The Glade 4.0

Before you hurt the children any more.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 14724.html

Seriously. **** the Teacher's Unions.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Meh, "think about the children" doesn't mean people have to go to shitty jobs. It could also perhaps be applied to the school board.

I know nothing about the situation and dislike teachers unions, I'm just saying you can't force me to go to work because you're kid needs something from me.

Then quit.

Despite the constant assertions by teacher's unions that they really do care about children, and that they need dcent pay in order to get decent teachers, it seems the only issue they ever actually go on strike for is decent pay.

Books are falling apart and 30 years old? Forget going on strike over that ****. In fact, let's go on strike for a raise even when no one else in the country can find a job, and the district can't afford new books! Then, we'll use the shitty books and supplies the district can't afford as an excuse to go shell out our own money for those things, and then use that to justify another raise 3 years from now!

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Would you feel the same about a private company refusing to provide its services/products to another private company, after their existing contract has expired, unless and until agreement was reached on a new contract? For instance, if one of Sony's LCD panel suppliers said they weren't going to ship any more panels after their current contract is complete unless they and Sony reach agreement on a new contract, would you be saying, "Get your asses back to work before you hurt the Sony shareholders any more. Seriously. **** LCD panel manufacturers."? I'm guessing not. So why is it different when a union does the same thing?

*ETA: I'm not just being snarky here either. I really don't get the h9 people have for workers pooling their resources to gain bargaining power (i.e. forming a union) when it's such standard practice for owners/employers to do the same (i.e. by forming a company). If, instead of a union, you had a private corporation negotiating as a single entity with the city to provide teaching services at city schools, then you'd have exactly the same "collective bargaining" situation, just like you do when the city buys its paper from Staples and its buses from GM.

I agree. However, I have a difficult time justifying telling people they can't all stand out on the sidewalk instead of going to work. If they can get away with it, more power to them, I guess.

No. Because that's a private company.

Teachers, cops, firemen, ATC guys, etc... hell government employees should not be allowed to strike. Get your asses back in the classroom and get teaching the little ****.

Especially when I read that there were actual raises and whatnot built into the offer from the city.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Sorry, see my edit, which apparently went in while you were posting this. I think it clarifies what I'm getting at. If the city outsourced its teaching needs by hiring a private company to provide teachers, it would basically be engaged in the equivalent of "collective bargaining". It's just that the counterparty would be a company instead of a union. And when the contract with that private teaching-services company was done, that company would be perfectly justified in refusing to continue providing services unless a new contract agreement was reached. Well, ditto for the union. The only difference is that in some states, there are union-protection laws that make it difficult for the government to go sign a new contract with a different service provider. I oppose those laws, but whatever. The law is what it is, and the unions have every right to fight for the best deal they can get within the existing legal framework, same as any private service-provider would do.

This is one of my main problems. Personally, I'd fire all of them and start fresh. Don't like our offer? Go find a new **** job.

Good luck in this economy.

Granted, that shouldn't be carte blanche for companies to treat employees like ****... but if you're a gov't employee, and your city/state/etc is having money problems... take what you can get and suck it up like the rest of the country is having to do.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Simple enough. The Teachers Union is a goverment enforced monopoly. A parent must send their child to school or provide documentation regarding their homeschooling. Not only are they holding the childs education hostage, they are holding the parents work life hostage as well. Illinois law states that "Any minor under the age of 14 years whose parent or other person responsible for the minor's welfare leaves the minor without supervision for an unreasonable period of time without regard for the mental or physical health, safety or welfare of that minor."

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Legal_age_to_ ... z266fjfETG.

Illinois law refrences 15 specfic factors for determining what is an unreasonable amount of time alone for a child. I'm not able to locate the specfic items they refer to.

I feel the unions should be obligated to continue under their current contract until a new agreement can be reached. If the union refuses to do this, then other teachers should be able to be brought in to fill the gap. It's the way it would happen with police and firefighters. If after a certain amount of time no agreement can be met, then it should go to binding arbetration.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

It's because people are required to send their children to school. Sure, you can home school or go to private school instead, but one costs money and the other many people are unable to devote the time to accomplish, or may simply not feel comfortable doing.

Public school teachers are public employees, providing an essential public service (in the sense that they provide the education we mandate every should to get, and tax people for). Worse, their strikes can have serious negative consequences for kids reaching the end of high school if time constraints for scholarships and college applications can't be met due to a strike.

