys and states. And that is to include the police and fire unions that politicians will not touch. Public, teacher, police and fire unions have adopted greedy imoral demands and therefore along with the moraly challenged politicians have become the root problems of our state, local and federal fiscal problems.

Look around our great country and you will see much to be admired. However, you can also see the overwhelming amount of corruption and greed which pollutes almost every aspect and every level of our good life in the United States. This country is no longer United. It is split into immoral, corrupt democrats and immoral, corrupt republicans. Both are eaten up with greed and selfishness to the point of self destruction lies ahead. There is a remnant, a silent majority that could correct the direction of the country, but I fear it is too apathetic.

Questions on this that remain unanswered:

1) The Grover Norquist/David Stockman plan has come to fruition. The government can now be drowned in the bath tub, paraphrasing Mr. Norquist. Such a luminary as he has been around conservative circles for a while, recently running for RNC Chairman.

This is obviously a desired. What was the "second act" on this plan? Wasn't it the ability to destroy many middle class benefits, reduce worker pay, worker protections, product regulations, and the entire environmental/consumer protection regulatory structure? And why isn't conservative America really noting these are the next parts of the plan?

2) The workers for whom pensions are being re-written, and that is really the case...have had promises made to them. As I mentioned, these current states were desired and planned outcomes. Are these folks going to have their promises reneged upon? Do they deserve their pensions that have been their promise for decades, or are they just victims of the political process? If they lose their pensions and protections, the future worker is unlikely to take these roles (in a market of such vacillating benefits, I could never recommend someone to take such a job), decreasing the quality of the worker in these positions, including police, fire fighter, teacher, and child protection social worker. Is this how we wish to adjust this market for employment?

These are obvious questions that have been ignored.

One final note: It is disingenuous for a person making as much money as Dr. Weigel to comment on the wages of teachers.

"One final note: It is disingenuous for a person making as much money as Dr. Weigel to comment on the wages of teachers. "

Maybe you mean "hypocritical" and not "disingenuous". But I don't see any problem with him commenting on the wages of public teachers if he is a taxpayer and therefore paying their wages.

(BTW, It may be disingenuous to imply that you know how much a person makes).

Tim,

Perhaps your syntax is correct.

Dr. Weigel is a successful conservative pundit since the 1990's at least, focusing on Catholic matters (but his think tank is a secular think tank, by the way). He is a public figure.

He is likely to make several multiples of a teacher's salary after decades of work and 20+ Masters level. Just saying.

DEAD SPOT-ON: "And the wreckage you see in once-great steel towns across the American Rust Belt bears mute witness to the human suffering that results when people can’t see beyond their own immediate and narrow interest."

Well, its sundown on the union
And what's made in the USA
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way
--Dylan "Union Sundown"

George Weigel is right. If years ago unions were created to protect workers form exploitation, many unions today have engaged in the exploitation of consumers and taxpayers.

Am I to understand from Dan that there is no legitimacy in commenting on financial matters that are below one's own pay scale? Better tell us how much you make, Dan, so the rest of us might judge your integrity.

Mr. Weigel maybe doesn't see the big picture. Take Missouri's SB222 as an example of what we're up against. We didn't leave greed behind in 1919. Wage disparity is increasing. The top 400 wealthiest in our country own more than the bottom 50%.

SB 222 – This act modifies the child labor laws. It eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed. It also repeals the requirement that a child ages fourteen or fifteen obtain a work certificate or work permit in order to be employed. Children under sixteen will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished. It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers who employ children and to require them to keep certain records for children they employ. It also repeals the presumption that the presence of a child in a workplace is evidence of employment.

A couple of points:
1) What teachers make is irrelevant. Teachers choose to teach, it is relatively low paying compared to what a nationally known author and columnist makes like Mr. Weigel, it is relatively well paid considering that it has intrinsic features compared to other potential occupations ( it is safer than say what a police officer or fire fighter does, it does not require extremely difficult or lengthy training like say a physician, and it gives job protection benfits immune to a poorly perfoming economy)

2) The real issue is not unions in general ( the rights of free association guarantee the rights of workers to organize in the private sector) In a free society like the United States, the private sector unions are fundamentally
different. In the private sector a union negotiates with a management that is chosen by an independent entity. The management represents certain interests ( stock holders, owners etc) and the union represents the workers, as such there power offsets and at least to some extent contracts will reflect a balance of the competing interests. In the public sector the "management" are the politicians elected via the support financial and otherwise of the public sector unions. It should be easy to see that politicians elected via union power have no incentive to limit union demands. At some level even the most left wing kooky member of the Catholic left should be able to see its a problem. Would a pension of 1 million dollars a year after the age of 50 be ok to offer teachers? Obviously not ! Then obviously there is a limit by which the demands of the unions have to be met with a No! The Million a year example is of course outrageous but the point is a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Laws like that in Wisconsin are simply designed to limit the unchecked power of PUBLIC unions which are unique.

3) Whe one thinks about it, there is not an intrinsic right of every worker to collective bargaining. There are other kinds of workers we think should not be allowed to strike, Physicians are not allowed to organize ( they are limited by anti-trust laws) Similarly soldiers have no collective bargaining rights. I think all this is pretty obvious. The problem is there are a lot of Catholics, including some Bishops who are so eager to get favorable notice from the liberal media that they positively look for areas that they can stake out in support of Democrat positions.

Where is that school district?? I haven't found it after over 40 years in the classroom and centuries of moonlighting.

