Clearing The Misunderstanding

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Teacher unions are much like police unions and every other public union - they fight like hell to keep bad employees who should be fired on the job. Yeah sure, teachers don't kill kids, but they do rape them. Although you wonder how many young lives were forever damaged or even destroyed by a predatory teacher. And it ain't just sexual misconduct, it's the inadequate learning that somebody's kids aren't getting because the teacher doesn't give a fuck.

Kind of a broad brush there, tasky....


The OP simply explained that unions are there to advance the wishes, and needs, of their members.

True. BUT, sometimes public unions advance the wishes and needs of their members beyond what is beneficial for the rest of us, specifically our school children. In some places there are situations where it is hard as hell to get rid of a bad teacher, just like it is to fire a bad cop. But too many times it doesn't happen and sooner or later the next victimization occurs. Why? Because the public union had too much sway over the decisions made in the case. Which doesn't mean in every case we have to fire somebody, it has to be for a righteous and verified reason based on more than he said she said. We shouldn't fire somebody based on an accusation, BUT when one accusation becomes 10 then it becomes a little bit different. Why were all 10 accusations dismissed? Were the prior accusations allowed into the deliberation? In some places, the union contract says no they aren't. And in some places prior accusations are deleted from a person's file after 6 months or whatever. Not cool.

Rock: " The unions provide for due process. Would you like it if I walked into where you work and fired you because I didn't like you? "

No, I wouldn't like it. Your situation is I think not uncommon, people are let go for fiscal reasons rather that a lack of merit. But there has to be a distinction between someone fired for cause and somebody fired without just cause. Or in your case not retained. But given a choice between the 2 situations, I'd rather not have a public union that can keep bad employees. You say the union couldn't do anything cuz you weren't tenured; maybe that's the fault of the union cuz the contract didn't give them the option to fight for an untenured teacher.

Rock: " most teachers' unions are barred from striking by law "

You sure about that? It sure seems like it's the other way around, but the ones that can strike sure do make a lot of noise about it. Teacher strikes are legal in 12 states and not covered in statutes or case law in three. That said, teachers do strike in states where it’s illegal - in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, it’s illegal for public school teachers to strike. But, teachers in these states went on strike anyway, and most of them got the pay raises they wanted. They could have all gotten fired, or even put in jail. But they had an advantage: strength in numbers. It's kinda hard to replace thousands of teachers.

Sounds like teachers in 47 states are not barred from striking.

Post #16

Elaborate a little bit, please? I'm a little slow today, actually I'm a little slow everyday. But I missed your point.

Look - public unions are generally people with a significant amount of institutional knowledge and skills, and in number that make them a force to reckon with whether they have the right to legally strike or not. We see in the cops that didn't show up for work that one night in Atlanta, blue flu right? If the teachers refuse to show up, our kids will get no schooling, so what difference really does it make if there is or isn't a union? Except that a union has a lot of political power in terms of political influence and donations (money). Which leads to quid pro quo and that ain't good for the rest of us. Which lead to higher salaries/benefits and too much job security for those who shouldn't have it.

Now - the unions themselves are not the only ones at fault here. There's also the politicians who allowed themselves to be bought or swayed by union power, and the voters who do not/did not vote said politicians out of office. And BTW, IMHO education should be entirely managed at the local and state level, the federal gov't should have absolutely nothing to do with education regs/loans, and subsidies. Outside perhaps of certain research grants.

a. The Constitution allows unions
b. Government can cancel public unions....but they won't
The entire purpose of public unions is to get their members to vote for said politicians.


Pay for votes with public money.

How is it public money if it comes from union dues?

The local/state/or federal government administers the payments of dues, and delivery of same to the unions. Said administration is at a cost to taxpayers.

In NYC, the law, the Taylor Law, cuts off 'check off,' that sending union dues from the paychecks of teachers to the union, in case of a strike.

The always works, because the union knows that individual teachers will not voluntarily send in their dues.

That is only in NY. That is NOT common practice.

What is not a common practice.......the municipality collecting the dues out of the teacher's paycheck, before it is paid???

You're claiming that, nationwide, teachers all dutifully send in their dues???




"The checkoff system is very attractive to a union since the collection of dues can be costly and time-consuming. It prescribes the manner in which dues are paid by deductions in earnings rather than through individual checks sent directly to the union. Unions are thereby assured of the regular receipt of their dues."
Checkoff legal definition of Checkoff



"Government collection of union dues has been a hot-button issue in at least the past two legislative sessions and is bound to rear its head again, especially now that many more public employee unions have willingly transferred their members to a private dues collection method. "

Unions Reforming Their Own Dues Collection Method - Texas Scorecard

Union dues reform isn't law in Texas yet, but some unions have started implementing it themselves.

texasscorecard.com

Unions do not touch paychecks. The cost to deduct dues requires a one-time software update for each individual. You are simply exaggerating the cost.

