Let me reiterate that my wife was (is still licensed to be) a public school teacher (as well as almost half of our family. I’m not “anti-teacher”, nor do I think they should be paid minimum wage. They are professionals, and important ones. However, I do NOT think they should be exempt from market forces and performance review (and receive bonuses or demotions based on performance).
[/quote]
‘Market forces’? What ‘market forces’? The government runs a monopoly and even taxes those who send their kids elsewhere.
I shouldn’t have to keep explaining over and over again how THIS IS NOT A FREE MARKET SYSTEM. It is a monopoly wherein wages were (are) set below market. Why do you think the government set it up as a monopoly in the first place?
I also shouldn’t have to explain over and over that teachers formed unions as THE ONLY WAY to battle a monopoly which was (is) underpaying them.
Hello? H-E-L-L-O…
[/quote]
Private school teachers largely are non-unionized. They are paid according to what the boards/orgs that run the school will pay them as set by demand.
Public school teachers only encourage the government education compulsory education monopoly by tenuously sticking to union demands, negotiating WITH government, to set wages paid by the government (ie taxapayers)
The REAL solution is not to gouge the taxpayers for more money, but to collectively campaign AGAINST government schools.
I have NEVER heard the teachers unions take this position.
Again, the UNIONS do NOTHING to MITIGATE the GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY. They only MAKE IT LARGER by DEMANDING MORE while PROVIDING LESS.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I don’t belong to any union. But people should be free to join/form unions, for the legal purpose of negotiating better wages, and so forth. Is that what you don’t like?
[/quote]
Yep. Nothing wrong with unions in theory. it’s the protection and favoritism given to unions that most here should be upset with. That being said, it is not surprising that people lash out against entities they see as having an unfair advantage and monopolizing on it. As an example, I won’t be buying any cars built by the UAW after the sweetheart deal they got courtesy of the taxpayer. I have absolutely nothing against any individual UAW worker.
When someone pays off political cronies on my dime, I get pissed off. Multiply that by quite a bit for our education system. Is it really a surprise that many feel the same way about teachers’ unions as you feel about Walmart?
Unions should be held to the same standards and laws as private business. How many large unions would exist without the Wagner act? Can’t recall if the Wagner act exempted unions from anti-trust laws or if it was in the Sherman act itself. What if unions were held to the same arbitrary anti-trust laws as private business?
[/quote]
X 1000.
It becomes a massive problem when unions are raping the system. This is the problem we are having here, where shitty teachers can’t get fired, they get re-assigned, and teachers who like to fiddle the diddle of kids get paid while on investigation. Unions USED to be a good thing, but they have evolved into a monster that no taxpayer has to yield to.
[/quote]
As HH was repeteadly trying to point out:
You build the system, what did you think you were going to get?
[/quote]
However, he’s now defending the status quo of union demanding more from taxpayers while providing less.
The original article in this thread illustrates that beautifully.
Additionally, unions largely have become nothing more than (democrat leaning) PAC’s for the types of politics, programs, and government growth that I abhor. I’d just assume dissolve every one of them.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I don’t belong to any union. But people should be free to join/form unions, for the legal purpose of negotiating better wages, and so forth. Is that what you don’t like?
[/quote]
Yep. Nothing wrong with unions in theory. it’s the protection and favoritism given to unions that most here should be upset with. That being said, it is not surprising that people lash out against entities they see as having an unfair advantage and monopolizing on it. As an example, I won’t be buying any cars built by the UAW after the sweetheart deal they got courtesy of the taxpayer. I have absolutely nothing against any individual UAW worker.
When someone pays off political cronies on my dime, I get pissed off. Multiply that by quite a bit for our education system. Is it really a surprise that many feel the same way about teachers’ unions as you feel about Walmart?
Unions should be held to the same standards and laws as private business. How many large unions would exist without the Wagner act? Can’t recall if the Wagner act exempted unions from anti-trust laws or if it was in the Sherman act itself. What if unions were held to the same arbitrary anti-trust laws as private business?
[/quote]
X 1000.
It becomes a massive problem when unions are raping the system. This is the problem we are having here, where shitty teachers can’t get fired, they get re-assigned, and teachers who like to fiddle the diddle of kids get paid while on investigation. Unions USED to be a good thing, but they have evolved into a monster that no taxpayer has to yield to.
[/quote]
As HH was repeteadly trying to point out:
You build the system, what did you think you were going to get?
