I'm not sure that his main argument - "education is a vital national interest" (or "national defense issue") - supports union-busting over increased funding and

I'm not sure that his main argument - "education is a vital national interest" (or "national defense issue") - supports union-busting over increased funding and the like. After all, while the US has no military union, it does spend a lot of money on the military. (Whether the individual grunt is underpaid or not has very little to do with the effectiveness of the organization as a whole, and the US defense system is quite effective, despite its problems.)