• 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!

Teacher of the year is laid off.

Boo Radley said:
I won't down play education, but pointing to education doesn't excuse us ignoring other problems. Unions have no more voice than business. Union voters have no more voice than non union voters.
Click to expand...

While in principle this is true, in practice it is often not the case. The unions have rigged the system in their favor and they know how to exploit it. I'll explain:

1. Most school districts have a compulsory public union that teachers must belong to. And if they choose to "opt-out" they still have to pay over 90% of their union dues anyway. This funds the massive union bankroll.

2. Teacher's unions promote the concept of hiring local teachers who live or come from within the community. This is done on purpose. The reason for it is that teachers vote. And teachers who either live in or grew up in the district likely have friends and family who they attempt to influence to vote.

3. In almost every school district the education elections and votes are done during the week, at the schools, polls close early, and there is never any other vote other than education issues at the same time. This done by design and is 100% intentional. They would never want the public to vote for the school board the same day they vote for the mayor. This would make it too convenient for the general public to vote, which is what they try to limit. By setting the system up this way there is a much greater percentage of votes from district employees/families/friends to non-affiliated general public voters. These elections are often close. They would have a much lesser chance of receiving the result they wanted if they made it convenient for the public to vote, so they hold an election/vote on their own special day.

4. Private citizens who run for the school board do not have funding. The people who get the most exposure are the people who have been hand selected by the teacher's union to run. These are often retired teachers, principals or politically active people who are sympathetic to the union. They then use their union dues to put signs up around town and advertise the members they want. They also instruct all teachers on how to vote. Almost all of them will vote rank in file. The few general public voters who do show up to vote often show up only for the up/down vote on the budget. They don't know anything about the people running for the school board, but are more likely to vote for the people whose names are familiar. This gets union cronies elected to the school board. They don't need 100% of the seats, just a majority. This gives them the power to vote the way the want and nominate the board President.

5. School boards hire superintendents which has a major impact on negotiations and their influence over the district.

6. Teacher's unions then collectively bargain against/with a school board they elected and tax payers suffer.

Many school districts in America are in this cycle right now. What we're seeing is the public may not understand the strategy the union is using, but they know they are being screwed, they just can't put their finger on how. They are beginning to vote in their own members to the school board kicking out the union cronies. And in many places in America the new school board is downright hostile towards the unions. If you look at places where property taxes have gone up the most over the past decade you'll find where this pattern is in greater effect. This creates an us vs them scenario between the public and their public schools/teachers/officials.
 
Last edited:
Josie said:
I wouldn't be opposed to cameras on the classroom. I think that's an excellent way to keep teachers accountable. However, you have to make sure you have administrators who will actually KEEP them accountable.
Click to expand...

Whenever the intercom system is changed out teachers around here teachers flip a brick if there is a private listen filter enabled. Old systems would play an audible tone before listening in the classroom to open communication. The region I am in has old buildings and the systems in this part of the state have been getting changed out frequently. The lack of a "tone" before listening in has become a pain point with the union and the local administrations. I can't imagine how they'd react to cameras. Some are paranoid that they're putting cameras in the new clocks that come with the intercom systems because they are digital and tinted whereas the old clocks were analog. In my area I think your opinion would be among the minority among teachers.
 
Last edited:
Josie said:
I wouldn't be opposed to cameras on the classroom. I think that's an excellent way to keep teachers accountable. However, you have to make sure you have administrators who will actually KEEP them accountable.
Click to expand...

First, you have to have administrators who know what is supposed to be going on in the classroom.

But, yes, cameras would be a good idea.
 
I don't see much there that is true of private institutions as well. Nor do i think it gives them greater voice. teacher who teach where there is a union involved benefit from that union. Where it is not mandatory, those who don't pay dues get to benefit without paying for the benefit. Not sure that's fair either. Seems to me if there is a union, everyone should pay for the representation.

Benefits, policy, all largely coming from the state, are negotiated by people outside that system. Governors and their representatives are not hired by schools or superintendents. And from what I've seen of school boards, I'm not convinced of you union claim,so I'd like to see some data on school boards.
 
