• 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
Bodhisattva said:
I guess people can justify anything if they start discounting or minimalizing data. *shrugs*
Click to expand...

I guess people can use statistics for anything, when they ignore trends in their baselines and assume they're level.

Today's SAT is a joke, has been ever since the media and the courts decided that questions that some people have problems answering correctly must be racist if those people aren't white.

Well, geometry and the English language isn't racist, and people who can't answer standardized questions on those subjects aren't being discriminated against, they're learning the limits of their knowledge. It's up to them to learn how to answer them. It should not be up to the courts to make the tests easier.
 
Ethereal said:
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.
Click to expand...
But its what people have wanted, and its been judged constitutional (and its been in force for 85 years). The kinds of actions employers took against their workers before the Wagner Act persuaded Americans that some legislation was needed to even up the power between capital and labor. Without these changes, even more grave threats to capitalism were likely.

I read, however, that it does NOT apply to public-sector workers, so it may not be germane to this conversation: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act]read [/ame]
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Duress is a daily thing that occurs everywhere and is near impossible to litigate...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I guess people can use statistics for anything, when they ignore trends in their baselines and assume they're level.

Today's SAT is a joke, has been ever since the media and the courts decided that questions that some people have problems answering correctly must be racist if those people aren't white.

Well, geometry and the English language isn't racist, and people who can't answer standardized questions on those subjects aren't being discriminated against, they're learning the limits of their knowledge. It's up to them to learn how to answer them. It should not be up to the courts to make the tests easier.
Click to expand...

You say the SAT's are a joke, I don't really care, then we have Ethereal saying the college degrees don't mean much... well, then lawyers and doctors and businessmen and accountants are all subpar as well. If you agree to that then that is fine.

But, if teacher SAT's are doing as well and better then SAT's being taken by other professions, then they are still doing as well or better thus negating your entire point in the first place... can't have it both ways.
 
I like your analogy here:
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's an old saying in business that "20% of your salesmen make 80% of your sales" and that if the bottom 80% were fired, it would still be true that of those left, 20% if the salesmen would make 80% of the sales. There are mediocre workers in every profession.

It's also interesting how much of this conversation is driven by the personal experience of the participants. "I know this teacher I think is lousy" and therefore somehow the whole profession is full of lice. Everyone wants a great teacher for their child--but not all teachers are outstanding, that much is true.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Duress is a daily thing that occurs everywhere and is near impossible to litigate...
Click to expand...

No....all the government has to do is repeal the law protecting people who refuse to work. If a person doesn't want to work, the employer, who owns the job, should have every freedom to hire someone who will do the job instead, and let the other go, forever.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You say the SAT's are a joke, I don't really care, then we have Ethereal saying the college degrees don't mean much... well, then lawyers and doctors and businessmen and accountants are all subpar as well. If you agree to that then that is fine.

But, if teacher SAT's are doing as well and better then SAT's being taken by other professions, then they are still doing as well or better thus negating your entire point in the first place... can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

I've seen engineers with degrees from MIT and from Bum****you. The peice of paper isn't a guarantee that the guy holding it knows bolt thread shear from buckling.
 
Rassales said:
I like your analogy here:There's an old saying in business that "20% of your salesmen make 80% of your sales" and that if the bottom 80% were fired, it would still be true that of those left, 20% if the salesmen would make 80% of the sales. There are mediocre workers in every profession.

It's also interesting how much of this conversation is driven by the personal experience of the participants. "I know this teacher I think is lousy" and therefore somehow the whole profession is full of lice. Everyone wants a great teacher for their child--but not all teachers are outstanding, that much is true.
Click to expand...

Thanks... and good point yourself. Also, not that it applies to people here, but many people that complain are either not educated themselves or simply don't understand the whole issue, like personal responsibility, or perhaps they didn't learn for a certain reason and blame the teacher. Education is a complex issue and when people just sit back and bash teachers, I take their input with a grain of salt.
 
Rassales said:
But its what people have wanted...
Click to expand...

Just because some people want something doesn't mean we should do it.

...and its been judged constitutional (and its been in force for 85 years).
Click to expand...

And we all know the SCOTUS is never wrong...

The kinds of actions employers took against their workers...
Click to expand...

As was their right.

Without these changes, even more grave threats to capitalism were likely.
Click to expand...

How can you protect capitalism by violating an employer's private property rights?

:confused:

I read, however, that it does NOT apply to public-sector workers, so it may not be germane to this conversation: read
Click to expand...

