Funding a Union

Unions have a democratic economic formula. Member dues are the main source of income for the union’s operations, which keeps union officials beholden to/ accountable to one special interest–the members interest–and ensures they are attentive. It keeps the organization honest.

People say follow the money. If we follow the money, we should see that by paying dues we combine our resources to ensure that we have a representative that acts independent of outside influence. Paying dues is the basis for authentic representation. If we follow the money and find that dues are not the main source of revenue, we might be forgiven for a suspicion of outside influence: who or what else is paying? As a case in point, we can consider the grant-funded Teachers Centers. While it can be said that they are supporting teachers, it must also be said that they are ‘supporting’ the difficult work of implementing mandated curricula that teachers had no role in designing or choosing. With the money flowing in, the focus subtly shifts from fighting against the curriculum mandate to fighting for “supports.” The grant blunts the edge of the union’s struggle, diverting the union from what members want and toward the agenda of the grantor.    

As of today, the UFT still takes in a large portion of its income from member dues (175 million if memory serves see below). Alongside that revenue stream, the UFT has others which are growing. These include commercial real estate and grants. Each of these sources of funding represents a dependency the union has: on members, on grantors and on the real estate market.  As much as ‘diversification’ circulated as a mantra in certain pop-finance circles, it is no panacea, and, if administered poorly, can be fatal. Members are a trustworthy source of funding not likely to be withdrawn from a functioning union, the markets are notoriously unstable, and the grantors equally capricious. As dependency on these outside supports grows, the consequence of their withdrawal becomes a standing threat which occupies more and more organizational resources. As dependency on these other sources grows, the structural importance of members declines. If the UFT really wants to diversify, it can do so by building members up; to cite one possibility, should the UFT deem it appropriate, it has enough resources to create its own credit union and finance the needs and aspirations of members while simultaneously providing returns.

Detailed financial reports may be boring, but they are boring like a crouching tiger until it strikes. Back in April, we were told that members would be given a copy of the detailed financial report–they do not have one. Customarily this report is published in the New York Teacher–it has yet to see the press. When this document comes out, read it closely, call your chapter together. We all love to fantasize: what if I won the lottery? Well, we set up our own lottery and won over $175,000,000. Now, what do we want to do with it? Do we want a task force devoted to fighting abusive administrators? Do we want a task force for NYC teachers to design curriculum for the schools? Do we want a housing task force to ensure that we can afford to live where we work?

What do you think would be the best use of our union’s resources? What would you keep that we’re already doing? What new programs might you design? How would you involve the larger UFT membership in making choices about how to use financial resources? And finally, how would you balance the carrot of new revenue streams other than dues (such as grants) with the risk of outside influence? Would you tap them at all or return to the original dues-centric funding formula that unions have been using for decades?

-Ed Calamia