Dittohead not! said:
First, you have to have administrators who know what is supposed to be going on in the classroom.

But, yes, cameras would be a good idea.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't oppose them, and have an open policy for may classes right now.
 
Catawba said:
You are dishonestly including years when Union membership was much higher than it is today. Only 11% of the population belongs to a union today (both public and private). That makes a big difference. When you look at the big donor numbers in 2010 and this year, the GOP are far ahead.
Click to expand...

This may be true, however, incumbency in local elections is much different than national elections. And even if the they are kicked out of office their pro-union policies still exist. Only Wisconsin has done anything to revert some of the changes they have made. All other states have done little to nothing to change the influence public sector unions have had on American politics in the past 30 years. The laws are all still on the books.
 
Josie said:
I wouldn't be opposed to cameras on the classroom. I think that's an excellent way to keep teachers accountable. However, you have to make sure you have administrators who will actually KEEP them accountable.
Click to expand...

I agree. This is also solved by decentralizing public education and having more competition, etc., i.e. anti-union.
Only way to get good administrators is for them to be both good administrators, and be tested constantly via competition, best practice, good hiring practice and good firing practice (or moving them out of management).

Hell, half of the short list of legitimate reasons to have unions is to protect them against mis-management, corrupt administration, and politics.
 
Comfort Food said:
This may be true, however, incumbency in local elections is much different than national elections. And even if the they are kicked out of office their pro-union policies still exist. Only Wisconsin has done anything to revert some of the changes they have made. All other states have done little to nothing to change the influence public sector unions have had on American politics in the past 30 years. The laws are all still on the books.
Click to expand...

What influence on the public sector today do you find objectionable? Do you have any recognition of the benefits that unions provide to the working class? Without the balance of unions you have a corporatocracy, especially now with the Citizens United corporate venue for unlimited anonymous donations. What in world history leads you to believe a country runs better under a corporatocracy?

What have we learned from history happens in countries where unions are undermined?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Do you have any recognition of the benefits that unions provide to the working class?
Click to expand...

Yes. Irrelevant to persent day teachers unions however.
 
Catawba said:
What influence on the public sector today do you find objectionable?
Click to expand...
Read this thread to find my views on this. They don't need repeating.

Do you have any recognition of the benefits that unions provide to the working class? Without the balance of unions you have a corporatocracy, especially now with the Citizens United corporate venue for unlimited anonymous donations. What in world history leads you to believe a country runs better under a corporatocracy?
Click to expand...
The notion that public unions advance the working class is false. This just doesn't happen. The reason for it is that public unions tend to have a monopoly on the jobs that they unionize. When was the last time you came across a non-public police officer? There is no such thing. We do have private schools, but if you look at their salaries they tend to be much lower than public school employees. The reason for this is because whether or not higher salaries in the public sector exist the schools only have so much money to spend on salaries. And where you have unions in the private sector the non-unions don't really compete directly, and where they do they are much better off. Have you bought a Chrysler lately? Of course not, because unions have driven the American automotive industry into the ground. Non-union shops have opened up on our soil paying non-union rates and those people earn a fair living and still have jobs. So how has the union helped Chrysler employees? They helped them to a quick road of bankruptcy and a depressed Detroit city with violence, crime, gangs and high unemployment. Also where the Teamsters and local grocery/delivery unions are in effect I can't really afford to shop at their stores. You can point out which grocery stores suck by the paid picket lines outside the stores. Inside you're likely to find high prices for the products. I'm lucky where I live there is competition in that market and the unionized grocery stores are also going out of business. They're doing it to themselves. Food costs and inflation is already going crazy from all these bailouts and government spending to keep unions and welfare programs afloat. I don't need to be paying more for my Oreos to boot.