Just admit that you're wrong.

By now you should be well practiced at that.

I provided links, while you simply reminded all that you are our best source of greenhouse gases.


Please don't bother authoring another version of "is not, isssssss noootttttt!!!".......just wander off into the oblivion you so richly deserve.

You provided one exception. I do that all day with your limited knowledge of public education I guess polite discussion with you is a waste of time.

Absolutely.

Don't waste your time....I sure will miss you.


I always like seeing your posts…they bring a new dimension to the conversation. Wait…did I say ‘dimension’? I meant ‘dementia.’

I thought after your posts that you had some sense. I guess you are just a New York moron, too stupid to move.

 

[task0778]

I was never a teacher. As stated I served on the school board for many years. 58 grand is a kick in the guts. Lower class. Teachers here in Wisconsin get a new contract every year and any teacher can simply not be given a contract with no reason why. Any bad teachers can be let go. Again, 58 grand? Pffft. Ouch.

The median household income for Wisconsin was $59,305 in 2017, the latest figures available.

You're telling me a tenured teacher in Wisconsin can be let go for no reason? Doesn't say much for their union, I'm pretty sure that such is not the case in most states. In a lot of places the teacher's union will fight like hell to keep a bad teacher in the classroom or at least employed. And I'm pretty sure in most places a tenured teacher has a job for as long as they want it. To get fired they'd have to do something really, really bad.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All 3 of my kids graduated and were well prepared for college. They are all doing very well. Insults are not necessary. Painting all unions as bad is also short sighted the highest paid teacher here is 58 grand which in today's america is a pittance. Like next to nothing. Not even middle class really.

"Painting all unions as bad "

It appears that you weren't prepared too well. I never said any such thing.

Work on your reading skills.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was never a teacher. As stated I served on the school board for many years. 58 grand is a kick in the guts. Lower class. Teachers here in Wisconsin get a new contract every year and any teacher can simply not be given a contract with no reason why. Any bad teachers can be let go. Again, 58 grand? Pffft. Ouch.

The median household income for Wisconsin was $59,305 in 2017, the latest figures available.

You're telling me a tenured teacher in Wisconsin can be let go for no reason? Doesn't say much for their union, I'm pretty sure that such is not the case in most states. In a lot of places the teacher's union will fight like hell to keep a bad teacher in the classroom or at least employed. And I'm pretty sure in most places a tenured teacher has a job for as long as they want it. To get fired they'd have to do something really, really bad.

Informative.

 

[Andylusion]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

I don't understand how anyone that is not connected to the Unions, could ever be against school choice.

How can a person that has no political or monetary dog in the fight, honestly be against people having choice?

If your school is so much better than any alternative, then logically no one would move their kids to the alternative.

In which case.... what are you against?

I've never understood that.

 

[Andylusion]

All 3 of my kids graduated and were well prepared for college. They are all doing very well. Insults are not necessary. Painting all unions as bad is also short sighted the highest paid teacher here is 58 grand which in today's america is a pittance. Like next to nothing. Not even middle class really.

But the fact is many students, if not most at this point, are not well prepared for college.

My question to you is, if you are right, and your local schools are fantastic.... then what is the issue here?

Logically if you give people school choice, and your schools are better than any other choice... what exactly are you worried about? What is the case for not having a choice?

No one is going to move their kids out of your fantastically amazing schools, to go to schools that are not as good.... right? So why not allow the choice?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

I don't understand how anyone that is not connected to the Unions, could ever be against school choice.

How can a person that has no political or monetary dog in the fight, honestly be against people having choice?

If your school is so much better than any alternative, then logically no one would move their kids to the alternative.

In which case.... what are you against?

I've never understood that.

It is bigger, and more dangerous: they are against freedom and liberty.

And that fits with the mission of government school: to indoctrinate.

Without government schooling there wouldn't be nearly as many Democrat voters.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All 3 of my kids graduated and were well prepared for college. They are all doing very well. Insults are not necessary. Painting all unions as bad is also short sighted the highest paid teacher here is 58 grand which in today's america is a pittance. Like next to nothing. Not even middle class really.

But the fact is many students, if not most at this point, are not well prepared for college.

