There was a similar discussion in the Education forum a few weeks ago, but I find this issue to be important and enlightening.
If an employer chooses to create a job that has ridiculously low, but entirely legal, pay, and if he is able to fill those positions easily with fully-qualified people, who perform the job in a satisfactory manner, where and how does anybody else get a right to protest the compensation of that position?
A few examples (from real life):
When I was in retailing, working in a discount department store - now defunct for other reasons - we had a large group of employees who worked at re-stocking shelves. The people worked from 10am to 2pm every day with a 15 minute break, and were paid, basically, minimum wage. These positions were in great demand; we had reams of applications at all times.
Many colleges and universities have classes taught by "adjuncts," who are usually people who work in the field, have graduate degrees, and just like teaching. They make a pittance (varies from school to school), but there is a plentiful supply of such people, and if their performance is sub-par, it is easy to simply non-renew them and hire someone else.
Some states have part-time legislatures that only meet a few times a year, and they are paid a part-time wage. They are usually populated by lawyers, independent businessmen, and farmers, who run for and take the positions for a variety of reasons.
In all of these cases, it can truthfully be said that "you can't support yourself on those wages!" But so what? If there is an adequate supply of fully-qualified people who will take these positions, then why should anyone be concerned about the compensation?
Now apply that thought to compensation for public school teachers. This country has a long history of paying teachers "less than a Living Wage." One reason for this is that teaching was never considered a "full-time" job, due to the short hours and long summer vacations. In addition, although teachers are required to have Bechelor's Degrees, "Education" has never been a very challenging major, and teachers, on the whole, have never been credibly rated as anything more than low-level college grads. As a result, our public school teachers have been (a) married people with an employed spouse, such that the two incomes were sufficient, (b) couples who were both teachers, (c) adults still living with parents, and (d) people who had part-time jobs, especially in the Summer, and made due.
In states where teachers were given collective bargaining (including the right to strike), teachers have generally been able to DRAMATICALLY improve their economic lot, with good wages, outstanding benefits, and incredibly early and generous retirement packages - the envy of virtually all people working in the private sector.
But in those states where collective bargaining has not been adopted, teaching remains a low-paying job, as it always was before the advent of unions. Hence, those teachers remain in categories (a) through (d) above.
But on what basis do these teachers DEMAND more money from the taxpayers? Do they claim that they did not agree to work for those wages? Do they suppose - wrongly - that they could not be quickly replaced by others if they simply quit? Do they claim that they, unlike everyone else in the Real World, should never have to change jobs when they think they need more money?
It is bullshit. If large numbers of them quit, and the States were unable to replace them at the same wage, then the States would have to change their thinking, but that hasn't happened. They should go back to work, or if they find the compensation unacceptable, quit and go find another job.
Just like everyone else.
If an employer chooses to create a job that has ridiculously low, but entirely legal, pay, and if he is able to fill those positions easily with fully-qualified people, who perform the job in a satisfactory manner, where and how does anybody else get a right to protest the compensation of that position?
A few examples (from real life):
When I was in retailing, working in a discount department store - now defunct for other reasons - we had a large group of employees who worked at re-stocking shelves. The people worked from 10am to 2pm every day with a 15 minute break, and were paid, basically, minimum wage. These positions were in great demand; we had reams of applications at all times.
Many colleges and universities have classes taught by "adjuncts," who are usually people who work in the field, have graduate degrees, and just like teaching. They make a pittance (varies from school to school), but there is a plentiful supply of such people, and if their performance is sub-par, it is easy to simply non-renew them and hire someone else.
Some states have part-time legislatures that only meet a few times a year, and they are paid a part-time wage. They are usually populated by lawyers, independent businessmen, and farmers, who run for and take the positions for a variety of reasons.
In all of these cases, it can truthfully be said that "you can't support yourself on those wages!" But so what? If there is an adequate supply of fully-qualified people who will take these positions, then why should anyone be concerned about the compensation?
Now apply that thought to compensation for public school teachers. This country has a long history of paying teachers "less than a Living Wage." One reason for this is that teaching was never considered a "full-time" job, due to the short hours and long summer vacations. In addition, although teachers are required to have Bechelor's Degrees, "Education" has never been a very challenging major, and teachers, on the whole, have never been credibly rated as anything more than low-level college grads. As a result, our public school teachers have been (a) married people with an employed spouse, such that the two incomes were sufficient, (b) couples who were both teachers, (c) adults still living with parents, and (d) people who had part-time jobs, especially in the Summer, and made due.
In states where teachers were given collective bargaining (including the right to strike), teachers have generally been able to DRAMATICALLY improve their economic lot, with good wages, outstanding benefits, and incredibly early and generous retirement packages - the envy of virtually all people working in the private sector.
But in those states where collective bargaining has not been adopted, teaching remains a low-paying job, as it always was before the advent of unions. Hence, those teachers remain in categories (a) through (d) above.
But on what basis do these teachers DEMAND more money from the taxpayers? Do they claim that they did not agree to work for those wages? Do they suppose - wrongly - that they could not be quickly replaced by others if they simply quit? Do they claim that they, unlike everyone else in the Real World, should never have to change jobs when they think they need more money?
It is bullshit. If large numbers of them quit, and the States were unable to replace them at the same wage, then the States would have to change their thinking, but that hasn't happened. They should go back to work, or if they find the compensation unacceptable, quit and go find another job.
Just like everyone else.
