What a got damn shitshow. [warning politics]

[PonoBill]

So, did you read the study? No?  I didn't think so.

Any union, any political party, any corporation starts to act in the interests of the entity and/or the people managing the entity, not the members. How that interest plays out is my issue, If it can be directed to improve the undertaking then it has value, but the way to ensure that is to have regulators in place. Public employee unions bypass control since they can directly and strongly influence the regulators.

Teachers undoubtedly consider class size important due to teaching quality issues, but the union, as an entity, considers it important because it means more members. That's why it's hard to communicate. The added motivation and conflict of interest is obvious

Anyone in any business can make the points you make Ichabod, If you're not on the inside, you don't understand the issues. Always true, and always ultimately irrelevant, because the people on the outside judge the result. A cook can detail how hard it is to run a restaurant, but if the food sucks, you just don't care.

The article I cited, by the way, neither presses for dissolution of the unions nor considers it possible--it just looks at the disconnect between what teachers and students need and what unions do as a function of their inevitable self-interest. You might have a useful and capable local union, but we seem to agree that your national representation is not what you'd like it to be. You could have a better union, and have a better outcome. But you don't have that now.

[Bean]

We don't need no stikin' study! 

A classic conflict in Union/Member relationship is that while the administrators of the Union desire greater membership to increase Union revenues and administrative compensation, the individual Members desire a more exclusive membership to ensure the preservation of their own positions.  At the same time, both desire a larger voting base to have broader political appeal.

[SlatchJim]

I agree with nearly all of what you have stated Ichabod, and my wife has been an instructional aid for special needs students for the last 16 years so I have first hand knowledge of the subject.

Unions also do not protect an incompetent teacher from getting fired.

This however I don't agree with, and have a number of examples of teacher ineptitude, mental collapse, and irresponsibility that was protected by the union.  The losers in this were the kids stuck in a classroom of chaos for that year.

In today's hyper-regulated society, most of what the unions were formed to do has become standard labor law. 98% of what a union does now is maintain an organization that collects money to pay the people in the organization.

[tautologies]

Hey look...even Bannon SUP's

[Bean]

You realize, you just insulted the Grimm Reaper

[SUP Leave]

Great stuff coming through this thread.

I skimmed/read the study that PBill posted and it really was an effort to pin down some cause/effect but the educational system is so broad and localized across the nation, the study can infer very little. 

ISpoonbill - I agree with you - teacher wages should reflect the median income for the area they live in. I think you should be paid more. I think your union dues should end up in your pocket, and you should get paid more than the other teachers you work with. Hard work and results should be rewarded. I also don't agree with you about teachers getting fired. I agree that yes they do occasionally, but the fact is long-tenured teachers are given a long rope, and even worse the union protects them against being re-assigned (even after they have retired in place).

I have plenty of teacher friends and have heard more than 10 times "She is a terrible teacher - or He should have retired 10 years ago - or I feel so bad for the kids in his/her room." It makes my blood absolutely boil, but they just shrug and say "union".

You posted something that I found very interesting. The unions protect you against parents, and their complaints/claims. This to me is a travesty. You should be protected by your boss/administrators and ultimately by your skill set as a professional. Because of union influence on the minutiae of the teacher's world, the administrators do not get to set policy for their staff, and so they can mail it in on staff control. This bleeds over into staff protection and effort in general. If a parent wants to complain about something the administrator should have the teacher's back. If they teacher has screwed up, they should be honest and the necessary change.

You state that if an admin does not like a teacher's style, the union protects them. Fact is the teacher's skill set and results should be their protection. If the results are there, the style is immaterial. If the results aren't there, the style should have to change to meet the goals set forth by the boss. Most football coaches have said "Don't tell me about the labor, show me the baby." I feel this way about work and tell it to my staffs all the time.

Ultimately, I don't think kids should ever think: "Get a job that is protected by the union and you are set for your career". I want them to know that the only safety net, or protection of their job is their own abilities to produce a product. As I said my wife is a school employee and works her ass off. I have told her probably 20 times, that if the dumb certification requirements were not in place, she would be the principal of her school. She is completely underpaid for her ability and effort. Summers off are nice though.

[Quickbeam]

O.K., I’ll start off by saying I don’t live in the U.S., so maybe your system is different than where I live.

But at least where I live, I just do not agree that Union’s protect poor performing employees. I do agree that there may be some poor performing employees in a Union environment, but more likely than not it’s because management hasn’t done a proper job of dealing with it. I’ll say it another way. If an employer or administrator is doing their job, there is no reason for them not to deal with poor performance whether or not there is a Union present.

The only restriction to an employers’ ability to administer discipline in a Union environment is the Collective Agreement. Most Collective Agreements where I’m from have a pretty standard clause that says something to the effect that management has the right to discipline for “just cause”. There are all kinds of case law that determines what just cause is, depending on the circumstances. As an example, the just cause discipline for an employee reporting to work late will be much different than the just cause discipline for an employee who steals from the Company. And to carry this further, the just cause discipline for an employee who has reported to work late 30 times in a year will be different than an employee who reports to work late the first time. Etc., etc.

Employers have the right to discipline as long as they discipline for just cause and are supported by the relevant case law. If an employer has done their due diligence, has issued discipline for just cause and both the discipline itself and the level of discipline are supported by case law, it is a very rare circumstance where the Union will be able to have the discipline dismissed.