My husband has taught in the NYC inner city public schools for 25 years. Until we were 50 we lived in substandard apartments, bought our clothes at thrift shops, and drove old unreliable cars. Vacations were rare. I decided to homeschool because we could not afford Catholic school tuition. He is still paying off student loans from required graduate degrees. Without the union our two sons would not even have been afforded the modest life we were able to give them. My son is fresh graduate with a Pharmacy degree AND IS MAKING MORE HIS FIRST YEAR THAN HIS FATHER DOES AFTER 25 YEARS TEACHING!!!!Secondly my husband has fallen ill several times from the unbelievable stress, demands and workload that eat up every weekend, every evening, and most school breaks. I am incensed at the shameful lack of understanding (Mr. Weigel please come and accompany my husband on a typical work week please), arrogance, and dismissive attitude in your post.
When I see his exhausted face, back pack with two or three hours work every evening, and his loving smile assuring me he"had a good day " dealing with 150 teenagers ranging from compliant(the minority) to viciously defiant, my heart breaks.
You should apologize immediately, Mr. Weigel

Ann,

I admire your testimony here. But the complaint against teachers' unions is somewhat unique: it is not so much that they ask for unreasonable benefits (as with other public employees) as that they have instituted unreasonable labor practices. These are Mr.Weigel's "rules that protect failed teachers, reward incompetence, and make it virtually impossible for dedicated teachers to conduct the kind of classrooms that work." Would you or your husband disagree with that?

As Chancellor of DC schools, Michelle Rhee offered the teachers' union two options: keep the system of tenure and experience and get a slight raise, or switch to a merit-based system where bad teachers could be fired and good ones rewarded and receive a greater raise. The union didn't even allow their members to vote on the proposal: they rejected the merit-based proposal out of hand. I suspect Mr. Weigel would support something like Ms. Rhee's proposal: a renegotiation of teachers' contracts that raised teachers' salaries while freeing up the labor market. Would you?

Anne - you are making a powerful argument for your opposition. You have assumed that every scrap of goodness in your husband's financial package comes from the union - which is what they claim but I think is ludicrous. They have an interest in making you think in their terms with their enemies.

For the rest of the thread, the class envy bits leaked out pretty quickly, didn't they? Unions are trying to frame this in eliminationist terms, that anyone who disagrees with them is trying to destroy education, hates "working people" (as if they are the only workers), and has pocketsful of evil subsequent plans if they can only slay the noble union here. Rubbish. At issue is how much each of us shares in the benefits and cost of citizenship going forward. The union rhetoric of impending apocalypse is simply dishonest.

As for bankers and Wall St, they indeed have much to answer for, but calling them criminal simply because they make too much is a perversion of moral principles - certainly of Christian ones. Regulation would indeed be nice, but we have both sides of the political divide to blame for that.

All that said, Mr. Weigel goes awry himself by bringing in the voucher question. Voucher programs might make conservatives (and poor minorities) feel satisfied, but they are unlikely to improve education much. And while there is some emotional association with the question "Are schools/teachers worth it," the budget questions of each state are in fact logically separate at present.

Teacher unions have fought for higher teacher salaries, and more needs to be done. Dramatically higher pay does indeed attract better new applicants to the profession.

The state budget strains result not from salaries but from benefits. Pensions are chronically underfunded, and health insurance is an arm of the Medicare-Medicaid health care cost spiral. These are the areas that are at the heart of state budget crises.

Wisconsin unions have experienced the effects of refusing to share in defusing these cost bombs (until it was too late). That was one mistake unions have too often made. The other is the union's insistence on tying themselves to the Democratic Party.

Nonetheless, the most effective improvements to education would involve:
1. a large increase in teacher salary;
2. a shortened teacher salary schedule (no more than 5 years to maximum);
3. an end to tenure;
4. union withdrawal from political endorsements;
5. a significantly longer school year.

@ Church of the East member,

We are not dazzled by the Weigel nimbus; it's not bestowed from above.

Mr Weigel writes: "What is in question is the claim of organized government employees to be immunized against the sacrifices necessary to rescue America from fiscal disaster."

I would go further than that: What is in question is whether public sector unions can be meaningfully understood at all in the same sense as private sector trade unions - the latter of which have long had a very positive and central place in Catholic social teaching.

The problem with public sector unions is that unlike private sector counterparts, *there is no adverse party* on the other side of the negotiation table. With the UAW, the adverse party is GM/Ford/Chrysler/etc. That will always be the case. Even with some kind of ESOP, union workers will have no real influence or power over management beyond the (coercive) power to stop work. Under these circumstances, labor contracts are the result of a give-and-take process between two opposing interests.

A public sector union, however, faces no such adverse party - however much some teachers might like to think so of school district boards. By having the right to contribute funds directly to the campaigns of the elected officers who determine their salary and benefits, public sector unions can, in effect, create a kind of closed cartel that benefits elected officials and the PSU - and the tab gets picked up by taxpayers. For this reason, figures as diverse as FDR and George Meaney long understood that public sector unions simply are not comparable to private sector unions, and that giving them equivalent power could be a recipe for fiscal disaster.

This is not to say that public sector workers do not possess the dignity of workers, or that they must be paid slave wages. But the fact that public sector workers now enjoy, in almost every instance, better wages and much better benefits than comparable private sector workers simply demonstrates the unwisdom of granting public sector unions full collective bargaining powers.

Well, it looks like them dam unions are at again... I thought that between Truman signing the Taft-Hartly act to prevent one union in going out in sympathy with another(to prevent a Harry Bridges type success in a strike situation), and Ronald Reagan's sledge hammer style of problem solving, we'd gotten rid of unions.
So we plutocrats better get to work & convince workers to be envious of them who still have good wages, instead of demanding tariffs & penalties that will bring the good paying jobs back.
As long as they don't organize, it's a piece of cake.

Michael, your comment "Physicians are not allowed to organize" is incorrect. Doctors have had powerful unions for more than a century. Ever hear of the AMA? Smaller groups like UAPD, AAPS, Doctors Council SEIU and others abound. Some of them do good work, others not so much.

Anne - I can imagine that your husband is a committed and wonderful teacher. Why though, if I am working class and live in the zip code where he teaches, am I de-facto forced to send my child to your husband's school and not the school of my choosing?

