Teachers Need to Work for Minimum Wage

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

400×599 121 KB

http://www.ednewscolorado.org/2012/08/22/43079-dougco-mulls-proposals-ending-union-ties

What would schools be like without unions?

Hmmm…things like Algebra and English Literature don’t change much. So, when teachers get to be about 50 years old or so, fire them and replace with fresh graduates. Or if their child gets sick, fire them and get someone with no kids. If the teacher has the temerity to want to replace a leaky roof or get the transmission on their car fixed, fire them immediately.

Solution to all this? Have all teachers work at minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever. That way, they can be drained until they either retire and get their $700/month SS check, or have to go on welfare. They’d never own a car, never could afford to have kids, never afford a house.

THIS is your schools without teacher unions. Your schools…as Wal-marts…

What a brilliant plan!!!

2

That’s where Texas education is headed in part because they don’t have unions with any teeth.

3

Here’s a(n) (new) idea for schools.

For the first year, professional educators/tutors/teachers/whatever teach the students.
The next year, those students teach the next grade.
They reinforce what they’ve learned and it would free up teachers time to work with the kids that need a little more attention or if a peer is having a hard time getting through to someone.

4

Good point HH.

5

Comrade Florelius, I eagerly await your response in the other thread?!

6

[quote]florelius wrote:
Good point HH. [/quote]

If a fresh graduate can teach Algebra or English or whatever, there is no reason to keep teachers who are higher up the pay scale.

So just fire them. They can find jobs in construction or waste disposal, maybe even clerking at Wal-Mart. Anyone with a masters degree in teaching with 20 or 25 years of experience should understand that they can be replaced by fresh grads. They should plan on hoisting garbage cans or working at a Wal-Mart checkout as the endpoint of their careers.

It makes sense from the school’s point of view – save a lot of salary, lower insurance costs for younger teachers. Just fire all teachers over the age of 40.

Taxpayers are happy, parents are happy, school admins are happy…sounds like a winner!!

7

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Good point HH. [/quote]

If a fresh graduate can teach Algebra or English or whatever, there is no reason to keep teachers who are higher up the pay scale.

So just fire them. They can find jobs in construction or waste disposal, maybe even clerking at Wal-Mart. Anyone with a masters degree in teaching with 20 or 25 years of experience should understand that they can be replaced by fresh grads. They should plan on hoisting garbage cans or working at a Wal-Mart checkout as the endpoint of their careers.

It makes sense from the school’s point of view – save a lot of salary, lower insurance costs for younger teachers. Just fire all teachers over the age of 40.

Taxpayers are happy, parents are happy, school admins are happy…sounds like a winner!!
[/quote]

First of all this is classic rationing, you get a poorer product for the same price.

Public education, socialized health care, socialized garbage disposal, that is what you get every single time.

Second of all, the reason why this is rationing is necessary is in part because public unions have priced their senior members out of the market, or, more correctly, out of the price range the strained tax payers can and are willing to bear.

Create a free market and watch good teachers be treated like rockstars and the rest SHOULD work at WalMart until they find employment that suits them better.

8

What would the incentive to go to school to become a teacher when you know your career would be short and poorly paid ?

9

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Good point HH. [/quote]

If a fresh graduate can teach Algebra or English or whatever, there is no reason to keep teachers who are higher up the pay scale.

So just fire them. They can find jobs in construction or waste disposal, maybe even clerking at Wal-Mart. Anyone with a masters degree in teaching with 20 or 25 years of experience should understand that they can be replaced by fresh grads. They should plan on hoisting garbage cans or working at a Wal-Mart checkout as the endpoint of their careers.

It makes sense from the school’s point of view – save a lot of salary, lower insurance costs for younger teachers. Just fire all teachers over the age of 40.

Taxpayers are happy, parents are happy, school admins are happy…sounds like a winner!!
[/quote]

First of all this is classic rationing, you get a poorer product for the same price.

Public education, socialized health care, socialized garbage disposal, that is what you get every single time.

Second of all, the reason why this is rationing is necessary is in part because public unions have priced their senior members out of the market, or, more correctly, out of the price range the strained tax payers can and are willing to bear.

Create a free market and watch good teachers be treated like rockstars and the rest SHOULD work at WalMart until they find employment that suits them better. [/quote]

IMO this is not a well reasoned post.What you would have ,is people who are not qualified deciding who is qualified .

There is nothing wrong with socialism , it has been part of America since our inception . WE just do not want to give up our free market (which I agree with).

I think the Idea is to constantly strive for a better education system .

No one will treat good teachers like Rock Stars . If you are a good teacher you will have a hard enough time getting a pay better than Home Depot pays .

10

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
What would the incentive to go to school to become a teacher when you know your career would be short and poorly paid ?[/quote]

Altruism. You have to want to suffer, for the benefit of the children.

The goal of any teacher should be to suffer miserably with semi-literate and semi-numerate savages at minimum wage. Everyone is happy – the taxpayers get a tax cut, the parents get daycare for cheap, and the admins get to build nice air conditioned buildings with plenty of minions to order around – except the teachers. The reward for teachers is beyond the grave.

Didn’t Jesus set up dying a miserable death for the benefit of others as a moral ideal? Heck, teachers get to live a miserable LIFE, for the benefit of grubby teenagers and the like.

11

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
What would the incentive to go to school to become a teacher when you know your career would be short and poorly paid ?[/quote]

Altruism. You have to want to suffer, for the benefit of the children.

