Yesterday, I scratched my head and ranted a bit about the NEA. I posed the question, has the NEA has lost sight of their real purpose?
Remember, the NEA is a labor union. The primary purpose for and need of unions is to protect the rights of exploited workers who have no voice. Do teachers fit that description? Though they are (mostly) worthy of receiving better pay, they are not exploited and most certainly they do have a voice. If nothing else, they have a captive audience five hours (or more) a day, 180 days (or more) a year.
When I was in school, I experienced far too many teachers using the classroom as a platform for their personal views. They do indeed have a voice—and they use it. Therefore, I question if they really need a union. They are educated and professional; you’d think they’d want to represent themselves individually and negotiate the best compensation package based on their merits, not be fed a predetermined pay rate based on how long they’d stuck around.
Next, unions are to create and protect jobs for their members. Therefore, you’d think they’d want to get as many children into schools as possible in order to increase the need for teachers and ensure their ongoing demand. As such a pro-life stance would be logical, whereas their pro-choice position does nothing to advance the employment needs of their members.
If you assume an average class size of 25 students, then every 25 abortions represents the loss of one teacher’s job—for 13 years. When you consider the tens of millions of abortions in the US since 1971 (which is a hard number to verifiably pinpoint), then an excess of 20 million years of teacher jobs have been lost.
The NEA being pro-choice is as ridiculous as the UAW (United Auto Workers union) promoting bicycle riding and public transportation. That would certainly never fly with the autoworkers, so why do teachers let their union get away with something equally detrimental?