We want an "Excellent" State to live in for a "Reasonable" Cost...
Of course the challenging part is that each of us define "Excellent" and "Reasonable" somewhat differently. And we disagree somewhat regarding who should pay the "Reasonable" bill...
For all the differences, we should be able to agree that we can only attain the goal if Government, Services, Schools and other Societal Institutions operate productively, effectively and efficiently. If giving out welfare checks, building roads, teaching people, and other activities are to be done in this "Excellent" state, then let's do them without waste so that we have more money for the activity itself.
This and the Wisconsin protests raise the question of: How are Union norms like Collective Bargaining, Tenure/Seniority, etc helping us to attain this goal?
From my perspective they raise costs, and reduce quality and performance:
- Blackmail / extortion is used to secure pay that is more than the market would bear for their skillset, knowledge and experience... (ie close schools, stop services, etc)
- Excellent employees get paid the same as poor employees.(ie yrs served & education is all that matters)
- Self motivated excellent employees are often constrained by work rules or brow beaten by peers to perform at less than their best. (ie wasted potential and demoralizing)
- Poor employees feel little pressure to improve or perform... (ie job for life)
It seems these Wisconsin State employees are more interested in their good than the student's good. Forcing schools to cancel so they can demonstrate... How irresponsible and self centered can they get? No wonder Public School and Civil Servant personnel continue to appear less and less Professional in most people's minds.
So what would a "Professional" do in my version of reality? Go to work and do your job like you committed to do when you took the job, then protest on your own time. And if they are not paying you enough or treating you right? Then find a new job, employer, carreer, etc. The free market will reward the capable handsomely and force the incapable to make some changes.
Thoughts?
Fox News Teachers March
HP Scott Walker, Wisc Republicans
CNN Wisconsin Schools Called Off
NYT Angry Demonstrations in Wisconsin
9 comments:
In my mind, the union movement went astray when they began paying union leaders, who then got paid whether their "comrades" were on strike or not and, in fact, were almost forced to call a strike every so often to prove that a "leader" was needed to "stand up to the company." It became adversarial, in short, rather than reasonable people agreeing on what was reasonable.
The second mistake was getting government involved in "protecting workers' rights." This led to an imbalance in which the unions gained the upper hand, the ability to deny the mass replacement of their members that a free-market system would permit if they became too unreasonable about it. And of course when you organize government workers who can then elect their bosses by spending public money from dues extracted as a condition of employment, well, it is obvious today what you get.
I think it needs to be like the Whirlpool management finally had to tell its workers many years ago. "OK, we have 14,000 jobs at $10/hour or 10,000 jobs at $14/hour. You pick." They all went back to work the next day. Apparently they knew something these teachers don't seem to grasp.
J. Ewing
The lack of Professionalism only grows as the elected Democrat Reps leave the state to stall the vote...
MSNBC Wisc Vote Delayed
The end of this article references a study that quantified how much extra compensation Public employees are receiving relative to their Private sector counterparts...
I remember what one my non-college bound classmates said, "I'll get one of them State jobs and I'll be set... They have the best benefits and job security..." Maybe he was right... And we the tax payers are funding the difference. Now are we getting any extra benefit for the extra expense?
WT Democrats Flee
People have a right to unionize and to bargain collectively. There isn't any doubt in my mind that the teachers of Wisconsin are far better at their jobs than Scott Walker is at his.
I wouldn't be so sure. The State of Louisiana decided, once upon an idea, that public school teachers needed to pass a test in the subjects they were 'qualified" to teach. They found that 80% weren't qualified. It's not that bad here or in Wisconsin, but "professionals" is not a word that comes readily to mind. You are a professional or a union drone, no middle ground.
J. Ewing
Whether it is a right or a privelage seems to be the point of contention.
I agree that there are certainly some Teachers that are more qualified than the Gov, however I am certain there are some that are much less qualified.
The difference is that the Gov can be voted out, whereas those unqualified teachers can not be fired. And those unqualified Teachers continue to rob opportunity from their students every day they are allowed to Teach. Does that make sense to you?
Now back to the question:
I would love to hear a rationale argument for How Collective Bargaining and Tenure/Seniority support our common goal of We want an "Excellent" State to live in for a "Reasonable" Cost...
Oh please.
If we want to place blame for our current economic woes, let's place it where it belongs: on the corrupt, unregulated financial system that doled out credit improperly and made millionaires out of people willing to engage in unethical practices. Unions are just scapegoats now for slow-witted people who can't remember what happened, or why, two years ago.
And for God's sake, underpaid teachers - unionized or not - have no part in this current financial mess.
I find this hatred towards unions absolutely sickening, completely misplaced, and pathetically stupid. Sure, no human organization is perfect. Neither are unions. But let's get real and get some historical perspective, people. Without unions there would be no working class. The ignorance here is just killing me.
I am asking a straight forward question...
I have no hatred towards Unions, however I disagree with some of their methods and key beliefs. These simply make no logical sense to me.
Please take some time to help me understand your perspective that the Unions created the middle class. And that they are still needed.
And help me understand the benefit of seniority/tenure from your perspective. I see it as protecting the lazy and incompetent.
And help me understand the benefit of collective bargaining. I see it as a means to under compensate excellent performers and over compensate the poor performers.
If you read some of my back posts, you will see that I think there are many root causes for our current problems. I do not think the Unions "created" our current problems, but they are one of many root causes.
My Opinion: Anything that protects poor performers and people who make bad decisions from the natural consequences is a bad thing. Without the consequence, how do they learn and get motivated to work harder. Be it Tenure/Seniority or Bank bailouts...
PMFBI, but you need to distinguish between private sector and public sector unions. The former were an important part of our economic freedom and quality of life, once upon a time and still would be, were union membership voluntary as it was and should always be. The latter simply should not exist-- they're irrational mutations of the union idea and ideal.
If you are looking for benefits, you should consider comparing those states with strong public sector unions with those states with less-strong unions, and unionized schools with non-union schools. I think you will find a negative correlation between unions and performance, just as you will in the private sector-- Think Detroit automotive industry.
If you can get somebody to defend this abysmal situation, I applaud it, but have no doubt I will doubt it. Sorry.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment