Why can't teachers strike?

[Aunt Spiker]

I see your point, Aunt Spiker, but if we apply the "will anyone be severely inconvenienced" standard, then which workers are left that would be able to strike?

Well maybe someone demanding more pay and more benefits should consider the far lasting and reaching effects before they make the decision to do so or feel it's warranted.

If they're receiving semi-reasonable pay and semi-reasonable benefits is time such an enemy? Is it so bad to take the longer path without putting everyone else out, too?

People just need to look at something other than their selves in such a situation because - yes - their actions affect hundreds of others.

 

[radcen]

That is correct. The unions here in Illinois, this latest strike being an example, have fought tooth, nail and barbed wire against a couple of things: One, teacher evaluations. It would seem, if one listens to teachers, the only thing they should be evaluated on is how they organize their bulletin boards and whether or not they dress nice. Two, getting rid of ineffective teachers. The tenure system is so entrenched that it costs tens of thousands of dollars to do away with poor teachers. The union will defend them to the bitter end. (If you aren't familiar with New York's Rubber Rooms, you may want to do some reading about them. I think they've finally been disbanded, but I'm not sure...and, in addition, I don't know what's taken their place.)

As far as the current Chicago strike specifically, I side more with the schools/government. I think the teachers/union demands are, for the most part, unreasonable. Kind of outrageous, actually. My point in asking the question is generic, though, and I do not advocate making one subgroup of citizens (with few and limited exceptions) second-class citizens based on who employs them.

 

[Pinkie]

Well maybe someone demanding more pay and more benefits should consider the far lasting and reaching effects before they make the decision to do so or feel it's warranted.

If they're receiving semi-reasonable pay and semi-reasonable benefits is time such an enemy? Is it so bad to take the longer path without putting everyone else out, too?

People just need to look at something other than their selves in such a situation because - yes - their actions affect hundreds of others.

I didn't say I thought the Chicago teachers' strike now underway was worthy of support, Aunt Spiker. I'm not even 100% persuaded any teachers' union needs the power to strike.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I didn't say I thought the Chicago teachers' strike now underway was worthy of support, Aunt Spiker. I'm not even 100% persuaded any teachers' union needs the power to strike.

I believe strikes of this nature wouldn't be seen as an option or necessity to those in question if paths of mediation and alternative means were more reasonable - or open to them.

In some situations - yes - I could see how it's warrented. Pretend, lets say, that a school system was letting it's facilities go - and was cutting pay and cutting benefits but not doing anything with those 'savings'

or - as what happened a decade ago; small school systems being allowed to fail financially because school officials couldnt' pull things together and get organized enough to avoid massive debts.

In some (other) more serious circumstances I see no point in a teacher hanging onto their position for meager scraps of pay and the cold shoulder. . . strike - yes . . . maybe demanding a relocation or state intervention or something while they're at it.

 

[Pinkie]

I believe strikes of this nature wouldn't be seen as an option or necessity to those in question if paths of mediation and alternative means were more reasonable - or open to them.

In some situations - yes - I could see how it's warrented. Pretend, lets say, that a school system was letting it's facilities go - and was cutting pay and cutting benefits but not doing anything with those 'savings'

or - as what happened a decade ago; small school systems being allowed to fail financially because school officials couldnt' pull things together and get organized enough to avoid massive debts.

In some (other) more serious circumstances I see no point in a teacher hanging onto their position for meager scraps of pay and the cold shoulder. . . strike - yes . . . maybe demanding a relocation or state intervention or something while they're at it.

I'd guess that all the ills you've mentioned are going on here in Cleveland. Like most big cities, we have an abysmal public school system no one uses if they can avoid it. Our facilities are in terrible shape, and I mean broken windows, leaking roofs, etc. And yes, we have entrenched, overpaid, terrible teachers and administrators and a union that no doubt has its fair share of corruption.

 

[MaggieD]

Yes, I know about the Rubber Rooms but I am more appalled at the number of quality teachers who are sent there after a bull**** dispute with a parent than I am about the union preventing them from being fired. And that's not to say the terrible teachers who get sent there don't respect a horrible waste.

This is a complex issue, Mags. It's not going to lend itself to a simple solution. Yes, there is corruption in Chicago. Yes, some of it is almost certainly in the unions, including the teachers' unions. Yes, in some ways Chicagoans would be better off without a teachers' unions.

What you may have more trouble seeing is, there'd be a significant loss associated with doing away with the unions, too, and that to an extent, you cannot extract the issue of unionizing teachers from the one of how best to run a public school system in a city that size.

Apparently it's so damned complex that we are ruining generations of inner-city kids with a broken system. Can't evaluate them. Firing the mediocre to make room for the exceptional is so expensive and complex that principals shirk their responsibility. I have no sympathy for the state of CPS. The politicians, the teachers and union share equal blame. And the ones getting shafted? Well, that would be the kids.

 

[Pinkie]

Apparently it's so damned complex that we are ruining generations of inner-city kids with a broken system. Can't evaluate them. Firing the mediocre to make room for the exceptional is so expensive and complex that principals shirk their responsibility. I have no sympathy for the state of CPS. The politicians, the teachers and union share equal blame. And the ones getting shafted? Well, that would be the kids.

I couldn't agree more, and I wish I knew what to do. Every single power base seems inept and corrupt, just making things worse. Do away with the unions and the school boards and city councils just seem to bloat the administrative staff, ignore the problems and the kids suffer. Do away with the school boards, let the feds run things, and the regulations proliferate like dandelions, the resources get wasted, and nobody is accountable for anything.

It feels like watching a slow slide into hell -- and I have no suggestion on how to stop it.

 

[Thrilla]

What most people fail to realize and/or acknowledge is that unions have evolved from a pure labor advocacy movement to being big business in their own right.

this is true... they have become a big business of their own.
a big business whose profits are directly derived from taxpayers coffers.
a big business that holds power over government... power that no one else holds.

 

[Thrilla]

I've lived and worked for decades down south, Thrilla. There, closed shops are illegal and I've watched the corruption that ensues as a result. I've studied on how it can be mitigated, and no, I don't think it's possible.

Sure, you can investigate and punish illegal acts after the fact (though the will to do so is often lacking), but that doesn't begin to address the problem.

I'm unclear on what corruption you are talking about... what corruption exist because closed shop are illegal?


the notion I had of mitigating corruption is one of basic structure.... government has internal mechanisms ( ethics, panels, internal affairs, etc) , private legal entities are held accountable by external forces( usually government, sometimes media).

 

[Keridan]

Coercive monopolies should not be protected when they strike. There shouldn't be coercive monopolies. The education system is slowly destroyed because it has no compelling reason to become more efficient without competition. Since the government has decreed that these will be the only accessible means of providing this service, not showing up should = losing the job to someone who will.

Specific to the Chicago idiocy, teachers should be strictly evaluated and should lose all forms of tenure. Raises should be based on success in the evaluation. That evaluation should cover everything from work ethic to ensuring they thoroughly cover all materials and have made all efforts to ensure the children understood it. If they do poorly, they lose pay, if they do well, they get raises. If they suck bad enough, they get fired and the better guy gets the 75k a year even if he has only been around 2 years and the other was there 20.

 

[Pinkie]

Coercive monopolies should not be protected when they strike. There shouldn't be coercive monopolies. The education system is slowly destroyed because it has no compelling reason to become more efficient without competition. Since the government has decreed that these will be the only accessible means of providing this service, not showing up should = losing the job to someone who will.

Specific to the Chicago idiocy, teachers should be strictly evaluated and should lose all forms of tenure. Raises should be based on success in the evaluation. That evaluation should cover everything from work ethic to ensuring they thoroughly cover all materials and have made all efforts to ensure the children understood it. If they do poorly, they lose pay, if they do well, they get raises. If they suck bad enough, they get fired and the better guy gets the 75k a year even if he has only been around 2 years and the other was there 20.

I could be mistaken, but I think a k-12 teacher in a Chicago public school has no tenure protection.

 

[MaggieD]

I could be mistaken, but I think a k-12 teacher in a Chicago public school has no tenure protection.

You don't really think the union left THAT stone un-turned, do you? Yes, they have tenure.

