Arizona’s public funds shouldn’t support teacher unions

OPINION — Every time a state legislature takes up education reform, the response is predictable. Teachers unions declare it an “attack on teachers and public education.” 

But Arizonans should ask a straightforward question: Are these reforms actually bad for teachers or are they bad for the unions that collect dues from them?

There is a difference, and it matters. The Arizona Legislature has passed HCR 2040, and now voters will have the final say.

Teachers unions have spent decades building influence — electing sympathetic school board members, placing allies in administrative roles and cultivating a political operation that makes them one of the most powerful forces in Democratic Party politics, favoring the farthest left option viable. 

The result is a system increasingly organized around protecting union prerogatives rather than serving students or the teachers who work with them every day. 

The union model is built on an “Us vs. Them” dynamic, and that requires an enemy. In practice, it means administrators and school board members are cast as adversaries by teachers and the union — and as an added layer of protection, unions actively discourage direct communication between board members and teachers. 

It’s a closed loop designed to keep teachers dependent on the union as their sole intermediary.

This playbook doesn’t just operate at the school level. It scales up. States that lean left tend to embrace the union model, in part because teachers unions are among the largest political donors and organizing forces in the Democratic Party. 

Right-leaning states have increasingly pushed back with legislative reforms. And without fail, any measure the unions perceive as a threat, no matter how modest, triggers the same response: “This is an attack on teachers.”

In Arizona, that influence shows up in ways most taxpayers would find surprising:

• Arizona school districts collect union membership dues through their payroll systems and distribute them to unions at taxpayer expense.

• Unions are permitted to enter schools, sometimes during the school day, to recruit members and campaign for political issues.

• New teachers are required to sit through union membership pitches at new-hire orientation before they’ve taught a single class.

• Teachers are regularly flooded with district emails promoting union membership and political activity.

• Arizona school employees can legally go on strike and unlike in the private sector, those strikes play out entirely on the taxpayers’ dime.

• Districts routinely cede their authority to reward outstanding teachers — because union contracts prioritize tenure over performance.

HCR 2040 addresses each of these problems directly. It protects teachers’ paychecks from automatic dues collection. It ends captive-audience recruitment drives on school time. It restores teachers’ right to negotiate individually when they know they deserve more than a one-size-fits-all salary schedule that rewards years of service over classroom performance. And it stops requiring Arizona taxpayers to subsidize political organizations that use teachers as both a funding source and a constituency. 

HCR 2040 is now headed to the ballot this November. When voters weigh in, it's worth remembering that protecting teachers often means standing up to unions.

Aaron Withe is CEO of the Freedom Foundation, nonprofit conservative think tank. Mesa Republican Justin Olson, who sponsored HCR 2040, represents Legislative District 10 in the Arizona House. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.