• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Big Loss of Teachers Union in California

It is high time that we end all public employee unions....

Oh, absolutely! I've worked with various public employee unions and although anecdotal, my experience has been that the unions know that unlike private industry, there is no chance that the city, county or municipality will close its doors via bankruptcy, because the public entity can simply raise taxes to acquire the necessary revenue to meet union demands. The taxpayers, unlike consumers who can choose to purchase from competitors when union demands create soaring product prices, are held captive, their wallets raped, and they literally have no say whatsoever about it.

Public employee unions should be illegal nation wide.
 
Big Loss of Teachers Union in California

This is a big win for our children and the future of America, if it's not to late.
 
They have evolved to that point, yes. One might even say they've become self-destructive.

This is a classic example that the human species doesn't know when to stop. Doesn't know when well enough is good enough. Unions do indeed serve a positive purpose, and we would not be well-served if they were to disappear completely, but when they started blindly defending clearly grossly incompetent workers, as just one example, that was too much and it was only a matter of time when they'd get reined in.

Unions can serve a positive purpose. They can also serve many destructive ones. They function like parasites, utilizing coercion or its' threat to siphon resources off of the host. Some parasites, however, have stupid evolutionary strategies, and grow so large that they siphon off too much, and kill the host upon which they are dependent.
 
Please provide proof of the bolded. It was introduced by Robert Owen, not as a business owner but as a reformer; and it was the unions that got it accepted.

Eight-hour day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Origin of the 8-Hour Work Day and Why We Should Rethink It
AccuConference | Who invented the eight-hour workday?

Actually, one of your own articles has it. The Ford Motor motor company was one of the first to actual implement it. Not by a union, but Henry Ford's view which is summarized by the rest of the bolded portion.
 
arrogance is such a thing
No offense intended, but I am not getting your point at all in this thread. Ok, it would be all warm-and-fuzzy if teachers were above the fray when it came to employment, but in the real world it just isn't so, and will never be so. You said earlier that teachers shouldn't be part of the labor market. What, exactly, does that even mean?
 
Huge loss: teachers unions in California case - POLITICO.com

This case is a pretty big deal. Hope the movement spreads across the nation like a wild fire. Think the biggest is getting rid of statutory restrictions in firing d-bag teachers making extremely expensive and timely. The immediate dismissal of substandard teachers is a no brainer. The removal of the tenure system would help to prevent complacency in tenured teachers.

I'm really torn on my feelings towards all of this personally. I support unions, I don't think tenures are a bad thing, and I feel that this country is failing our teachers. I don't believe that all teachers are doing the best they can be doing and for that reason the less than perfect teachers should be removed, however I also believe that the reasoning behind why they're "less than perfect" should analyzed first. Do they feel at a loss because their budget doesn't allow for the materials needed to provide the best for the students? Okay, that's not the teachers fault. Are they slacking because they are only teachers because they like the idea of having the summer off and don't really care if the students learn anything? Okay... then those teachers need to go. My concern with eliminating the tenure option is that it'll be too easy to just get rid of teachers who really want to do well but don't have the support they need because "being apart of a unions means you're greedy and lazy." I don't see good coming from this, personally, I see a lot of bad coming from this.

Good. I think unions could be good, but more often than not they are more destructive.

I personally don't agree with that. I think that the mainstream media likes to make it seem as though they're more destructive than good. I know of several areas of employment that would definitely benefit from having a union back them. It has never been about getting more for less. It has always been about getting what's fair for the work you provide. There is nothing wrong or destructive about that. Unions give the American citizens a voice. Eliminating unions gives the mega-corporations a voice only. I would rather support American citizens.

It is high time that we end all public employee unions. There is no reason that a public servant should not be held accountable to actually perform their assigned job as directed in an effetive manner. Unfiortunately, it seems that "better distribution" of good teachers is the "reform" plan rather than actually dismissing the underachievers. The current system is much like the Caltholic church deciding to simply move child molesters around instead of actually firing them and reporting their activiites to authorities.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I'm not trying to tell you that you're right or wrong, but it's statements like this that are a shame to me. Unions are not about having a group support your efforts to go sit at work and do absolutely nothing and get paid for it. Unions are about making sure that you are getting the adequate necessities that you need to perform your job well and be paid accordingly. I am always surprised when I see people not supporting unions. I mean if you don't support unions... fine... don't participate in them. I do think it's ill-informed and unfortunate to see people act as though unions are a negative impact on the American workers lives.