My question to you is, if you are right, and your local schools are fantastic.... then what is the issue here?

Logically if you give people school choice, and your schools are better than any other choice... what exactly are you worried about? What is the case for not having a choice?

No one is going to move their kids out of your fantastically amazing schools, to go to schools that are not as good.... right? So why not allow the choice?

And now for the results of indoctrination rather than education:


1. "Across the Board, Scores Drop in Math and Reading for U.S. Students
The latest results from the Nation’s Report Card show declines in student performance across demographics.

2. MATH AND READING SCORES for fourth- and eighth-graders in the United States dropped since 2017, and the decrease in reading achievement has government researchers particularly concerned.

3. "Over the past decade, there has been no progress in either mathematics or reading performance, and the lowest performing students are doing worse," Peggy Carr, associate commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, said during a press call Tuesday.



4. ...declines in reading at both grades were also seen at all levels of achievement, whether students were high- or low-achieving, with the exception of the highest achieving fourth graders.

5. "Over the long term in reading, the lowest performing students – those readers who struggle the most – have made no progress from the first NAEP administration almost 30 years ago," she said.

6. ...the scores of lower performing students declined in three of the four grade-subject combinations and those drops are what accounted for the overall drop in average scores."
https://www.usnews.com/news/educati...ores-drop-in-math-and-reading-for-us-students

 

[initforme]

Well then it's time you quit your cushy jobs and get inside the classrooms of the big cities and show us how to fix the problem. I bet the kids will just swoon for your knowledge. And so will every parent.

 

[Andylusion]

Well then it's time you quit your cushy jobs and get inside the classrooms of the big cities and show us how to fix the problem. I bet the kids will just swoon for your knowledge. And so will every parent.

We do have a fix for the problem, and it does not involve sending non-teachers to teach.

 

[Unkotare]

Well then it's time you quit your cushy jobs and get inside the classrooms of the big cities and show us how to fix the problem. I bet the kids will just swoon for your knowledge. And so will every parent.

I'd like to see some of these big mouths give it a try. They wouldn't last a day.

 

[mgh80]

I was never a teacher. As stated I served on the school board for many years. 58 grand is a kick in the guts. Lower class. Teachers here in Wisconsin get a new contract every year and any teacher can simply not be given a contract with no reason why. Any bad teachers can be let go. Again, 58 grand? Pffft. Ouch.

The median household income for Wisconsin was $59,305 in 2017, the latest figures available.

You're telling me a tenured teacher in Wisconsin can be let go for no reason? Doesn't say much for their union, I'm pretty sure that such is not the case in most states. In a lot of places the teacher's union will fight like hell to keep a bad teacher in the classroom or at least employed. And I'm pretty sure in most places a tenured teacher has a job for as long as they want it. To get fired they'd have to do something really, really bad.

I'm teacher who'll never be tenured (nobody in my district is anymore). Doesn't bother me really as my scores have always been really strong so I'm not worried about it.

However unions aren't the devil to education like some people might think. They focus on making working as a teacher more appealing. The more appealing it is, the more people who apply. The more people who apply the more choices schools get. The more choices schools get the better teachers they end up getting. Better teachers being hired turn out better results for students. This isn't rocket science.

 

[mgh80]

And now for the results of indoctrination rather than education:


1. "Across the Board, Scores Drop in Math and Reading for U.S. Students
The latest results from the Nation’s Report Card show declines in student performance across demographics.

2. MATH AND READING SCORES for fourth- and eighth-graders in the United States dropped since 2017, and the decrease in reading achievement has government researchers particularly concerned.

You know what the #1 problem in the schools I've taught at is? Entitlement. It's rampant and it's out of control. Parents who feel like their kid is entitled to an "A" for doing minimal or in some cases no work. The districts who give 9 and 10 "second chances" to students. The coddling of American youth. We've lowered the bar, excused poor behavior and mindsets, and aren't comfortable enough to point the finger at home to blame.

