Connect with us

Economics

Is the most powerful teachers union in America overreaching?

Published

on

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

As election-night parties go, the mood was bleak. On March 19th primary-election voters in Chicago were asked to vote on a ballot measure that would have raised the transfer tax on properties worth over $1m so as to generate money to pay for homelessness relief. The measure was backed by the city’s entire progressive establishment. Its opponents, mostly from the real-estate industry, did not even bother to organise a rival event. And yet by 9pm on election night, “No” was leading by around eight percentage points. “Let’s just pretend,” said Myron Byrd, from the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, an activist group, mournfully, before he belted out a song he had wanted to perform to celebrate victory. The party ended with chants of “we will not give up”, long after most attendees gave up and left.

The defeat of the “Bring Chicago Home” measure was crushing for Chicago’s mayor, Brandon Johnson, who had heavily promoted it. But it is perhaps an even bigger defeat for his former employer, the Chicago Teachers Union (ctu), which put $400,000 and the organising work of its 28,000 members into getting a Yes vote. In the past decade or so, the union has become one of the most powerful in the country by adopting a model of radical left-wing political organising. From 2022 to the end of last year it put $2.3m into Mr Johnson’s campaign fund. Its support helped elevate Mr Johnson, previously an unknown county commissioner, into office. This year it hopes to reap the spoils—the teachers’ contract is up for renewal. But is the union overreaching?

The ctu’s transformation began over a decade ago, when Rahm Emanuel was mayor. On coming into office and discovering a huge hole in the teachers’ pension scheme, Mr Emanuel cancelled a pay rise and took a hardline approach to negotiation. In 2012 incensed teachers went on strike for the first time in 25 years. In 2013 he then began a deeply controversial programme to close 50 of the city’s public schools, further invigorating the union’s organising efforts. After another strike in 2019, by last year it had developed the confidence to help push out Mr Emanuel’s successor, Lori Lightfoot.

With Mr Johnson in office, the ctu is in an enviable position. Instead of dealing with somebody like Ms Lightfoot or Mr Emanuel, this year teachers will negotiate with their own union’s former lobbyist. They expect a payoff. In early March the Illinois Policy Institute (IPI), a right-leaning think-tank, leaked the union’s early negotiating proposals. Among the suggestions were that teachers ought to get “cost of living” pay increases of 9% a year, subsidised housing, more generous pensions, and health insurance with smaller copays. The union also wants every school in the city to be guaranteed a librarian and more staff of all sorts to be hired. “They can demand almost anything under the sun,” says Austin Berg, of the IPI.

Johnson’s choice

The union sees this as only what it is due. At its head is Stacy Davis Gates, a former history teacher who says she was radicalised by school closures. Ms Davis Gates takes a no-compromise approach to politics. In a speech to bigwigs at the City Club on March 5th she told journalists wondering about how the district would pay for her union’s proposals to “stop asking that question”. She also discussed the toll it took on her mental health to have it revealed she sends her teenage son to a private Catholic school, rather than a public one. At the end of the speech she finally offered a figure for the cost of her proposals: “$50bn and three cents”.

The trouble is there is no more money. This year the budget amounts to $29,000 per pupil. Such spending is possible only thanks to a huge slug of federal covid-relief funding. By 2026 the school district projects it will have a deficit of $691m even before the costs of a new contract. It cannot raise its property tax any faster. A state bailout is unlikely, says Hal Woods of Kids First Chicago, a charity. That leaves only the equally cash-strapped city. Even some once sympathetic to the ctu are nervous. “They are trying to solve the bad policy decisions of the past two or three decades by just throwing money at it,” says Stephanie Farmer, an academic at Roosevelt University. “It makes me very disappointed.”

What Chicago’s schools actually need is reform. As things are, even large sums of money do not go especially far. One of the biggest problems is that there are simply too many schools. Over the past two decades enrolment has shrunk by over a quarter, even as new charter schools opened. Over a third of the city’s schools are operating at below 50% capacity. A few high schools have less than 10% of the number of students they were built for. Oversized schools cost huge sums to run even as they have to skimp on services (like librarians). Closing them would be fiercely unpopular, but the ctu’s solution in essence amounts to staffing them all as though they are full.

In the negotiations Mr Johnson has a choice. If he simply pays up, he will have to starve the rest of the city’s services to pay for it. The alternative is defying those who put him into office. And yet in a way, the results of the Bring Chicago Home ballot measure could make that easier. In the mayoral race last year, when asked about how he would negotiate with the teachers, Mr Johnson replied, “who better to deliver bad news to friends than a friend?” That becomes a lot easier if your friend suddenly seems a lot less popular.

Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

Economics

China targets U.S. services and other areas after decrying ‘meaningless’ tariff hikes on goods

Published

on

Dilara Irem Sancar | Anadolu | Getty Images

China last week announced it was done retaliating against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, saying any further increases by the U.S. would be a “joke,” and Beijing would “ignore” them.

Instead of continuing to focus on tariffing goods, however, China has chosen to resort to other measures, including steps targeting the American services sector.

Trump has jacked up U.S. levies on select goods from China by up to 245% after several rounds of tit-for-tat measures with Beijing in recent weeks. Before calling it a “meaningless numbers game,” China last week imposed additional duties on imports from the U.S. of up to 125%.

While the Trump administration has largely focused on pressing ahead on his tariff plans, Beijing has rolled out a series of non-tariff restrictive measures including widening export controls of rare-earth minerals and opening antitrust probes into American companies, such as pharmaceutical giant DuPont and IT major Google.

