a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by cgod
cgod  ·  5113 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Grading the Education Reformers
Because you have a union shouldn't mean that you can't be fired.

I am for the right to collective bargaining. We let capital form aggregate power in the form of corporations, and Government in the jobs sector isn't dissimilar to the power that corporations wield in the labor market. Letting labor bargain collectively with the owners of capital seems necessary to me, unless you don't care about labor getting a chance at a free shake.

It's also obvious that government has done a poor job of structuring labor agreements to get rid of bad teachers. I don't think that if you took away the collective bargaining power of one of the lower paid professional jobs that you can get with a higher education would necessarily lead to better outcomes. You would get rid of some bad teachers at the same time you made the profession less desirable for prospective candidates. Improvements would probably at best be meager in the long term, but you might even see significantly lower quality teachers as more qualified workers sought jobs that paid better.

You don't like summer vacation? I think that it's great that kids get 3 months to be kids. Maybe you can have those spoiled teachers break rocks over the summer as moral penance for their cushy jobs. So you knew some bad teachers. Tell me a profession that is only represented by excellence that is conducted on the scale of educating all the children in a tremendously large nation. There are bad employees bobbing along in every profession, is the tax dollars that stick in your craw? I find that there is nothing like a public servant performing poorly to really get the drums beating.

Labor agreements that allow schools to fire bad teachers sound like a good solution to this problem. I have known many teachers and have realized that it's actuality a challenging job if you do it well. I think that education is a disaster in this country, and hope that we are on the cusp of a technological revolution where each child's abilities are tracked statistically, when they have mastered a concept they then move on to the next. Much better than trying to push 30 square pegs through the one round hole of a classroom, but even this method will demand that we have teachers.

Because I see that you do not understand. The teachers union supplies Labor to the process of education, without which there would be no such commodity as education. Labor is an intrinsic part of production, without which we would have no goods at all. there would be no benefit to provide in anyway without Labor. Labor does what it does for money, and in a liberal free society where government and considerations wield aggregate capital to their great advantage, it has been commonly accepted that workers will have the right to organize. Maybe you desire, as so many of our fellow Americans, to disenfranchise labor by removing it's right to collectively borrow. I find the idea of an America like that, one that rejects rights that have gradually become an accepted part of the worlds conception of human rights, distasteful and frightening.

I do find labor contracts that don't allow the firing of bad actors similarly distasteful and frightening. While I'm not really all that worked up by teachers unions, I am frightened by how often police in my city kill unarmed citizens and keep their jobs. I don't point my finger at the union or the cops when thinking about this situation, it's wholly the fault of governments inability to bargain effectively with public unions.





thenewgreen  ·  5113 days ago  ·  link  ·  
1. When did I say I didn't like summer vacation? I think it's fantastic, I just don't think its proper to credit it's existence with the teachers union. 2. It's not the tax dollars, it's the fact that (like you) I'm a new parent and I can't stand the fact that the teachers union protects incompetence. Are you familiar with the "rubber rooms" in the NYC school system? These are rooms where teachers that districts are trying to fire go to during the "investigation" process. They go to these room every day, sometimes for years, and collect full paychecks and benefits. -this is ridiculous. 3. "Because I see that you do not understand"? -Don't presume to know what I do and do not understand cgod, that statement says more about you than it does me. I come from a family of educators, good ones too. It is a very difficult job and it should be compensated accordingly. I truly think that if the union was out of the way, and teachers had access to pay raises based on performance and reviews (like nearly every other industry), the entire system would benefit. 4. "Maybe you desire, as so many of our fellow Americans, to disenfranchise labor by removing it's right to collectively borrow". -If you read my previous comment you would already know that I don't. I made it clear that many industries need unions to protect the three legs of business: the employee, the company and the consumer. I sincerely think that the teachers union stands in the way of "good teachers" when it protects the bad ones. worth checking out: http://teachersunionexposed.com/bargaining.cfm
cgod  ·  5112 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Like I said you don't understand. Unions aren't there to protect the company or the consumer, that isn't a unions function. A union is there to bargain on behalf of workers, attempting to get the highest price or workplace concessions that they can on behalf of those people they represent.