Safe working conditions have been codified. So if thats their only useful purpose, they're not necessary anymore. The union pendulum has swung way past the point of reason. Any objective observer can see it.

I'm very objective on the matter and I don't believe they have gotten to a point where we don't need them. As a matter of fact I think Americans need them more today than ever. With jobs being shipped overseas and certain lawmakers trying to make the minimum wage non-existent, plus minimum wage alone being way too low to successfully live in a comfortable fashion at 40 hours a week... Americans need unions to help support their needs over the needs of the corporations. I also know there are plenty of companies that do not maintain their safe working conditions unless the "big wigs" are coming in to check out the premise and then the managers panic and freak out on the employees to "fix all of the problems before they get there." There may be codes now for safety purposes but that doesn't mean these are all followed daily.
 
I'm very objective on the matter and I don't believe they have gotten to a point where we don't need them. As a matter of fact I think Americans need them more today than ever. With jobs being shipped overseas and certain lawmakers trying to make the minimum wage non-existent, plus minimum wage alone being way too low to successfully live in a comfortable fashion at 40 hours a week... Americans need unions to help support their needs over the needs of the corporations. I also know there are plenty of companies that do not maintain their safe working conditions unless the "big wigs" are coming in to check out the premise and then the managers panic and freak out on the employees to "fix all of the problems before they get there." There may be codes now for safety purposes but that doesn't mean these are all followed daily.

Unions in other countries are not as contentious as unions here in the United States. In other countries, unions work with management toward a common goal -- a balance between the needs/wants of employees and the health of a company. Not so in the U.S.

I don't have a problem with private sector unions. Worker demand is naturally limited by the profitability of a company and its ability to pay. In the public sector, there's no bottom to the well. Taxpayers are not represented by those negotiating with the workers. The negotiators are bought and paid for (in one way or another) by, generally, Democrats who use them as foot soldiers and automatic votes.

The press does a piss-poor job of reporting on negotiations. But an excellent job of pandering to the public sector union interests. Although we're talking about public sector employees, salaries are a carefully guarded secret, as are the full cost of benefits. Public sector employees often have an artificially low starting salary to help garner public support. Increases are, again, carefully guarded secrets.

As taxpayers, we desperately need sunshine on the process.
 
87% of healthcare workers are union. Scary, isn't it?
 
I'm really torn on my feelings towards all of this personally. I support unions, I don't think tenures are a bad thing, and I feel that this country is failing our teachers. I don't believe that all teachers are doing the best they can be doing and for that reason the less than perfect teachers should be removed, however I also believe that the reasoning behind why they're "less than perfect" should analyzed first. Do they feel at a loss because their budget doesn't allow for the materials needed to provide the best for the students? Okay, that's not the teachers fault. Are they slacking because they are only teachers because they like the idea of having the summer off and don't really care if the students learn anything? Okay... then those teachers need to go. My concern with eliminating the tenure option is that it'll be too easy to just get rid of teachers who really want to do well but don't have the support they need because "being apart of a unions means you're greedy and lazy." I don't see good coming from this, personally, I see a lot of bad coming from this.



I personally don't agree with that. I think that the mainstream media likes to make it seem as though they're more destructive than good. I know of several areas of employment that would definitely benefit from having a union back them. It has never been about getting more for less. It has always been about getting what's fair for the work you provide. There is nothing wrong or destructive about that. Unions give the American citizens a voice. Eliminating unions gives the mega-corporations a voice only. I would rather support American citizens.



Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I'm not trying to tell you that you're right or wrong, but it's statements like this that are a shame to me. Unions are not about having a group support your efforts to go sit at work and do absolutely nothing and get paid for it. Unions are about making sure that you are getting the adequate necessities that you need to perform your job well and be paid accordingly. I am always surprised when I see people not supporting unions. I mean if you don't support unions... fine... don't participate in them. I do think it's ill-informed and unfortunate to see people act as though unions are a negative impact on the American workers lives.