The Federal statute does not apply to public-sector employees, correct, but there are many State laws which serve an identical purpose.

Here's Illinois:

EDUCATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
(115 ILCS 5/) Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act.

(115 ILCS 5/14) (from Ch. 48, par. 1714)
Sec. 14. Unfair labor practices.
(a) Educational employers, their agents or representatives are prohibited from:
(1) Interfering, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under this Act.
(2) Dominating or interfering with the formation, existence or administration of any employee organization.
(3) Discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any employee organization.
(4) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because he or she has signed or filed an affidavit, authorization card, petition or complaint or given any information or testimony under this Act.
(5) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with an employee representative which is the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit, including but not limited to the discussing of grievances with the exclusive representative; provided, however, that if an alleged unfair labor practice involves interpretation or application of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement and said agreement contains a grievance and arbitration procedure, the Board may defer the resolution of such dispute to the grievance and arbitration procedure contained in said agreement.
(6) Refusing to reduce a collective bargaining agreement to writing and signing such agreement.
(7) Violating any of the rules and regulation promulgated by the Board regulating the conduct of representation elections.
(8) Refusing to comply with the provisions of a binding arbitration award.
(9) Expending or causing the expenditure of public funds to any external agent, individual, firm, agency, partnership or association in any attempt to influence the outcome of representational elections held pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 7 of this Act; provided, that nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit an employer's right to be represented on any matter pertaining to unit determinations, unfair labor practice charges or pre‑election conferences in any formal or informal proceeding before the Board, or to seek or obtain advice from legal counsel. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit an employer from expending or causing the expenditure of public funds on, or seeking or obtaining services or advice from, any organization, group or association established by, and including educational or public employers, whether or not covered by this Act, the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act or the public employment labor relations law of any other state or the federal government, provided that such services or advice are generally available to the membership of the organization, group, or association, and are not offered solely in an attempt to influence the outcome of a particular representational election.

115*ILCS*5/**Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act.
Click to expand...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No....all the government has to do is repeal the law protecting people who refuse to work. If a person doesn't want to work, the employer, who owns the job, should have every freedom to hire someone who will do the job instead, and let the other go, forever.
Click to expand...

Nike moved overseas in order to take advantage of non-unionized Indonesian kids in order to make a profit, car manufacturers have moved to Mexico for the same reason. You know, but won't admit, that conditions without the power of the union would be just as ****ty as they were in the late 1800's if you had your way, the question is, why do you want your way? It is about balance and you seem to want it all...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I've seen engineers with degrees from MIT and from Bum****you. The peice of paper isn't a guarantee that the guy holding it knows bolt thread shear from buckling.
Click to expand...

What Californian University would you classify as a "Bum****you" then that would graduate a person that is not worthy? Also, MIT, Harvard and such produce some great minds, yes, but so do the "lesser" colleges, many great minds fell through the cracks or couldn't afford high tuitions, also just because a person has the best mind in their field does not mean that they can teach.

Teaching is much more than content knowledge and any person in debating education or teachers that does not know this is at an extreme disadvantage...
 
Kandahar said:
And does the union ONLY defend the best teachers, or do they defend the incompetents also?
Click to expand...

I know of no mechanism to defend incompetent teachers. They are usually weeded out by the school administrators.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
You say the SAT's are a joke, I don't really care, then we have Ethereal saying the college degrees don't mean much... well, then lawyers and doctors and businessmen and accountants are all subpar as well.
Click to expand...

I'm saying college degrees don't automatically denote competence or intelligence. It's a lot harder to get a degree in biochemistry than communications.

Compare these and tell me I'm wrong:

Loyola University Chicago- Bachelor of Science (B.S.) Major in Chemistry with Emphasis in Biochemistry
Loyola University Chicago- MAJOR REQUIREMENTS for Communcation Studies

By the way, graduating from medical school or law school is probably a hundred times harder than becoming a public school teacher.
 
Ethereal said:
I'm saying college degrees don't automatically denote competence or intelligence. It's a lot harder to get a degree in biochemistry than communications.

Compare these and tell me I'm wrong:

Loyola University Chicago- Bachelor of Science (B.S.) Major in Chemistry with Emphasis in Biochemistry
Loyola University Chicago- MAJOR REQUIREMENTS for Communcation Studies

By the way, graduating from medical school or law school is probably a hundred times harder than becoming a public school teacher.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that you are wrong, because I feel that we agree and are both correct. What I am saying is that you are not correct regarding the fact that teachers are educated people.