[/quote]
However, he’s now defending the status quo of union demanding more from taxpayers while providing less.
The original article in this thread illustrates that beautifully.
Additionally, unions largely have become nothing more than (democrat leaning) PAC’s for the types of politics, programs, and government growth that I abhor. I’d just assume dissolve every one of them.[/quote]
He was pointing out that the teachers only had two choices:
Either be at the mercy of politicians, democratically elected ones even, or to build their own monopoly to bargain with their employer.
Now they were probably more succesful than most, but if it were not them it would be someone else.
They just have a snappy slogan like " we educate your children! " and that is what is rewarded in democratic socialism.
The notion that teachers unions negotiating ever increasing salaries, benefits, wages, and ever shorter work years is incongruous with the notion that those unions are somehow ‘fighting’ the government monopoly on education. It shows them (ie the teachers unions) to be a self-serving group interested only in self-preservation and advancement.
The unions do nothing to actually attempt to dissolve the monopoly, they only give it more power. It’s a sympathetic relationship and neither can survive without the other. Both government and teachers unions exist only to serve themselves.
It’s an absurd position to take to say the the teacher’s union somehow exists to ‘fight’ the government monopoly.
The notion that teachers unions negotiating ever increasing salaries, benefits, wages, and ever shorter work years is incongruous with the notion that those unions are somehow ‘fighting’ the government monopoly on education. It shows them (ie the teachers unions) to be a self-serving group interested only in self-preservation and advancement.
The unions do nothing to actually attempt to dissolve the monopoly, they only give it more power. It’s a sympathetic relationship and neither can survive without the other. Both government and teachers unions exist only to serve themselves.
It’s an absurd position to take to say the the teacher’s union somehow exists to ‘fight’ the government monopoly.[/quote]
Where is the problem?
They were founded to fight for them and they fought so well that they have won.
Or rather they have made a truce with the government at the taxpayers expense.
That is simply the nature of the game and the people who thought that education is a “right” that must be provided by the state made it happen.
To lay the blame on some or other collective does not change the game, something else would fill the niche of the teachers unions if they were dissolved tomorrow.
Nevada business sector likes speech, teachers union scoffs at donations for salary.
Business leaders applauded Gov. Jim Gibbons’ call for smaller government, but others said he should have focused on ways to save schools in his State of the State speech on Monday night.
Funny, I’m having a REALLY hard time finding examples of Teachers Unions “fighting” the “government monopoly on education”. I’ve done search upon search upon search. I seem to be finding a lot of “union wants more money”, “union fights charter schools”, “union donates to Democrats (ie. bigger government”, but, funny, NOTHING on ANY attempt to reduce government compulsory schooling.
Please, help me find what some people claim to be the ‘obvious’ intent of the Teachers Union(s)
The notion that teachers unions negotiating ever increasing salaries, benefits, wages, and ever shorter work years is incongruous with the notion that those unions are somehow ‘fighting’ the government monopoly on education. It shows them (ie the teachers unions) to be a self-serving group interested only in self-preservation and advancement.
The unions do nothing to actually attempt to dissolve the monopoly, they only give it more power. It’s a sympathetic relationship and neither can survive without the other. Both government and teachers unions exist only to serve themselves.
It’s an absurd position to take to say the the teacher’s union somehow exists to ‘fight’ the government monopoly.[/quote]
Where is the problem?
They were founded to fight for them and they fought so well that they have won.
Or rather they have made a truce with the government at the taxpayers expense.
That is simply the nature of the game and the people who thought that education is a “right” that must be provided by the state made it happen.
To lay the blame on some or other collective does not change the game, something else would fill the niche of the teachers unions if they were dissolved tomorrow.[/quote]
And here we’ve come full circle.
That is why I wholly support this superintendent firing every last one of them. Let someone else come in and renegotiate new terms of employment based on what the super needs to be done to correct a failing school. The existing teachers union has failed the school, its attending families, and the taxpayers in that district.
Nevada business sector likes speech, teachers union scoffs at donations for salary.
Business leaders applauded Gov. Jim Gibbons’ call for smaller government, but others said he should have focused on ways to save schools in his State of the State speech on Monday night.
Funny, I’m having a REALLY hard time finding examples of Teachers Unions “fighting” the “government monopoly on education”. I’ve done search upon search upon search. I seem to be finding a lot of “union wants more money”, “union fights charter schools”, “union donates to Democrats (ie. bigger government”, but, funny, NOTHING on ANY attempt to reduce government compulsory schooling.
