My Post column today looks at just how well teachers unions represent even the interests of teachers (let alone kids).

The article, after the jump.

* * *

Related links:

The Los Angeles Times article on unions steering teachers to possibly bum retirement accounts

The Foundation for Education Reform and
Accountability

A Wall Street Journal editorial page analysis of union political spending

The Department of Labor Web site where you can look up union spending

TEACHER UNIONS VS. . . . TEACHERS

By RYAN SAGER

May 4, 2006
– IT’S old news that teachers unions put their members’ desires -
short hours in the classroom, zero accountability for test scores -
above the needs of children. What gets more clear every day, however,
is that union leadership puts its own interests above those of rank-and-file members.

Case in point: The Los Angeles Times reported last week that New
York State United Teachers, the state’s largest teachers union, takes
$3 million a year from Dutch insurance giant ING Group to steer its
525,000 members into questionable retirement plans. The returns on the plans can be well below par, thanks to sometimes-hefty fees.

The $3 million gift doesn’t go directly into union officials’
pockets, but it does help subsidize the state teachers union’s
extraordinary spending on salaries, overhead, conferences,
entertainment and the like. (Supposedly the money goes only for
administering members’ benefits, but that just frees up cash for other
UFT expenses.)

Earlier this year, the Foundation for Education Reform and
Accountability (a conservative education-reform group) compiled a
report on NYSUT’s lavish lifestyle. Among the highlights of NYSUT
spending:

* More than $206,000 a month ($2.5 million a year) in
occupancy costs for its 218,000 square foot headquarters (the size of
five Wal-Marts) outside of Albany.

* Even though the NYSUT headquarters has a conference center,
the union spent some $4.5 million in 2004-’05 for meetings and
conferences ($501,307 at the four-diamond-rated Otesaga Resort Hotel in
Cooperstown, $334,608 at the Gurney’s Resort & Spa in Montauk and
$1 million for its annual conference at the New York Hilton in
Manhattan).

* $45,000 to the Group Sales Box Office in New York City for "entertainment."

* $42.3 million on salaries for employees of the union (including a $197,995 salary for union President Richard Iannuzzi, plus $25,839 in expenses).

* A fleet of vehicles values at $2 million.

New York City’s local union, the United Federation of Teachers
(an NYSUT branch), also racks up the expenses, including a salary of
more than $250,000 for union chief Randi Weingarten - plus expenses.

Same story with the National Education Association: The The
Wall Street Journal reports that the national union has a payroll of
$58 million for just 600 employees - more than half make six-figures.

In other words, the real money in education is in union administration, not in working with the kids.

Then there’s the unions’ political giving. Last year, the NEA
gave millions to political-advocacy groups. Some were education
related, like $500,000 to Protect Our Public Schools, a group trying to
block charter schools in Washington state. (Of course, since charter
schools are public schools, the cash just went to protect the union-friendly-but-kids-failing public-school status quo.)

But other gifts included Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition
($5,000), the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation ($39,940), the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute ($35,000) and the Human Rights
Campaign ($15,000).

Any of these groups might be peachy on its own merits, but if
union honchos want to give away money to liberal causes, shouldn’t they
dig into their own (hefty) salaries? And shouldn’t rank-and-file
members have a right not to have their dues parceled out to all takers?

The unions can spend their members’ dues however they want,
within the law. If high pay is what it takes to attract talented
managers, good for them. If a fleet of cars and expensive conferences
for union officials make union members’ lives better, so be it. If
union members want millions of their dollars diverted to liberal causes
with little connection to education, that’s their prerogative.

But the rank and file might want to start paying a little
more attention to the fat cats upstairs. And parents might start
wondering: If these guys aren’t even looking out for their own members,
where exactly does my kid sit on the food chain?

Ryan Sager blogs at rhsager.com.