It is one thing to decry the greed of banks and other organizations; it is quite another to complain about the banks, but inisist that the financial system we have (which, incidentally created this "greed"). Be kept in place. The Federal Reserve bank currently subsidizes our public deficit to the tune of $4 billlion dollars a day. That subsidy is what keeps our federal government operating. And since that borrowed money is being spent in the real economy, the Federal Reserve bank is also flooding our economy with excess dollars (I mean excess, in that those dollars haven't been yet "earned". All of that money comes from future earnings in the distant future). If anyone wonders why oil, gasoline, clothes, food, and other commodities are sky-rocketing in price, look no further than the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Which brings us to investment banks. Of course, some banks are more than investment banks. BOA and JP Morgan offer everything from mortgages, to checking and credit cards. However, all of these institutions have one thing in common: almost all hold significant amounts of mortgages. And the value of those properties are figured into thier net assets. I think everyone is aware that real estate, and in particular residential real estate continues to lose value. Even after 3 years, the banks have yet to administer all of thier foreclosed properties. Add the those mortgages that are still being paid on, but are underwater and you get an idea how close many of these banks are to being in real trouble. Despite record low interest rates (they're actually negative), and plenty of liquidity banks are still struggling. In recent years, to compound matters, the FDIC raised the amount of cash banks must have on-hand at all times. as well as more stringent regulatory rules, and there are not many options on the table. If another recession hits, we could see another 2-3 trillion of liquidity go up in smoke. Can anyone say 1932?

It was the establishment of centralized banking that created this mess. Inflation is the enemy of an order society. From 1810-1913 there was little to no inflation in the US depsite rapid industrialization and economic expansion. From 1913 on, inflation was the order of the day. That is, in 1913 the price of wheat or copper, or gold was the same as the 1810 price. Today, our purchasing power in 1913 dollars has been reduced some 95%. Yet, this inflation has allowed our government to expand. As a matter of fact, socialism would be impossible without a central bank. And now today, 30% of all incomes in some way shape or form are provided via the Federal Government. Banks, of course enjoy inflation. There is money to be made in speculation of all sorts. But, millions of Americans also benefit; from Social Security to farms subsidies, to tax write offs for depreciation, everyone gets a piece of the pie. Inflation has made the single earner family almost extiinct. But, plenty of goverment programs provide families with subsidized mortgages, abatements, and tax deductions. Ditto for education, food, and everything else.

Banks are only one of the culprits. And now our economy is walking a tightrope between hyperinflation and catestrophic deflation. There is enough blame to go around.

@ Assistant Village Idiot

1) Class envy swings in two directions. I again note that the particular conservative luminary who taught conservatives such language, Grover Norquist, who has sought to deprive middle class "taxpayers" (since that is the code word these days) of varied benefits.

The rich have waged class war on the poor and middle class, resenting for their last pennies.

2) "Taxpayers" like Anne and myself happen to respect the work of teachers who are cornerstones of their communities.

The success of public sector unions is in doubt-teachers with a college degree make $40 grand a year as a starting salary in New Jersey. Many need second jobs to make this work for their families.

But, the retort: "What teachers make is irrelevant. Teachers choose to teach..." Obviously, money is important to a lot of people, or this whole discussion would have ended years ago. So, money is the manner in which the "taxpayers" demonstrate to their teachers the value they have.

Your neighbors, teachers,-an oft-reviled profession on conservative blogs-have crummy salaries that were offset by better benefits.

Employment is a "market" too...what standards are conservatives setting? Will the educational institutions conservatives now run succeed or fail, and will the talent they attract to the tasks be excellent or bargain-basement?

3) Again, though, the current "crisis" is exactly a cheered outcome in many conservative quarters. They have wanted this arrangement to alter the promises made to teachers, firefighters, and policemen. They have wanted this deal to alter the services and public schools the middle class have built.

There's a lot of debate among economists about whether unionized environments (where job protection and pensions are emphasized), or the private sector (which leans towards current compensation as the motivator), are the most advantageous for employees. See for example http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/press/20110301_newshour.html .

Personally, I am disillusioned with unions, after 22 years experience as a manager in a unionized quasi-governmental insurance company. The union is lousy at obtaining competitive compensation for those working above entry-level (many of whom, like myself, are only indirectly represented). And now the promised pension seems to be dematerializing. (My UCB MBA never earned me near what my younger siblings earned in the private sector.) The unions come across as most concerned with protecting the incompetent.

Hopefully our legislators will take advantage of the current crisis to renegotiate the rules. Collective bargaining is obviously beneficial as a counterbalance to managerial caprice and soulless market power, but as pointed out above, it doesn't make the same sense when these forces are largely absent.

CORRECTION TO Charles Woodbury says:
Truman vetoed the Taft-Hartley act, but it was overidden by congress.
Also, while I'm back, I hope some others have noticed that our country has been parted out like a junk yard car, and the middle class is disappearing, aided and abetted by our alleged representatives. What needs to be addressed and focused on is the distribution of wealth and ownership of property. Our current form of unregulated capitalism well suites human nature, but until greed, lust for power, and other human vices are contained by laws actually enforced, we'll only get more of the same dog eat dog divided country.

@Don Roberto

I hate to break it to you. Your legislators are not going to make anything better for you. You are a beneficiary, if a poor beneficiary, of the system that conservatives who think like Dr. Weigel and the other members of First Things deride and wish to end. Your ill fortune will be accounted, like the honest assessments of folks have for the accounts of Anne and her husband above, as tragic consequences befitting individuals who stole taxpayers money. Yes, you are one of them. Your quasi-governmental insurance company, like the pension of a 40 year veteran of the classroom, will be squashed. It has been a desire for decades to get to this point.

It is personal.