Please, help me find what some people claim to be the ‘obvious’ intent of the Teachers Union(s)[/quote]
Well if they really hired younger teachers to replace the older ones and if they really did cut the teachers salaries because it was very easy to do so, being the only employer and all, the teachers unions were a reaction to that.
Now of course, once they were in place the unions leaders came to realize that their cushy positions depended entirely on that the system stayed exactly the way it was.
A corporatist/soialist/fascist world is a syndicalist world, either you band together to have bargaining power or you are fucked.
It shows them (ie the teachers unions) to be a self-serving group interested only in self-preservation and advancement.
[/quote]
Ummmmm… yeah. Of course. ECON 101, Adam Smith stuff here. People worry about themselves and their own self-interest… as they should. Don’t blame the teachers for the system.
You’re not turning into a socialist on us, are you?
It shows them (ie the teachers unions) to be a self-serving group interested only in self-preservation and advancement.
[/quote]
Ummmmm… yeah. Of course. ECON 101, Adam Smith stuff here. People worry about themselves and their own self-interest… as they should. Don’t blame the teachers for the system.
You’re not turning into a socialist on us, are you?
[/quote]
That’s actually funny.
My ‘self-interest’ is of the taxpayer (me) not getting raped. I’m watchin’ out for m’cornhole.
I’ve voted against my ‘self-interest’ quite a few times actually. When I consulted for state dept. of Transportation, I voted against every single Trans. Bond (we have them every year). Those monies directly affected my job. They passed, but my conscious is clear.
I work in the energy sector and am right smack-dab in the middle of the “Smart Grid” initiative where the prez pushed about a billion dollars into. I’m all set, thank you very much. I voted against it.
My wife and a large portion of my family (mentioning for the third time) is/was/are public school teachers. That doesn’t change my position.
In other words, I’m pretty consistent in my beliefs and act accordingly.
“Don’t blame the teachers for the system.” and “Don’t hate the player, hate the game” make nice bumper stickers but do little to change anything.
Unionized teachers are just perpetuating the system, so, indeed, they do deserve their ‘fair share’ of the blame.
Let me reiterate that my wife was (is still licensed to be) a public school teacher (as well as almost half of our family. I’m not “anti-teacher”, nor do I think they should be paid minimum wage. They are professionals, and important ones. However, I do NOT think they should be exempt from market forces and performance review (and receive bonuses or demotions based on performance). [/quote]
Agreed.
Agreed. Now how are we going to review teacher performance? Some teachers (often private schools) have students with parents that care a lot. Some teachers not so much.
Sorry, this is a catch word in education/law/social services/whatever. Ask your wife or google it. There are a lot of definitions, but the core idea is kids who, based upon their home life, are “at risk” for a lot of problems.
I agree. That doesn’t exclude parental involvement in public schools. I think it’s pretty well established that parental involvement in any educational setting is beneficial (pvt, public, home school, etc.)
I do my best – The other questions, I don’t know, but this thread really isn’t about parental involvement determining the success of students. It’s about an administrator (ie a manager) laying out a plan as to what they thought was best for the school’s performance and the union stepping in and saying ‘our teachers will absolutely not do any more work than what is minimally required by contract’. It’s not clear whether some teachers stepped up to the task, but as a whole, the union stance is that these teachers in a poor performing school will not do any more work.[/quote][/quote]
See, this is where we disagree. I think the problems primarily lay with administration. At another “problem school” I worked at I was told the emergency plan for the school (ie if there is a fire/bomb/etc) was “secret” from the teachers. The teacher translated this for me… they didn’t have one. Think about the implications of that… IMO the administration needed to be fired… the teacher (who I met) was doing the best with what little she had.
If you want to see where a LOT of the problems with education comes from, look towards administration. The “plans” are often the problem. I’m not sure why you like “central planning” in terms of education.
Check out the Wire season 4 (thanks for whoever reminded me of this) for more.
Sad story. That scenario doesn’t remotely apply to me, my children, or frankly, this thread, so I couldn’t even speculate.[/quote]
But it does apply to this thread, and to your point that I initially quoted above. If we are going to base teacher pay to performance (as we should), we cannot directly compare the class above with (for example) the classes I grew up in (private school where the parents were very involved) or other schools where there is a lot of parental involvement. This was the comparison you made that I was calling into question.