What have we learned from history happens in countries where unions are undermined?
Click to expand...
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. In countries where unions have been "undermined" it was because the costs/benefits of the unionization were destroying their industries. While unions artificially inflate salaries in the short term it becomes unsustainable long term. And eventually you end up like the automotive workers, or even like our education sector where we pay twice as much to educate a child and get half the payout in return. If anything what we should learn is that these other countries "undermined" unions because they were forced to. They didn't have the capital Americans have to sustain them as long as we have. Rather than follow down their path we should recognize it and do something about it. We are in a global economy now. We are no longer in the era where unions were capable of thriving. We must be competitive with our global counterparts. In nearly every industry where unions have a threshold that is not the case.
 
Last edited:
Comfort, are you saying there are no non-union teachers? Police officers? Firefighters?

If you are, you're factually incorrect.
 
The point I've been trying to make and that some seem unable to grasp is that unions are not as pervasive as some think. The following link is from a very anti teacher union site, but it shows that unions don't control every state. I teach in Missouri where under 20% of teachers are in unions.

Unions | Teachers Union Facts
 
Mach said:
Yes. Irrelevant to persent day teachers unions however.
Click to expand...

That would be a no answer to my question, thanks!
 
Catawba said:
Based on your other posting I would have to agree.
Click to expand...

Well if you don't agree with something or don't like the answer, don't keep asking it then complain about the answers given. That's just silly.
 
Layla_Z said:
The point I've been trying to make and that some seem unable to grasp is that unions are not as pervasive as some think. The following link is from a very anti teacher union site, but it shows that unions don't control every state. I teach in Missouri where under 20% of teachers are in unions.

Unions | Teachers Union Facts
Click to expand...

Exactly, only 11% of the US population belong to unions (which includes public and private unions). They are just a shiny object the GOP uses to distract their followers while they are accumulating record wealth at the expense of the working class.

Seems to be working for them!

hypnotism.jpg
 
Comfort Food said:
Well if you don't agree with something or don't like the answer, don't keep asking it then complain about the answers given. That's just silly.
Click to expand...

Why not? That's exactly what you've been doing. You seem completely unable to grasp that there could be schools out there different from your own. Anytime I've suggested that your experience might not be the way it is everywhere you as though my experiences must be completely unique. Anytime someone says something that doesn't fit your narrow view you declare them wrong with nothing to pack up your opinion.

I know many, many hard working, excellent teachers. I'm a department chair and have led several committees. In 20 years and with a great deal of experience with many schools, I've found such teachers to be the majority. I work in a state without a strong union presence and with one of the lowest salaries in the country.

I'll say this and then I'm done. Just like all the terrible teachers you seem to know, I won't do anything I'm not being paid to do and I'm not being paid to teach you.
 
Layla_Z said:
The point I've been trying to make and that some seem unable to grasp is that unions are not as pervasive as some think. The following link is from a very anti teacher union site, but it shows that unions don't control every state. I teach in Missouri where under 20% of teachers are in unions.

Unions | Teachers Union Facts
Click to expand...

That's why I asked him this:

Comfort, are you saying there are no non-union teachers? Police officers? Firefighters?

If you are, you're factually incorrect.
 
Layla_Z said:
Why not? That's exactly what you've been doing. You seem completely unable to grasp that there could be schools out there different from your own. Anytime I've suggested that your experience might not be the way it is everywhere you as though my experiences must be completely unique. Anytime someone says something that doesn't fit your narrow view you declare them wrong with nothing to pack up your opinion.

I know many, many hard working, excellent teachers. I'm a department chair and have led several committees. In 20 years and with a great deal of experience with many schools, I've found such teachers to be the majority. I work in a state without a strong union presence and with one of the lowest salaries in the country.

I'll say this and then I'm done. Just like all the terrible teachers you seem to know, I won't do anything I'm not being paid to do and I'm not being paid to teach you.
Click to expand...

I haven't been asking you to repeat yourself. I've asked you specific questions for clarity. I recognize that only about three quarters of public school teachers are represented by a union, but that doesn't change my position on unions and their effect on public education. Disagreeing with certain practices of unions is not an attack on individual teachers.

And here's some food for thought for you. Do you think a salaried architect working for a firm could tell his boss that he won't put in the extra work/effort to get a project done because he's "not being paid to" do something that is asked of him? What do you think would happen to that architect if he told his boss that? You say you only work with hard-working teachers, but then follow it up with you won't do "anything" you feel you are not being paid to do. Most people in America do a lot of things they feel is outside their job description if their employer requests it of them. I'm not sure you would refuse. That kind of job security must be nice.
 