The attempt to pretend that Catholic Social Thought -- with all its historic complexities and inconsistencies -- somehow supports the selfishness of public service unions would be hilarious if it were not spiritually disgusting and even sinful. A Catholic view of things would support common sacrifice, not the pitting of union members against other citizens, all of whom are taxpayers. Oner thing is sure: the unions are not looking out for the general welfare, but only for their own excessive ambitions.

My Dad was a union man in the railroad, he was a carman for like 40 years, and was the secretary for the local chapter for many years. He 'did what he was told' when told to strike he would strike even though that meant hardship for his family to eat and keep a roof over their head. They left him with a generous pension until he passed away last October.
But all I see about unions nowadays is an organization that takes more money out of your pay check even if you would prefer not to be involved with them. The Teachers Union is despicable I watched all these teachers talking about their summer vacations in Switzerland one minute, complain about being under paid the next, it was disgusting, younger teachers wish they didn't have to join because the union takes a generous helping of their meager checks until they reach tenure.
Most companies are highly generous with their employees, many have child care, work out rooms, vacation and sick pay and generous family leave. The unions were supposed to be a just wage, safe working conditions and maybe medical benefits for their workers. The rest turned into greed and we ended up losing all the jobs overseas because of them!

I cannot believe that you, Mr. W are against people standing up for people wanting to make a better life for themselves.

The unions are not about protecting the incompetent. No one in the real Catholic Church wants to do anything about making a difference, except telling them they are subversive. Of course, they accuse people of being "with the devil" if they support any union effort.

The very man, Karol, aka Pope JPII you wrote and interviewed would say shame on you also.

What's subversive is how you support the Republican party and the secret society stuff that they have subverted the conservative Catholics to support the LIES THEY TELL US. Nixon started this subversion.

You are not the Pope sir and your name is not FR. Bishop or Cardinal. Sorry.

Sorry that you are scared to stand up for real teaching. I think it is funny that the current Pope did not have you interview him. I think it is a riot.

In my 40 year experience with unions (most of them as a union member) I agree with George Weigel, and I will add this. I do not recall a single instance in my experience with the many unions I was associated with, where they did not intimidate their membership to vote for the most pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-socialist, pro homosexual marriage candidate. At the day of Judgement, no union will save a man's soul.

In the movie Stand and Deliver, a Hispanic mathematician and computer professional decided to teach school. He took the required teaching courses and went to work in the LA school system, teaching mathematics in high school.

The movie had two telling parts. The first is when the mathematician tells the head of the math department that he wants to start a math club. She tells him that the kids are too dumb to learn, but agrees to let him find out for himself.

The second telling part is the end of the movie where we were treated to lists of young men and women who had learned mathematics from this man and because of their mathematical skills had earned partial and full scholarships to two and four year colleges. The lists go on for year after year after year. His ability to connect with those young men and women and impart to them a grasp of mathematics was simply stunning.

If good teachers can be found and paid for being the kind of inspiration and teaching given by this man, great. I could not wish for more for any kid in any school.

If not, perhaps people will do what we did: Home school. My kids learned from two people who loved them, and took the time to do the job well. It turned out to be a lot less difficult than seven or eight hours in a public school, learning the pathologies that bloom in that hot house, and the actual schooling time was a lot less than the hours in the institution followed by hours of homework.

My kids tested well, usually far in excess of their public school peers.

They also played in city leagues, playing both soccer and basketball, which means that they got a lot of "socialization" which is one of the bugaboos that the government school pushers suggested would be lacking.

Anne,

God bless you! My wife's mother was a public school teacher. She suffered the way your husband has. Our hearts go out to you. I teach at a major state university. The faculty has not gotten a raise in years and is now furloughed for a week over the Christmas break. Meanwhile, multi-million buildings are going up all over campus and the coaches of our winning football and basketball teams make seven figure salaries. A large proportion of our faculty is composed of adjuncts, virtually all with Ph.D. credentials. The most senior ones in my department make $4000 per course per semester. None have any rights whatsoever. As an historian, I have enjoyed Mr. Weigel's books. As an educator, all I can say is that, where teaching is concerned, nothing is as simple as he makes it appear. He needs to get out and see how the other half really lives. Incidentally, I am a registered Republican.

If teaching is such a horrible job, and I know from personal experience that it often is, the unions are powerless to fix it. Unions are as much about taking care of the little guy as the media is about the truth.

About five to six years ago, the conservative Catholic echo chamber was filled with all kinds of debris from propaganda that was acceptable in routine right-wing discussions. "Welfare queens" and their "80 thousand dollar a year social workers" were common tropes pulled out.

Teachers having Swiss vacations is one of them. Teachers on average in the state of NJ make under 60 grand a year. If Mr. Tapestry has teachers in his neighborhood having such a lifestyle, it is because he lives in a highly upscale community making on average greater than $150,000 per year and the teachers still aren't making half that.

The "union members" are police and firefighters and teachers. I suspect Dr. Weigel and the routine reader of First Things don't live in neighborhoods in which one has a teacher as a neighbor or a firefighter across the street. For those of us living in communities with union members who work for the government and not a conservative think tank, these assaults tone of discussions strike to the "common good" of all of us, who, by the way, are "taxpayers."

Yes, union members pay taxes. Shocking. It makes that sense of exclusivity and entitlement associated with the tone "taxpayer" disappear.

In so many school districts across America, both parents have to work all day and then come home at night to teach their children what they don't learn in school.

Tim:"
I am a physician. Like most people you do not seem to be familiar with what the AMA really is . The AMA is not a physician "union" It does not do what Unions do, for example it does not negotiate benefits with hospitals for employed physicians nor does it negotiate with private insurance companies for reimbursement rates for those in private practice, so it does nothing on behalf of individual physicians. It is a professional organization and as such does things like publish a number of medical journals, sponsor a medical meeting, it is owner and publisher of a uniform series of diagnostic and procedural "codes" used for billing etc.. only a minority of physicians belong to it. It is if anything closer to a trade association. This is true for just about every medical society you can name.