 

[Pinkie]

I'm unclear on what corruption you are talking about... what corruption exist because closed shop are illegal?


the notion I had of mitigating corruption is one of basic structure.... government has internal mechanisms ( ethics, panels, internal affairs, etc) , private legal entities are held accountable by external forces( usually government, sometimes media).

The corruption is not merely because closed shops are illegal, of course. But if there are no unions for government employees, then a politician and his supporters basically "own" that fiefdom until he or she is replaced. Workers who are not hired by that politician are nonetheless fearful of offending and will skew decisions to the perceived desired goal.

Taken to an extreme, this results in corruption. Even in a more moderate form, it is highly inefficient.

 

[Pinkie]

You don't really think the union left THAT stone un-turned, do you? Yes, they have tenure.

More than just "permanent" employment after a period of probation?

 

[Thrilla]

I couldn't agree more, and I wish I knew what to do. Every single power base seems inept and corrupt, just making things worse. Do away with the unions and the school boards and city councils just seem to bloat the administrative staff, ignore the problems and the kids suffer. Do away with the school boards, let the feds run things, and the regulations proliferate like dandelions, the resources get wasted, and nobody is accountable for anything.

It feels like watching a slow slide into hell -- and I have no suggestion on how to stop it.

I think we all share similar concerns...and it's obvious the current policies and mechanism are not adequate in resolving any of them.

so i guess the answer is to keep doing exactly what we are doing, and hope it magically changes things.

.. or maybe we should just cede more and more control to unions... that's sure to pay off sooner or later

 

[Pinkie]

I think we all share similar concerns...and it's obvious the current policies and mechanism are not adequate in resolving any of them.

so i guess the answer is to keep doing exactly what we are doing, and hope it magically changes things.

.. or maybe we should just cede more and more control to unions... that's sure to pay off sooner or later

Thrilla, I have no idea. I've seen federal takeovers (unmitigated disasters) and school boards without a union to speak of (political cesspools).

It'd be great if we could find a big-city school system that works and copy it, but I just don't know of one.

 

[Thrilla]

The corruption is not merely because closed shops are illegal, of course. But if there are no unions for government employees, then a politician and his supporters basically "own" that fiefdom until he or she is replaced. Workers who are not hired by that politician are nonetheless fearful of offending and will skew decisions to the perceived desired goal.

Taken to an extreme, this results in corruption. Even in a more moderate form, it is highly inefficient.

am i reading this correctly... that it's a corruption mitigating mechanism to have employees loyal to unions rather than elected representatives and citizens.

I think the sort of corruption you are talking about is not mitigated, in the least, by unions... I think it's exacerbated.


I wish i could have come up with this union shceme, personally.. i find it to be a very effective tactic to gain wealth from taxpayers without their say, garner loyalty from the government employees to the extent that they are more loyal to you than their employer, then install politicians to see to your best interests... it's a nice circle of control, all bases are covered.
you have the employee and the employer firmly in your back pocket...complete loyalty, no accountability.... awesome scheme.

 

[Pinkie]

am i reading this correctly... that it's a corruption mitigating mechanism to have employees loyal to unions rather than elected representatives and citizens.

I think the sort of corruption you are talking about is not mitigated, in the least, by unions... I think it's exacerbated.


I wish i could have come up with this union shceme, personally.. i find it to be a very effective tactic to gain wealth from taxpayers without their say, garner loyalty from the government employees to the extent that they are more loyal to you than their employer, then install politicians to see to your best interests... it's a nice circle of control, all bases are covered.
you have the employee and the employer firmly in your back pocket...complete loyalty, no accountability.... awesome scheme.

I've never seen an elected official who was beholden to a public employees' union, Thrilla.

What I mean is, when an employee has job security such that a politician cannot fire them without just cause, you've eliminated the type of corruption that the spoils system creates -- and that corruption can be really horrible.

 

[Thrilla]

Thrilla, I have no idea. I've seen federal takeovers (unmitigated disasters) and school boards without a union to speak of (political cesspools).

