The Union Paradox: When You Fund Both Sides of the Fight.
- The Chairman
- 2 days ago
- 3 min read
The other day, I attended a faculty meeting—and what happened at the end stopped me in my tracks.
A union representative stood up and encouraged teachers to join the union and pay dues. That, in itself, isn’t unusual. What was unusual—at least when you stop and really think about it—was the reasoning.
The pitch went something like this:
Join the union. Pay your dues. We need to protect teachers from the School Board.
Fair enough… until you connect the dots.
Wait a Minute… Who Put the School Board There?
Here’s where things get interesting.
The majority of teachers in the room? Democrat.
The union leadership making the pitch? Democrat-aligned.
The School Board being positioned as the problem? Also largely supported and endorsed by that same union.
Let that sink in.
Hard working Teachers are being asked to:
Fund a union
That uses their dues
To help elect School Board members
Who then create policies
That the union says teachers now need protection from
And the solution? 👉 Pay more dues.
The Circular System Nobody Talks About
This isn’t just irony—it’s a closed loop.
A system where:
Money flows from hard working teachers → to the union
From the union → to political endorsements and campaigns
From elected officials → to policies impacting teachers
From those policies → back to the union for “protection”
It’s a cycle that feeds itself. And here’s the uncomfortable question:
If the system worked… why would you need protection from the people you helped elect?
A Lesson in Incentives
In my financial literacy classes, I always tell students:
“Follow the money. Incentives reveal truth.”
So let’s apply that here.
The union benefits from more members and more dues
Politicians benefit from endorsements and campaign support
Teachers? They’re told they benefit—but are they evaluating that independently?
Because if teachers are funding both:
The problem
And the solution
Then the real question becomes: 👉 Who is truly being served?
Personal Responsibility vs. Collective Dependence
This isn’t about attacking unions or political parties. It’s about thinking critically.
As educators, we teach students to:
Analyze systems
Question assumptions
Understand cause and effect
So we should hold ourselves to the same standard.
Ask yourself:
Do I fully understand where my dues go?
Do I agree with how those funds are used politically?
Am I funding outcomes I later oppose?
Because financial literacy isn’t just about money—it’s about control.
The Bigger Picture
This moment in that faculty meeting wasn’t just about unions or politics.
It was about something deeper:
👉 Accountability
If we fund something, we own part of the outcome.
And if we don’t like the outcome, we have to ask:
Do we change the system?
Or do we keep feeding it?
Final Thought
I tell my students all the time:
“I hear you. I believe what you say. But I can only measure your results.”
So here’s the question for every teacher in that room:
Are the results matching the promises?
Or are we stuck in a system where we’re paying… to fix the problems we already paid to create?
On a personal note: My grandfather was a proud member of the UMWA until he died. This was a time when the unions represented their dues paying members and the workers, not a political party.
Comments