Beyond this It is irrelevant if teaching is a great job or a terrible job, it is a job people decide to enter. It is not analogous to someone desperate for any work getting a job in a 1915 sweat shop or coal mine! To the extent it is relatively low paying it is in part because in the current education system is a state run monopoly. There is no incentive to compete for teachers. If schools had to compete for students and therefore needed to compete for the best teachers to attract more students well then salaries would probably rise some.

But again no one is dealing with the central issue. How do the union defenders propose to avoid the conflict of interest in a public union negotiating with a political office holder when they are directly involved in helping elect this person. Can the public expect to have their interests upheld? If so how? It is no answer to go on about the travails of how hard it is to be a teacher etc etc.. Besides what other group that claims to be a profession has a union? Do Doctors, Nurses, Attorney's, Scientists, Accountants, Engineers? Architects?
Why are teachers so much more vulnerable than these other professionals who may have professional organizations that represent the interests of the profession as a whole, but not unions which negotiate specific contracts? And in fact if these other professions survive without unions and are in general better compensated, maybe the whole concept of whether unions help teachers needs to be re thought.

Mr. Weigel of course neglects to address the fact that the Wisconsin Catholic bishops and the social justice group of the USCCB weighed in on this issue and emphatically assert that public sector employees DO in fact have a right to collective bargaining with a well-established pedigree in Catholic social teaching. But I suppose that is to be expected from someone who invokes the magisterium of the Church when doing so supports conservative partisan politics (on issues such as abortion and homosexuality) but utterly disregards it when the magisterium is inconvenient to the conservative position. He has already thoroughly discredited himself as an honest interpreter of Catholic teaching by his statements about just war in the exchange he conducted with Paul Griffiths in First Things.

Donald Todd,

As inspiring as the movie "Stand And Deliver" was, it overlooked the years of hard work by Mr. Escalante (now deceased) and others to build up the advanced calculus program at Garfield High in East Los Angeles. Unfortunately, the program also went into decline, due in part to interference from the educational bureaucracy. Read this link from Reason Magazine:

http://reason.com/archives/2002/07/01/stand-and-deliver-revisited

I don't know if the calculus program experienced a revival since that article was written.
It is shameful how many ad hominem attacks are used on what is supposed to be a Catholic website.
God have mercy on us.

George Weigel is usually worth listening to. Not this time. The average CEO earns about 400 times the bloke on the factory floor. Obscene, no ? Best antidote to poor unions is good management. The drivel in this article would be laughable were it not from a usually reliable source. God Bless. P.S. Mr. Weigel must understand that the meltdown of the financial system is the direct result of Wall Street and Bank unbridled greed. No other reason. And now 78% of the available gasoline and oil inventory above the ground is in the hands of the same speculators that brought you S&P 6500. Go figure !!! Come on George, be a realist, not an idealogue.

@Ray Ryan: Nice unintentional irony there.

Question: How well are the schools in your school district teaching your kids?

Question: How well-off financially is your state/county/city?

Question: Does the teacher's union bear any responsibility for these situations?

Question: Do public unions, in general, bear any responsibility for these situations?

Question (for some): What's with changing the subject to bankers? Can't we solve both problems?

There's enough strawmen here to fill a barn. No one is against unions, or the salaries teachers earn. The subject is collective bargaining for public employees. And the big point of contention is collective baragaining for pension and benefits.This is something that not even FDR was for. And if you look at the defecits of California, Illinois, and New York you will see that that is where the red ink is spilt. When you hear of states that do not have collective bargaining, what that really means is that pension and benefits are not on the collective bargain negociating table. Pay is.

As far as Right to Work laws go, why should an employee be discriminated for not joining a union. There is no "right" for unions to force employees to join them as a condition of employment. The "worker" is neither an indentured serventn or a corvee of the unions. And states that have Right to Work laws in place are faring much better than the Rust Belt.

But I suppose old habits die hard. Unions and Catholic parishes in the urban Rust Belt are relics of an earlier time. Catholic social doctrine doesn't make supporting unions a matter of faith.

JP, thank you. Dan, could you actually read the opinions contrary to your own rather than reciting the stereotypes of what you just know other people's motivations are and what they will do if unchecked by noble individuals such as yourself?

My wife and I have both been government employees for decades. We know what starting salaries and ladders are. We know what rank-and-file get paid and what people up the line get paid. We know about protected workers, underpaid sectors, corrupt unions, legislative spin, union lying, the ingratitude of the public - all of it. Yet Dan and others prefer to believe that all disagreement can only come from ignorant people who hate them, and want to take all their rights and money away.

Enough. You must take your feelings under control and not embrace this demonising of others. I am not referring to what I read in the news, but what I read from you here.

Excellent points here. I'd like to use this opportunity to make another point.After I wrote an article on this issue for the National Catholic Register http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/unions-and-the-church/ during the Wisconsin impasse, I later discovered that many mostly liberal "news sites" misrepresented the position of the Wisconsin bishops as an outright endorsement of the public-sector unions. The same liberal parties who often criticize the Catholic Church as lacking moral credibility are quick to use the bishops' moral credibility to advance a partisan agenda--whether that, in fact, is the bishops' position.