The comparison to a private company is simply not accurate. It would be far more accurate to compare teachers to firefighters, police officers, or prison workers who are not allowed to strike. That's the problem. It's not the existence of the union, it's the ability to go on strike as a public employee. Cops and firefighters can't (nor should they be permitted to) and neither should teachers. There's no reason acceptable terms could not be reached, either; police and fire unions do not have much trouble ensuring adequate compensation for the people they represent.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

These teachers make like 71k a year...how shitty is that?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

IMNSHO.... the kids are not getting smart even when the teachers are in there. **** it, let the people strike, if they are going to be treated as over glorified babysitters... screw it who cares if the little dumbasses do not get taught anything.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Including the benefits their total package value is probably more along the lines of $80k+

**** whiners. Do your god damn job.

Yeah. This.

Then you read that their biggest quibble is that they don't want merit based reviews.

Its not supposed to be a sinecure good sir.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I think I found your problem....

_________________

Which is?

I don't know what Hop is getting at but a person or group of people creating a business is nothing like workers getting together for a pay increase and another holiday. Those things are nothing alike.

That you're equating public schools to a private company. With a private company, there's only 2 parties affected: the workers and the owner.

With the schools, the public in general is affected.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Forming a company is not an analogy to unionization. The company corporation is a single entity just as a union is; however, it completely falls apart beyond that because of differing goals, scope, purpose.

_________________

Keep in mind that's 71k for 9 months of work. 10 if you want to be generous.

Were they to be 12 month employees, that'd work out to $85.2k (based on a 10 month year currently). Excluding benefits, which the standard accounting principal indicates is worth probably 20-25% of base, or over 100k per year.

Not bad.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I never really understood the logic behind, "public unions shouldn't be allowed to strike." What power does the union have exactly if they can't strike? This type of restriction would fix the problem with certain currently existing unions with currently existing laws and contracts, but what if they want to form a new teacher's union somewhere? What would ever motivate a school district to contract with a union ever again if the unions can't strike? Just ignore their "union" and go about business as usual. They can't do **** to you except try to get public opinion against you, and one doesn't need a union to do that.

Like I said, other public unions that can't strike have plenty of power to negotiate.

A public union doesn't need any "power". It gets its power from the demand of the public to fill certain positions with people of a certain caliber. If the city/county/state doesn't do that, or capriciously fires those people so it can't get more, the public will demand to know why. The union gets its power from the fact that the workers are expensive and valuable; people simply will not do those jobs for low wages.

This is supported by the observable evidence of workers in public positions who cannot strike. They do quite well in terms of salary and benefits. You don't need to "understand the logic"; you need to look at the observable evidence and fix your logic so it fits.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm sorry, Diamondeye. You are wrong here. This statement goes against the lessons learned from decades of Nobel-prize winning economists.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Keep in mind, teachers frequently work 12-hour days, not 8-hour days.

$80,000 per year sounds ridiculous. Teachers don't deserve that kind of money, right? They're not doing a damn thing to teach our kids, and the United States educational system is really dropping the ball on imparting knowledge and getting kids ready to be productive members of society.

That's one way to look at it. Here's an alternative perspective.

$80,000 per year is about what it would take to get me to teach in a high school. That sounds ridiculous, and that's fine. I'll take my degree in engineering and go someplace else. Bear in mind, engineers start from $50,000-$60,000 on average with the potential for a lot of advancement. (Grizzled vets can make a shit-pot of money). If I'm looking at equal starting pay, I'll work for the engineering firm.

I'm just not as interest in teaching algebra and basic physical science. I can do it very well, but I'd just rather be teaching vector calculus and electromagnetics. (Which is what I do now). To teach something I'm less interested in would cost more money. I think that's a perfectly reasonable position. If you disagree, that's no hair off my balls.

I worked in a high school for a bit. It actually wasn't half bad. The kids were great. Now, there were knuckleheads that I'm sure would've gotten on my last nerve were I the teacher of record. There's also a lot of internal politicking and other crap that I'm not interested in putting up with. For less than $70,000, I'm not putting up with No Child Left Behind and the Department of Family Services. I'll go design missiles, instead.

You guys think the current crop of teachers are a bunch of putzes who aren't worth $80,000 per year. You're entitled to hold that opinion, particularly since half of you are footing the bill. (Statistically speaking, the other half of you pay no taxes after all is said and done).

But for $80,000 per year, you could have me teaching your kids instead.

Maybe that sounds like a good idea to you, or maybe it doesn't. How's that current educational plan working out?

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.