Teaching Without a Voice: The Legal Erosion of Teachers’ Collective Bargaining Rights
The employer-employee relationship has evolved into a battle embedded in American working culture. A clear distinction between the employer’s position of power and expectation of subordination from their employees has been established within the workplace. Despite this, labor unions have emerged to combat such perceptions employers have regarding their employees. Specifically, employees have heavily relied on the practice of collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining is the process by which employees can collectively negotiate, commonly through a union or representatives, for better working conditions and wages. Since its inception, collective bargaining has been a leading force in obtaining better working conditions for many workers and has inspired many more to organize. Collective bargaining has improved unionized and nonunion workers’ working lives and outcomes. In workplaces where unions are strong, the wages of workers who are not part of the union also increase when they are still similar to those of unionized workers. [1] However, collective bargaining does not equally encompass all: different lines of work, specifically public versus private employees, experience varying outcomes through collective bargaining. One line of work that has not tended to benefit from collective bargaining profoundly impacts our nation: educators in public schools.
Therefore, the federal government must recognize the right of public-school teachers to bargain collectively, a necessary endeavor to uphold education’s role as a foundational pillar of American democracy. Despite teachers’ public service, they are met with a fragmented state-by-state determination of their right to collective bargaining, undermining their autonomy and economic self-determination. By placing teachers’ economic self-determination at the mercy of shifting state policies, this fragmented system erodes their rights of substantive due process, depriving them of fundamental workplace liberty. Additionally, educators are denied a fundamental aspect of workplace autonomy guaranteed to private-sector employees. The absence of federal and judicial protections exacerbates such inequities, placing public educators at a systemic disadvantage compared to private-sector employees. A federal guarantee of collective-bargaining rights will resolve the constitutional inconsistencies that lead to inconsistent application of labor laws while restoring and reaffirming democratic principles.
The importance of education within America’s democracy has been stressed since the birth of the nation. Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father and esteemed intellect stated, “A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district — all studied and appreciated as they merit — are the principal support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty.” [2] Thomas Jefferson himself contended that “the preservation of the means of knowledge among the lowest ranks is of more importance to the public than all the property of all the rich men in the country.” [3] From the nation’s inception, it was understood that education was not merely an individual endeavor by each child but rather a democratic imperative. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court affirmed that education “is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities [. . .]. It is the very foundation of good citizenship.” [4] The principle that the democratic experiment cannot prevail without quality education was introduced by the Founding Fathers and more recently affirmed by the Supreme Court. However, the erosion of teachers’ rights in the workplace contradicts this principle, restricting educators’ ability to obtain the conditions they require to provide quality instruction. Brown acknowledged that education inequities threaten democratic participation and diminish the foundation of good citizenship, and denying teachers the right to advocate for necessary working conditions poses a tremendous threat.
The exclusion of public-sector employees from federal legislation has resulted in a legal framework that denies public-school teachers fundamental workplace liberty. The National Labor Relations Act, or NLRA, passed in 1935 to alleviate “inequality of bargaining power,” granted private-sector employees the right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining. However, this legislation also explicitly excluded public-sector employees. [5] This left public-sector labor rights to be decided state-by-state. Some states have more protections in favor of collective bargaining, while other state governments opt for restriction. Massachusetts, which takes a supportive stance on public-sector collective bargaining, per Chapter 150E, gives public employees (except police officers) the right to join unions and allows unions to present proposals to public employers. [6] West Virginia, however, adopted a restrictive stance in which public workers lack a legal framework for collective bargaining. [7] Public-school teachers are denied the right to advocate for fair wages and working conditions in this fragmented system. Such denial of workplace liberty fosters disparities and inequities that impact more than policy preference or political agenda but rather implicate constitutional protections afforded to teachers. There is no constitutional basis for why teachers in Massachusetts can enjoy workplace autonomy and why teachers in West Virginia are deprived of such a right — it is not due to rational or education-based justification but left up to the political agendas of state legislatures. Arbitrary deprivation of a fundamental labor right violates substantive due process and violates teachers’ economic self-determination and the liberty of contract, leaving it to political feeling rather than uniform legal standard. This has left educators at a systemic disadvantage compared to those who work in the private sector, despite teachers fulfilling an essential role in maintaining democracy. Teachers are subjected to unconstitutional disparities in fostering an educated democratic citizenry.