I work closely with union people and was a union employee at one time. It was not my choice because unions never allow an individual to be an individual. Its really group think or should I say it’s more like czar think and you must submit. The whole system is communistic and actually derives from that forum. In my lifetime I have never seen anywhere in my work history / industry the level outright greed these people exhibit. I don’t have the time or patience to document all I have seen, the lies, cheating, time wasting, outright rudeness and them actual stabbing each other (brothers) in the back. The whole process is a get something for ME at any cost. The old USSR was based on supposed “worker’s rights”, it ended with corruption, empty shelves, the wealth and full power in a closed secret Godless society. The only God in unions is money, their money.
Let me close my truthful rant with something I again witnessed. I remember a recent employee United Way meeting where a union leader came to give a talk to a large roomful of union and non union workers; probably 200 to 300 well paid employees overall. The representative went on telling of the glorious deeds they have done for them (United Way) and the great working relationship they have with the local United Way. At the conclusion of all these wonderful things he then went on to tell the employees to make sure they use the United Way for their needs. Never mind the real needy people who depend the United Way in times of crisis. No…, this is just another fund to support the union workers. It was truly the most despicable talks I have ever been too. I literally felt dirty after that talk.
I must admit not all union workers are this pathetic but unfortunately the good people are typically the exception; not the rule.

Are there bad bishops, priests, and lay members in the catholic church? Unions are no different. Their current low membership in the private sector no doubt made it easier to transport nearly all our manufacturing jobs to Asia.
When we had strong unions, (50s &60s) we had a strong country. Unions equate to unity and consensus of opinion, and the now strange concept of looking out for the other guy too.
This form of individualism now in style has produced the greed so apparent from the top to the bottom of our society. And it has also produced a house divided.

As a Catholic and a school teacher reading this made me very angry. I have taken a couple of days to respond, and I have tried to edit for charity.

I definitely have a dog in this fight. I am a Catholic, a father of three (thus far) beautiful young children whom my wife stays home with, and we believe and assent to everything the Church teaches. We homeschool our own children not because of any hate of public schools and teachers, but rather because we want to rear them thoroughly in the faith. Weigel, by attacking public school teachers and my union so aggressively has hit me where I live, and I feel that I must respond.

Even though this is personal for me, I have tried to edit this post for charity. I apologize in advance for any offense I give. I have reproduced Weigel’s statements and given formal replies only to help me avoid the straw-man.

Weigel begins his article attacking those Catholics defending unions, specifically public sector unions.

Weigel states: “Unionized American public school teachers... make handsome salaries with generous health and pension benefits, work for nine months of the year, and are virtually impossible to fire even if they commit felonies. I don’t think those were the kinds of workers Leo XIII had in mind in Rerum Novarum, or John Paul II in Laborem Exercens.”

I reply: Weigel knows that the average teacher in New Jersey makes $52,000 a year. He knows that the average teacher in Wisconsin makes $50,000 a year. Is he not aware that this salary is barely sufficient to support a traditional family in New Jersey or Wisconsin? Or does Weigel feel that teachers do not deserve to support traditional families? Is Weigel really trying to convince us that $52,000 is a “handsome salary?”

His comment about felonies is strange. Is Weigel not aware that people who commit felonies go to prison, and therefore, by definition, cannot do their jobs, and are automatically fired from schools, even with tenure protection? Is he not aware that a teacher who commits a crime that is in any way related to children automatically loses their certification to teach? Once a teacher loses their certification, they are no longer a “teacher” and therefore are not a part of any bargaining unit and thus they are fired? It is illegal to teach without certification. Is Weigel asking us to conclude that 52,000 is a handsome salary? Is he asking us to believe that a profession that fires its felons and child molesters as soon as they are credibly charged is giving its employees too much protection?

Weigel states: “What is in question is the claim of organized government employees to be immunized against the sacrifices necessary to rescue America from fiscal disaster: a disaster created in no small part by irresponsible politicians pandering to public-sector workers’ unions.”

I reply: The American fiscal disaster, Weigel must know, has been driven entirely by malfeasance on the part of Wall Street and the banking industry and a monetary policy that encouraged Americans to become overly leveraged. Just like in the Great Depression, monetary policy and greed both played big roles. Yet, Weigel is desperate to place the blame on unions. How can this be? What reasonable person could make such an assertion? He equates our nation’s budget woes with the unions as well. Does this charge hold water at either the federal, state, or local level? Let us ask a basic question:

What drives the federal deficit?

Everyone knows that two areas of federal spending drive the Federal Budget. Those two areas are a) defense, and b) entitlements. Federal employee salaries, including military salaries (the pentagon is the nations largest employer), have nothing to do with it. Unions have nothing to do with it either. But George Weigel’s agenda arguably does. For instance, he has advocated attacking countries that have never attacked the U.S., and are only tangentially related to U.S. interests. Weigel aggressively supported George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Both John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, opposed U.S. intervention in Iraq. That intervention has caused the destruction of the Christian minority in that country, has resulted in TONS of depleted uranium weapons being unleashed in Iraq leading to an increase in spontaneous miscarriages and birth defects, and has resulted in the deaths, conservatively speaking, of 100,000 Iraqis. This war has cost the U.S. tax payer billions upon billions of dollars every year, and our military spending in Iraq has in fact contributed to our nation’s budget woes. George Weigel, aghast at the Popes’ opposition of the Iraq war, flew to Italy to lecture the Bishops and ask them to review their stance on the war. He was unsuccessful. Now, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unlike the unions and workers Weigel seeks to vilify, actually do have something to do with our nation’s budget woes and fiscal problems. Is Weigel self reflective enough to admit his error?

State budget woes are due to the fact that the middle class has been gutted, and our economy has collapsed. Obviously, the same is true of local budgets. Thus it is hard not to conclude that those who attack unions in this economic crisis, like Weigel, are being opportunistic. Even though unions had nothing to do with creating the problems we currently face, they provide a convenient scapegoat, and in fact are a barrier to attaining the long-held conservative dream of repealing the new deal. Thus any opportunity to discredit unionism is a golden opportunity for those who share Weigel’s political ideology.

Weigel states: “A union that defends only its own, with no concern for the common good, is something else altogether. That kind of unionized selfishness smacks of organized greed, just like the pyramid schemes of Bernie Madoff and his ilk.”

