Teachers Need to Work for Minimum Wage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]kamui wrote:

  • Minimum wage in France : ~ 1500 euros
    my wage as a teacher : ~ 1700 euros

** There is something harder than firing a teacher from his job : expeling a student from his school.
the day we can do that, we can talk.
[/quote]Look here Francois. Your geography is pretty bad for a teacher. This is the U.S. here. You remember. North America? 4th of July and all that? You guys helped us? Marquis de Lafayette? Statue of Liberty? What, pray tell, does your situation way over there in Gay Parie have to do with this? (of course I’m only joshin ya bud)

62

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Without a free market in education it is literally impossible to tell. [/quote]

Well, no - the free market isn’t the only thing that sets or evaluates a price. If a government won’t pay someone a higher amount for an advanced degree for a particular state job, it ain’t worth it (economically).[/quote]

For the individual no, but a Masters degree might have added value for the customer, had it not been local government.

Some schools or parents might have gladly paid.

We will never know, we could not possibly know.

Mis allocation due to calculation problem and whatnot.

63

Well, I think what we see with charter school is what we would see if the government schools where with out unions. Many, not all, charter schools are doing well with teaching students, and the pay and benefits tend to be good for those that work in these school.

One problem area for the public/government unions though is that they are bankrupting cities. California is one of many states that are dealing with this issue. Saw the other day that California has secretly put together a plan to deal with the issue.

“California Prepares Major Pension Bill in Secrecy”

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/08/27/california-prepares-major-pension-bill-in-secrecy/

snippet:

“…While Governor Brown?s proposals were just a beginning, at least they gave us something to go on. Have the Democrats strengthened Brown?s proposals or watered them down? Almost certainly the latter, but still don?t know.
Yet while we are disappointed with the lack of information, we sympathize with the Democratic Party?s plight in California. The Democrats desperately need to appear to be independent of the state?s voracious public sector unions in order to win voter support for a big tax increase. But they also cannot afford to alienate the motor of their party?the public union movement. To look independent while serving one?s master is a tough proposition. Let?s see how they manage.
Meanwhile, the stakes are high. On the one hand, state workers past and present have legitimate concerns. Most of the pensions they receive are quite modest (and in lieu of Social Security), and workers should certainly get them. On the other hand, all across California, poorly structured, poorly paid for pensions are now literally destroying the ability of cities, towns, and the state itself to provide basic services to constituents. Balancing these two conflicting interests is a tough if not impossible proposition, but it?s also in state officials? job descriptions.
Aside from pandering to the unions while pleasing the voters, at some point the legislature must also deal with the real problems the state is facing. Perhaps they will succeed, but California?s disastrous governance record over several decades now suggests that, as usual, they will disappoint.”

64

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

No one as yet has shown me a way to quantify teacher value and hence their pay.[/quote]

You mean other than all the ones we discussed earlier, including Doogie’s contribution?

There’s ways of doing it, and while they aren’t perfect, they are good. You just don’t like them, because you don’t have any interest in having older teachers being held accoutable for their performance.

Well, no, you’re not even making sense - you said there is no real difference in the performance of the young, cheap teacher and the old, expensive teacher. If that is the case, we’re going to get the same amount of quality either way (what you call the “absolute minimum”), we’ll just save money doing it. That makes good, practical sense.

As for teachers, they can go be something other than teachers, of course. But, there’s a catch - they might actually have to work for a living, like everyone else.

If they are terrible teachers, why shouldn’t they?[/quote]

LOL! So who decides who the good teachers are and by what rubric? Everything posted is a matter of opinion.

An investment banker can say, “Look, I made 10 million dollars for you last year!!” How does a teacher show something like that?

Admit it – you want a Cadillac at Chevy prices. Then, like most Americans, you’re pissed that you didn’t get your Cadillac.

Sorry, Sam…ya really do get exactly what ya pay for.

65

[quote]Menthol wrote:
Well, I think what we see with charter school is what we would see if the government schools where with out unions. Many, not all, charter schools are doing well with teaching students, and the pay and benefits tend to be good for those that work in these school.

[/quote]

Until the school decides to fire the 50 year old teacher because they can hire a kid at half price.

