You Have A Total Misunderstanding About Teacher’s Unions

[Colin norris]

Stop being an infant. Be an adult, and apply adult thinking to the world, and to your vote.


1.In this complex world it is often simpler to imagine that organizations function as we wish them to, rather than something closer to reality. We get a peek at that fact in this quote from J. Edgar Hoover: "Justice is merely incidental to law and order."

Not exactly what we’d wish, is it.

The same relationship is true of education and Teacher’s Unions.



2. Accepting that fact, let’s dispense with the argument that unions should be outlawed. They can’t be: the US Constitution makes them legal: The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.



3. There is this disputed quote from American Federation of Teachers President Albert Shanker: "When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children."

He may have said it or not…..but it is a fair description of the responsibility of a union.

4. “2009 VIDEO: Lawyer for NEA Teacher Union Says It’s Not About Children or Education, It’s About Power​

“Despite what some among us would like to believe”

Parents are starting to realize that maybe their child’s education is not the first priority in public education.

This line from a 2009 speech by Bob Chanin, a lawyer for the National Education Association (NEA), is rather enlightening.

Here’s the exact quote, via the CATO Institute:

‘And that brings me to my final, and most important point. Which is why, at least in my opinion, NEA and its affiliates are such effective advocates. Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.” 2009 VIDEO: Lawyer for NEA Teacher Union Says It’s Not About Children or Education, It’s About Power

"...the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.”
That is the function of a union.


5. Teacher’s unions have no role in seeing to the education of our children. It is the corrupt collaboration of the people we elect who choose the votes of those teachers over whether or not education occurs.

And it is foolish to expect otherwise.

What a load of crap. You hate filled Republican jerk. You know nothing.

 

[DGS49]

No less a Leftist/Prog icon than FDR acknowledged almost a century ago that unions in the public sector were an abomination. One by one, as governors incrementally authorized collective bargaining (and implicitly, the RIGHT TO STRIKE) in public schools, they have condemned that state's students, in perpetuity, to a badly compromised institution, where the main players are primarily focused on self-interest rather than the interests of the clients (students & parents).

Most regrettably, the teachers' unions have adopted the model of LABOR unions - adversarial with "management" - rather than the PROFESSIONAL unions that exist in Europe and other civilized locales. Professional unions - I have worked with them - work WITH management to devise successful strategies that improve the quality of the organization without breaking the bank, so to speak. Labor unions are strictly adversarial, making demands on compensation, benefits, and working conditions as though they were working in a fucking steel mill, rather than being charged with nurturing the next generation of productive adults.

If there was any remaining doubt about the total self-centeredness of American teachers' unions, that doubt was obliterated by their conduct during the first year of the pandemic, when they made outrageous, anti-scientific demands on management, most totally unrelated to dealing with the pandemic, thus "costing" all of American academe an entire year of normally-productive education. And as usual, the burden fell worst on POC's, who often lacked the in-home infrastructure and structure to avail themselves of the "education" that was provided on line.

On the Other Hand (yes, there is another "hand"), there remain States where teacher compensation is disgraceful, and where grandstanding state legislators propose raising pay scales by X number of dollars every decade or so, as though starting teachers out at $35k were an acceptable approach to getting this vital job done. While I hesitate to suggest it, the unconstitutional Federal Department of Education could do something useful if it surveyed teacher compensation (pay and benefits) around the country and published model compensation guidelines so that powerless teachers without unions would have some ammunition to bring their states and school districts into the twenty-first century.

Teaching is not a "job," or even a career; it is a vocation. Ideally, teachers would be honored, respected, and compensated according to their earned status in our society, but would not have to resort to forming socialist-thug labor unions to get what they deserve.

 

[Circe]

It's not a discussion.....it's education.

I don't want anyone to presume to "educate" me. That just means propaganda, and there is way too much of that going on. This is a discussion Forum, and it's not for anything but discussion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Our efforts will have to be “doubled up” to continue to fight for human development unfettered by the governmental blustering’s from fools!

