• 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
What a great historical chronology Zinn provided in, "A People's History of the United States". His works are such a great resource to us.

Rest in peace, Mr. Zinn!
 
That's debatable.

You do have a point there. I'm appalled to hear some of the poor grammar that comes out of the mouths of some teachers. Not only that, but some uncouth behaviour to go with it.
 
No one is stopping them from going on strike. Problem is, you have no right to keep your job if you're not working. Rights go both ways.
One fact that doesn't get mentioned in discussions like this is that the custom of continuing contract (the poor substitute for "tenure" that school teachers get) is actually part of their compensation. Without it they would have to be paid more. Job actions like strikes only happen under very specific circumstances, like when a contract runs out and another hasn't been negotiated. The difference, really, is that teacher bargain collectively rather than individually. It's much more disruptive to have to replace an entire staff than an individual--that gives those individuals power when they bargain collectively. You're saying they should not be able to make this choice?
 
One fact that doesn't get mentioned in discussions like this is that the custom of continuing contract (the poor substitute for "tenure" that school teachers get) is actually part of their compensation. Without it they would have to be paid more. Job actions like strikes only happen under very specific circumstances, like when a contract runs out and another hasn't been negotiated. The difference, really, is that teacher bargain collectively rather than individually. It's much more disruptive to have to replace an entire staff than an individual--that gives those individuals power when they bargain collectively. You're saying they should not be able to make this choice?

I'm saying the Wagner Act is a violation of freedom of association and private property rights.
 
You do have a point there. I'm appalled to hear some of the poor grammar that comes out of the mouths of some teachers. Not only that, but some uncouth behaviour to go with it.

One of the highest paid teachers at my old high-school was a driver's ed teacher. The man was a complete fool.
 
Unions have become their own bureaucracy, whose primary function is the continuance of its own, expense account padded existence.

I once, years ago, started a petition at a place I worked to get rid of the do nothing union we had there. I started getting calls from the union rep at all hours, and veiled threats, plus hysterics on the part of the woman.

Challenging unions is scary.

There was a point when a union represented a specific workplace. Now, most are regional or national in size, they have no particular stake in any single workplace or any particular set of workers, they are businesses in their own right and look out for their own interests.

Certainly I can understand how crazy unions can get, my wife works for a non-union shop and the union has sent goons to damage trucks, has broken into the office and stolen computers (all on tape, of course), etc. This is not at all uncommon.
 
One of the highest paid teachers at my old high-school was a driver's ed teacher. The man was a complete fool.

A couple of my daughter's middle school teachers are uncouth, fat slobs who snack on junkfood all day, in front of the class. They behave like unrefined lowbrows, and are basically boorish bullies.
 
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).

How do you know? Did you analyze their budget? And more importantly, why would the union know or care? If laying off workers WAS in the best interest of education,I'm pretty sure the unions would still opppose it.
 
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.

And does the union ONLY defend the best teachers, or do they defend the incompetents also?
 
That's debatable.

What do you define as well educated then? Most people in the USA do not have a college education, and teachers, at least in CA and other high standard places, have a four year degree and a teaching credential specific to their field. I would say that it is not debatable at all.
 
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.
The only problem with that is that when the kids go to multiculturalism class the good teacher will teach the definition of the subject and explain its significance, while the bad teacher will have the students get out their prayer rugs during Kwanzaa while while she talks about how Jesus was born a bastard.
 
Last edited:
And does the union ONLY defend the best teachers, or do they defend the incompetents also?

Large collectives have to act on rules and procedures that can be revised only sparingly, and only with great effort, over a long period of time if the organization is to be effective in any sense at all. It is inevitable some people will exploit those longstanding rules and procedures to not live up to their highest potential. 'Incompetent' is a very relativistic notion anyway.

The first thing a realist learns about human social reality is that society rarely works according to your specifications.
 
Last edited:
There was a point when a union represented a specific workplace. Now, most are regional or national in size, they have no particular stake in any single workplace or any particular set of workers, they are businesses in their own right and look out for their own interests.

Service
Employees
International
Union

When goonions are organized internationally, they're not even guaranteed to have an interest in the health of the United States.
 
Service
Employees
International
Union

When goonions are organized internationally, they're not even guaranteed to have an interest in the health of the United States.

Domestic unions don't have an interest in the health of the United States. It's just an obligation they sometimes have to deal with.
 
The issue lies with student motivation and lack of parental involvement.

Only partially.

The teachers have control of the PTAs, for example, and the PTA has devolved into nothing but female parents kissing teacher ass.

Have you researched this issue or is this just a knee jerk reaction?

My reflexes are so fast, I stop the knee from jerking before the doctor picks up the hammer.

Prospective teachers who took state teacher licensing exams from 2002 to 2005 scored higher on SATs in high school and earned higher grades in college than their counterparts who took the exams in the mid-1990s, the report said.


They've been dumbing down the SAT's for decades.

The percentage of candidates reporting a 3.5 GPA or higher rose from 27% to 40%

It's called Grade Inflation.

The college grades of prospective teachers has also improved. About 40 percent of the prospective teachers taking the licensing tests from 2002 to 2005 had a grade point average of 3.5 or higher on the traditional 4-point scale during college, up from 26 percent in the 1990s, the report said.

