Not as effectively. Seriously, one voice can be ignored much easier than many voices. Just as an industy CEOs will group together to negotiate with government, so do employees group together to negotiate wages and benefits. One is no better or more evil than the other. Employees wanting better benefits is no worse than business wanting better and bigger breaks (tax cuts and less regulation).They can do that individually. When they join an organization whose sole purpose is to strongarm the government (i.e. the representative of the people) into overpaying them by monopolizing the labor supply, they've crossed a line. Any money spent overpaying teachers could be better spent hiring MORE teachers, or improving education in some other way, or on some other public service. From the public's perspective, the money is essentially wasted. No one benefits from public unions except the public union employees...and they have no reason to expect to be immune to the laws of supply and demand any moreso than anyone else.
Well that is what I've seen discussed. NCLB is entirely based on that false premise. So, I'd love to see another version explained.That's based entirely on the assumption that merit pay would simply pay teachers for how well their students do without regard to any other variables, like the quality of students. I don't think there are many merit pay advocates who want such a system.
I don't believe that. Government officals have no motivation to bankrupt the state, s it hurts them. they have every motivation to balance a budget and keep government open. And leaders do bear the consequence when they fail, as theyoften lose their seats, their position. An employee, any employee, should never be subject to an employer without the ability to negotiate collectively. While I fall just short of calling a union a right, I will be more than willing to let them fight for it. No law says anyone has to cave. but no laws should say they have the absolute rigth to forbid people to fight for better wages, benefits or conditions. Neither side should be handed an advantage.I'm not a big fan of private unions either, but there is one crucial difference that makes public unions a lot worse: Private companies are motivated by profit, and have a financial incentive to push back against union demands. Government officials are not motivated by profit, and thus often have no such financial incentive to tell the unions no. Along the same lines, who bears the consequences when private company executives allow unions to walk all over them? The shareholders, who chose to invest in the company and have the ability to fire the offending executives and/or sell their stock. Who bears the consequences when government managers allow unions to walk all over them? The public, who has nowhere else to turn for public services.