Go back, re-read what I quoted from HH and you, ask your wife what “at risk” means, then you’ll see how it relates.
[quote]orion wrote:
Dont hate the player, hate the game.
[/quote]
This was my point. My secondary point is that you can’t blame other players in the game (tax payers) for not being supportive of a competing team.
You see, Gambit, I think at least in this case, we agree about the problems more than we might have thought.
And to be clear, I DON’T disagree with your statement about administration, at least in the example you sited above.
In my state, a large portion of money is wasted on high paying, redundant administration of school systems (I think I stated that before). We have cases of several small school systems with a total of just a couple thousand students with THREE superintendents, each making 6 figure salaries… There’s blame to be placed all around.
re: At risk students - OK, now I’m clear on ‘at risk’. Well, honestly, I don’t know what you do with that girl in that case. Is that girls’ scenario the norm or the exception? You can’t base the whole system on the exception. From what my wife describes, there are teachers who specialize in (in some cases) adn procedures set up (SATs?) to try to accommodate at risk students.
Hell, my kids could still end up ‘at risk’ even though we’re involved. There’s no guarantee with anyone’s kids.
Nevada business sector likes speech, teachers union scoffs at donations for salary.
Business leaders applauded Gov. Jim Gibbons’ call for smaller government, but others said he should have focused on ways to save schools in his State of the State speech on Monday night.
Funny, I’m having a REALLY hard time finding examples of Teachers Unions “fighting” the “government monopoly on education”. I’ve done search upon search upon search. I seem to be finding a lot of “union wants more money”, “union fights charter schools”, “union donates to Democrats (ie. bigger government”, but, funny, NOTHING on ANY attempt to reduce government compulsory schooling.
Please, help me find what some people claim to be the ‘obvious’ intent of the Teachers Union(s)[/quote]
Well if they really hired younger teachers to replace the older ones and if they really did cut the teachers salaries because it was very easy to do so, being the only employer and all, the teachers unions were a reaction to that.
Now of course, once they were in place the unions leaders came to realize that their cushy positions depended entirely on that the system stayed exactly the way it was.
A corporatist/soialist/fascist world is a syndicalist world, either you band together to have bargaining power or you are fucked.
Dont hate the player, hate the game.
[/quote]
Someone gets it. Finally! And thanks for trying to explain it to the others. I couldn’t think of any other way to make the point.
Unionized teachers are just perpetuating the system, so, indeed, they do deserve their ‘fair share’ of the blame.[/quote]
We’re progressing. And now we can start to have some agreement – teacher unions are not helpful relative to a free market educational system. If schools competed for teachers and if teachers got compensated for performance, then unions be damnned.
But until public education and its monopoly power are in the dustbin of history, teachers will unionize to protect themselves.
BTW – you DO realize that without the unions and with the public school monopoly, teachers would be making what K-Mart clerks make? How would you ‘love’ the quality of teaching THEN?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BTW – you DO realize that without the unions and with the public school monopoly, teachers would be making what K-Mart clerks make? How would you ‘love’ the quality of teaching THEN?
[/quote]
Absolutely untrue. Thousands upon thousands of non-gov’t teacher prove this annually and provide consistent quality educations to children.
Don’t let your emotional argument get in the way of facts.
And if this RI superintendent has her way, to hire non-union teachers – what, HH, do you oppose her being freely able to do this, or those prospective job applicants being freely able to apply for the job and without union thug interference? – the market rate she will have to pay will prove to be considerably higher than that for K-mart clerks.
Unionized teachers are just perpetuating the system, so, indeed, they do deserve their ‘fair share’ of the blame.[/quote]
We’re progressing. And now we can start to have some agreement – teacher unions are not helpful relative to a free market educational system. If schools competed for teachers and if teachers got compensated for performance, then unions be damnned.
But until public education and its monopoly power are in the dustbin of history, teachers will unionize to protect themselves.
BTW – you DO realize that without the unions and with the public school monopoly, teachers would be making what K-Mart clerks make? How would you ‘love’ the quality of teaching THEN?
[/quote]
What about protecting bad teachers?
What about keeping pay down for good teachers?
What about apposing voucher systems?
What about donating and supporting candidates that perpetuate the gov’t monopoly?
Please explain how teachers unions are doing anything to break the gov’t monopoly on education and not exploiting it.
