Unions

[MnWilly]

Yep, I agree Scott. I don't think that 8% is unreasonable in these times. I was trying to illustrate why they might be willing to fight so hard, that's all. Funny, this is spreading fast. We all just got a long email from our federation president yesterday. It was basically condemning the attacks on the WI public employees. And it was urging us to contact our MN reps to avoid a similar situation here in MN. Funny, seems like war talk. It is coming here too. Let's just hope I don't turn into a big hypocrite when it hits me in my wallet

[Sylvester]

A co-worker (from WI) sent me this from a blog his friend runs.

Some interesting points.


Just a few thoughts and rhetorical questions in response to the actions of protesting teachers in Madison.

Before I go on, let me state for the record that I think there are many great teachers out there. Unfortunately for them they choose to collectivize and they cannot be rewarded for excellence and are just judged as part of a whole. I would love it if we could remove the unions so we could pay great teachers a ton of money as a reward for excellence. I would gladly pay a premium in taxes for great performance in the schools manned by excellent professionals.

Teachers and their unions are upset that they will have to pay more for their health care. These same people fully support Obamacare, which they claim will lower insurance costs for everyone. So if insurance will be so much cheaper, why are they so upset?

Teachers consistently make the argument that the evidence that US kids are behind most of the world where education is concerned is due to the fact that they aren’t paid ENOUGH? So they believe that demonstrated failure in their jobs means they should be paid MORE? Isn’ t that like giving the Lombardi trophy to the worst team in the NFL?

Teachers like to tell everyone that they are “all about the kids”. Well, that is only when they aren’t busy being all about their pay, their insurance, their pension, their hours, their union, Democrat candidates, protests, sick outs and tenure. Other than that, they are all about the kids.

Teachers complain that they are all lumped together when the issues of education are discussed, and this is unfair. But they also choose to collectivize. Seems to me that they need to either end the union so they cannot be lumped together, or realize that collectivization means you are no longer treated as an individual, even if you are excellent.

Teachers constantly claim that they are taxpayers, too. How is it that a person that is paid with 100% tax dollars could be considered a tax payer? They are not tax payers, they are tax consumers. They just give the government a small refund every year. Only people who don’t get paid with tax dollars are truly tax payers.

If teachers unions are so essential to quality education, why is it that non-unionized private school kids and home schooled kids are demonstrated to be more successfully educated no matter how you measure it? Seems like the unions are responsible for the LACK of quality education, doesn’t it?

If teaching is such a demanding and difficult profession, how is it possible that “untrained” moms and dads all over the nation are out performing “trained professionals”? Is it just an incredible run of luck?
If teaching is a professional endeavour, why is it that empirical data never seems to matter when it comes to evaluating results? Isn’t that a lot like NASA not noticing or caring when rocket after rocket blows up on the pad, and then claiming that they are the best rocket scientists in the world and demanding more pay?

Teachers claim that the poor test results are due not to poor work on their part, but to faulty tests. Using the NASA analogy, that’s like the rocket scientist blaming an exploding rocket on the camera filming the launch.
Union teachers argue that they are underpaid, but non-union teachers make significantly less and do a better job, based on student performance. Doesn’t that mean the opposite of what unions always say? Aren’t they both over paid and under performing?

Teachers always seem to blame failure to achieve results on lack of parental involvement, but get really angry when parents decide to demand better results, or expect poor performers to get fired or take a pay cut. Which is it? Are parents not involved enough, or involved too much? Make up your minds, please.

If teachers complain that parents are not involved enough, doesn’t that mean that teaching is not really that hard, and that it relies almost as much on the actions of untrained people as it does “trained professionals”?
If teaching is so difficult, how did we ever get teachers in the first place? Wouldn’t we still be banging rocks together to make fire, since without trained unionized teachers, we can’t learn anything?

How is it possible that Laura Ingles Wilder could teach a class of kids at all grade levels simultaneously without the internet, computer tests, and teachers editions with all the answers and still wrote a bunch of books in her spare time, but today’s teachers cannot exist without a teachers aide, a class size of roughly 4 kids, 1 in-service day per week and teacher’s conventions 4 times per year? Was she some sort of alien or super human?

[Grafton]

How is it possible that Laura Ingles Wilder could teach a class of kids at all grade levels simultaneously without the internet, computer tests, and teachers editions with all the answers and still wrote a bunch of books in her spare time, but today’s teachers cannot exist without a teachers aide, a class size of roughly 4 kids, 1 in-service day per week and teacher’s conventions 4 times per year? Was she some sort of alien or super human?

They were allowed to beat kids back then, that probably didn't hurt.

[Ender]

I wouldn't go so far as to demean teachers by saying their jobs are not difficult or important as that blogger did, but there are a few good points there that revolve around a main theme of rewarding for individual performance, which encourages good teachers.

How to measure individual teacher performance comparatively between one teacher and another when they teach different subjects and different grades is an entirely different issue, however, and can be pretty subjective. I am not saying some system couldn't be worked out to do it, but it would probably have its significant flaws.

[Jalexian]

Ive always found it strange that when education reform is discussed in America culture we focus on the quality of the instructors and the level of funding provided. The fact of the matter is that even if the teachers had more incentive and more tax money was allocated for education purposes we would still be struggling to catch up.

