Union donations

are back in the news and I am wondering again about the way in which the most powerful unions handle their affairs.

When I began as a teacher there was a union for the education sector. It wasn't actually called a union. It was the Institute of Teachers in this state. The fees were minimal. 

There was no compulsion to belong although most people did. They belonged because it did what most people thought it should do. It was there to provide ongoing education services. It ran conferences and training sessions. It helped individual teachers with issues over things like location and promotion. (In this state you could be sent anywhere to teach and the state has some pretty remote places as our family knew all too well.)

The Senior Cat and other school principals were heavily involved. They saw the union as a means of actually increasing professional training and encouraging young teachers to try new things. 

Within the union there were small "associations" of people who taught in the same area -  infants, primary, secondary, maths, science, music, school libraries and "special education" were all part of the larger organisation.  I participated in and helped to run conferences for my fellow teachers working in school libraries and special educational areas. The "union" was seen as an active and valuable addition to professional development. It was not viewed as being any sort of political entity at all. The voting patterns within it would have been many and varied.

I don't know exactly when all that changed although I can guess it was with the election of one particular and very outspoken member of it. This happened while I was away on the other side of the world. I allowed my membership to lapse and never rejoined the union. It was no longer a place in which I felt comfortable. It had become a militant organisation which was making demands which could not be met. 

The Senior Cat and many of his fellow principals also let their membership lapse. They saw the changes and felt that the union was no longer there for the benefit of  members. Instead it was there for the benefit of a few who had their eyes on other prizes, political careers and the adrenalin buzz of confrontation. 

These people will tell you that they have achieved a lot. They will tell you about "reduced class sizes" and "increased pay and conditions" and "support services" but they do not seem to have a lot to say about "professional development". They do not seem to mourn the loss of places like "the Reading Centre" or the "School Libraries Branch" or the downgrading of the wonderful science resources. 

I am left wondering just what the present union is really there for - and whether what we once thought it was for was not the right thing at all.