Algebra is algebra. Spanish is spanish. Basic education changes very little. So fuck the teachers who make decent money and let’s ‘Wal-Mart’ the whole thing.

66

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, they haven’t - much of the job that unions once did has now been replaced with legislation.[/quote]

Much, but not all. And whatever legislation we have w/r/t this was pushed through by unions, legislation that would disappear without the power of unions to push back against the power of corporation and anti-labor politicians.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Now, (private) unions operate primarily to negotiate the fair splitting of an economic pie, but too often, they overplay their hand because they don’t understand the fiscal realities of the world.[/quote]

True

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As for public unions, they exist for one reason only - to elect puppets that will protect their cushy monopoly. And, interestingly, you can see the (rising) tension between private and public unions - they are not exactly on each other’s side these days.[/quote]

Absolutely false, dogmatic talking points.

Serious question TB; have you ever been a member of a union? Specifically a public sector union? I’m a full time union firefighter, and I’d like to know your feelings on public safety unions.

67

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Menthol wrote:
Well, I think what we see with charter school is what we would see if the government schools where with out unions. Many, not all, charter schools are doing well with teaching students, and the pay and benefits tend to be good for those that work in these school.

[/quote]

Until the school decides to fire the 50 year old teacher because they can hire a kid at half price.

Algebra is algebra. Spanish is spanish. Basic education changes very little. So fuck the teachers who make decent money and let’s ‘Wal-Mart’ the whole thing.
[/quote]

Therein lies the problem. The same thing can occur in fire departments; elected officials have zero motive to keep an experience, seasoned firefighter when they could just hire some young wet behind the ears punk kid, who might be just be “good enough for government work”, and work for pennies. Leave it to elected officials, and they’ll fire that seasoned firefighter every damn time in favor of young dumb and full of cum. Leave it to elected officials, and they’ll choose “good enough for government work” every damn time.

Most elected officials care more about parks than public safety. FACT

68

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

LOL! So who decides who the good teachers are and by what rubric? Everything posted is a matter of opinion.[/quote]

You mean other than student achievement scores, testing, graduation rates, peer reviews, student reviews, and institutional audits?

Well, of course I do - what rational person wouldn’t? And you have already conceded I can have it - you said yourself that the older teacher is no better than the younger teacher - if the good are basically equal, why not buy the cheaper one?

Aside, we get what we pay for because we allow a system of tenure to require us, year after year, to buy a subpar product. So, let’s hear it - do you support the abolition of tenure? Or not?

69

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Much, but not all. And whatever legislation we have w/r/t this was pushed through by unions, legislation that would disappear without the power of unions to push back against the power of corporation and anti-labor politicians. [/quote]

Unlikely. The people protected by this legislation are workers that would be protected whether they were in a union or not, and they are not about to let important legislation providing safety, etc. get repealed. In other words, whether they are in a union or not, there is pressure not get rid of the hard-earned legislation.

[quote]Absolutely false, dogmatic talking points.

Serious question TB; have you ever been a member of a union? Specifically a public sector union? I’m a full time union firefighter, and I’d like to know your feelings on public safety unions.[/quote]

Nope - when I worked in construction, I was asked to be a part of the union. I had been working alongside union workers for several years, and my experience with them inclined me not to join. But, I don’t have an inherent problem with private unions.

Public sector union? No. I’ve never worked for the government. But I deal with them all the time.

As for public safety unions, do you mean primarily unions for firefighters and police, etc.? I am happy to given an opinion, I just want to make sure I understand what you’re asking.

70

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Much, but not all. And whatever legislation we have w/r/t this was pushed through by unions, legislation that would disappear without the power of unions to push back against the power of corporation and anti-labor politicians. [/quote]

Unlikely. The people protected by this legislation are workers that would be protected whether they were in a union or not, and they are not about to let important legislation providing safety, etc. get repealed. In other words, whether they are in a union or not, there is pressure not get rid of the hard-earned legislation.[/quote]

The pressure to not get rid of hard earned legislation comes from organized labor. The pressure to get rid of that legislation comes from corporations and the anti-labor movement. Therein lies the battle. Without organized labor, those provisions would be gone due to the efforts of anti-labor lobbyists. Corporations and governments have been well funded and organized for a long time, organized labor (unions) are the bullwork against what was common practice before unions gave us safe working conditions and a middle class.