I don't care how good a teacher is or how much money is thrown at the problem if the curriculum is complete shit. At the same time as other countries are covering hard sciences and "high school" level math, our students are studying basic arithmetic and life sciences. At some point we began to systematically accept mediocrity and failed to match rising global standards, a problem that continues to expand with so called "degree inflation" and diploma mills beginning to plague our post-secondary education system (a major issue when you consider our universities have been and are still regarded as the highest quality in the world).

In regards for unions, how can you justify the continued existence of such a system if it fails to accomplish its real purpose? The basis for most pro-union arguments from an ethical stand point center around Utilitarianism (viewpoint that the correct moral choice is the one that results in the greatest good for the greatest number) and as such are for the most part fallacies. Unions care primarily about the present conditions for their current members, with little to no concern for future job growth and stability (obvious example being our automotive industry) or the impact such actions will have on the consumer (students in education) and thus cant reasonably claim to have the interests of the greatest number in mind.

Being as I have never been nor never plan to be a member of a union I apologize in advance for any misconceptions I may harbor as in the absence of first hand experience I am left to base my opinions primarily on my somewhat limited understanding of the applicable economic and social information. I guess I just view unions like the government sanctioned monopoly on energy and subsidization of the airline and farming industries - outdated policy that is counter intuitive its original intent.

edit: almost forgot, I still owe kwiikz $200

[Chadwick]

Trany, Union contracts don't protect your ass from getting fired if you are doing poor work or not putting in enough effort. It is up to the supervisor to make that decision and it is not restricted by any Union clauses as far as I know.

Unions just organize your pay structure, usually based on the amount of time you have worked in your position, so you get periodic pay increases based on time instead of performance. It could be said that encourages mediocraty, but only if the supervisor does not properly enforce the slackers.

Actually they do, if you had worked in a union company you would know how hard it is to get rid of a union employee. In health care they basically have to kill a few people through provable negligence...before they can even start to build a case against the person...

And why is it fair to organize pay structure solely on seniority? How does that reward those who work harder and are more competent? So, I can just show up everyday and as long as i don't get fired for doing a bunch of obviously negligent things my pay keeps going up and up? Try working in the real world where if you dont bring your A-game to every project you go out of business. There is no accountability for government workers and no competition, therefore there is only one thing that keeps their work efficient and effective. Pride in it. Which is sorely lacking in many government workforces...not all but some...

Unions are the reason we are basically owned by china...they got greedy and killed American ingenuity and accountability...

[Chadwick]

The NWA mechanics went out on strike because they were expected to take a 26% pay cut. Would you happily stay at your job if your employer told you not only were you not getting a raise, but instead they were just going to pay you less? I see a lot of you saying unions don't need to exist because of employers being ethical nowadays, how is a move like that by a company even remotely "okay" ?

Ya know what, this argument is bullshit and the crux of the problem. If you think you are being treated unfairly by your employer you have a fantastic option to not put up with it in this society. GO WORK FOR SOMEONE ELSE!!

Then maybe if that employer cant keep workers working, they will go out of business and it will take care of itself....wow what a concept who knew competition was good for workers too!!!

[Chadwick]

So you want a bunch of private companies and corporations doing all of the governmental regulatory work? Yeah, lets see how long it takes before that completely corrupts the governmental system. At least with unions there is some accountability. Its scary to think how much tax payer money taken from local governments (cities) would be going into the pockets of private company executives in that case.

Someone has to enforce the laws that are passed, otherwise they are meaningless. If you don't have the workforce necessary to enforce those laws, people will just take advantage of the situation by not paying attention to them. Why worry about a law if not abiding by it leads to no consequences?

However, I think the government can and should be streamlined. Believe me, as a government worker, I can tell you that it does not operate efficiently. But, I think that can be done in a way that doesn't result in drastic wage decreases across the board or cutting out people's benifits. There would likely be some loss of jobs though after restructuring.

But, there are definately some government employees in certain sections that seem to have way too much time on their hands. I am not one of them, however, and as such I expect to be compensated fairly. I make around 45k per year prior to taxes and have been working there for 5 years. I don't consider that to be a gross overpayment of salary considering what I do.

1) I am by no means saying that the entire government could or should be privatized, but they should not be allowed collective bargaining. Government unions in general should be illegal. I am not saying government workers are not required in life. That said, in most cases private companies can and do do it cheaper and better, because they can go out of business. Government cant go out of business. But it can and should be shrunk.

2) You actually make my argument for me. People with too much time yet will not get fired, why? Because it is hard as hell to do so, and what will happen to a bad supervisor or sector of government if they are inefficient, nothing unless elected officials chose to do something about it. In the private sector, lax work behavior and poor managment causes companies to go out of business.

3) There have been benefit cuts and wadge decreases all over the private sector. Why should government employees be exempt?

[Jalexian]

Aren't the airlines heavily subsidized? I could be wrong but from what I understand of the industries problems the current business model just is not sustainable due to rising fuel cost and what not. If that's the case the mechanics should just be happy they have a job, as the government has chosen procrastination over actually solving the problem or leaving it to the industry to sort out.....

[Chadwick]

Sounds exactly like the problem with education and the wars on things (terror, drugs, etc)

We have no real solutions so lets just keep throwing money at it...