I'm very objective on the matter and I don't believe they have gotten to a point where we don't need them. As a matter of fact I think Americans need them more today than ever. With jobs being shipped overseas and certain lawmakers trying to make the minimum wage non-existent, plus minimum wage alone being way too low to successfully live in a comfortable fashion at 40 hours a week... Americans need unions to help support their needs over the needs of the corporations. I also know there are plenty of companies that do not maintain their safe working conditions unless the "big wigs" are coming in to check out the premise and then the managers panic and freak out on the employees to "fix all of the problems before they get there." There may be codes now for safety purposes but that doesn't mean these are all followed daily.

While I agree that unions can be a good thing, enhancing work place safety and comfort conditions, they are quite famous for protecting the slackers among thier membership from termination. It should not take a crimiinal conviction, or documenting a massive pile of evidence, to remove a substandard perfoming employee, regardless of how long they have been employed.

Since all teachers in any particualr school share the same structure, materials and general student popualtion then any differences among their performance are not ikely caused by only circumstances beyond their control. The idea that pay should be based on trainiing certificates attained and years on the job, instead of actual job performance, is the hallmark of union "fairness".

I have seen far too many gov't employees (they can no longer be called workers) that are essentially "retired on active duty" because they are "only" 5 years away from retirement and it may well take management that long to get a solid case file together in order to have them fired. Simply showing up on a regular basis does not mean that you are actually educating the students, no matter how many certificates or years on the job you may have accumulated.
 
I'm really torn on my feelings towards all of this personally. I support unions, I don't think tenures are a bad thing, and I feel that this country is failing our teachers. I don't believe that all teachers are doing the best they can be doing and for that reason the less than perfect teachers should be removed, however I also believe that the reasoning behind why they're "less than perfect" should analyzed first. Do they feel at a loss because their budget doesn't allow for the materials needed to provide the best for the students? Okay, that's not the teachers fault. Are they slacking because they are only teachers because they like the idea of having the summer off and don't really care if the students learn anything? Okay... then those teachers need to go. My concern with eliminating the tenure option is that it'll be too easy to just get rid of teachers who really want to do well but don't have the support they need because "being apart of a unions means you're greedy and lazy." I don't see good coming from this, personally, I see a lot of bad coming from this.

Analysis is difficult in this topic as the likely individuals would be tenured professors who possess a ton of personal bias in the matter. And frankly, is it really necessary? Tenure can and does breed complacency. You see this is anything where an employee is either locked in to a job or is incredibly difficult to terminate. Recent example is the VA fiasco. Mind you, not to say all career teachers become complacent but if they don't, they don't have anything to worry about. The concept of first in, first out is remarkably stupid. Newer employees in anything often bring in fresh prospective and innovation. Couple that with high caliber seasoned veterans, you have a good formula.

I'm very objective on the matter and I don't believe they have gotten to a point where we don't need them. As a matter of fact I think Americans need them more today than ever. With jobs being shipped overseas and certain lawmakers trying to make the minimum wage non-existent, plus minimum wage alone being way too low to successfully live in a comfortable fashion at 40 hours a week... Americans need unions to help support their needs over the needs of the corporations. I also know there are plenty of companies that do not maintain their safe working conditions unless the "big wigs" are coming in to check out the premise and then the managers panic and freak out on the employees to "fix all of the problems before they get there." There may be codes now for safety purposes but that doesn't mean these are all followed daily.

Well, you have some disillusions about what unions can actually do. First, a union has no power to stop outsourcing of jobs, in fact, if they're over aggressive, they can actually make it happen at a greater scale. And again, a union is not needed for safe work conditions. OSHA standards apply to all. If an employee feels the areas is unsafe, can easily place an anonymous call to the OSHA and spur a surprise visit/inspection.

Its a side topic but the minimum wage was never meant to be a liveable wage. Jobs that pay them aren't meant to be a career but a starting point.
 
It is high time that we end all public employee unions.