This fight has been an ongoing battle since working men and women decided to band together and fight for their rights as laborers.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Absolutely false, dogmatic talking points.

Serious question TB; have you ever been a member of a union? Specifically a public sector union? I’m a full time union firefighter, and I’d like to know your feelings on public safety unions.[/quote]

Nope - when I worked in construction, I was asked to be a part of the union. I had been working alongside union workers for several years, and my experience with them inclined me not to join. But, I don’t have an inherent problem with private unions.

Public sector union? No. I’ve never worked for the government. But I deal with them all the time.

As for public safety unions, do you mean primarily unions for firefighters and police, etc.? I am happy to given an opinion, I just want to make sure I understand what you’re asking.[/quote]

Yup, I was referring to police and fire unions. I’d like to hear your opinion, thanks.

71

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LOL! So who decides who the good teachers are and by what rubric? Everything posted is a matter of opinion.[/quote]
You mean other than student achievement scores, testing, graduation rates, peer reviews, student reviews, and institutional audits?[/quote]
This right ^here^ sums up the fundamental problem.

Teacher unions refuse to admit there is a valid way to rate performance. Since you can’t rate teachers they are treated as a commodity since one is literally just as good as the other with no way of proving otherwise.

If you could rate teachers and the reviews became public knowledge their would be public outcry to fire the bad teachers. With enough public interest the unions would be forced to review tenure.(which is ridiculous to begin with) Of course the unions would never fully get rid of tenure because without the bad teachers as members their numbers and ability to lobby would plummet.

72

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Well, of course I do - what rational person wouldn’t? And you have already conceded I can have it - you said yourself that the older teacher is no better than the younger teacher - if the good are basically equal, why not buy the cheaper one?

Aside, we get what we pay for because we allow a system of tenure to require us, year after year, to buy a subpar product. So, let’s hear it - do you support the abolition of tenure? Or not?[/quote]

And there is where your argument falls apart: unions were necessary for the very reason I described. Since basic knowledge doesn’t change much, it was cheaper to fire older teachers. Consequently, fewer would enter the field knowing that they wouldn’t have a job when older. Teaching became a degree to be shunned. It was the unions that made teaching a profession and not just a job like fast food.

States like Idaho have gotten rid of tenure. Want to teach there? You will if that’s all you can find and then you’ll leave as soon as possible – you will be removed when you cost too much. Idaho’s educational system just did a long term cluster fuck to themselves.

Teaching sucks. The one thing that makes it in any way desireable is union and tenure protection from age discrimination, firing for having a sick kid, fired for getting sick yourself, so on and so forth. Take tenure and unions away and it is ‘Look out below!!’. Your kids will be taught by 20 something boppers.

73

If teachers are to be evaluated by student performance it has to be over a reasonably long period to be representative of the teacher and not the students. I also do see HH’s point in that the computer support business is very similar. I was laid off just as I was making a barely passable income 6 years ago because, though I was an award winning (literally) performer that everybody loved having on their team, I was also getting expensive by their standards and fell victim to the “good enough syndrome”. They laid off myself and 5 other top technicians because they got kids who could do the job good enough for 10 bucks an hour and no benefits. They couldn’t have cared less that I had a family to support and had been an outstanding employee.

However, I am not wiling to surrender to blood sucking Marxist unions to keep my job. I will trust God and if necessary starve first. I don’t want anything from anybody by force.

I would love to see public education disappear in this country and give people back their money and let THEM choose from competing schools where to send their kids. EXCEPT, and here it comes. What about bad parents who will spend the money on something else and let their kids go uneducated (for instance)? And there are and will be MILLIONS of them. Well, we’re looking right now at what will ALWAYS eventually be the state of public education in a society where money is a god. So what’s the solution? There isn’t one. Not outside of guess what? The family. If we had faithful intact families that cared about preparing their children to be upright responsible future citizens, competing private schools would work fine. If not? Nothing will make a bit of long term difference.