It'd be great if we could find a big-city school system that works and copy it, but I just don't know of one.

no, we don't have one that works.. because they are all based on the same exact model...

this is a bit off topic, but the very first thing i would do is completely gut the administrative side of school districts...they prosper far beyond their worth.
..after the dust settled from that slaughter... I'd go after the exploitative education industry ( why oh why do we change textbooks every single year..and charge exorbitant prices for them?)...then i'd go after unions
once i have settled the issues of kicking the crap out of anyone who wishes to hold illegitimate control over government, taxpayers, and our kids.. and weeded out the bloat and waste... then we'd get down to addressing how to best educate the kids... teachers are the first stop i'd make in figuring out how to pull off that little chore.

 

[radcen]

this is true... they have become a big business of their own.
a big business whose profits are directly derived from taxpayers coffers.
a big business that holds power over government... power that no one else holds.

Huh? Every business with a government contract gets their profits "directly derived from taxpayers coffers". Some solely, some a combo of public/private.

I've never seen an elected official who was beholden to a public employees' union, Thrilla.

What I mean is, when an employee has job security such that a politician cannot fire them without just cause, you've eliminated the type of corruption that the spoils system creates -- and that corruption can be really horrible.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Many politicians are unduly influenced by union lobbying and/or contributions. But, rather than treat union employees as serfs and second-class citizens, I believe a better option would be to limit or eliminate union/corporate money contributions entirely. Said contributions allow them to play both sides of the fence, which does serve to make the process unequal. I'd bet that, if union (and corporate) contributions were eliminated, our elected representatives would probably make different decisions than they currently do.

 

[Thrilla]

I've never seen an elected official who was beholden to a public employees' union, Thrilla.

What I mean is, when an employee has job security such that a politician cannot fire them without just cause, you've eliminated the type of corruption that the spoils system creates -- and that corruption can be really horrible.

really?.. you've never seen one?.... you didn't see all those Wisconsin Democrat run out of their state when the union was attacked by walker?
that's just a recent blatant example.

a union is unnecessary to job protections.
when it comes to government, we have the legislative branch that is charged to carry out regulating such things... an executive branch to execute those laws, and courts to oversee disputes.... why are those things good enough for the rest of the citizens, but not good enough for government workers?

I have not consented for unions to replace the legislative branch of government... nor would I... they are not accountable to me, the employer, whatsoever.

 

[Thrilla]

Huh? Every business with a government contract gets their profits "directly derived from taxpayers coffers". Some solely, some a combo of public/private.

that's true.... but how many of those businesses have the power can bring government services to a complete halt?.. how many of those businesses with contracts posses a government labor monopoly... how many of those business directly control government?... i'd wager quite a few do what unions do and exert coercive control over politicians , so we'll call that a wash.

try as you might , you won't convince me government and business are the same... there are rather stark differences.

 

[Pinkie]

Huh? Every business with a government contract gets their profits "directly derived from taxpayers coffers". Some solely, some a combo of public/private.



I'm not sure I agree with that. Many politicians are unduly influenced by union lobbying and/or contributions. But, rather than treat union employees as serfs and second-class citizens, I believe a better option would be to limit or eliminate union/corporate money contributions entirely. Said contributions allow them to play both sides of the fence, which does serve to make the process unequal. I'd bet that, if union (and corporate) contributions were eliminated, our elected representatives would probably make different decisions than they currently do.

Remember, I worked down south where unions across the board are not as prevalent. I am aware that Big Labor influences many politicians, but I've never seen AFSCME act in a way that influenced a politician.

Police and fire unions, yes, but only to a limited degree.

 

[Pinkie]

that's true.... but how many of those businesses have the power can bring government services to a complete halt?.. how many of those businesses with contracts posses a government labor monopoly... how many of those business directly control government?... i'd wager quite a few do what unions do and exert coercive control over politicians , so we'll call that a wash.

try as you might , you won't convince me government and business are the same... there are rather stark differences.

In my view the biggest difference is, no public employee's job performance can be measured by the profitability of his employer. And this is a huge problem as regards teachers -- we can't agree on what standard should be used to measure their success.

 

[justabubba]

I think the teachers can be adequately protected by a union that doesn't have the legal right to strike.

how would they be protected when we observe rahm unilaterally rescinding a 4% raise already approved for the teachers