• 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!

Are Teacher Unions a good thing?

Are Teacher Unions a good thing?


  • Total voters
    51
I'm against the teachers union. They advocate for candidates I don't support. They push for closed shops that force people to give a hefty contribution each month out of their paycheck, whether they like it or not. They only advocate for the lowest of the low and blow hot air for the rest.

Teachers unions also fight mightily against alternatives to public education. Unions use intimidation tactics. They currently are pushing to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections, thus giving them access to who and who does not support them.

They basically behave like mobsters, demanding protection money for their 'services'.
 
Speaking as a teacher, we already go to seminars about once a year, and usually these seminars are a waste of my time. It's just a rehash of the information that we already know: "we need to motivate our kids", "we need to come up with more creative lesson plans", "we need to incorporate technology in our lessons", all of these things we already know.
I'm met very few teachers who don't disrespect about 1/2 of what the education establishment tries to inculcate in them, and I agree there's a lot of "same-o, same-o" (remember, I'm not in education per se, I work in an academic department). Have you ever done a summer with a National Writing Project affiliate?
 
I'm against the teachers union. They advocate for candidates I don't support. They push for closed shops that force people to give a hefty contribution each month out of their paycheck, whether they like it or not. They only advocate for the lowest of the low and blow hot air for the rest.

Teachers unions also fight mightily against alternatives to public education. Unions use intimidation tactics. They currently are pushing to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections, thus giving them access to who and who does not support them.

They basically behave like mobsters, demanding protection money for their 'services'.
Unions are probably worst in situations where the labor market is very fluid--where people can move in and out of jobs easily. Unions are most advantageous where workers and employers benefit from long-term, stable labor relations. In general, teachers want to be employed at one school for a long period of time. The best teaching gig is one where you can spend 25 years at one school or district and become a kind of local institution, where the students you had earlier in your career have children who come into your classroom late in your career. Most people who teach (and certainly the best teachers) are in it for the kind of validation that only comes with long-term commitments--the money is less important.

Also, there's considerable research to show that schools are better when they employ the same teachers, who work together closely for years. Generally, the longer term the staff, the better the school.

Unions make sense in these circumstances. Unfortunately, there is one problem--it takes three to five years to become an effective teacher, but the probationary period for most teachers is 2-3 years. Schools have to offer continuing contracts to teachers before they really know how good they are.
 
My mom said the union reps in her school district are also the two worst teachers.

Ironic?
 
Only if you think education should be a priority for our country.
 
Union reps are elected, no?

I owe you an answer on this. My guess is that they are.

My other guess is that these two teachers are the only ones who want to run the local teacher's union because they need it.

Without it, they would be fired.
 
Only if you think education should be a priority for our country.

Why are teachers' unions good if you think education should be a priority? How do teachers' unions benefit our education system?
 
Why are teachers' unions good if you think education should be a priority? How do teachers' unions benefit our education system?

Recently with this economic crisis my university attempted to balance the budget on the backs of their teachers (among others); the teachers' union was able to prevent this.
 
Recently with this economic crisis my university attempted to balance the budget on the backs of their teachers (among others); the teachers' union was able to prevent this.

And why is it a good thing for the education system that your university was unable to balance its budget in the way that it felt was the most efficient?
 
And why is it a good thing for the education system that your university was unable to balance its budget in the way that it felt was the most efficient?

Because "the way that it felt was the most efficient" isn't in the best interests of education (to go back to another's argument).
 
I owe you an answer on this. My guess is that they are.

My other guess is that these two teachers are the only ones who want to run the local teacher's union because they need it.

Without it, they would be fired.
That's one explanation (and maybe its the right one). But neither of us really knows the quality of these two teachers' work--you heard it from someone else and we heard it from you. That's double hearsay--not particularly good evidence of anything.

On the other hand, we do know that the positions are elected, so the teachers in this school trusted these two people to handle those responsibilities. If they really were incompetent, sounds like the teachers in that school (including the person reporting this information to you) didn't value their union very much. That says more than anything.

One thing is for sure, whoever told you this could have remedied the situation by running for the office herself.

BTW, there may be advantages to being shop steward or whatever, but avoiding termination isn't really one of them--the protections of the union go to everyone in the bargaining unit. Even if we accept your premise as true, though, it is curious why all the OTHER teachers would help to protect incompetents by electing them to positions of responsibility.
 
Last edited:
That's one explanation (and maybe its the right one). But neither of us really knows the quality of these two teachers' work--you heard it from someone else and we heard it from you. That's double hearsay--not particularly good evidence of anything.

Well, it came from my mother. I don't know why she would lie to me. It's a small school district with less than 30 teachers.

On the other hand, we do know that the positions are elected, so the teachers in this school trusted these two people to handle those responsibilities.

Like I said, I would assume that it's the poorest teachers that value the unions because they know the union protects their job.

If they really were incompetent, sounds like the teachers in that school (including the person reporting this information to you) didn't value their union very much. That says more than anything.

The incompetents love the union. My mother, on the other hand, doesn't think much of it.

One thing is for sure, whoever told you this could have remedied the situation by running for the office herself.

Mom would never be a union rep because according to her the union is "full of bullies that could care less about education".
 
Probably not. If you look at the things schools are doing in order to reform schools (standardized curricula that take lesson planning out of the hands of teachers, for example), they generally take the opportunity to BE good out of the hands of classroom teachers.