Yeah, I kinda figured the grades "improved" when you said the per centage of 3.5 GPA rose.
 
Domestic unions don't have an interest in the health of the United States. It's just an obligation they sometimes have to deal with.

To be fair, neither do corporations
 
To be fair, neither do corporations

I don't think it is an unrealistic attitude to have. Collectives founded on the principle of benefiting members of the group always want everybody else to take a hit for the United States, be they labor unions, corporations, or political parties.

Generally, the idea is you take the fewest hits possible and get the most benefits you can.
 
One fact that doesn't get mentioned in discussions like this is that the custom of continuing contract (the poor substitute for "tenure" that school teachers get) is actually part of their compensation. Without it they would have to be paid more. Job actions like strikes only happen under very specific circumstances, like when a contract runs out and another hasn't been negotiated. The difference, really, is that teacher bargain collectively rather than individually. It's much more disruptive to have to replace an entire staff than an individual--that gives those individuals power when they bargain collectively. You're saying they should not be able to make this choice?

Unions should always be allowed to strike, as long as the employers are always allowed to permanently replace them.
 
All true. I would hope that in a place like California, where tax receipts are remitted to the state and then redistributed, that the leveling I'm talking about would be more prevalent. But perhaps not.
Sure. I'm talking about when the teachers in particular subject and grade levels meet together to coordinate their curricula together so that they are determining TOGETHER what will be taught and how. They create these frameworks themselves and stick to them for a year, then reevaluate. This way, teachers are invested in what they're doing more than when the curriculum is handed to them, but they aren't each completely independent, reporting only to a department chair or principal.

This way, all the teachers can learn from the expertise of each other. They create a situation where students talk to each other about what they are learning, across classes, improving the school as a culture of learning. Sometimes teachers even collaborate across subjects, so student learn different aspects of the same topic in social studies and English, for example.

The key is collaboration between respected professionals rather than the imposition of a curriculum from an outside source.

I see now. We do that here in our school. Actually, it's our first year doing this. We get together every Wednesday to talk to other teachers, have meetings, and come up with collaborated lesson plans. I teach social science, the only teachers that I find myself able to collaborate with are English teachers. One of our aims are to establish essay writing skills. However, one of the problems that I ran into is the fact that I don't get students who are stratified by their writing skills, as with the English classes. Everyone who is taking American Lit. are at a certain level of reading and writing. But my students are not all taking American Lit. Some are English Learners, and some are taking lower level writing classes.

So far I think this is a great idea. I actually get to work with people outside of my department.
 
What do you define as well educated then? Most people in the USA do not have a college education, and teachers, at least in CA and other high standard places, have a four year degree and a teaching credential specific to their field. I would say that it is not debatable at all.

College degrees are way overrated and don't necessarily translate into teaching ability.

You could be the smartest person in the world and it wouldn't matter if you didn't know how to teach people. Unions serve to protect these incompetent teachers.

Two of the most well-paid teachers at my former high-school were both worthless. I could have done both their jobs at the same time in my sleep.

One was the driver's ed teacher I mentioned earlier and the other was a health teacher / physical ed teacher.

Don't believe me? Check it out!

Champion News - Setting the Standard

Champion News - Setting the Standard

$240 K right down the toilet...
 
Aren't they able to do that?

Employers are FORCED into collective bargaining with their employees should they decide to unionize, which means any contract the employer and union "agree" to is illegitimate. Often times, the contracts will stipulate the terms of employment so as to favor the union, and can you guess what most of them say about terminating an employee who is on strike?

This all derives from the Wagner Act, which is nothing more than government coercion on behalf of labor unions.
 
They've been dumbing down the SAT's for decades.

I guess people can justify anything if they start discounting or minimalizing data. *shrugs*

Originally Posted by Ethereal
College degrees are way overrated and don't necessarily translate into teaching ability.

You could be the smartest person in the world and it wouldn't matter if you didn't know how to teach people. Unions serve to protect these incompetent teachers.

Two of the most well-paid teachers at my former high-school were both worthless. I could have done both their jobs at the same time in my sleep.

One was the driver's ed teacher I mentioned earlier and the other was a health teacher / physical ed teacher.

Don't believe me? Check it out!

All you stated was "educated"... I am the first to state and/or admit that the two do not belong always belong together. Being able to "teach" is almost like an art. It is like those that understand psychology but could never counsel a person, and that is a great analogy... or a lawyer that knows the law but can't be a trial counsel. Guess what? There are those that can't counsel and do and those that can't practice law but do... nobody ever seems to bitch about them as much as they bitch about a few teachers that suck. Nope, we all just get tossed into the same bowl as what is wrong with education and the students and there lack of motivation coupled with poor paretning skills of today get a free pass. It is the PC move of the past 30 years. Blame the teacher or the institution when it is almost entirely the fault of the student and parent. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Too many people, even conservatives, have fallen for this. Liberals have broken down the family structure, and that of society and certain people get blamed instead... it really sucks, but oh well, all some of us can do is attempt to enlighten others. All of these stats and points are OFF point, the real point about education is personal responsibility of the students and family...
 
Last edited:
Aren't they able to do that?

Oh! Also, the Wagner Act stipulates that employers may not discriminate against employees because they're in a union, which makes firing a striking employee somewhat of a legal minefield.
 
Back
Top Bottom