One of my first years teaching I taught a kid-we'll call him "Steve". Steve enrolled into the school during the 2nd semester. Steve completed ZERO assignments in my class and even refused to do the tests. Steve had a 0%. Steve failed the 3rd quarter. I had called home numerous times-parents didn't care. Steve kept doing nothing and my spidey sense went off so this time I called Steve's home from an admin's office with the phone on speaker. I explained that Steve was failing my class-mom assured me he'd do work (he didn't). Last day of school-literally-Steve's mom comes onto campus and starts screaming at me for failing her kid. I explained that I didn't fail Steve-he had failed on his own. She proceeded to literally follow me around my classroom, the hallways, etc. for 20 minutes because she insisted I needed to pass him because my class was a core class. I told her that that wasn't going to happen. She asked me what work could Steve make up-I told her nothing. It was too late. I explained that it wouldn't be fair to Steve's peers, I had contacted her numerous times via emails and phone calls, etc. I explained the importance of deadlines and that even if he had turned in work a week late I would have accepted it and deducted late points-but work up to 4-5 months (literally) late wouldn't be accepted. It was the last day of school. She kept insisting, so I brought her to the office and walked her straight to the most available admin (happened to be the one whose office I used for the phone call). Mom proceeded to attempt to bury me by claiming I was lying about ever calling her. The admin explained that not only had I called her from their office but that they (the admin) had also spoken to her on the phone about her son during said phone conversation. Mom then stormed off into the principal's office demanding I pass her son.

I never passed him-because he never earned it. Truth be told if he came to me that last day with every assignment from the quarter completed I would have passed him with a "D". which is similar to what I did this year.

This past year I had a kid let's call him "John". John did little the 1st and 2nd quarters and failed. He did ok on his mid-term but still failed my class. On that exam day he came in and handed in a stack of papers and said "Hey Mr. <insert name> I don't know if you'll accept my late work or not...but I figured it was worth a shot. Here's ALL of the work from the semester-it took me days and days to complete. I hope you'll consider accepting it as a late grade because I really want to pass your class. If not that's ok too, I understand and will do better next time. Thank you," and walked off. I reviewed Johns work to make sure he actually did it and didn't just copy-and he did all of it on his own. Needless to say John passed my class. He also earned a "B" the following semester FWIW. Never expected a thing and worked hard to make up for his mistakes and owned them. That I can respect and work with. Kids who sit in class who accomplish as much as the posters in the class do don't.

Steve dropped out of school the following year. A few years later I saw him flipping burgers at McDonald's. Shame because he really had so much potential-but he expected everything to be handed to him and was too lazy to do it himself.

TLDR: The biggest issue with education imo is the amount of entitlement that many students and parents have.

 

[mgh80]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

I don't understand how anyone that is not connected to the Unions, could ever be against school choice.

How can a person that has no political or monetary dog in the fight, honestly be against people having choice?

If your school is so much better than any alternative, then logically no one would move their kids to the alternative.

In which case.... what are you against?

I've never understood that.

Logistically everybody would have to go to the few schools that it's just not possible to allow every student the choice to attend to specific school they want. My district has choice but there needs to be a reason (such as a school is offering an elective you want to take that yours doesn't). I'm ok with choice for specified reasons such as that or other reasons. But it's just not possible to accommodate everybody.

Also schools can only perform at the level of their student bodies. So test scores went up when I went from one school to another. That's just because of the students of each school-the gains my students had were similar. Give me a classroom of all-star players and a classroom of minor leaguers and you're going to get different results in terms of raw numbers.

 

[mgh80]

Teacher unions are much like police unions and every other public union - they fight like hell to keep bad employees who should be fired on the job. Yeah sure, teachers don't kill kids, but they do rape them. Although you wonder how many young lives were forever damaged or even destroyed by a predatory teacher. And it ain't just sexual misconduct, it's the inadequate learning that somebody's kids aren't getting because the teacher doesn't give a fuck.

Kind of a broad brush there, tasky....


The OP simply explained that unions are there to advance the wishes, and needs, of their members.

True. BUT, sometimes public unions advance the wishes and needs of their members beyond what is beneficial for the rest of us, specifically our school children. In some places there are situations where it is hard as hell to get rid of a bad teacher, just like it is to fire a bad cop. But too many times it doesn't happen and sooner or later the next victimization occurs. Why? Because the public union had too much sway over the decisions made in the case. Which doesn't mean in every case we have to fire somebody, it has to be for a righteous and verified reason based on more than he said she said. We shouldn't fire somebody based on an accusation, BUT when one accusation becomes 10 then it becomes a little bit different. Why were all 10 accusations dismissed? Were the prior accusations allowed into the deliberation? In some places, the union contract says no they aren't. And in some places prior accusations are deleted from a person's file after 6 months or whatever. Not cool.