The goal of any teacher should be to suffer miserably with semi-literate and semi-numerate savages at minimum wage. Everyone is happy – the taxpayers get a tax cut, the parents get daycare for cheap, and the admins get to build nice air conditioned buildings with plenty of minions to order around – except the teachers. The reward for teachers is beyond the grave.

Didn’t Jesus set up dying a miserable death for the benefit of others as a moral ideal? Heck, teachers get to live a miserable LIFE, for the benefit of grubby teenagers and the like.

[/quote]

I am sure I am guilty , I am pretty sure you are playing devils advocate

12

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
What would the incentive to go to school to become a teacher when you know your career would be short and poorly paid ?[/quote]

Mwuahahaha…

What would be the incentive to become a doctor if you know your career would be short and poorly paid ?

There is none.

None whatsoever.

Oh my.

13

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

What would schools be like without unions?[/quote]

Public schools? Better. Public teachers’ unions are not negotiating for their fair share of a “pie” that is growing (unlike private unions) - they are combining resources to elect hacks to preserve them from accountability and competition.

14

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

What would schools be like without unions?[/quote]

Public schools? Better. Public teachers’ unions are not negotiating for their fair share of a “pie” that is growing (unlike private unions) - they are combining resources to elect hacks to preserve them from accountability and competition.[/quote]

Don’t forget to protect pedophiles.

Edit: Yeah, that doesn’t feel as good as I thought it would. Still not sure why people throw fallacious one lines out.

15

[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< Didn’t Jesus set up dying a miserable death for the benefit of others as a moral ideal? >>>[/quote]Not bad. Progress here? [quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< Heck, teachers get to live a miserable LIFE, for the benefit of grubby teenagers and the like.[/quote]And you were doin so much better for a second there.

16

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

What would schools be like without unions?[/quote]

Public schools? Better. Public teachers’ unions are not negotiating for their fair share of a “pie” that is growing (unlike private unions) - they are combining resources to elect hacks to preserve them from accountability and competition.[/quote]

Sam works 20 years at Wal-Mart High School, making $60,000 this past year, teaching English Literature.

Bob graduates from Costco University and will teach the same English Literature classes for $30,000.

What prevents a superintendent from firing Sam? The superintendent can fire Sam, hire Bob, and have $30,000 left over for the budget. They could cut taxes and still have left over money.

Must a teacher live in a trailer park in order to teach? Well, taxpayers don’t care, parents don’t care, and the administrators have more money for ‘conferences’ in Vegas or the Virgin Islands.

Yep, teachers should all work for minimum wage.

17

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Setting up as a moral ideal something that 99.9% of people can’t/won’t do is an old trick. Teach the impossible as being moral, then cash in on guilt.

But I digress from the thread topic…

18

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

What prevents a superintendent from firing Sam? The superintendent can fire Sam, hire Bob, and have $30,000 left over for the budget. They could cut taxes and still have left over money. [/quote]

It’s reductionist scenario, but in any event, how is this scenario any different for anyone else? Wouldn’t this be true for an investment banker, a backhoe operator or an IT guy? Should these guys have the same insulation from job loss that you clearly seek for teachers for the exact same reasons? If not, why not?

No, but shouldn’t they do a better a job and be held accountable for the job they do? Because if your answer to that is “yes”, then you aren’t of the same opinion as the teachers’ unions.

19

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

What prevents a superintendent from firing Sam? The superintendent can fire Sam, hire Bob, and have $30,000 left over for the budget. They could cut taxes and still have left over money. [/quote]

It’s reductionist scenario, but in any event, how is this scenario any different for anyone else? Wouldn’t this be true for an investment banker, a backhoe operator or an IT guy? Should these guys have the same insulation from job loss that you clearly seek for teachers for the exact same reasons? If not, why not?

No, but shouldn’t they do a better a job and be held accountable for the job they do? Because if your answer to that is “yes”, then you aren’t of the same opinion as the teachers’ unions.[/quote]

The difference is that a graduating teacher can pretty much do most of what an experienced teacher can do. Sure, the ‘old hand’ has more tricks up their sleeve and so forth; but the young grad has enthusiasm. Algebra is algebra. Spanish is Spanish.

Thus, you make my point. Since teaching doesn’t make money like a banker or dig up a yard like a backhoe operator, it can’t be quantified except in some sort of nominal way. Therefore any sane superintendent will fire older teachers, to save money.

The way to avoid this is to pay all teachers, all of them, minimum wage with no benefits. Americans love cheap Chinese imports; just turn the teachers into coolies.

Lower taxes, happy parents, administrators flush with cash…it shld be a win-win.

20

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The difference is that a graduating teacher can pretty much do most of what an experienced teacher can do. Sure, the ‘old hand’ has more tricks up their sleeve and so forth; but the young grad has enthusiasm. Algebra is algebra. Spanish is Spanish.[/quote]

Exactly. And instead of a bunch of comfortably tenured, sleepwalking hacks who snooze through their job, how about of a bunch of motivated, unjaded youngsters eager to make a difference in a kid’s life?

You said yourself they are basically fungible in terms of knowledge content. Don’t the kids deserve someone who cares and has energy?

Well, it doesn’t have to be that way - if the Old Guard could turn years of experience into an advantage (which they are), then they’d be worth the higher price. Right now, too many of them just aren’t worth a damn, no matter what you pay them. They’re lazy, entitled, and uninterested in anything that challenges their monopoly - like actually educating kids.

No is buying your pity party for teachers, least of all me. Teachers should be compensated more, not less, in my view - but too many are like you: they want the easy life and a fat sinecure from the state while never having to worry about someone actually determining if they are doing their job.