I have absolutely nothing against standardized curricula that requires certain standards of what is taught. It ought not tell an individual teacher how to teach that material however, which means good teachers can still do good work and bad teachers ought to be exposed for the bad work they do. There needs to be minimum standards that apply across the board to all schools everywhere.
 
No they don't, that is decided by the state (if it is a public school).

But many Teachers Unions buy influence with state educational boards and state governments. That's the problem with California these days, the unions have such an absurd influence over government decisions because they use so much of their money buying off politicians, that you can be sure the unions get whatever they want.

It was so bad in last year's budget debates that even though legislators were locked in until they came up with a budget, they got to leave the chambers to confer with their union bosses and get the skinny on what they could and could not do.
 
Well, it came from my mother. I don't know why she would lie to me. It's a small school district with less than 30 teachers.



Like I said, I would assume that it's the poorest teachers that value the unions because they know the union protects their job.



The incompetents love the union. My mother, on the other hand, doesn't think much of it.

Mom would never be a union rep because according to her the union is "full of bullies that could care less about education".
I don't wish to cast aspersions at your mother, but I'd note that when we feel strongly about something, those feelings tend to color our impressions. This is true for all humans. And our assumptions usually are poor supports for an argument. After all, we tend to come to the same conclusions we are predisposed to believe. If I think an organization is full of "bullies," then I'll tend to believe that anyone associated with that organization is a bully, and I'll think other bad stuff about them too. The problem comes when I then use my impressions of those people as a justification for my original impressions. This is what I suspect may be happening in this case. We must all guard against this kind of circular reasoning. Without other corroboration, this kind of "evidence" is a questionable contribution to a debate.

If someone thinks an organization is so faulty that even their own participation in it could not change things, I'd say that disqualifies them from making an objective evaluation.
 
Last edited:
Why are teachers' unions good if you think education should be a priority? How do teachers' unions benefit our education system?

By providing bargaining power to retain our best teachers (as well as attract new ones) against politicians who decide that they have other priorities than providing quality education.
 
Last edited:
Government unions are practically never good.

It's completely unethical.
How is it unethical? I can see why striking (particularly strikes against public safety) might be considered unethical, but collective bargaining of any kind?
 
How is it unethical? I can see why striking (particularly strikes against public safety) might be considered unethical, but collective bargaining of any kind?

They already had representation in government, now they have double representation that can boost their job benefits at the expense of everyone else without merit.
 
They already had representation in government, now they have double representation that can boost their job benefits at the expense of everyone else without merit.
I'm not sure how your reasoning works here. Are you saying that a worker has no right to negotiate with his employer if that employer is government? Everyone has the opportunity to "boost their job benefits." Why should government workers be different?
 
I'm not sure how your reasoning works here. Are you saying that a worker has no right to negotiate with his employer if that employer is government? Everyone has the opportunity to "boost their job benefits." Why should government workers be different?

They already have an avenue to do this, their employer is already under their control to some extent, they can vote.

Essentially they are allowed to do more than just lobby for better benefits, they can lobby to get laws changed to benefit their industry at large.
 
They already have an avenue to do this, their employer is already under their control to some extent, they can vote.

Essentially they are allowed to do more than just lobby for better benefits, they can lobby to get laws changed to benefit their industry at large.

So if you have stock in a company, you shouldn't form a union?
 
Yes, you're right, but if you don't know what I'm talking about, chances are you haven't been near a public school in an economically challenged area recently. This is a fairly recent trend I'm citing, but it's going on many places. In my opinion, it's ruining K-12 education--and it's a response to regimes like No Child Left Behind.

I am pretty sure I know what you are referring to. And I'll cite the works of Jeannie Oakes. I don't recall the name of the study she had done, it's been a few years since I've read it, but it goes something like this:

In areas where the majority of the students are of lower SES, the schools tend to use lesson plans that have the qualities of what was referred to as classical conditioning (as in Pavlov and Skinner). These schools tend to have larger classrooms and they also to use the "one size fits all" lesson plans, to follow the lesson plans provided by the instructional guide that comes with the Teachers edition.

In areas where the majority of the students are of higher SES, the schools tend to use lesson plans that have the qualities of what was referred to as higher order and abstract thinking (as in Piaget). These schools tend to have smaller classrooms, better equipment, etc, and the lesson plans tend to allow the student to reach the correct conclusion on their own, as opposed to a mechanical way of thinking (as in the former example).

What is the difference? Lower SES schools produce the type of worker that would be optimal to follow orders and to follow instructions, in short blue collar jobs. Higher SES schools would produce white collar workers. Jeannie Oakes' study confirmed that this is the norm, but it's not the only factor however, there are several other variables to keep in mind as well.


I don't doubt you're right, but those charter schools (and I mean publicly funded charters) have to qualify for approval by local school boards, so those boards have control over their pools of students, etc. If other schools suffer in the ways you've suggested, its the fault of local boards.

It most certainly is. Profit based education means that there is money to be made, and the people on those school boards know exactly how to make that money (with the Charter schools).
 
Please forgive me if, in my earlier post, I implied you hadn't been around schools recently. I hadn't seen this post when I said that. I'm a teacher educator (I work in an academic department with undergrads before they go into teacher training programs but I teach methods courses as well as content courses) and the situation I described is the one most of my students enter in our local schools. I teach them a lot of stuff that they then aren't allowed to practice in local schools. I tell them that "the half-life of an idea in American education is about five years" but this trend does not seem to be abating.

No worries. What state are you from?
 
Back
Top Bottom