74

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If teachers are to be evaluated by student performance it has to be over a reasonably long period to be representative of the teacher and not the students. I also do see HH’s point in that the computer support business is very similar. I was laid off just as I was making a barely passable income 6 years ago because, though I was an award winning (literally) performer that everybody loved having on their team, I was also getting expensive by their standards and fell victim to the “good enough syndrome”. They laid off myself and 5 other top technicians because they got kids who could do the job good enough for 10 bucks an hour and no benefits. They couldn’t have cared less that I had a family to support and had been an outstanding employee.

However, I am not wiling to surrender to blood sucking Marxist unions to keep my job. I will trust God and if necessary starve first. I don’t want anything from anybody by force.

I would love to see public education disappear in this country and give people back their money and let THEM choose from competing schools where to send their kids. EXCEPT, and here it comes. What about bad parents who will spend the money on something else and let their kids go uneducated (for instance)? And there are and will be MILLIONS of them. Well, we’re looking right now at what will ALWAYS eventually be the state of public education in a society where money is a god. So what’s the solution? There isn’t one. Not outside of guess what? The family. If we had faithful intact families that cared about preparing their children to be upright responsible future citizens, competing private schools would work fine. If not? Nothing will make a bit of long term difference.[/quote]

Good post.

Unions made a really terrible job barely acceptable. What sane person wants to teach Algebra or Poetry to kids who just want to fuck and play video games? It really is a bad job. Every day is a battle, and then they forget it all anyway.

This is one reason that teaching used to be dominated by women, btw. It wasn’t considered a serious profession. The women would quit to go have families and that was it. The man worker and the women had babies. No one even considered teaching as a career unless it was old maids. Even then, the schools would pay them pauper wages because they were ‘just women’.

All the people who want to be rid of teacher unions shld ask themselves why the unions came into existence anyway. Maybe professional teachers are preferable to baby making machines?

75

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If teachers are to be evaluated by student performance it has to be over a reasonably long period to be representative of the teacher and not the students. I also do see HH’s point in that the computer support business is very similar. I was laid off just as I was making a barely passable income 6 years ago because, though I was an award winning (literally) performer that everybody loved having on their team, I was also getting expensive by their standards and fell victim to the “good enough syndrome”. They laid off myself and 5 other top technicians because they got kids who could do the job good enough for 10 bucks an hour and no benefits. They couldn’t have cared less that I had a family to support and had been an outstanding employee.

However, I am not wiling to surrender to blood sucking Marxist unions to keep my job. I will trust God and if necessary starve first. I don’t want anything from anybody by force.

I would love to see public education disappear in this country and give people back their money and let THEM choose from competing schools where to send their kids. EXCEPT, and here it comes. What about bad parents who will spend the money on something else and let their kids go uneducated (for instance)? And there are and will be MILLIONS of them. Well, we’re looking right now at what will ALWAYS eventually be the state of public education in a society where money is a god. So what’s the solution? There isn’t one. Not outside of guess what? The family. If we had faithful intact families that cared about preparing their children to be upright responsible future citizens, competing private schools would work fine. If not? Nothing will make a bit of long term difference.[/quote]

Would you be against a voucher system? I can see this causing a sharper divide between the haves and have nots than there already is without something like that.

76

See what happens HH? You act the fool long enough and when you make some constructive and worthy contributions, regardless of whether everybody agrees, and people won’t take you seriously. As I’ve always said. I hold you in higher regard than they do. I think your plodding knuckleheadedness is self protective schtick. I also think you missed a major part of my point, though I am giving you some credit. Unions are not the answer either.

You are absolutely right Fletch. A free market education system WILL be great for the financially secure AND an instrument of self perpetuation for those who need the educations most. Vouchers however will still amount to politicians spending other people’s money and while almost certainly better than what we have now, will also still do nothing for the kids who need it most. Taking Detroit as an example. There are tens of thousands of children who amount to just barely higher life forms than feral beasts whose parents wouldn’t miss them for a week… or a month if they didn’t come home. No school will help them even IF they ever showed up.

77

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Teachers should be among of the most erudite and knowledgable professions - but we require next to nothing from our teachers in terms of their education.
[/quote]

Agreed. But you cannot simply demand great teachers. You have to provide some kind of incentive to get the passionate and knowledgeable people to become teachers.