This right is stated in The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights in articular 23 part 4 and says "(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests." This isn't a union to aid business or consumers, why would workers pay dues for such a service? They pay dues so that the union will bargain on their behalf, hopefully getting the best deal they can for their members. The aggregate formation of capital can more then look out for itself most the time. Has government done a bad job negotiating contracts? Yes. I think you don't understand the purpose of a union.

So are you going to decide which industries can unionize and which can't? That will be a fun job, good luck with it. I think letting the market work it out will continue to be a good alternative to central planing. I know it may not seem like central planning to you or most people, but labor is one of the most central resources in the process of production, aside from giving the workers the same rights as cooperation, the right to combine their resources and bargaining power without fear of retribution, I think that it is probably not in our interest to try and pick who gets and universal human right and who doesn't. It seems to me that it's probably best to err on the side of as much human rights as we can.

Figure out what a unions duty is toward it's members and then assign blame to those that are really responsible for the situation. I know it's handy to put all the blame on the union's, we have developed a cultural bias against unionism, government spending and most socialist leaning programs in general. You probably think you don't have this bias, but it seems relatively clear by the way you are ready to assign blame on the unions and the workers for the state of public education that you do posses this bias. The ability to collectively bargain is important, I believe that it is a human right, you may not.

thenewgreen  ·  5112 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Alrighty, one more time. "unions aren't there to protect the company or the consumer". -In origin, yes you would be correct, however times have changed and unions are far more sophisticated than simple fist pounding and asking for more money etc. This is the NEA's mission statement, "Our mission is to advocate for education professionals and to unite our members and the nation to fulfill the promise of public education to prepare every student to succeed in a diverse and interdependent world" - 1.Employee=education professionals 2.Company=Public Education 3.Consumer=every student. -It's in their mission statement that they exist for all 3.

Unfortunately, they've done little in recent years to help any of the 3. The NEA consistently opposes merit pay, the loosening of tenure and broadening curriculum. -They exist to protect crappy teachers and make sure they get paid as much as the kick ass teachers. -Of which there are plenty and they deserve to earn more year over year like any other top performers in business. When asked about his opinion of the NEA, Steve Jobs (someone that knows a thing or two about running a successful organization) said, "What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in they couldn’t get rid of people that they thought weren’t any good"? -He's right, it doesn't make sense and it wont change so long as the NEA has control of our policy makers. If I were a really good, teacher (old or young) I would love to get merit pay, I would love to get rid of tenure and see the ineffectual teachers let go. I would know that I'm either going to have to teach the students the ineffectual teachers had or the ineffectual teachers are going to un-teach the students I just gave them. -Either way, it must be a horrible realization for educators.

Because I don't think YOU understand, here is an analogy you might relate to:

Imagine if you were a bartender and you worked with another bartender carl ever saturday night. You worked 3 times as hard every saturday as carl and still you split the tips evenly. Now imagine that the manager realizes how crappy carl is but he can't let him go because there's a rule against it unless carl gets 15 demerits. 2 years go by and finally carl gets his 15th demerit. Now, finally the manager can fire him. Now there is an open bar-tending position on saturday nights and you know that the best bartender in town (steve) is available and really wants the position. The manager really wants steve to be the new bartender too but unfortunately, there is a rule that the "tenured" employees get a shot at the position first. So, ted (a tenured employee) declares that he would like the job. Ted is worse than carl. The manager decides that he would rather not fill the position at all than let Ted have it. Now you have to work so hard on saturday night that it is impossible to stand it any more. They still take away half the tips and so you make no more money than you did before. You get burnt out. You quit. The restaurant just lost a really great employee. It sucks for you, it sucks for the restaurant and it sucks for the customers -they loved you.

This is the scenario the NEA has created. Am I anti union? No, I'm pro union in many cases. I just don't think the NEA is functional.

cgod  ·  5112 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Well BP is for a sustainable energy future and Monsanto is for living is sympathy with nature. Of course the unions have a nice little mission statement all ready for your gullible consumption.