Your posts always shine a bright light on the harsh reality of governmental interventionism and those miscreants who pursue full control over the lives of the masses. I have to agree with your assessment that many people are willing to sacrifice personal choice for governmental control. The left professes that having government help is about lifting up the masses when the fact is reliance lowers standards of living in bulk. This backwards messaging is influencing the weak first and going for more. The miscreants want full control over all citizens. We will never stop the good fight.

Sad, but true.


And Tocqueville predicted it centuries ago:


Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”

 

[PoliticalChic]

The public school teacher unions are a scourge. I do not belong, maybe obviously. I belong to the Christian Education Association International.

However, I submit to you that parents need to be *informed* consumers of their child's education. Children would get a more comprehensive, America-loving education in some heartland schools than they would in say, some private Manhattan schools. Private is not ALWAYS better. Public school teachers have ways of, um, shuttling the most ridiculous stuff that comes our way in terms of what is suggested to us to teach.

Perhaps I didn't make clear enough that teachers and teacher's unions often are totally different in aims and outlooks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No less a Leftist/Prog icon than FDR acknowledged almost a century ago that unions in the public sector were an abomination. One by one, as governors incrementally authorized collective bargaining (and implicitly, the RIGHT TO STRIKE) in public schools, they have condemned that state's students, in perpetuity, to a badly compromised institution, where the main players are primarily focused on self-interest rather than the interests of the clients (students & parents).

Most regrettably, the teachers' unions have adopted the model of LABOR unions - adversarial with "management" - rather than the PROFESSIONAL unions that exist in Europe and other civilized locales. Professional unions - I have worked with them - work WITH management to devise successful strategies that improve the quality of the organization without breaking the bank, so to speak. Labor unions are strictly adversarial, making demands on compensation, benefits, and working conditions as though they were working in a fucking steel mill, rather than being charged with nurturing the next generation of productive adults.

If there was any remaining doubt about the total self-centeredness of American teachers' unions, that doubt was obliterated by their conduct during the first year of the pandemic, when they made outrageous, anti-scientific demands on management, most totally unrelated to dealing with the pandemic, thus "costing" all of American academe an entire year of normally-productive education. And as usual, the burden fell worst on POC's, who often lacked the in-home infrastructure and structure to avail themselves of the "education" that was provided on line.

On the Other Hand (yes, there is another "hand"), there remain States where teacher compensation is disgraceful, and where grandstanding state legislators propose raising pay scales by X number of dollars every decade or so, as though starting teachers out at $35k were an acceptable approach to getting this vital job done. While I hesitate to suggest it, the unconstitutional Federal Department of Education could do something useful if it surveyed teacher compensation (pay and benefits) around the country and published model compensation guidelines so that powerless teachers without unions would have some ammunition to bring their states and school districts into the twenty-first century.

Teaching is not a "job," or even a career; it is a vocation. Ideally, teachers would be honored, respected, and compensated according to their earned status in our society, but would not have to resort to forming socialist-thug labor unions to get what they deserve.

Actually, I don't oppose any unions....I oppose the corrupt elected officials who sell out their community and/or nation for the promise of votes today, no matter the cost years up the line.

If they are not held responsible even after out of office, there is no hope of fixing the system.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't want anyone to presume to "educate" me. That just means propaganda, and there is way too much of that going on. This is a discussion Forum, and it's not for anything but discussion.

No, it's education: every post of mine is sourced, linked and documented.

Perhaps you missed the memo: you are under no obligation to read any post or thread.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Flash]

Back in the 1970s when my wife was a young school teacher she joined the Teacher's Union.

She did it because at the time they were providing classroom liability insurance. Most of the teachers joined because the dues were low.

In the mid 70s they became more political and raised their dues. Then they backed Jimmy Carter for President in 1976.

That was unacceptable to my wife. She did not want her money going to a Democrat.

She quit the union. She could do that because Florida was a right to work state. God bless freedom. Many of the other teachers did also.

We got her professional liability insurance as a rider on our homeowners policy for less than what her then bloated dues were.