Look, to say that all teachers are not Rocket Scientists is ridiculous. Your argument is like saying, "hey the athletes on the 49ers suck because they aren't on the Colts" or even better, Kobe Bryant should never have been allowed into the NBA because he did not become as qualified as a person that went and learned from Coach K at Duke winning national titles with 4 extra years under his belt. You also discount the innate ability regarding what it takes to teach. My dad is a top scientist in his field worldwide, PhD the works, he freely admits that he would not be a good high school teacher, same with my brother who is a CPA and now joining the FBI... he taught a course at college level and admits taht he could not with younger people.

All I am saying is that you guys are not seeing, or wanting to hear more truth about what it takes to teach. I am hearing you guys that there are a lot of crappy teachers, but not the majority, and even many crappy ones would not be as crappy if they had a higher percentage of students that cared or parents that backed them up...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Nike moved overseas in order to take advantage of non-unionized Indonesian kids in order to make a profit...
Click to expand...

It benefits both the American consumer and the Indonesian laborer; so, if by "take advantage of" you mean "give them a job they desperately need that no American would take anyway" then I agree.

...car manufacturers have moved to Mexico for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Unions increase unemployment. I'm glad you're on board!

;)

You know, but won't admit, that conditions without the power of the union would be just as ****ty as they were in the late 1800's if you had your way...
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting we get rid of unions. We're simply saying that the government should not enact favorable legislation on their behalf.
 
Morality Games said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's relative, but when the union makes it impossible to fire ANYONE then they're certainly defending some incompetent teachers. This makes the education system much WORSE off, not better. The good teachers don't need a union to save their job; they know that they aren't expendable. Many good teachers resent the union.

Morality Games said:
The first thing a realist learns about human social reality is that society rarely works according to your specifications.
Click to expand...

It would be a lot closer to my specifications without teachers' unions.
 
Ethereal said:
It benefits both the American consumer and the Indonesian laborer; so, if by "take advantage of" you mean "give them a job they desperately need that no American would take anyway" then I agree.
Click to expand...

Consumer benefit... yes.
Indonesian benefit... yes and no. The immediate is yes, they get a job. Ultimately though, it is next to slave labor, and taking advantage of the fact that they had nothing so we can give them next to nothing and undercut the American worker is a pretty poor argument in my opinion.

Exactly. Unions increase unemployment. I'm glad you're on board!

;)
Click to expand...

Nope, nice try man. Greedy corporations increase unemployment by caring about nothing but the bottom dollar at the cost of people's lives, and that is a big BIG problem with the slave mentality of the stock market.

No one is suggesting we get rid of unions. We're simply saying that the government should not enact favorable legislation on their behalf.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Catawba said:
I know of no mechanism to defend incompetent teachers. They are usually weeded out by the school administrators.
Click to expand...

The mechanism works something like this:

The school administrator tries to fire an incompetent teacher (or more realistically doesn't even TRY because they know it's futile). The union then raises hell, and will fight to no end to protect that person's job. It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to fire a teacher for ANY reason.

Unless the teacher ****ed one of their students, it's pretty much a lost cause to try to fire them...and even if they DID **** one of their students, there's a lot of red tape and the outcome is by no means guaranteed.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I am not saying that you are wrong, because I feel that we agree and are both correct. What I am saying is that you are not correct regarding the fact that teachers are educated people.

Look, to say that all teachers are not Rocket Scientists is ridiculous. Your argument is like saying, "hey the athletes on the 49ers suck because they aren't on the Colts" or even better, Kobe Bryant should never have been allowed into the NBA because he did not become as qualified as a person that went and learned from Coach K at Duke winning national titles with 4 extra years under his belt. You also discount the innate ability regarding what it takes to teach. My dad is a top scientist in his field worldwide, PhD the works, he freely admits that he would not be a good high school teacher, same with my brother who is a CPA and now joining the FBI... he taught a course at college level and admits taht he could not with younger people.

All I am saying is that you guys are not seeing, or wanting to hear more truth about what it takes to teach. I am hearing you guys that there are a lot of crappy teachers, but not the majority, and even many crappy ones would not be as crappy if they had a higher percentage of students that cared or parents that backed them up...
Click to expand...

I don't blame the teachers for the failure of students. That's entirely the parents' fault.

My problem is that public school teachers are generally overcompensated and hard to terminate. Unionization and labor laws have served to insulate them from the pressure of the free market.
 
Lightdemon said:
the merit based system does not work in education because the product is not a direct product of a teacher's pedagogy. It's a combination of what the student wants to achieve, their ambition, their own motivation, along with what the teacher has provided in pedagogy.
Click to expand...