I reply: So, according to Weigel public school teachers are akin to thieves who bilked millions of people of everything they owned and their retirement savings. Going this far is extremely uncharitable. I have had to re-edit this response several times in order to avoid “venting my anger” at this mean-spirited vituperative. It should be obvious to any reasonable person that public workers have not done this. However, one thing that has destroyed the retirements and wages of American workers is unfettered free trade with countries like China that have a persecuted Church, forced abortions, a one child policy, no human rights, and no political freedoms. Will Weigel publish on the pages of First Things, a neo-conservative magazine funded almost entirely by conservative leaning corporate interests, an attack on free-trade with China? I for one am not holding my breath.

Weigel states: “Tens of thousands of inner-city children are being denied a quality education today because of the intransigence of the teachers’ unions in conceding the effectiveness—and moral imperative—of voucher programs that allow underprivileged and at-risk kids to get the kind of decent, disciplined education that is unavailable in too many government-run schools: not because of lack of funding, and not because government schools “have to take everyone,” but because of union rules that protect failed teachers, reward incompetence, and make it virtually impossible for dedicated teachers to conduct the kind of classrooms that work. This is, in a word, selfishness—cruel selfishness. It ill befits Catholic activists and commentators to support it.”

I reply: So, Weigel is not familiar with studies that question vouchers’ effectiveness? When I taught in an elite private high school it was a well kept secret that our students’ Math SAT scores were lower than the local public school’s. However, there were no required state tests and no accountability measures of any kind. Therefore, this private high school could go on touting its “academic excellence” while at the same time not outperforming their public school counterparts. Is Weigel unaware that the primary driver of student achievement is arguably the family, not the teacher? Is he not aware that private schools are filled with students whose parents are making incredible sacrifices to send their children there, and that act in itself (leaving aside entrance exams etc.) is a factor in the amount of success they will enjoy? Is Weigel not aware that inner city kids from broken homes and living in neighborhoods with gang violence, are not likely to achieve academically anywhere in a traditional school setting? These are not the sort of students with dedicated parents making the decision to put them in private schools. Furthermore, Weigel’s politics, which advocate for unfettered free trade and the destruction of unions, exacerbate the problems in our inner cities. The family is collapsing in part because of economics, and in part because of moral decline. The lack of ability to support a family on one salary is leading to broken down families and contributes to moral decay. The absence of jobs that pay enough to support a family in our nation’s inner cities arguably has more to do with academic achievement than any other single factor.

Diane Ravitch, a former advocate of school choice and prominent historian of education has published a book rejecting her former advocacy for vouchers, choice, and testing. It is called “The Death and Life of the Great American School System.” George Weigel should read it.


Weigel states: “A related moral question is raised by public–sector workers’ unions and their recent clashes with governors and legislators determined to prevent their states from going over the fiscal cliff. It’s the same moral question that is posed to all of us by the impending crisis of federal entitlements like Social Security and Medicare: what is our responsibility, in this generation, to future generations?”

I reply: I can only conclude that Weigel believes an average salary of $52,000 a year for a teacher is too much and that these workers have no right to have health care benefits. He seems to advocate continuing fiscal policies that benefit only the rich, drive down American salaries, and at the same time he advocates the use the U.S. military as the world’s police man. This is not sustainable by any measure. We cannot afford to destroy the middle class and therefore the tax base of our country on the one hand, and wage endless wars for endless peace on the other.

Weigel states: "Is it morally worthy of us to leave our children and grandchildren with mountains of debt because we cannot bring ourselves to reform unsustainable entitlement programs that were enacted when life expectancy was far lower than it is today? Is it morally worthy of today’s public-sector workers’ unions to defend what one columnist described as “massive promissory notes issued to government unions when state coffers were full and no one was looking”? Is it worthy of citizens of the world’s leading democracy to mortgage the country’s future security interests and diplomatic options to the fact that the People’s Republic of China owns vast amounts of American governmental debt in the form of Treasury bonds—and may well call our financial bluff one day when freedom’s cause is on the line?"

I reply: Unions are not responsible for this; the economic policies of George W.
Bush and Bill Clinton (who put the pen he used to sign NAFTA in his museum) are. Incidentally, this free trade agenda is one that Weigel seems to support wholeheartedly.

Weigel states: “My family benefited, once, from American trade unionism. My grandfather and uncle were members of the United Steelworkers, back when America had a steel industry.”

I reply: What Weigel fails to mention here is that all Americans continue to benefit from the labor movement and unions. Do you like weekends off? Do you like a 40 hour work week? Thank unions. Also, watch “Last Train Home.” It documents workers’ lives in China. This is a country that has no unions, forced abortions, a one child policy, and a persecuted Church, not to mention few environmental protection laws. This is where our union jobs were shipped under the lead of free-traders. Doesn’t George Weigel support this free-trade agenda? Furthermore, hasn’t he referred to great orthodox Catholic thinkers like G.K. Chesterton and others derisively? I will return to this question at the end of my reply to Weigel’s piece.

Weigel states: There are many reasons why there’s little left of the once-great enterprises for which they worked: the inevitable shifts of comparative advantage in a dynamic global economy are perhaps the most important reasons.

I reply: No! Opening up our borders to “free” trade with nations that do not guarantee their people collective bargaining rights, freedom of assembly, and do not provide environmental protection laws has caused our jobs to go overseas, and, unless I am mistaken, Weigel is one of the major Catholic advocates of these failed policies.

Weigel states: "But the stupidities of both management and labor in refusing to face the facts of arapidly changing economic environment also played their role. And the wreckage you see in once-great steel towns across the American Rust Belt bears mute witness to the human suffering that results when people can’t see beyond their own immediate and narrow interest."

I reply: The average wage of a worker in China is $1000 per year. That same worker works in a factory that has to comply with no environmental protection laws. He works in a factory with very low safety standards. He works in a factory that demands he work 12 hour shifts, and he often sleeps on a cot in a barracks attached to the factory itself. This is what killed American union jobs and helped gut the American middle class: and Weigel and those who share his broken agenda advocated aggressively for it. This makes me angry, and it should make everyone with a Catholic conscience angry. We should not sink to the level of insulting, demeaning, and demonizing those with whom we disagree however. It is quite possible, even likely, that Mr. Weigel feels he is acting in virtuous manner and defending truth by taking the stances he does. He is dead wrong however to cover himself in the mantle of orthodoxy and lecture Catholic leaders who take an approach that is frankly both more rational and more in keeping with the larger Catholic tradition than the agenda Weigel is so eager to promote.

Weigel states: “Rather than acting as if this were 1919, Catholic leaders in America might begin to assert that selfishness is selfishness, with or without a union label, and that the common good requires sacrifices from all.”

I reply: Once again, Weigel is lecturing Catholics on how to act. On matters of Church teaching, such as on contraception or other major issues, this is appropriate, even if Weigel’s tone is counterproductive. The fact is that Wall Street executives have amassed millions of dollars in bonuses, even while getting bailed out by the tax-payer, yet Weigel reserves his venom for… school teachers. Is this reasonable?

Furthermore, the corporate big wigs Weigel seems so enamored with are benefitting right now from labor conditions in countries where things are worse than they were in the U.S. in 1919. After-all, in 1919 the U.S. wasn’t home to a institutionally persecuted church, and Catholic families weren’t being forced to abort their children and they weren’t being denied political freedoms. In some low wage countries which we have opened our trade to today the Catholic Church faces widespread persecution, at times murderous and violent.

I would also ask defenders of free trade like Weigel to stop having recourse to their tired reference of Hawley Smoot. Douglas Irwin’s new book, "Peddling Protectionism: Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression” was recently published on Princeton University Press. I am not far into the book yet, however, the review in this weeks Economist was telling: "But Mr. Irwin's accessible analysis makes quite clear that the act cannot be said to have caused the Great Depression. Monetary and financial factors were far more to blame."

I think it is clear that Weigel’s ideological screed and attack on teachers everywhere is neither especially fair, nor accurate. It is mired in simplistic and ideological thinking. It is both uncharitable and mean-spirited, and seeks to place blame for our country’s problems where the blame does not belong. It seeks to lecture Church leaders who do not share Weigel’s boundless (and totally illogical) faith in the neo-conservative agenda. Weigel himself views great Catholic thinkers such as G.K. Chesterton and others negatively. He disagrees with the Pope’s most recent social encyclical, calling it a “duck billed playpus” on the pages of National Review. His knowledge of both history and economics is either flawed, or he seeks to use both disciplines selectively in support of his agenda, and his impartiality given the think-tank he works for is questionable. The arguments that are presented here are weak, as I think I have clearly shown. I think Mr. Weigel owes teachers everywhere an apology, or at least he needs to try again with more serious analysis.

In 1) attacking the Pope - his latest encyclical - in the pages of the National Review? And 2) earlier attacking Cardinal Bernardin, George Weigel must be considered to be in effect, apostate; in schism with the Church.

No loyal Catholic should follow him.

@ Emre Akter

I'm sure I'm not the only one grateful for your effort and grateful for Christians who remember that trying to live the gospel and trying to follow the Lord Jesus require real sacrifice, real death and are certainly not accomplished by being or by following those whose fundamental value, despite real accomplishments and extensive and even unique religious trappings, seems to be "skin for skin" (that's Satan on Job in Job 2), who seem to desire and to milk the cachet of the conservative elite. As I wrote earlier, Weigel's halo is from below, not from above.

For the rest of the thread, the class envy bits leaked out pretty quickly, didn't they? Unions are trying to frame this in eliminationist terms, that anyone who disagrees with them is trying to destroy education, hates "working people" (as if they are the only workers), and has pocketsful of evil subsequent plans if they can only slay the noble union here. Rubbish. At issue is how much each of us shares in the benefits and cost of citizenship going forward. The union rhetoric of impending apocalypse is simply dishonest. The responsibility of the unions in all of our current fiscal woes is nothing compared to the responsibility of the criminal banking syndicates that have come to hold an effective stranglehold over the apparatus of our government. It is morally outrageous hypocrisy for these banking syndicates to have been bailed out in recent years to the tune of literally trillions of dollars in public funds, while at the same time the Federal Reserve declares that it will withhold the mere few hundred billion dollars required to bail out the budget deficits of the various states (thus also securing the interests of these unions at least temporarily).

I recently went back and re-read this piece. The voucher question is one I have been wrestling with a great deal. I have rethought the voucher question, and I now feel it is essential that we work to get school reform that favors choice.

Vouchers may not be as effective at raising educational outcomes on tests as some would like to believe (see my initial response to Mr. Weigel) but the secular school monopoly is doing our entire society a disservice, and parents deserve choice as a simple matter of justice.

One big factor in my change of thinking was an article here in First Things on the secular school monopoly. Another factor was recognizing that the current model is crushing the sort of entrepreneurship and risk taking that can make American schools great. Perhaps the biggest reason I have come around on the voucher question is this: we have a wonderful parochial school infrastructure that we are allowing to crumble, and no one will benefit from its absence.

I am still largely critical of the Weigel piece, and it is unfortunate that he took such a radically anti-teacher and anti-union stand. The truth is, once we have choice, and once money follows students to the schools they choose, the harm unions can do will largely mitigated. The situation, as it stands now however, is unsustainable and crying out for reform.

Mr. Weigel is correct that vouchers are essential. Otherwise, I stand behind my response to his article, and think it overly partisan and less than thoughtful, for all the reasons outlined in my initial response. This is especially true of his attempt to pretend that unions are responsible for our current budgetary woes, when they self-evidently are not.