[Bean]

The history of teachers unions here in the US is startling to say the least QB.  Before unions, teachers were low paid and underappreciated...wait, let me do more research, and I'll get back to you.

[PonoBill]

Interesting comments Quickbeam. But consider this case--what happens when the management is controlled by the Union? At the national level, that's what the US Teachers union works to do.

Over the last six years, the US Teachers unions spent over 400 million on state elections. 95% of the state money going to elect Democrats. Not too hard to see why they're a little freaked out after the most recent election. You might think the aim of that money is totally altruistic, that they believe fervently in the democratic party, in which case we don't have much more to talk about.

Politicians care about two things--money and votes. Read a bit about "machine politics". It's eye opening.

It's very hard to improve any system when most of the players, including those controlling money and power, are working hard against you.

[Ichabod Spoonbill]

Guys, if you want to believe the worst about teachers and teachers' unions, go ahead. I can't stop you. I just know that this idea of teachers unions being the scourge of America to be pretty stupid. It's also terribly disheartening to the profession. We've been targeting as public enemy #1 for years, and frankly I feel like I get the crap beaten out of me over and over again by people who can't stand or mistrust what I do or stand for.

I'll give an example of some misinformation: the whole recruiting teachers because it's good for unions idea. This is how getting a teacher works in a smaller district:

1) A need for a position is established, usually by the staff.
2) The principal confers with the staff and agrees.
3) The principal brings the need to the upper administration and business office
4) The upper administration decides that the need is valid and conforms to the budget. (Federal special education law can force a position to be made.)
5) The locally elected school board agrees to hire for that position.
6) The position is advertised.
7) Applicants apply and the selected ones go through three sets of interviews, usually moving up the ladder of administration each time.
A decision is made high up to hire a specific applicant.
9) That applicant is then approved again by the school board after his/her credentials are gone over.

Big districts work a little differently. This process takes months, and teachers only have an influence in stages 1 and maybe 7 in group interviews. To go through that process to gain influence for the union is just silly. One person doesn't make that much difference anyway! Union dues aren't that much either. They only add up to a few hundred dollars a year.

I'm not a huge fan of unions doing political organizing myself, but the level of spending unions do is small compared to corporations. Buying influence is kind of corrupt — I agree — but the whole system is corrupt in the same way. Corporations do it. Individual people do it. (Both these groups outspend unions by quite a bit.) If you don't like unions doing this, then you have to change the entire system, not just unions.

Bill, I don't know any management which is controlled by a teachers union. Principals and superintendents are deliberately not part of teachers unions. The system is set up that way. They have their own organizations. Their interests may be allied sometimes, especially on the state or national level, but be assured in schools there can be fierce conflict between teachers and management.

SUP Leave, I agree with lots of what you say. Administrators should have a teacher's back, and often this happens, but administration is subject to a very different set of pressures. Principals and superintendents are hired by school boards, so they have a very different kind of boss than a teacher. Sometimes it doesn't happen, and you have hostile work environments. Thank God I've never worked in one, but I've heard horror stories.

If you want high performing schools, you need to get to the root causes of why a school is low-performing. Almost always this is poverty. The poor performing schools are almost all correlated with poverty. Now a teacher can have some influence over how well a kid does, but that's not the main cause of low skills. I'm simplifying, but that's the gist. Since schools are for the most part funded by local property taxes, you have impoverished districts not able to fund their local schools to the level that wealthier districts can. This furthers the imbalance, and because impoverished kids actually need more resources than others, this makes the school situation worse.

It's easier to blame teachers and their unions for low-performing schools I guess. But you're not going to solve the problem by beating up on the people who are working to help kids. If you don't like unions — fine. But don't translate that into “Unions are the cause of bad education!” The cause and effect just isn't there. If you want proof, the highest scoring state in the USA is Massachusetts, and they have some very strong unions. We all have horror stories of unions protecting incompetent teachers. I can'r deny it. I've seen it happen. But on a societal level that's not the cause of poor education.

[tautologies]

Ichabod, I don;t think people are saying that the profession of teaching is the same as unions.
I have been a member of unions, and they served no function for me.

I have seen how they deal with conflict, and that was ineffective to me.

I think unions have a place, but their role right now IMO have too much power...but that is not the same as teachers because most teachers are severely underpaid.


Obviously, I think is ludicrous when I see someone suggesting that anyone can suddenly become a teacher....its really just incredibly uninformed, and it only proves that more well educated teachers are needed.

 

[Ichabod Spoonbill]

Taut, point taken. I get a little prickly sometimes about the topic. It comes when your profession is treated like America's whipping dog.

[tautologies]

Taut, point taken. I get a little prickly sometimes about the topic. It comes when your profession is treated like America's whipping dog.

Yeah and not the US is harvesting the benefits of neglecting education by having people with dangerously low information literacy and science levels....

[yugi]

Umberto Eco’s “Ur-Fascism” essay is no doubt a better piece of work but the list below is nevertheless thought provoking…

Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
- Lawrence Britt


Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
 
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
 
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
 
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
 
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
 
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
 
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
 
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
 
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
 
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
 
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
 
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
 
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
 
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
 
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

[Bean]

Not exactly ground-breaking stuff...

It's good to have healthy skepticism, but the differences in the conditions that existed at the time of those regimes and the currently in the US are pretty extreme.  Consider the government structure, the balance of power in particular and the speed and sheer number of news channels.