My wife is retired now but she loved teaching. She hates teachers unions. They are about greed, not the children.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Back in the 1970s when my wife was a young school teacher she joined the Teacher's Union.

She did it because at the time they were providing classroom liability insurance. Most of the teachers joined because the dues were low.

In the mid 70s they became more political and raised their dues. Then they backed Jimmy Carter for President in 1976.

That was unacceptable to my wife. She did not want her money going to a Democrat.

She quit the union. She could do that because Florida was a right to work state. God bless freedom. Many of the other teachers did also.

We got her professional liability insurance as a rider on our homeowners policy for less than what her then bloated dues were.

My wife is retired now but she loved teaching. She hates teachers unions. They are about greed, not the children.

Up to the point about quitting the unions, I believe your wife's path represents that of many teachers.

The unions got far better care and salaries for teachers. So, most teachers won't quit....and I don't blame them. They can't get the benefits by themselves.



That is their only function, and it is really a form of socialism. Nothing wrong with that.

My post is simply that when they apply their Leftwing ideology, and it seeps into the classroom......then, something has gone wrong.
And the folks in charge of education are the fault.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While I have a number of friends who are teachers and union members, I should state that we are a home school family.

 

[DGS49]

[Labor] Unions are only appropriate in private sector, in industries that are highly competitive. The workers are generally unskilled, powerless, and if not represented, will be badly taken advantage of. But they and the employers recognize, if they are smart, that the compensation and working conditions cannot be so costly as to make the employer uncompetitive, in which case all jobs are lost and nobody wins.

It is noteworthy that in the American auto industry all of the Big Three ran themselves into the ground, due largely to the costs imposed by the UAW. Ford was able to avoid formal bankruptcy by hocking all of its assets, but it was still bankrupt in economic terms (debts outweighed assets).

At the same time, many, many "transplant" auto manufacturers were doing quite nicely making and selling cars in the U.S., and NONE of them had a union. Indeed, the last transplant auto company to have a union in the U.S. was VW, which was run into the ground at New Stanton, PA, by the UAW.

As stated above, not all unions are evil. Professional unions do quite well in Europe, taking care of workers, cooperating with management, and working to keep the organization profitable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[Labor] Unions are only appropriate in private sector, in industries that are highly competitive. The workers are generally unskilled, powerless, and if not represented, will be badly taken advantage of. But they and the employers recognize, if they are smart, that the compensation and working conditions cannot be so costly as to make the employer uncompetitive, in which case all jobs are lost and nobody wins.

It is noteworthy that in the American auto industry all of the Big Three ran themselves into the ground, due largely to the costs imposed by the UAW. Ford was able to avoid formal bankruptcy by hocking all of its assets, but it was still bankrupt in economic terms (debts outweighed assets).

At the same time, many, many "transplant" auto manufacturers were doing quite nicely making and selling cars in the U.S., and NONE of them had a union. Indeed, the last transplant auto company to have a union in the U.S. was VW, which was run into the ground at New Stanton, PA, by the UAW.

As stated above, not all unions are evil. Professional unions do quite well in Europe, taking care of workers, cooperating with management, and working to keep the organization profitable.

"[Labor] Unions are only appropriate in private sector, in industries that are highly competitive."

Unions are effectively part of checks and balances of capitalism, and suffer from political interference.




The Constitution makes no such distinctions.

" On April 12, 1937, the United States ceased to be a republic of limited constitutional government. The Supreme Court upheld the Wagner Labor Relations Act.
No longer would the enumerated powers of the Constitution apply....now we would be a European model welfare state, in which the national legislature has power to regulate industry, agriculture, and virtually all the activities of the citizens.

The coda came when the court upheld the Social Security Act on May 24, 1937, …."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 68-69
Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.

 

[bodecea]

Why do you think the OP upset me? Why are you avoiding my simple question?

I told you....good luck getting anything substantial from that one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I told you....good luck getting anything substantial from that one.

"substantial"???

Try to stick to words you can define......although, that might leave you mute.