"In his 27-page ruling, the judge said sections of the law "single out and encumber the rights of those employees who choose union membership and representation solely because of that association and therefore infringe upon the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by both the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions."
Colas also said the law violates the equal protection clause by creating separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally."
What puzzles me is:
- Apparently it is OK for Union membership to be mandatory?
- For the Unions speak for it's members even when some of its individuals disagree?
- These aspects of Unions seem to defy the rights of Free Speech and Association?
- Mgrs from many companies aren't allowed to get together and "fix" wages. Isn't that a violation of their Rights of Free Speech and Association?
- Aren't Unions all about creating separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally?
Well it will be interesting to see what the Wisconsin Supreme court has to say. I am just frustrated that the Teacher's Unions are so focused on earning more than market wage and so little on teaching the kids. Here is my rationale for that comment:
- Assuming that Teacher's are paid 20% more than the market would bear without collective bargaining, strikes, unions, etc. That means we could have 20% more Teachers in the classroom.
- Since income is based on seniority and not capability, we are highly likely not paying the the correct Individuals the correct compensation. Which dissuades the most driven and successful folks from entering the field or staying there. And rewards the burnt out instead of motivating them to get re-energized.
- And we can't forget "job security", the ability to do a bad job and keep your job. Now this can not be good for the kids.
Ironically these are the things that the Teachers are fighting for in Wisconsin and Chicago. And if they did accept the real market wage based on their skills and results, then job security wouldn't be an issue. Right?
They could always move to another school and earn market wage, no worrying about seniority, tenure. etc. However since many of them are paid more than market, that is why they are so worried about job security. Especially since those same tenure, seniority, etc (golden hand cuff) rules make it hard to find a job once they have lost one. What an interesting Catch 22...
Thoughts?
G2A Golden Hand Cuffs
FOX News Chicago Teachers Strike
Huff Post Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Law
CNN Wisc CB Law
15 comments:
My understanding is that union membership isn't mandatory. The union may speak for all employees even those who disagree, even as management can speak for all shareholders, even those who disagree.
Managers may not be allowed to get together to fix wages, but they certainly know what their competitors are paying and adjust their compensation schedules accordingly. They just don't do it over coffee at Bruegger's. Or do they?
If citizens can band together and negotiate collectively as school districts, why shouldn't teachers be able to band together and negotiate collectively as unions?
A Vikings season ticket may cost less (or more) if they are broken up into individual game tickets, but they just don't come that way. Employees, like employers band together because they find it advantageous to work that way.
--Hiram
You see the difference though, a shareholder can sell their shares and leave at anytime. Maybe by shares in a competitor. However without Right to Work laws and true voluntary membership, the employees don't really have that freedom. Unless they want to quit the job and go to a non-union position, likely in a different field or State since the Union is usually State wide. Why else do Unions fight so hard against Right to Work laws? Ind Sent Union Membership Drops These rules are apparently really hard on keeping members.
Knowing what others are paying and meeting or exceeding it to attract and keep the best employees is what the free market is all about. Just as the employees can use hundreds of search engines to figure out what their skill set and experience are worth on the open market.
Typically it is one employer (district, company, etc) working with one employee that makes the most sense. And preferably that negotiation is delegated to the Supervisor level who is working to accomplish results within their allotted budget.
Imagine if all the companies, Districts, etc in the metro were allowed to get together and set compensation controls in attempt to force the Mpls wages below market... That makes no more sense than Unions and collective bargaining.
The Teachers banding together for the good of Teachers was my point exactly. Their efforts are for their personal benefit almost exclusive, and for that of the 10+ yr and ineffective Teachers primarily.
Without the Teacher's Unions, we could have more Teachers for the same amount of money. Class sizes could be smaller and the kids would benefit.
Without the Teacher's Unions, poor performing Teacher's would be forced to improve or they would be discharged.
Without the Teacher's Unions, compensation would be tied to capability and performance. Therefore gifted Teachers would make more and would be free to to move to schools that appreciated their skills and are willing to compensate them accordingly.
Without the Teacher's Unions, incompetent or burnt out Teachers would be paid in alignment with their capability and output. Hopefully they would get the hint and move to a different career.
If they would say "Support Education Minnesota because WE want more", that would be fair and truthful. Instead they say their efforts are "For the Kids". Which I think we agree is not their motive.
I was going to save this for the next post, but it seems to fit well here.
If my company is doing their job correctly, being fired really shouldn't be too bad... I say that because they will be paying me about what I am worth at another company.
Therefore I will lose some income while I look for that next opportunity, however my next wage will be somewhat similar to my last wage.
Now compare this with a 20 yr experienced Teacher. That teacher due to steps & lanes is being paid way more than the market offers for a basic classroom teacher. (that's why charters can pay less) Therefore being fired is terrifying to Tenured Teachers.
Once fired, no one will hire them at the 20 yr rate they now believe they deserve. And they sure don't want to work for less.
On top of this they find out that Teacher experience does not pay that well in the for-profit world. I am not sure what kind of job they would apply for... And they would have to work 12 months a year...
The point of this comment is that it is usually best to be paid equivalent to your contribution / worth. Then you can move on at anytime to a new opportunity if you find the old one political, boring, etc.
I can't even imagine being a 50 year old Teacher who has burned out... You are paid to much to quit and yet you dread going to work many days... That would be my idea of torture. And it sure isn't "good for the kids".
I am sure you know exactly what the value of a teacher is. I will refer to you the next time my contract is up so I can find out from you if I am over paid.
I personally do not know what your market wage is nor what your compensation should be. No more than you would know what an Engineer/ 6 Sigma BB is worth.
Though if you contact a Private school where the Teachers are not unionized, I am sure they could give you a good estimate. Another method would be to ask how much another district would be willing to pay you. Or possibly check out Monster.com. The market wage is simply what it is, and each employee should know about where they stand with respect to it. Just in case they do find themselves unemployed.
Now as for the word "Value", that is a totally different and very loaded concept. Why are some professional athletes highly compensated and Teachers much lower? Possible answers: America's priorities are screwed up, only the 1 in 1,000,000 little leaguers can attain that level of professional performance, Pro's have no job security (1 blown joint is the end), 4 yrs college and a test then you are a Teacher, Teacher's have high job security, Steps/lanes limit the compensation of the highly effective Teachers, etc)
For the pro-union readers, how do you think the majority of America's professionals get along without a Union? Why do you think Public Teacher's should be different?
Food for Thought:
G2A What Have You Done For Me Lately
G2A Pay Grades
G2A Steps and Lanes
"You see the difference though, a shareholder can sell their shares and leave at anytime."
And employees can quit their jobs anytime. It seems to me we are addressing the situations that occur when shareholders choose not to sell their shares or employees choose not to quit.
Collusions in restraint of trade are a prominent feature of markets as well. Adam Smith observed that it's rare that too businessmen engage in a conversation without at some point discussing price fixing.
I just don't see the problem here. People band and work together to secure advantages that would not be available to them individually. Among those advantages are greater bargaining power. That's why shareholders get together to form companies, that's why employees get together to form unions. That's why states get together to form nations. Wasn't it Ben Franklin who observed that it would be wise for us to hang together or we would surely hang separately?
And who do you think is better informed about our schools? Our teachers who spend their professional lives in schools? Or drive by politicians like Rahm Emmanuel?
--Hiram
how do you think the majority of America's professionals get along without a Union?
If they did, they probably wouldn't do very well. Professionals form professional organizations which perform many of the functions of unions. There are such things as the American Bar Association, and the American Medical Association. They form powerful lobbyist groups. They fund superPacs. They do these things for exactly the same reason employees form unions, that is, they know that working together gives them economic, market and political power.
--Hiram
"People band and work together to secure advantages that would not be available to them individually."
That is exactly the point, THEY are out maximize THEIR benefits, compensation and job security !!! It is excellent for THEIR member group. The Teachers and their Union know what is best for THEM.
The reality though is that WE citizens, parents and our children are paying for it. Some ways that we pay for it: higher taxes or fewer Teachers in classrooms, paying too much for poor Teachers, paying excellent Teachers too little, poor Teachers still in the classroom, excellent Teachers quitting in frustration, kids not learning adequately from the poor Teachers, lost school days due to strikes, constrained work hours due to work rules, etc.
I agree that many professions offer voluntary organizations that one can join. However you will never see these folks calling a strike or demanding that their poor performing peer is not fired.
Look at this list of top Professional careers, you will note that most are not typically affiliated with a Union.
Career Cast Job List
Why is that?
A lot of things go into it when two sides negotiate.
--Hiram
Well here are CTU's priorities.
"Vice President Jesse Sharkey reminded the House of our contract objectives: 1) fair compensation, 2) a better school day, and 3)
job security."
CTU Strike Update
CTU Net
And here are some of their other concerns. "We all know that there are an abundance of concerns, including class size, charter expansion, school closings, woefully inadequate staff to student ratios amongst clinicians, and a lack of air conditioning,
playgrounds and libraries. While the new contract won’t be able to resolve all of these issues, we currently have a framework that
the leadership believes will reflect our bottom-line concerns and demands."
There are a few that maybe helpful to the students, however most are Teacher centric. My favorite of course is the concern regarding Charter schools. That competition could be hard on a system if its costs are too high and quality is too low. Who cares if the Parents and Students are choosing them of their own free will?
Chicago Tribune Details
I find these most interesting:
"So-called "step and lane" increases, raises given out for years of service and continuing education, would be preserved under the contract, according to the union. And the three highest steps would be increased."
"The school board decided not to pursue "differentiated compensation," which would have one set of teachers being paid differently than another set."
"The mayor did get the longer school day he fought for, though six of 181 days in school became half days during negotiations, sources said."
The high seniority folks must have a lot of power in the Union.
No school tomorrow in Chicago. The Teachers apparently don't want their performance graded, isn't that ironic.
CNN Strike Continues
To be correct, the teachers don't want to be graded based on how well their students perform academically. Sort of like a pro football player not being paid according to how many yards he gained. :-/
J. Ewing
That's why this was my favorite cartoon. The irony is incredible. Imgick Cartoon
Besides if one is paid higher than market, usually the expectations should be higher than average. At least that's my company's philosophy for paying well. "If you want average employees pay average, if you want above avg employees pay above avg."
Post a Comment