Rock: " The unions provide for due process. Would you like it if I walked into where you work and fired you because I didn't like you? "

No, I wouldn't like it. Your situation is I think not uncommon, people are let go for fiscal reasons rather that a lack of merit. But there has to be a distinction between someone fired for cause and somebody fired without just cause. Or in your case not retained. But given a choice between the 2 situations, I'd rather not have a public union that can keep bad employees. You say the union couldn't do anything cuz you weren't tenured; maybe that's the fault of the union cuz the contract didn't give them the option to fight for an untenured teacher.

Rock: " most teachers' unions are barred from striking by law "

You sure about that? It sure seems like it's the other way around, but the ones that can strike sure do make a lot of noise about it. Teacher strikes are legal in 12 states and not covered in statutes or case law in three. That said, teachers do strike in states where it’s illegal - in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, it’s illegal for public school teachers to strike. But, teachers in these states went on strike anyway, and most of them got the pay raises they wanted. They could have all gotten fired, or even put in jail. But they had an advantage: strength in numbers. It's kinda hard to replace thousands of teachers.

Sounds like teachers in 47 states are not barred from striking.

Post #16

Elaborate a little bit, please? I'm a little slow today, actually I'm a little slow everyday. But I missed your point.

Look - public unions are generally people with a significant amount of institutional knowledge and skills, and in number that make them a force to reckon with whether they have the right to legally strike or not. We see in the cops that didn't show up for work that one night in Atlanta, blue flu right? If the teachers refuse to show up, our kids will get no schooling, so what difference really does it make if there is or isn't a union? Except that a union has a lot of political power in terms of political influence and donations (money). Which leads to quid pro quo and that ain't good for the rest of us. Which lead to higher salaries/benefits and too much job security for those who shouldn't have it.

Now - the unions themselves are not the only ones at fault here. There's also the politicians who allowed themselves to be bought or swayed by union power, and the voters who do not/did not vote said politicians out of office. And BTW, IMHO education should be entirely managed at the local and state level, the federal gov't should have absolutely nothing to do with education regs/loans, and subsidies. Outside perhaps of certain research grants.

a. The Constitution allows unions
b. Government can cancel public unions....but they won't
The entire purpose of public unions is to get their members to vote for said politicians.


Pay for votes with public money.

How is it public money if it comes from union dues?

The local/state/or federal government administers the payments of dues, and delivery of same to the unions. Said administration is at a cost to taxpayers.

In NYC, the law, the Taylor Law, cuts off 'check off,' that sending union dues from the paychecks of teachers to the union, in case of a strike.

The always works, because the union knows that individual teachers will not voluntarily send in their dues.

That is only in NY. That is NOT common practice.

What is not a common practice.......the municipality collecting the dues out of the teacher's paycheck, before it is paid???

You're claiming that, nationwide, teachers all dutifully send in their dues???




"The checkoff system is very attractive to a union since the collection of dues can be costly and time-consuming. It prescribes the manner in which dues are paid by deductions in earnings rather than through individual checks sent directly to the union. Unions are thereby assured of the regular receipt of their dues."
Checkoff legal definition of Checkoff



"Government collection of union dues has been a hot-button issue in at least the past two legislative sessions and is bound to rear its head again, especially now that many more public employee unions have willingly transferred their members to a private dues collection method. "

Unions Reforming Their Own Dues Collection Method - Texas Scorecard

Union dues reform isn't law in Texas yet, but some unions have started implementing it themselves.

texasscorecard.com

In my state it's illegal for public unions to mandate for employees to be members. Most teachers are in the union-others are not.

 

[Andylusion]

I was never a teacher. As stated I served on the school board for many years. 58 grand is a kick in the guts. Lower class. Teachers here in Wisconsin get a new contract every year and any teacher can simply not be given a contract with no reason why. Any bad teachers can be let go. Again, 58 grand? Pffft. Ouch.

The median household income for Wisconsin was $59,305 in 2017, the latest figures available.

You're telling me a tenured teacher in Wisconsin can be let go for no reason? Doesn't say much for their union, I'm pretty sure that such is not the case in most states. In a lot of places the teacher's union will fight like hell to keep a bad teacher in the classroom or at least employed. And I'm pretty sure in most places a tenured teacher has a job for as long as they want it. To get fired they'd have to do something really, really bad.

I'm teacher who'll never be tenured (nobody in my district is anymore). Doesn't bother me really as my scores have always been really strong so I'm not worried about it.

However unions aren't the devil to education like some people might think. They focus on making working as a teacher more appealing. The more appealing it is, the more people who apply. The more people who apply the more choices schools get. The more choices schools get the better teachers they end up getting. Better teachers being hired turn out better results for students. This isn't rocket science.