Last edited:
Comfort Food said:
I haven't been asking you to repeat yourself. I've asked you specific questions for clarity. I recognize that only about three quarters of public school teachers are represented by a union, but that doesn't change my position on unions and their effect on public education. Disagreeing with certain practices of unions is not an attack on individual teachers.

And here's some food for thought for you. Do you think a salaried architect working for a firm could tell his boss that he won't put in the extra work/effort to get a project done because he's "not being paid to" do something that is asked of him? What do you think would happen to that architect if he told his boss that? You say you only work with hard-working teachers, but then follow it up with you won't do "anything" you feel you are not being paid to do. Most people in America do a lot of things they feel is outside their job description if their employer requests it of them. I'm not sure you would refuse. That kind of job security must be nice.
Click to expand...

Wow, you don't get sarcasm do you. After a $5000 pay cut I do quite a bit that I'm not paid for. The thing I'm not being paid to do that I refuse to do is try to teach you.
 
Comfort Food said:
I haven't been asking you to repeat yourself. I've asked you specific questions for clarity. I recognize that only about three quarters of public school teachers are represented by a union, but that doesn't change my position on unions and their effect on public education. Disagreeing with certain practices of unions is not an attack on individual teachers.

And here's some food for thought for you. Do you think a salaried architect working for a firm could tell his boss that he won't put in the extra work/effort to get a project done because he's "not being paid to" do something that is asked of him? What do you think would happen to that architect if he told his boss that? You say you only work with hard-working teachers, but then follow it up with you won't do "anything" you feel you are not being paid to do. Most people in America do a lot of things they feel is outside their job description if their employer requests it of them. I'm not sure you would refuse. That kind of job security must be nice.
Click to expand...

75% seems high to me.

Highlights from the 2011 data:

--Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (37.0 percent) more
than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.9
percent). (See table 3.)

--Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the
highest unionization rate, at 36.8 percent, while the lowest rate
occurred in sales and related occupations (3.0 percent). (See
table 3.)

Union Members Summary

If I'm reading the data right, it looks more like only a third.
 
Boo Radley said:
75% seems high to me.

Highlights from the 2011 data:

--Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (37.0 percent) more
than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.9
percent). (See table 3.)

--Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the
highest unionization rate, at 36.8 percent, while the lowest rate
occurred in sales and related occupations (3.0 percent). (See
table 3.)

Union Members Summary

If I'm reading the data right, it looks more like only a third.
Click to expand...

It might be scewed as they group education with training and library occupations. :shrug:
 
Aberration said:
It might be scewed as they group education with training and library occupations. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But I would like to see some numbers. I would assume if you say 75% you have something that says that.
 
Boo Radley said:
75% seems high to me.

Highlights from the 2011 data:

--Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (37.0 percent) more
than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.9
percent). (See table 3.)

--Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the
highest unionization rate, at 36.8 percent, while the lowest rate
occurred in sales and related occupations (3.0 percent). (See
table 3.)

Union Members Summary

If I'm reading the data right, it looks more like only a third.
Click to expand...

You've probably read the data right, just weren't capable of interpreting it incorrectly. You said you were an educator right? You have been making a lot of posts that make me think otherwise.

Anyway, the typical number that gets flown around is that 70-75% of all public school employees are in a union. I don't believe the numbers get reported by teacher's only, but I could be wrong. And, there are many exempt or privatized employees in school districts. Jobs that are sometimes not in unions: custodians, lunch aides, principals, secretaries, administrators, paraprofessionals, social workers, IT, grounds, teacher's aides/student teachers, etc. So knowing this I deduced that at least 75% of public school teachers are in a union, the number is most likely higher, but I don't have an exact stat off the top of my head which is why I said "roughly."

You are free to check my number, if you choose to do so please find a source that does exactly that and doesn't include ambiguous positions like "trainers" and private employees. The number I gave clearly referenced public school teachers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom