Perspectives and expectations of union member and non- union member teachers on teacher unions

Abstract

Unions, which can be regarded as one of the constitutive elements of democracy, are the pressure groups in political and social fields. Unions were born out of industrial confrontations and expanded into the field of public services over time, and thus teachers – who are also public employees-, also obtained the right to establish and affiliate to unions. In this research the views of union member and non-union member teachers on the most important functions and operational effectiveness of unions, teachers’ expectations from unions and teachers’ evaluation of the solidarity, competition and cooperation between unions were determined and the perspectives of teachers on unionization were revealed. qualitative research design was used. The data needed were collected through semistructured interviews from volunteering union member and non-union member teachers who were working in the primary and secondary schools in Ankara province and who were selected through “maximum variation sampling approach”. The data were then analyzed by using the content analysis technique. In conclusion, it was found that political ideology was the most important reason for membership of teachers’ unions. Protection and development of personal rights was found to be the most important function of teacher unions and unions were thought to be insufficient in performing those functions

Keywords

• Teacher unions, Union effectiveness, Multi-unionism

[Sendika üyesi olan ve sendika üyesi olmayan öğretmenlerin eğitim sendikalarına bakışı ve beklentileri]

Öz

Modern endüstrilerin ilk evresinde ortaya çıkan sendikalar, işgörenler ve işverenler arasındaki güç dengesizliğini düzeltme amacındaki toplumsal örgütlenme biçimleridir. Sendikalar ilk çıktıkları dönemde işgörenlerin yaşamı üzerindeki ezici işveren etkisini kırmaya yönelik araçlar sunarak savunma işlevlerini öne çıkarmışlardır (Giddens, 2009, 899). İşgören ve işveren arasındaki ilişkilerin geçmişten günümüze önemli oranda farklılaşmasına rağmen bu gelişmenin sendikal örgütlenmelerin amacında önemli değişmelere yol açmadığı ifade edilebilir. Örneğin Dwivedi’nin (2009, 297) tanımında sendika; işgörenlerin kolektif çıkarlarını korumak ve geliştirmek için kurulmuş, işveren, devlet ve diğer işgören örgütleri gibi toplumsal aktörlerle ilişki içindeki gönüllü işgören örgütlenmesi olarak betimlenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Eğitim sendikaları, Sendikadan beklentiler, Sendika işlevleri, Sendika çalışma yeterlikleri, Sendikalar arası ilişkiler

Kaynakça

1. Akkerman, A. (2008). Union competition and strikes: The need for analysis at the sector level. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 61(4), 445-459.
2. Balcı, A. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem teknik ve ilkeler. [Research in social sciences: Methods, technics and principles]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
3. Ball, S. J. (1988). Staff relations during the teachers' industrial action: context, conflict and proletarianisation. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 9(3), 289-306.
4. Bamberry, L. (2008). Propensity to join and maintain membership of unions amongst casual school teachers in NSW. WPS No. 3. The Centre for Applied Social Sciences, School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning. Working Paper 2008.
5. Bascia, N. (2000). The other side of the equation: Professional development and the organizational capacity of teacher unions. Educational Policy, 14(3), 385-404.
6. Bascia, N. (2001). The other side of the equation: Professional development and the organizational capacity of teacher unions. WALL Working Paper No.27, 2001. Centre for the Study of Education and Work.
7. Bascia, N. (2008). What teachers want from their unions: What we know from research. The global assault on teaching, teachers and their unions. Stories for resistance. (Eds.: M. Compton & L. Weiner). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. pp.95-108.
8. Beaumont, P.B., & Elliott, J. (2001). Individual employee choice between unions: Some public sector evidence from Britain. Industrial Relations Journal, 23(2), 119-127.

9. Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. (Fourth Edition). Needham Heights, MA: A Pearson Education Company.
10. Blind, P. K. (2007). A new actor in Turkish democratization: Labor unions. Turkish Studies, 8(2), 289-311.
11. Boyd, W. L., Plank, D. N., & Sykes, G. (1998). Teachers’ unions in hard times. Paper prepared for the conference on Teachers’ Unions and Educational Reform held at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
12. Burchielli, R. (2004). “It’s not just numbers”: Union employees’ perceptions of union effectiveness. The Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3), 337–344.
13. Castro, C. R. (2000). Community college faculty satisfaction and the faculty union. New Directions for Institutional Research, 105, Spring, 45-55.
14. Chisholm, L. (1999). The democratization of schools and the politics of teachers’ work in South Africa. Compare, 29(2), 111-126.
15. Connoly, T., Conlon, E. J., & Deutsch, S. J. (1980). Organizational effectiveness: A multiple constituency approach. Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 211-217.
16. Cooper, B. S. (2000). An international perspective on teacher unions. Conflicting missions? Teacher Unions and Educational Reforms. (Ed.: T. Loveless). Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution.
17. Cooper, B. S., & Sureau, J. (2008). Teacher unions and the politics of fear in labor relations. Educational Policy, 22(1), 86-105.
18. Cregan, C. (1991). Young people and trade union membership: A longitudinal analysis. Applied Economics, 23(9), 1511-1518.
19. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & Research design. Choosing among five approaches. (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
20. Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı. (2014). 4688 Sayılı Kamu Görevlileri Sendikaları ve Toplu Sözleşme Kanunu Gereğince Kamu Görevlileri Sendikaları İle Konfederasyonları Üye Sayılarına http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/main.aspx?home=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/es kiler/2014/07/20140704.htm&main=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/07/2 0140704.htm. Retrieved on: 24.02.2015
21. Deery, S., & De Cieri, H. (1990). Determinants of trade union membership in Australia. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 29(1), 59-73.
22. Dobson, J. R. (1997). The effects of multi-unionism. A survey of large manufacturing establishments. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 35(4), 547-566.
23. Dwivedi, R. S. (2009). A textbook of human resource management. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd.
24. Eraslan, L. (2012). Günümüz Öğretmen Sendikacılığının Değerlendirilmesi. [Evaluation of today's teacher unionism]. 21. Yüzyılda Eğitim ve Toplum Eğitim Bilimleri ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(1), 59-72.
25. Ewing, K. D. (2005). The function of trade unions. Industrial Law Journal, 34(1), 1-22.
26. Fiorito, J. (1987). Political instrumentality perceptions and desires for union representation. Journal of Labor Research, 8(3), 271-289.
27. Fiorito, J., Gallagher, D. G., & Fukami, C. V. (1988). Satisfaction with union representation. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 41(2), 294-307.
28. Fiorito, J., Jarley, P., & Delaney, J. T. (1993). National union effectiveness in organizing: Measures and influences. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(4), 613-635.
29. Freeman, R. B. (1976). Individual mobility and union voice in the labor market. The American Economic Review, 66(2), 361-368.
30. Gahan, P., & Bell, S. (1999). Union strategy, membership orientation and union effectiveness: An exploratory analysis. Labor & Industry, 9(3), 5-30.
31. Gani, A. (1996). Who joins the unions and why? Evidence from India. International Journal of Manpower, 17(6/7), 54-65.
32. Giddens, A. (2009). Sociology. (Sixth Edition). Cambridge: Polity Press
33. Godard, J. (1997). Beliefs about unions and what they should do: A survey of employed Canadians. Journal of Labor Research, 13(4), 621-639.
34. Goodman, P. S., & Pennings, J. M. (1979). Critical issues in assessing organizational effectiveness. Organizational assessment: Perspectives on the measurement of organizational behavior and the quality of working life. (Eds.: E. Lawler & others). New York: Wiley-Interscience. pp.1-51.
35. Govender, L. (2004). Teacher unions, policy struggles and educational change. Changing class education and social change in post-apartheid South Africa. (Ed.: L. Chisolm). New York, NY: Zed Books.
36. Gregg, P., & Yates, A. (1991). Changes in wage-setting arrangements and trade union presence in 1980’s. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 29(3), 361-376.
37. Griffin, G., & Svensen S. (1999). Trade unions: Reasons for joining and membership satisfaction. Working Paper No. 63. National Key Centre in Industrial Relations. Monash University.
38. Hammer, T., & Wazeter, D. L. (1993). Dimensions of local union effectiveness. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46(2), 302-319.
39. Hanagan, M. (2003). Labor internationalism. Social Science History, 27(4), 485-499.
40. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1988). The ecology of organizational mortality: American labor unions, 1836-1985. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 25-52.
41. Heaton, N., Mason, B., & Morgan, C. (2000). Trade unions and partnership in the health service. Employee Relations, 22(4), 315-333.
42. Hualde, A., & Ramirez, M. A. (2014). The impact of the NAFTA treaty on wage competition, immigration, labor standards and cross-border co-operation. European Review of Labor and Research, 7(3), 494-514.
43. Kayıkçı, K. (2013). Türkiye’de kamu ve eğitim alanında sendikalaşma ve öğretmen ile okul yöneticilerinin sendikalardan beklentileri. [Unionization in the public and education sector in Turkey, and expectations of school administrators and teachers expectations from unions]. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 46(1), 99-126.
44. Kerchner, C. T., & Kaufman, K. D. (1995). Lurching toward professionalism: The saga of teacher unionism. The Elementary School Journal, 96(1), Special Issue: Teacher Leadership, 107-122.
45. Kerchner, C. T., & Kopich, J. E. (2007). Negotiating what matters most: Collective bargaining and student achievement. American Journal of Education, 113(3), 349-365.
46. Kingdon, G., & Teal, F. (2008). Teacher unions, teacher pay and student performance in India: a pupil fixed effects approach. CESifo working paper, No. 2428
47. Kopich, J. E. (2005). Addressing teacher quality through induction, professional compensation, and evaluation: The effects on labor-management relations. Educational Policy, 19(1), 90-111.
48. Kopich, J. E. (2007). Resource allocation in traditional and reform-oriented collective bargaining agreements. School Finance Redesign Project. Centre on Re-inventing Public Education. Working Paper, 18. May, 25, 2007.
49. Lordoğlu, K. (2004). Türkiye’de Mevcut Bazı Sendikaların Liderlik ve Yönetim Anlayışları ve Bazı Sendikal Sorunlardan Örnekler. Çalışma ve toplum, 1(1), 81-96.
50. Mason, B., & Bain, P. (1993). The determinants of trade union membership in Britain: A survey of the literature. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46(2), 332-351.
51. McDonnell, L. M., & Pascal, A. (1988). Teacher unions and educational reform. Washington, DC: RAND Corporation.
52. Metcalf, D. (1990). Union presence and labor productivity in British manufacturing industry. A reply to Nolan and Marginson. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 28(2), 249-266.
53. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. (Second edition). California: Sage Publications.
54. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 1-19.
55. Murillo, M. (1999). Recovering political dynamics: Teachers’ unions and the decentralization of education in Argentina and Mexico. Journal of InterAmerican Studies and World Affairs, 41(1), 31-57.
56. Nolan, P., & Marginson, P. (1990). Skating on thin ice? David Metcalf on trade unions and productivity. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 28(2), 227-247.
57. Olson, M. (2002). The logic of collective action. Public goods and the theory of groups. (Twelfth Edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & Evaluation methods (Third Edition). California: Sage Publications.
59. Peetz, D. (1998). Unions in a contrary world: The future of the Australian trade union movement. Cambridge University Press.
60. Peetz, D. (2002). Sympathy for the devil?: Australian unionism and public opinion. Australian Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 57-80.
61. Polachek, S. W., & Siebert, W. S. (1993). The economics of Earnings. Cambridge University Press.
62. Poole, W. L. (2000). The construction of teachers’ paradoxical interests by teacher union leaders. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 93-119.
63. Redman, T., & Snape, E. (2006). Militancy and moderation in teachers unions: Is there a fit between union image and member attitudes?, Working Paper. Durham University, Durham.
64. Riley, N. M. (1997). Determinants of union membership: A review. Labor, 11(2), 265-301.
65. Renaud, S. (2002). Rethinking the union membership/ job satisfaction relationship: Some empirical evidence in Canada. International Journal of Manpower, 23(2), 137-150.
66. Robinson, I. (1993). Economistic unionism in crisis: The origins, consequences and prospects of Canada-U.S. labor movement character divergence. The challenge of restructuring: North American labor movements respond. (Eds.: J. Jenson & R. Mahon). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. pp.19-47.
67. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63- 75.
68. Smith, R. (2005). The convergence/divergence debate in comparative industrial relations. European trade unions: Change and response. (Eds.: M. Rigby, R. Smith, & T. Lawlor). New York, NY: Routledge. pp.1-16.
69. Steers, R. M. (1975). Problems in measurement of organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(4), 546-558.
70. Stevenson, H. (2014). New unionism? Teacher unions, social partnership and school governance in England and Wales. Local Government Studies, 40(6), 954-971.
71. Stevenson, H., & Bascia, N. (2013). Teacher unions and multi-unionism: identifying issues of gender and militancy in Ontario and England. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco April 27th - May 1st.
72. Strunk, K. O., & Grissom, J. A. (2010). Do strong unions shape district policies? Collective bargaining, teacher contract restrictiveness, and the political power of teachers’ unions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(3), 389-406.
73. Summers, T. P., Betton, J. H., & DeCotiis, T. A. (1986). Voting for and against unions: A decision model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 643-655.
74. Swabe, A. I. R. (1983). Multi-unionism in the fire service. Industrial Relations Journal. 14(4), 56- 69.
75. Sweeney, S., & Voorendt I. (1999). Union effectiveness: Still hidden from history? (Eds.: R. Hood & R. Markey). Labor & Community: Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference of the Australian Society for the Study of Labor History, Wollongong, NSW, 2-4 October 1999, ASSLH, Wollongong, 1999, pp.261-266.
76. Taşdan, M. (2012). Eğitim işkolundaki sendikaların yaşadıkları sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri: Nitel bir araştırma. *Problems of educational unions and solutions: A qualitative study]. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2), 57-78.
77. Taşdan, M. (2013). Eğitim işkolundaki sendikalara ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri: Nitel bir araştırma *Perceptions of teacher’s educational unions: A qualitative study]. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 231-265.
78. Urbanski, A. (1998). TURNing unions around. Contemporary Education, 69(4), 186-190.
79. Webb, S., & Webb, B. (1920). The history of trade unionism, 1666-1920. Printed by the Authors for the Trade Unionist of the United Kingdom.
80. Yasan, T. (2012). İlköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerinin sendikalara ilişkin görüşlerinin farklı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi: Malatya il merkezi örneği. *An evaluation of primary school administrators and teachers' opinions about in educational unions to according various variables: Case of Malatya city]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 271-293.
81. Youngblood, S. A., De Nisi, A. S., Molleston, J. L., & Mobley, W. H. (1984). The impact of work environment, instrumentality beliefs, perceived labor union image, and subjective norms on union voting intentions. Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), 576-590.