Alrighty, one more time. "unions aren't there to protect the company or the consumer". -In origin, yes you would be correct, however times have changed and unions are far more sophisticated than simple fist pounding and asking for more money etc. This is the NEA's mission statement, "Our mission is to advocate for education professionals and to unite our members and the nation to fulfill the promise of public education to prepare every student to succeed in a diverse and interdependent world" - 1.Employee=education professionals 2.Company=Public Education 3.Consumer=every student. -It's in their mission statement that they exist for all 3.

Unfortunately, they've done little in recent years to help any of the 3. The NEA consistently opposes merit pay, the loosening of tenure and broadening curriculum. -They exist to protect crappy teachers and make sure they get paid as much as the kick ass teachers. -Of which there are plenty and they deserve to earn more year over year like any other top performers in business. When asked about his opinion of the NEA, Steve Jobs (someone that knows a thing or two about running a successful organization) said, "What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in they couldn’t get rid of people that they thought weren’t any good"? -He's right, it doesn't make sense and it wont change so long as the NEA has control of our policy makers. If I were a really good, teacher (old or young) I would love to get merit pay, I would love to get rid of tenure and see the ineffectual teachers let go. I would know that I'm either going to have to teach the students the ineffectual teachers had or the ineffectual teachers are going to un-teach the students I just gave them. -Either way, it must be a horrible realization for educators.

Because I don't think YOU understand, here is an analogy you might relate to:

Imagine if you were a bartender and you worked with another bartender carl ever saturday night. You worked 3 times as hard every saturday as carl and still you split the tips evenly. Now imagine that the manager realizes how crappy carl is but he can't let him go because there's a rule against it unless carl gets 15 demerits. 2 years go by and finally carl gets his 15th demerit. Now, finally the manager can fire him. Now there is an open bar-tending position on saturday nights and you know that the best bartender in town (steve) is available and really wants the position. The manager really wants steve to be the new bartender too but unfortunately, there is a rule that the "tenured" employees get a shot at the position first. So, ted (a tenured employee) declares that he would like the job. Ted is worse than carl. The manager decides that he would rather not fill the position at all than let Ted have it. Now you have to work so hard on saturday night that it is impossible to stand it any more. They still take away half the tips and so you make no more money than you did before. You get burnt out. You quit. The restaurant just lost a really great employee. It sucks for you, it sucks for the restaurant and it sucks for the customers -they loved you.

This is the scenario the NEA has created. Am I anti union? No, I'm pro union in many cases. I just don't think the NEA is functional.