Before the latest escalation, in February Beijing had put dozens of U.S. businesses on a so-called “unreliable entity” list, which would restrict or ban firms from trading with or investing in China. American firms such as PVH, the parent company of Tommy Hilfiger, and Illumina, a gene-sequencing equipment provider, were among those added to the list.

Its tightening of exports of critical mineral elements will require Chinese companies to secure special licenses for exporting these resources, effectively restricting U.S. access to the key minerals needed for semiconductors, missile-defense systems and solar cells.

In its latest move on Tuesday, Beijing went after Boeing — America’s largest exporter — by ordering Chinese airlines not to take any further deliveries for its jets and requested carriers to halt any purchases of aircraft-related equipment and parts from U.S. companies, according to Bloomberg.

Having deliveries to China cut off will add to the cash-strapped plane maker’s troubles, as it struggles with a lingering quality-control crisis.

In another sign of growing hostilities, Chinese police issued notices for apprehending three people they claimed to have engaged in cyberattacks against China on behalf of the U.S. National Security Agency.

Chinese state media, which published the notice, urged domestic users and companies to avoid using American technology and replace them with domestic alternatives.

“Beijing is clearly signaling to Washington that two can play in this retaliation game and that it has many levers to pull, all creating different levels of pain for U.S. companies,” said Wendy Cutler, vice president at Asia Society Policy Institute.

“With high tariffs and other restrictions in place, the decoupling of the two economies is at full steam,” Cutler said.

Targeting trade in services

China is seen by some as seeking to broaden the trade war to encompass services trade — which covers travel, legal, consulting and financial services — where the U.S. has been running a significant surplus with China for years.

China Beige Book CEO: U.S. needs to articulate what they want from China

Earlier this month, a social media account affiliated with Chinese state media Xinhua News Agency, suggested Beijing could impose curbs on U.S. legal consultancy firms and consider a probe into U.S. companies’ China operations for the huge “monopoly benefits” they have gained from intellectual-property rights.

China’s imports of U.S. services surged more than 10-fold to $55 billion in 2024 over the past two decades, according to Nomura estimates, driving U.S. services trade surplus with China to $32 billion last year.

Last week, China said it would reduce imports of U.S. films and warned its citizens against traveling or studying in the U.S., in a sign of Beijing’s intent to put pressure on the U.S. entertainment, tourism and education sectors.

“These measures target high-visibility sectors — aviation, media, and education — that resonate politically in the U.S.,” said Jing Qian, managing director at Center for China Analysis.

While they might be low on actual dollar impact given the smaller scale of these sectors, “reputational effects — such as fewer Chinese students or more cautious Chinese employees — could ripple through academia and the tech talent ecosystem,” he added.

Nomura estimates $24 billion could be at stake if Beijing significantly step up restrictions on travel to the U.S.

Weekly analysis and insights from Asia’s largest economy in your inbox
Subscribe now

Travel dominated U.S. services exports to China, reflecting expenditure by millions of Chinese tourists in the U.S., according to Nomura. Within travel, education-related spending leads at 71%, it estimates, mostly coming from tuition and living expenses for the more than 270,000 Chinese students studying in the U.S.

Entertainment exports, encompassing films, music and television programs, accounted for just 6% of U.S. exports within this sector, the investment firm said, noting that Beijing’s latest move on film imports “carries more symbolic heft than economic bite.”

“We could see deeper decoupling — not only in supply chains, but in people-to-people ties, knowledge exchange, and regulatory frameworks. This may signal a shift from transactional tension to systemic divergence,” said Qian.

Can Beijing get more aggressive?

Analysts largely expect Beijing to continue deploying its arsenal of non-tariff policy tools in an effort to raise its leverage ahead of any potential negotiation with the Trump administration.

“From the Chinese government’s perspective, the U.S. companies’ operations in China are the biggest remaining target for inflicting pain on the U.S .side,” said Gabriel Wildau, managing director at risk advisory firm Teneo.

Apple, Tesla, pharmaceutical and medical device companies are among the businesses that could be targeted as Beijing presses ahead with non-tariff measures, including sanction, regulatory harassment and export controls, Wildau added.

Shoppers and staff are seen inside the Apple Store, with its sleek modern interior design and prominent Apple logo, in Chongqing, China, on Sept. 10, 2024.

Cheng Xin | Getty Images

While a deal may allow both sides to unwind some of the retaliatory measures, hopes for near-term talks between the two leaders are fading fast.

Chinese officials have repeatedly condemned the “unilateral tariffs” imposed by Trump as “bullying” and vowed to “fight to the end.” Still, Beijing has left the door open for negotiations but they must be on “an equal footing.”

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump is open to making a deal with China but Beijing needs to make the first move.

“In the end, only when a country experiences sufficient self-inflicted harm might it consider softening its stance and truly returning to the negotiation table,” said Jianwei Xu, economist at Natixis.

Continue Reading

Economics

Donald Trump’s approval rating is dropping

Published

on

EVEN WHEN Donald Trump does something well, he exaggerates. He won the popular vote last November for the first time in three tries, by a 1.5 point margin. “The mandate was massive,” he told Time. In fact it was the slimmest margin since 2000, but it was an improvement on Mr Trump’s two previous popular-vote losses, by 2.1 points in 2016 and 4.5 points in 2020. (He was elected in 2016 through the vagaries of the Electoral College.)

Continue Reading

Economics

Can Progressives learn to make progress again?

Published

on

In the political wilderness, Democrats are asking themselves how they lost their way

Continue Reading

Trending