I don't think they should end, just rule changes like the ones that happened with this ruling. I see no problem with collective barganing, they should have that right. What they shouldn't be able to do is have their hands tied in not being able to get rid of bad teachers. Hopefully this ruling stands any appeals.
 
I don't think they should end, just rule changes like the ones that happened with this ruling. I see no problem with collective bargaining, they should have that right. What they shouldn't be able to do is have their hands tied in not being able to get rid of bad teachers. Hopefully this ruling stands any appeals.

I assume that you wish to limit the terms of the union contract to pay, safety and working conditions. The problem is that unions are far smarter than the gov't morons that they "negotiate" with and are legally allowed to actively campaign for them. Unless the law is changed, as you seem to suggest, then the only recourse that the public has is to use the courts (at their own expense) to overturn the union contract terms that these gov't morons agreed to.
 
Oh, absolutely! I've worked with various public employee unions and although anecdotal, my experience has been that the unions know that unlike private industry, there is no chance that the city, county or municipality will close its doors via bankruptcy, because the public entity can simply raise taxes to acquire the necessary revenue to meet union demands. The taxpayers, unlike consumers who can choose to purchase from competitors when union demands create soaring product prices, are held captive, their wallets raped, and they literally have no say whatsoever about it.

Public employee unions should be illegal nation wide.

Public employee unions throughout the US made many concessions and gave back a lot of pay and benefits during the last economic downturn. Government is not powerless when they negotiate or that wouldn't have happened. Voters elect local Boards of Education and they are responsible for approving contracts, not the unions. If you think your local Board is not doing enough, elect a new board. Some cities and school districts have gone bankrupt and defaulted on the pensions promised to their retired workers. Taxpayers are not powerless in public employee labor negotiations.

Without unions, every individual teacher would be up against an army of lawyers, labor negotiators and administrators without any support.

The right to protest, organize and petition is guaranteed to everyone in the first amendment.
 
Unions in other countries are not as contentious as unions here in the United States. In other countries, unions work with management toward a common goal -- a balance between the needs/wants of employees and the health of a company. Not so in the U.S.

I don't have a problem with private sector unions. Worker demand is naturally limited by the profitability of a company and its ability to pay. In the public sector, there's no bottom to the well. Taxpayers are not represented by those negotiating with the workers. The negotiators are bought and paid for (in one way or another) by, generally, Democrats who use them as foot soldiers and automatic votes.

The press does a piss-poor job of reporting on negotiations. But an excellent job of pandering to the public sector union interests. Although we're talking about public sector employees, salaries are a carefully guarded secret, as are the full cost of benefits. Public sector employees often have an artificially low starting salary to help garner public support. Increases are, again, carefully guarded secrets.

As taxpayers, we desperately need sunshine on the process.

The difference in worker management relations in places like Germany is mostly in the more respectful and inclusive attitudes of management, not with the unions. That is why Volkswagen wanted a union in their plant in the USA. Public employee salaries of individuals is kept confidential, but the salary ranges and benefits for every civil service position is publicly available. (at least in my state)

My local paper and most local media was very critical of the union during the last major public employee strike, and we are not a conservative community.
 
Public employee unions throughout the US made many concessions and gave back a lot of pay and benefits during the last economic downturn. Government is not powerless when they negotiate or that wouldn't have happened. Voters elect local Boards of Education and they are responsible for approving contracts, not the unions. If you think your local Board is not doing enough, elect a new board. Some cities and school districts have gone bankrupt and defaulted on the pensions promised to their retired workers. Taxpayers are not powerless in public employee labor negotiations.

Without unions, every individual teacher would be up against an army of lawyers, labor negotiators and administrators without any support.

The right to protest, organize and petition is guaranteed to everyone in the first amendment.

There is no constitutional right to protest when public safety is put at risk. That's why police, fire, public works, etc., are not allowed to strike, because doing so would put the public safety at risk. So what do they do when they aren't given a big enough raise? They pull a "blue flu", then organize a community scare tactic to tell citizens that because the mean old City Manager won't give them the money they want, they won't be able to respond to traffic accidents, fires, rescue services, keep the water flowing to the taps... and of course, terrified citizens call City Hall and insist those poor underpaid workers get the money they're entitled to so citizens won't be murdered in their own homes during the crime wave.