That might be true for individual students. The best teacher in the world won't be able to help a student who simply doesn't care. However, merit pay need not be based on individual students. Most teachers have classes of 25-30 students. If one teacher's students as a whole consistently outperform another teacher's students as a whole (after taking into account how smart the classes were BEFORE the school year), I think it's fair to say that one teacher is measurably better than the other.

Lightdemon said:
If you can solve the problem of measuring the quality of education from student to student, along with all those confounding variables I just listed, then I would have no problem with a merit based system.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. Not all students learn the same way, and a teacher who is great at working with students with specific personalities/abilities might not be good at working with other students. So measuring the quality of education from one student to another is very important too, in addition to measuring the average performance of the students in a teacher's class.

Fortunately, the information technology exists where we can tell who is good at dealing with gifted children, who is good at dealing with problem children, and who is terrible. It's just a matter of utilizing it. Average student data is effective at telling who is a good teacher (or at least who is a good teacher for the classes they're teaching), and adjusting merit pay accordingly. Individual student data is effective at matching a student with the teacher who is the best fit for him/her.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
None. Parasites never benefit their host victim.



Making it nearly impossible to fire crappy teachers. Making it difficult for better teachers to get paid more than bad teachers. Reducing the incentive for genuinely talented people from becoming teachers in the first place. Costing the taxpayers an arm and a leg. Making it difficult to make necessary structural adjustments, such as making the school year longer.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Consumer benefit... yes.
Indonesian benefit... yes and no. The immediate is yes, they get a job. Ultimately though, it is next to slave labor, and taking advantage of the fact that they had nothing so we can give them next to nothing and undercut the American worker is a pretty poor argument in my opinion.
Click to expand...

1. Those jobs benefit the children immensely. Their only alternatives are usually prostitution or starvation.

2. The vast majority of Americans wouldn't take those jobs anyway.

3. The American worker is the American consumer. Specialization and trade benefits virtually everyone involved. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage"]Comparative advantage[/ame] is probably the most universally accepted economic principle.

Nope, nice try man. Greedy corporations increase unemployment by caring about nothing but the bottom dollar at the cost of people's lives, and that is a big BIG problem with the slave mentality of the stock market.
Click to expand...

Well, you can't stop greed, so the only real solution is to rescind laws which favor labor unions.
 
Kandahar said:
The mechanism works something like this:

The school administrator tries to fire an incompetent teacher (or more realistically doesn't even TRY because they know it's futile). The union then raises hell, and will fight to no end to protect that person's job. It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to fire a teacher for ANY reason.

Unless the teacher ****ed one of their students, it's pretty much a lost cause to try to fire them...and even if they DID **** one of their students, there's a lot of red tape and the outcome is by no means guaranteed.
Click to expand...

That has not been the case in Virginia. In Virginia the biggest problem is attracting and retaining the best teachers because the pay and benefits are so crappy.
And it would be even worse without a teachers association.
 
The Mark said:
Are Teacher Unions a good thing?

As in:

What benefits, if any, do they provide for schools?

What problems, if any, do they cause for schools?
Click to expand...

OK, so I'm coming in late to this thread. Maybe what I'm about to post has already been posted.

Too bad.

I was a member of the California Teacher's Association for many years, served as chapter president a couple of terms, and as negotiator for the union for several years.

I also served for six years as an administrator, sitting on the other side of the table.

Not that it matters, but I do have some experience with at least one teacher's union.

The union's job is to improve salary and working conditions for teachers, pure and simple. They don't improve the school, except by making the teachers more content with their lot.

The notion that a teacher can not be fired is just that, a notion. A teacher can be fired for cause, just not for getting crosswise with the administration.

Sometimes, the administration deserves to be opposed.

I personally would not go into a classroom without the backing of the union, no way. For one thing, all a student has to do is accuse the teacher of inappropriate conduct, and it costs all of that teacher's savings and then some to defend a court case, even if there is nothing to the accusation at all. The district is not going to stand behind a teacher, but the union will. For another, the administration can get abusive, and the union is the only entity that can back up a teacher.

Not only that, but there is the issue of collective bargaining. Teacher salaries aren't exactly on a par with the CEOs, but they are a lot better than they would be without the union.

Yes, dealing with the union can be a pain sometimes, but in balance, the unions are a good thing.

I do and did oppose the requirement to be a member of the NEA in order to be a member of the state union. The NEA doesn't do much other than support liberal causes that the members often disagree with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom