Opinion

The union label

If Bill Thompson is smiling today, it’s because he’s received the coveted endorsement of the United Federation of Teachers.

It’s a huge “get” for Thompson. For in the midst of a crowded field of Democratic candidates for mayor, it brings to his campaign a powerful organizing operation and impressive advertising budget.

For his part, Mayor Bloomberg says the UFT endorsement is “almost a kiss of death,” noting that the union’s pick for mayor hasn’t won City Hall since 1989: “I don’t know what goes through voters’ minds, but maybe they understand if the UFT wants it, it ain’t good and you don’t want that person.”

We’re not sure the mayor is right about the politics, at least this year. Clearly the city’s unions all think things have changed, that this may be the moment to get their pick into office. But the mayor is absolutely right about the logic: If the UFT wants it, it’s probably not good for this city.

That’s because the teachers union is a union of public employees whose salaries and benefits are paid for by the taxpayer. In theory, when a mayor bargains with this union, he represents the interests of the taxpayers. But when a public-sector union can use its resources to put its choice for mayor into office, it effectively means it is choosing its own boss.

Give union chief Mike Mulgrew his due. He’s been up-front here: “We’re not about picking a mayor. We’re about making a mayor, making the winner.” And you can bet that Mulgrew is going to want something for all that effort and investment.

So ask yourself this: If the UFT succeeds in electing Bill Thompson, when the two sit down at the negotiating table, whom do you think the mayor will be looking out for? The taxpayers? The students? Or the people who brought him to the dance?