Then when the next year's taxes come due, guess who again calls City Hall to scream about the increase.

Public employee unions should be illegal. That's my position. :shrug:
 
We elect the Board of Education, which approves the contracts, and (in my state) directly vote on all increases to sales or property taxes, which are the taxes that fund education most significantly.

In California, the Teacher's Union owns the Boards of Education and lots of other politicians, they directly buy votes with campaign funding in exchange for Board support for anything they want to do. There was a budget crisis a couple of years back where Sacramento had locked the legislature in session and they took breaks so that legislators could go out in the hall and consult their Union bosses.
 
Here's the real solution to the issue of quality teachers:
Like lawyers and doctors, teaching is important. Teachers should be paid well, but it should be a difficult position to obtain. Many intelligent and committed people are still not effective teachers. Teacher's colleges should screen out more potential teachers before they even come close to graduating. People with an apparent innate ability to teach should be encouraged to teach with the incentive of good salaries and prestige. Potential teachers should be selected and encouraged based on their ability to actually effectively communicate with students, not just for their academic abilities. They need to be observed in the classroom, not selected with multiple choice tests and responses to essay questions. As it is now, many people get into teaching because they have not been successful at anything else that they have tried.
 
Public employee unions throughout the US made many concessions and gave back a lot of pay and benefits during the last economic downturn. Government is not powerless when they negotiate or that wouldn't have happened. Voters elect local Boards of Education and they are responsible for approving contracts, not the unions. If you think your local Board is not doing enough, elect a new board. Some cities and school districts have gone bankrupt and defaulted on the pensions promised to their retired workers. Taxpayers are not powerless in public employee labor negotiations.

Without unions, every individual teacher would be up against an army of lawyers, labor negotiators and administrators without any support.

The right to protest, organize and petition is guaranteed to everyone in the first amendment.

As it is, Parents are up against an army of lawyers, labor union activists/leaders, and administrators, as the demand accountability. All because of the Teachers Unions.

The Teachers Union is California is one of the strongest in the state. The results should be the shame of every member.
 
Yeah, I mean look at how much worse working conditions have gotten since unions first formed.

This. This highlights the problem with doing things the wrong way. The state governments should have carried this water, and in many cases did. We screwed ourselves by rolling non-OEM agencies (unions) to do what we should have done through our state governments.
 
Oh, absolutely! I've worked with various public employee unions and although anecdotal, my experience has been that the unions know that unlike private industry, there is no chance that the city, county or municipality will close its doors via bankruptcy, because the public entity can simply raise taxes to acquire the necessary revenue to meet union demands. The taxpayers, unlike consumers who can choose to purchase from competitors when union demands create soaring product prices, are held captive, their wallets raped, and they literally have no say whatsoever about it.

Public employee unions should be illegal nation wide.

Sisters by other mothers, swear.
 
Tenure and and trial processes to fire teachers is the most idiotic thing ever. Teachers teachers should be hired and fired just like anyone else in the labor market. If anything public sector union contracts should be voted on by the tax payers during high turn out elections, not some piece of **** politician or suit who does not have the interests of the tax payers at mind.

When it comes to union protection for teaching jobs, the union should be devoting its efforts to protecting teachers from being fired over personal vendettas, speaking out against unfair work conditions, stuff like that. Teachers unions should NOT EVER get in between a district and its evaluation of a teacher's ability to be effective in the classroom. School districts have well defined metrics that determine teacher performance and if they can't cut the mustard then they don't belong in the profession.

If a teacher's union wants to get involved in that area they have to be willing to put aside everything except industry recognized performance assessments as a rule by which they determine if a teacher deserves to keep their job. Tenure has nothing to do with it.
Tenure should relate to items like PAY.

I'm not anti-union, but I do believe in the process of DECERTIFYING unions which clearly fail to serve the best interests of all parties involved and with too many teacher unions it seems like students and families aren't included in the list of interested parties.
 
Good. Teachers should be employed and advance based on results: merit.

and school boards should have more balls to stand up to parents.
 
Back
Top Bottom