The Supreme Court’s inconsistent rulings on public-sector union rights have left teachers prone to random legal shifts, sometimes deprived of their ability to demand fair working conditions. In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory agency fees were constitutional, stating that public-sector unions could require non-members to contribute to collective bargaining costs. [8] However, the Supreme Court later ruled in Janus v. AFSCME (2018) that mandatory agency fees for public-sector employees violated the First Amendment. [9] The Supreme Court, through these two decisions, first reasoned that such agency fees were constitutional, then later ruled that forcing non-members to support collective-bargaining efforts forced political speech since public-sector collective bargaining inherently includes public policy. Such change has created legal uncertainty, leading teachers into a fearful state over their economic security or, at times, a state of economic instability. Under judicial volatility, their bargaining power is contingent on changing judicial interpretation, swayed by personal and political belief, rather than being protected by fundamental labor protections. Teachers’ ability to organize and advocate is based on politically driven legal interpretation instead. Having to operate under such a legal framework does not provide explicit protections for teachers’ workplace rights, undermining substantive due process.
Some may argue that instituting such federal collective-bargaining laws would be an overreach by the federal government, given its jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause. They claim that the federal government is strictly regulating local labor issues. These matters have traditionally been governed by state laws and local negotiations between teachers and their school boards, making it primarily a matter of state oversight. However, the courts have ruled that labor relations can fall under federal jurisdiction when interstate commerce is affected. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled that labor relations affect interstate commerce. Therefore, since this is interstate commerce, Congress has the authority to regulate it. In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937), the Supreme Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act, citing that labor disputes have a “close and substantial relation to interstate commerce.” [10] Congressional control was deemed essential to protect such commerce from obstructions. Hence, this decision established that even local labor relations can be under the federal government’s jurisdiction when the specific conditions arise. Still, extending such oversight to teachers requires a careful balance between federal authority and state autonomy. It brings the question of whether the guarantee of teachers’ collective-bargaining rights under federal law falls primarily under labor relations or education policy.
State-level legislative changes have accentuated the erosion of teachers’ collective-bargaining rights across the country due to the absence of standard federal-level protections for public school educators. Act 10 in the State of Wisconsin eliminated collective bargaining:
“Act 10 provides that no local governmental unit or school board may collectively bargain with its employees, except as provided under the Municipal Employment Relations Act (MERA).” [11]
Such provisions weaken teacher unions, arguably the primary and most forceful voice for educators. North Carolina General Statute § 95-98 explicitly forbids public-sector employees from engaging in collective bargaining with local or state government entities. [12] Legislation that restricts the collective-bargaining power of public-school teachers also restricts the ability of educators to secure comprehensive contracts that address the modern problems they face in the workplace. Teachers are restricted in their ability to advocate for improved working conditions and compensation and in providing an adequate education for their students. North Carolina’s General Statute § 95-98 dates back to Jim-Crow-era labor restrictions meant to restrict public employees’ power over their workplaces. Now impacting teachers, this legislation creates a systematically disadvantaged workforce to those working in the private sector. Those working in the private sector are afforded the right to collective bargaining due to the NLRA making the distinction between “private” and “public” employees: that distinction allows for inequity in working rights and conditions between private-sector employees and teachers. The enforcement of these laws is constitutionally questionable regarding labor rights while also denying educators the protections necessary to perform as the protectors of the future of American democracy. This compromises the high-quality education system the Founding Fathers strived for, which the Supreme Court asserted as essential.
Thus, collective-bargaining rights are eroding without stronger legal protections as judicial and legislative measures continue to undermine teachers’ rights and working conditions. Shifting decision-making power away from educators and their local communities undermines the democratic principles safeguarding workers’ rights throughout history. Nevertheless, these democratic principles have not been extended to educators, making it easier for teachers to be left without a seat at the negotiating table. Public-school teachers are tasked with equipping students with the ability and knowledge to engage with the American democratic process while they are not able to enjoy these democratic principles fully themselves.
Bibliography
[1] “The Enormous Impact of Eroded Collective Bargaining on Wages,” Economic Policy Institute, accessed March 9, 2025, https://www.epi.org/publication/eroded-collective-bargaining/.
[2] “U.S. Founding Fathers on Education, in Their Own Words by Ashley Thorne | NAS,” accessed March 10, 2025, https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/u_s_founding_fathers_on_education_in_their_own_words.
[3] Ibid.
[4] “Brown v. Board of Education (1954),” National Archives, September 29, 2021, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-of-education.
[5] “National Labor Relations Act (1935),” National Archives, September 21, 2021, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/national-labor-relations-act.
[6] “Chapter 150E,” accessed March 9, 2025, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter150E.
[7] “Collective Bargaining Rights for Public Workers,” UE, accessed March 9, 2025, https://www.ueunion.org/ue-policy/collective-bargaining-rights-for-public-workers.
[8] Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977),” Justia Law, accessed March 10, 2025, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/.
[9] “16-1466 Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees (06/27/2018),” n.d.
[10] “NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937),” Justia Law, accessed March 10, 2025, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/301/1/.
[11] “Wisconsin Legislature: 2011 Wisconsin Act 10,” accessed March 9, 2025, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/10.
[12] “G.S. 95-98,” accessed March 9, 2025, https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_95/gs_95-98.html.