LABOR UNIONS ARE THERE TO GET THE BEST DEAL THEY CAN FOR THEIR MEMBERS.

The mission statement just a bunch of empty rhetoric, maybe you didn't hear but all over the nation public unions are taking a beating. They fight back just like any interest group, with empty rhetoric, platitudes, money and lobbying. Get over the silly mission statement, it's not part of any point that is worth making. If you think it's meaningful than all I can say is you are gullible and don't understand (once again) the purpose of unions.

I come from a labor democrat household. Mom was a teacher, Dad worked for the auto companies. Maybe you have no real experience with how unions work, we talked a lot about them around the house, mom was a shop steward for her school, both my parents went to the occasional union meeting, partook in demonstrations, wrote letters ect.

My mother filed grievances for herself and on behalf of coworkers on several occasions. None of those grievances had anything to do with kids, every one had to do with relations between workers and management, because that is what the teachers union is about. Yes you are correct that union members rarely get merit pay for good performance, that is usually the type of thing you give up when you work at a union shop. In return for the loss of merit based rewards you usually receive higher levels of compensation then you would have if you hadn't had union representation and significantly better job security. I know many fine teachers that didn't get along with management and would have been pushed out on the basis of personality conflicts, the union stopped that from happening. I know another teacher who my mother taught with who was accused of molesting three girls, the union gave this guy aggressive legal council, one of the girl broke down on the stand and admitted to that the three of them had made the whole thing up in a revenge plot for what ever stupid teenage girls plot revenge on teacher for. Sure there are some bad apple, but there are also bumps in the road in a mufti-decade career that shouldn't make you lose your pension which unions sometimes prevent.

I have worked with terrible bartenders, terrible grocers, terrible waiters, terrible caddies, terrible cooks, terrible busboys, terrible food runners, had terrible partners for school projects, suffered through terrible room mates. Guess what, there are incompetent boobs everywhere who management wont/can't get rid of, only in this case management is government we elected. It's not the unions fault, they are just doing what they were made to do, represent all dues paying members to the best of their ability. You can continue to vilify the unions, but it's really not their fault, they just did their job well. It's the public who elected people to represent our interest that have agreed to these contracts, if it matters to you make it a voting issue. If you really want to get rid of the teachers unions then move to WI. and join ranks with Scott Walker, he doesn't believe in universal human rights either, hell at least send him a check.