Well if that were true, then it should be by your logic, impossible for non-union schools to turn out better educated kids than union schools.

And we know that isn't the case.

Here's my issue with the unions generally speaking.

So here in Ohio, we have charters schools. And one day I was at work and eating lunch in the break room, and flipped to the government channel, and they were debating charter schools in the Ohio legislature.

The pro-charter people pointed out that nearly every single charter school was producing more students who were proficient at their grade level, than the public schools in the area they were located.

Meaning a Charter school in the ghetto was not out performing a public school in upper-class suburbs, no. But it was out performing the public school in the ghetto the charter school was in.

The evidence for this was with a few exceptions, largely consistent across the state. Charter school routinely out performed public schools, even with the same students from the same geographic area.

So then the Teachers Union showed up, and presented their case that charter schools should be closed. Charter schools were not "diverse" enough. Charter schools take money from the public schools.

The argument from the teacher's union, said nothing on academics, or educational outcomes, or anything about the welfare of the students.

Instead their entire argument for why we shouldn't have charter schools, was for the sake of diversity and taking money from public schools.

Now that should tell you something about the Unions. They are don't care about educational outcomes. You can say they do, but their actions, and the arguments they use to back their actions proves otherwise.

That doesn't mean they are bad for teachers. Of course teachers benefit from the Unions. I get that. My father was an official in the teacher's union. When there was a dispute between a teacher and the school administration, he was the guy they had moderate between them.

But the fact remains that having the Unions benefit the teachers at the expense of the students, is a bad trade. It just is. You should never oppose something, that results in better educated students.

 

[Andylusion]

Teacher unions are much like police unions and every other public union - they fight like hell to keep bad employees who should be fired on the job. Yeah sure, teachers don't kill kids, but they do rape them. Although you wonder how many young lives were forever damaged or even destroyed by a predatory teacher. And it ain't just sexual misconduct, it's the inadequate learning that somebody's kids aren't getting because the teacher doesn't give a fuck.

Kind of a broad brush there, tasky....


The OP simply explained that unions are there to advance the wishes, and needs, of their members.

True. BUT, sometimes public unions advance the wishes and needs of their members beyond what is beneficial for the rest of us, specifically our school children. In some places there are situations where it is hard as hell to get rid of a bad teacher, just like it is to fire a bad cop. But too many times it doesn't happen and sooner or later the next victimization occurs. Why? Because the public union had too much sway over the decisions made in the case. Which doesn't mean in every case we have to fire somebody, it has to be for a righteous and verified reason based on more than he said she said. We shouldn't fire somebody based on an accusation, BUT when one accusation becomes 10 then it becomes a little bit different. Why were all 10 accusations dismissed? Were the prior accusations allowed into the deliberation? In some places, the union contract says no they aren't. And in some places prior accusations are deleted from a person's file after 6 months or whatever. Not cool.

Rock: " The unions provide for due process. Would you like it if I walked into where you work and fired you because I didn't like you? "

No, I wouldn't like it. Your situation is I think not uncommon, people are let go for fiscal reasons rather that a lack of merit. But there has to be a distinction between someone fired for cause and somebody fired without just cause. Or in your case not retained. But given a choice between the 2 situations, I'd rather not have a public union that can keep bad employees. You say the union couldn't do anything cuz you weren't tenured; maybe that's the fault of the union cuz the contract didn't give them the option to fight for an untenured teacher.

Rock: " most teachers' unions are barred from striking by law "

You sure about that? It sure seems like it's the other way around, but the ones that can strike sure do make a lot of noise about it. Teacher strikes are legal in 12 states and not covered in statutes or case law in three. That said, teachers do strike in states where it’s illegal - in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, it’s illegal for public school teachers to strike. But, teachers in these states went on strike anyway, and most of them got the pay raises they wanted. They could have all gotten fired, or even put in jail. But they had an advantage: strength in numbers. It's kinda hard to replace thousands of teachers.

Sounds like teachers in 47 states are not barred from striking.

Post #16

Elaborate a little bit, please? I'm a little slow today, actually I'm a little slow everyday. But I missed your point.

Look - public unions are generally people with a significant amount of institutional knowledge and skills, and in number that make them a force to reckon with whether they have the right to legally strike or not. We see in the cops that didn't show up for work that one night in Atlanta, blue flu right? If the teachers refuse to show up, our kids will get no schooling, so what difference really does it make if there is or isn't a union? Except that a union has a lot of political power in terms of political influence and donations (money). Which leads to quid pro quo and that ain't good for the rest of us. Which lead to higher salaries/benefits and too much job security for those who shouldn't have it.

Now - the unions themselves are not the only ones at fault here. There's also the politicians who allowed themselves to be bought or swayed by union power, and the voters who do not/did not vote said politicians out of office. And BTW, IMHO education should be entirely managed at the local and state level, the federal gov't should have absolutely nothing to do with education regs/loans, and subsidies. Outside perhaps of certain research grants.

a. The Constitution allows unions
b. Government can cancel public unions....but they won't
The entire purpose of public unions is to get their members to vote for said politicians.


Pay for votes with public money.

How is it public money if it comes from union dues?

The local/state/or federal government administers the payments of dues, and delivery of same to the unions. Said administration is at a cost to taxpayers.

In NYC, the law, the Taylor Law, cuts off 'check off,' that sending union dues from the paychecks of teachers to the union, in case of a strike.

The always works, because the union knows that individual teachers will not voluntarily send in their dues.

That is only in NY. That is NOT common practice.

What is not a common practice.......the municipality collecting the dues out of the teacher's paycheck, before it is paid???

You're claiming that, nationwide, teachers all dutifully send in their dues???




"The checkoff system is very attractive to a union since the collection of dues can be costly and time-consuming. It prescribes the manner in which dues are paid by deductions in earnings rather than through individual checks sent directly to the union. Unions are thereby assured of the regular receipt of their dues."
Checkoff legal definition of Checkoff



"Government collection of union dues has been a hot-button issue in at least the past two legislative sessions and is bound to rear its head again, especially now that many more public employee unions have willingly transferred their members to a private dues collection method. "

Unions Reforming Their Own Dues Collection Method - Texas Scorecard

Union dues reform isn't law in Texas yet, but some unions have started implementing it themselves.

texasscorecard.com

In my state it's illegal for public unions to mandate for employees to be members. Most teachers are in the union-others are not.

There are still 19 states without right-to-work laws, which means that if you want to work in a given union controlled occupation, you are required to be part of the Union, and give your money to the Union.

Even in states that do have right-to-work laws, in many causes the school districts have union rules, that mean if 50% of the teachers, plus one... So just over 50%, vote for Union representation, that then Union negotiates exclusively for all teachers in the district whether they are in the union, or vote for or against union representation.

Compulsory Unionism in Education

One of the greatest things about America is that we are free to elect our own government representatives. Anyone who is considered an adult and a United States citizen is allowed to vote for the people who will make the laws of the land. Abraham Lincoln once said, “No man is good enough to...

nilrr.org

So even if you have a right-to-work without being forced to join the Union, the Union still has the power to dictate the contract that you must abide by.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And now for the results of indoctrination rather than education:


1. "Across the Board, Scores Drop in Math and Reading for U.S. Students
The latest results from the Nation’s Report Card show declines in student performance across demographics.

2. MATH AND READING SCORES for fourth- and eighth-graders in the United States dropped since 2017, and the decrease in reading achievement has government researchers particularly concerned.

You know what the #1 problem in the schools I've taught at is? Entitlement. It's rampant and it's out of control. Parents who feel like their kid is entitled to an "A" for doing minimal or in some cases no work. The districts who give 9 and 10 "second chances" to students. The coddling of American youth. We've lowered the bar, excused poor behavior and mindsets, and aren't comfortable enough to point the finger at home to blame.

One of my first years teaching I taught a kid-we'll call him "Steve". Steve enrolled into the school during the 2nd semester. Steve completed ZERO assignments in my class and even refused to do the tests. Steve had a 0%. Steve failed the 3rd quarter. I had called home numerous times-parents didn't care. Steve kept doing nothing and my spidey sense went off so this time I called Steve's home from an admin's office with the phone on speaker. I explained that Steve was failing my class-mom assured me he'd do work (he didn't). Last day of school-literally-Steve's mom comes onto campus and starts screaming at me for failing her kid. I explained that I didn't fail Steve-he had failed on his own. She proceeded to literally follow me around my classroom, the hallways, etc. for 20 minutes because she insisted I needed to pass him because my class was a core class. I told her that that wasn't going to happen. She asked me what work could Steve make up-I told her nothing. It was too late. I explained that it wouldn't be fair to Steve's peers, I had contacted her numerous times via emails and phone calls, etc. I explained the importance of deadlines and that even if he had turned in work a week late I would have accepted it and deducted late points-but work up to 4-5 months (literally) late wouldn't be accepted. It was the last day of school. She kept insisting, so I brought her to the office and walked her straight to the most available admin (happened to be the one whose office I used for the phone call). Mom proceeded to attempt to bury me by claiming I was lying about ever calling her. The admin explained that not only had I called her from their office but that they (the admin) had also spoken to her on the phone about her son during said phone conversation. Mom then stormed off into the principal's office demanding I pass her son.

