What the hell are you going on about?What "company" has these lawyers? If you mean the district, that has nothing to do with representation of the teachers - administration is NEVER part of the union, as that would be contrary to the whole purpose of a union. I'd be interested to hear how the NEA allows a district to go on with a shop for some staff but not for teachers - can you direct me to a source for the niceties of that situation? And how can you say that non-standing subs have no union option if you've just said that NO teacher has a union option?
I never said anywhere that there was no union for the teachers.
The company that has the lawyers is the same company that the district gets their security from. And I was slightly incorrect on the statement on security. It was outsourced. They (district) started hiring their own security employees sometime after 2005, and they (security) now are supported by a union.
Anyway, I concede the overall point, as the three cases I remembered were all private schools, and one wasn't directly related anyway.