hootsbox  ·  5089 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I would agree with thenewgreen in that there is a role for unions (especially historically) with issues such as working conditions, child labor, sub-standard wages (below competitive wage rates for like positions or responsibilities), and management abuses. However, to say that unions exist for the interest of "all" their members is a modern day misnomer. Union leadership, with in many cases mandatory union dues (as opposed to voluntary), represent one particular political party, even when up to 50% of members don't favor that particular political bent, and spent those dues in ways that don't represent those 50% of members. For instance, the retiring General Counsel for the NEA stated that they had influence because of the contribution of their 3.2 million members like they all pay "voluntarily" when we all know they are, many times, "required to pay dues and join the union" in order to work in that field. This is not in the "memberships' interest, but in the interest of centralizing "power" just like many people accuse big business of doing (and many unions are "big business"). They contributed 200 million dollars almost entirely to one political party and most of it "went down the tubes". Why not spend less on "political gains" and return over half of that back to teachers pay! They would never hear of that because they want POWER. In that sense, I can also agree with "thenewgreen" in that unions in the public sector are quite different from unions in the private sector. In the public sector, I (the union) can contribute to a certain candidate (s) and help them get elected. Then we get together and negotiate, not with our own money or private corporate revunes and wages, but with the future income of future generations (none of which we have a contribution towards) Then, we negotiate deals (many times well above the competitive rate of the market and in many cases economically unfeasible), with money that is not generated by the market and profits, but by confiscatory, forcible taxation, that add unrealistic burdens on individuals and states in the future whether they can pay for it or not! This is NOT "collective bargaining"; this is "collective bludgeoning" of citizens and taxpayers. This is the abuse that has been alluded to in other comments. We need to stem the tide of this trend (which I believe is wrong, immoral and abusive) of "negotiating" (which is nothing more that politcal favors) burdensome contracts that confiscate future wage earners' income. By the way, I believe we need to review all the political influence of entities, union and non-union alike, on the policies invoked on the American people. A union can abuse their power just like corporate entities (including Hedge Fund Managers that push for higher taxes, but have most of their assets shielded from income tax by registering them in foreign countires - HYPOCRITES!) I don't have all the answers, but we can work together to make a better system of "statespeople" and not "politicians" on the Federal, State and Local levels.
thenewgreen  ·  5112 days ago  ·  link  ·  
For the fourth time, yes that's right FOUR times I've said this, I think unions have a real and necessary place in our society. Creating an image of me as "anti-union, Scott Walker-esque" is by your creation, not mine. The best run and most successful organizations have a mission statement that they actually use as a compass for the decisions they make. You are right, it is a meaningless statement to the likes of Monsanto and BP, "empty rhetoric", but should it be empty rhetoric for an organization that has the most impact on our nations education system? -NO, it shouldn't be, but by your admission, it is. This is why they are no longer a benefit to the teachers they represent. If the policy you pay the govt. to implement hurts the industry in which you work, that's counter intuitive. -We saw this with the automotive industry. Auto makers buried themselves under the heavy sands of entitlements that the UAW helped shovel on them. Auto workers are often prohibited from doing any task that falls outside their exact "job description", if you do, you will hear about it from the Union. Unskilled laborers get paid an excess of 70k a year. "Slow down, you're working too fast, soon they'll expect all of us to "work". I grew up near Detroit, my entire family either works for the auto industry directly or for a company that supplies them. I understand Unions from first hand accounts too. Difference is, my accounts growing up were of family members griping about corruption and the lazy idiots they had to work with.

To read the thread of comments I have made regarding the "teachers union", and then say that I "don't believe in human rights", is just silly. mk mentioned that TX does not have a teachers union. I'm not sure how long this has been the case, but I imagine by now there have been a number of "human rights violations" there? Because without a teachers union, it would be pandemonium.

Below is an analogy that makes my point regarding the teachers union. I copied and pasted it from another thread where you accuse me of being against "universal human rights": Question: if you owned a home with a horrible foundation, leaky roof, rat infestation and rotting walls and infrastructure, would you take 20 years to individually fix each "complex" problem? No, you would likely do one of two things, you would either abandon the house all together or tear it down and rebuild. -The Teachers Union needs to either revamp itself drastically or be abolished all together.

mk  ·  5112 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I think that unions can fix problems they have. Texas doesn't have teacher unions, and their public schools aren't at the head of the pack.

http://www.psk12.com/rating/USthreeRsphp/STATE_US_level_Elem... http://www.psk12.com/rating/USthreeRsphp/STATE_US_level_Midd...

Every business, service and insitution has problems. I'm sure we could find abuses at Goldman Sachs, or at Comcast, or in the US Army that would be just as shocking. But, does that mean we should abolish these institutions? Teacher unions could benefit from reform, but collective bargaining needn't be tossed out for teachers. Would you suggest that collective bargaining be prohibited for teachers?

Teaching is a demanding job. Having 30+ kids in front of you for your entire workday isn't easy. Also, grading, conferences, calls to parents, etc. means that many after school hours are spent working. Better metrics for teacher performance, less friction in hiring and firing, and smaller class sizes would probably be a good start.

I have a lot of educators in my family. I've found that for each student that is having problems, it can almost always be traced to a parent that isn't supportive of their kid's education. Many parents expect that education of their children is only up to the schools. And now, they are told that teachers are failing their kids. I've had many good teachers and a few bad ones. However, the most important component to my education was the support of my parents. They asked me what happened at school, checked on my homework, helped me with my homework, and closely monitored my grades. Without that support, it wouldn't have mattered if my teachers were good ones or bad ones.