I never passed him-because he never earned it. Truth be told if he came to me that last day with every assignment from the quarter completed I would have passed him with a "D". which is similar to what I did this year.

This past year I had a kid let's call him "John". John did little the 1st and 2nd quarters and failed. He did ok on his mid-term but still failed my class. On that exam day he came in and handed in a stack of papers and said "Hey Mr. <insert name> I don't know if you'll accept my late work or not...but I figured it was worth a shot. Here's ALL of the work from the semester-it took me days and days to complete. I hope you'll consider accepting it as a late grade because I really want to pass your class. If not that's ok too, I understand and will do better next time. Thank you," and walked off. I reviewed Johns work to make sure he actually did it and didn't just copy-and he did all of it on his own. Needless to say John passed my class. He also earned a "B" the following semester FWIW. Never expected a thing and worked hard to make up for his mistakes and owned them. That I can respect and work with. Kids who sit in class who accomplish as much as the posters in the class do don't.

Steve dropped out of school the following year. A few years later I saw him flipping burgers at McDonald's. Shame because he really had so much potential-but he expected everything to be handed to him and was too lazy to do it himself.

TLDR: The biggest issue with education imo is the amount of entitlement that many students and parents have.

This may be the same problem under a different name: the self-esteem movement.

. In the light of the essential nature of emotion to the Left, it makes perfect sense that they have created the (highly destructive) self-esteem movement, based on how one feels about oneself. Of course, it is always quite a high number for Leftists, convinced that they are brighter, kinder, finer, more sophisticated, more enlightened, more selfless, and, of course, more intellectual.

“A 1989 study of mathematical skills compared students in eight different countries. American students ranked lowest in mathematical competence and Korean students ranked highest. But the researchers also asked students to rate how good they were at mathematics. The Americans ranked highest in self-judged mathematical ability, while the Koreans ranked lowest….There is no evidence that high self-esteem reliably causes anything.” http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0001.html

In fact, feeling good is so central to Liberalism, that it is a higher value than truth. The Left has changed American school textbooks from books attempting to convey history to books attempting to make women and members of select minorities feel good about themselves. Democrat lawmakers pass laws demanding that textbooks be rewritten to include more Democrat Party blocs. Calif. Lawmakers Pass Measure To Require Gay Curriculum In Schools




“It would be hard to overstate the long-term impact of these claims [about the benefits of self-esteem]. The self-esteem craze changed how countless organizations were run, how an entire generation — millennials — was educated, and how that generation went on to perceive itself (quite favorably). As it turned out, the central claim underlying the trend, that there’s a causal relationship between self-esteem and various positive outcomes, was almost certainly inaccurate.”
How the Self-Esteem Craze Took Over America

 

[initforme]

The self esteem craze came from parents threatening teachers because they had the fall to give their kid an F because thats what the kid earned. Once a teacher gave a few failing grades the principal would be on the teacher because the phone was ringing. It wasn't the teachers begging for this it was pressure by the parents. The admin then did what the parents wanted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The self esteem craze came from parents threatening teachers because they had the fall to give their kid an F because thats what the kid earned. Once a teacher gave a few failing grades the principal would be on the teacher because the phone was ringing. It wasn't the teachers begging for this it was pressure by the parents. The admin then did what the parents wanted.

No.

It is one more result of Leftist political indoctrination, the neo-Marxism that influences so much of our society.

1. Erich Fromm pushed cultural Marxism through psychology by blaming Western tradition for the rise of Nazism and the rejection of Marxism. Fromm, “The Fear of Freedom,” p. 241.
   1. Of course, Marxism is just as totalitarian as Nazism. But, by Fromm’s logic, just as soldiers are authoritarian because they follow orders, businessmen are authoritarian because the follow “economic laws.” Ibid, p. 145-146. And, Leftists still enjoy using this logic and calling their opponents ‘Nazis.’
   2. Fromm continued the John Dewey-rejection of parental authority, telling parents to stand by and let junior reinvent the wheel. Next: Benjamin Spock, who helped launch the self-esteem movement.
   3. The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible. “The University's Part in Political Life” (13 March 1909) in PWW (The Papers of Woodrow Wilson) 19:99.

You really should consider learning to read a book.....