Opinion Piece: When Teachers' Unions Clash, Who Will Uphold Trust in Education?

When two teachers' unions both claim to be protecting education, what truly needs protection may not be any individual, but the education system itself. The controversy over the principal's tenure at Kaohsiung Gangshan Elementary School has once again drawn public attention, as two teachers' unions have publicly clashed. One side argues that over 70% of school staff support the principal's continued leadership and that isolated disputes should not override the trust of the majority. The other maintains that unions have a duty to defend teachers facing unfair treatment, and that administrative power or majority opinion must not silence minority rights. Both believe they are upholding educational values and representing authentic voices from the field.

Yet, when different unions confront each other in the name of 'protecting education,' what society must truly consider is not which side has louder voices or greater public support, but how unions should wield their influence. The merits of individual cases should ultimately be determined by competent authorities through legal investigations, based on evidence and due process. However, the values, principles, and public responsibilities of unions deserve reexamination in light of this incident.

The purpose of teachers' unions has never been to create division, but to repair systemic flaws. Their reason for existing is to ensure that individual teachers are not left isolated when facing powerful administrative systems; to help restore fairness when imbalances occur; and to offer constructive oversight and reform proposals when educational policies stray from professional standards. Therefore, while unions should naturally defend teachers' rights, this does not mean public opinion should replace due process. Supporting members does not justify pre-judging any case. A truly mature union protects procedures, not positions.

In recent years, with the rise of social media, teachers' unions have far surpassed their traditional role as labor organizations. Press releases, live streams, short videos, and social platforms have given unions unprecedented public influence, making every statement potentially shape public opinion rapidly. The greater the influence, the greater the responsibility. If unions begin relying on media tactics, public opinion battles, and online popularity to handle individual cases—leading society to assume victims and perpetrators before investigations conclude—they risk transforming from reform advocates into instruments of public trial.

What education fears most is not the uncovering of truth, but the labeling of individuals before the truth is clarified. Educators teach students daily not to bully, not to judge before trial, and not to accept majority opinion as truth. If educational groups themselves allow popularity to override procedure, they not only fail to resolve conflicts but also undermine education’s most vital示范 role.

On the other hand, we cannot assume all complaints are baseless simply because a majority of teachers support a principal, nor can we dismiss a school’s overall achievements due to individual grievances. Democracy values majority opinion, while the rule of law protects minority rights—these are not mutually exclusive. School-wide support levels are worth considering, but any complaint filed through proper legal channels deserves a fair investigation. If misconduct is confirmed, it must be acknowledged; if procedural flaws exist, proper remedies must be provided—not allowing public opinion to substitute for institutional processes. What unions should strive for is not to make society believe in them, but to make society believe in the process.

In fact, in recent years, teachers' unions have played indispensable roles in advocating for teacher compensation, reducing administrative burdens, improving special education resources, and enhancing educational quality—earning widespread support and trust from frontline educators. Precisely because of this, society now expects unions to be more than service providers; they are seen as key guardians of public educational interest. Unions can monitor administration, critique policies, speak for members, and demand systemic reform. But they cannot, by representing teachers, ignore that principals, administrators, students, and parents are all part of the educational community.

Education is never a zero-sum game. Teachers’ rights and students’ rights are not opposing forces, nor should principals and teachers always be on opposite sides. A truly mature union does not rush to label any party or treat differing viewpoints as enemies. Instead, it works to build a system in which all roles are willing to place their trust. When a union’s role evolves from 'speaking for members' to 'being accountable for the education system,' it earns lasting public trust.

Equally worthy of reflection is the role of educational authorities. As campus conflicts increasingly spread rapidly through social media, administrative bodies must not merely wait for public sentiment to shift or temporarily quell disputes through transfers or reassignments. They must courageously make decisions based on evidence and clearly explain procedures and reasoning, so that the educational community believes decisions come from systems, not from popularity. Otherwise, every case risks becoming a public opinion contest between different unions and groups, and every teacher, principal, or administrator could become the next storm’s target.

Education needs unions—and strong, effective teachers' unions. But the unions truly worthy of respect are not those with the most members, the loudest voices, or the strongest mobilization capacity. They are those that consistently place procedural justice before positions, public educational interest before organizational interests, and systemic reform before case-by-case battles.

When both teachers' unions claim to be protecting education, we must jointly uphold one底线: education cannot let popularity decide right and wrong, and unions must not allow positions to replace procedures. When unions place systems before stances, procedures before emotions, and public educational interest before organizational interests, what they protect is not just teachers—but the most precious and hardest-to-rebuild asset in education: social trust.

This may be the true value of teachers' unions, and the original intention all educational reforms must uphold.

*The author is an elementary school teacher and Deputy Secretary-General of Pingtung Education Industry Union.