A bright, hard-working young man can become an engineer, lawyer, or doctor, and be earning $100k/yr in 5 years time. Or he can become a teacher and be earning less than half of that.

78

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

And there is where your argument falls apart: unions were necessary for the very reason I described. Since basic knowledge doesn’t change much, it was cheaper to fire older teachers. Consequently, fewer would enter the field knowing that they wouldn’t have a job when older. Teaching became a degree to be shunned. It was the unions that made teaching a profession and not just a job like fast food.[/quote]

Is that a fact? Free public schooling in America started right after the American Revolution, and public employee collective bargaining wasn’t even allowed until 1960 - were all the public school teachers getting thrown out on their ear during that time? Of course not. Schools keep around good, experienced teachers when they are…good…and experienced teachers.

Teaching had always been a profession - in fact, it used to be moreso. Teachers used to be some of the most educated, well-read members of society (which is why they taught). Teaching has declined as a profession, not improved as one, and one the main factors is tenure, which is abused by the lazy and unmotivated.

Unions didn’t “professionalize” teaching - unions formed to demand more goodies from the state for its members.

But you keep contradicting yourself - you have said over and over that a 20 something “bopper” does the same job as the old veteran. Well, then, why would I care if a 20 something “bopper” taught my kids? You insist it isn’t a bad thing, then try and convince me it’s a bad thing. It’s incoherent.

79

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Yup, I was referring to police and fire unions. I’d like to hear your opinion, thanks.[/quote]

I don’t have a major objection to them per se, insofar as they act like a traditional trade union (which I am fine with). And I don’t mind that they organize to deal with certain unique risks inherent in their jobs.

My main objection is to their role as a modern public employees’ union where they are not negotiating for benefits “from the other side” so much as they function as a special interest lobby. They work get politicians they like elected, and then those politicians protect their sinecure at the state level - as such, they are “negotiating” with someone across the table that is on their side. Then we get bloated pensions built on irrational and stupid promises that the unions won’t dare yield on even when economic realities are threatening to bankrupt the whole system.

Private unions can’t get away with this (generally) because they have to bow to the economic pressures of the business - too many unsustainable demands, and the business goes belly up, and so do the workers, so at the end of the day, there are mutual interests that bring them back to reality.

Public unions, even firefighters and police? They don’t have to bow, or at least, they don’t think they have to. They think the tax base is an unlimited pool of reserves.

Again, I don’t mind them, and I actually like them, but they have fallen into the trap of too often acting just like any corrupt public employee union who thinks they play by a different set of rules in “collective bargaining”.

80

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Yup, I was referring to police and fire unions. I’d like to hear your opinion, thanks.[/quote]

I don’t have a major objection to them per se, insofar as they act like a traditional trade union (which I am fine with). And I don’t mind that they organize to deal with certain unique risks inherent in their jobs.

My main objection is to their role as a modern public employees’ union where they are not negotiating for benefits “from the other side” so much as they function as a special interest lobby. They work get politicians they like elected, and then those politicians protect their sinecure at the state level - as such, they are “negotiating” with someone across the table that is on their side. Then we get bloated pensions built on irrational and stupid promises that the unions won’t dare yield on even when economic realities are threatening to bankrupt the whole system.

Private unions can’t get away with this (generally) because they have to bow to the economic pressures of the business - too many unsustainable demands, and the business goes belly up, and so do the workers, so at the end of the day, there are mutual interests that bring them back to reality.

Public unions, even firefighters and police? They don’t have to bow, or at least, they don’t think they have to. They think the tax base is an unlimited pool of reserves.

Again, I don’t mind them, and I actually like them, but they have fallen into the trap of too often acting just like any corrupt public employee union who thinks they play by a different set of rules in “collective bargaining”.[/quote]

Interesting thoughts Thunder, but I can point to examples nationwide where Fire has taken pay cuts before anybody else, paid more to pension, more to healthcare and given back other incentives. The main reason being so that we keep all of our members employed, you can’t do much when there are just two guys on an engine going to a call.

But of course there are other locals across the nation that still keep the mindset of the never ending well and that they can always go back for more. Which is unfortunate