Erin wrote a very interesting piece. MinnPost In wake of Supreme Court ruling on union fees, Minnesota teachers decide whether to opt out or go all in.
Since I think that Teacher pay, placement and job security should be based on job challenge, performance and capabilities, not age and degrees... I am always happy when the union loses some of it's power over the educational system.
And the idea that people were required by law to pay dues to a party that did not speak for them seemed ever so wrong. I mean:
- Imagine a young teacher having to pay for their union to keep their pay low so old teachers could make twice as much?
- Or a teacher watching their class size rise because the union fought cost cutting measures or the firing of poor teachers?
- Or an experienced teacher fighting for unlucky kids in a challenged school as many of the other experienced high paid teachers flee for a simpler school / classroom and keeping the same pay?
By the way, I think Educational Administration positions should also be paid on multiple measures. Including are their teachers happy and do they feel supported?
21 comments:
Another instance of right wing overreaching. It's why, more and more, we are going to see a move to limit the Supreme Court's power and influence over the law. That the court has become a second legislative branch is something both the right and left agree, and it must stop.
--Hiram
And yet both the Left and Right are happy to do it when they have the opportunity and the rulings fall their way.
Do you really believe it is fair to make employees pay for something they do not agree with at best, and strongly oppose at worst?
I know I would have been very angry and conflicted if I was forced to pay for Education MN in order to work in a MN Public School.
Just remember how excited the Liberals were when gay marriage rights were passed all across the country because the swing justice fell on that side of the ruling... :-)
"Do you really believe it is fair to make employees pay for something they do not agree with at best, and strongly oppose at worst?"
I'll agree it's not fair if they agree not to receive any of the benefits that the Union works for.
Moose
And yet both the Left and Right are happy to do it when they have the opportunity and the rulings fall their way.
There is that argument. I like the fact that we desegregated schools. I like the fact that the state can't tell us what birth control to use. I like the fact that cops are no longer allowed to beat confessions out of folks. I like the fact that Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich are not anyone's moral arbiter. But there is a problem. Trump wants to turn the courts over to the Brett Kavanaugh's of the world for the next forty years who have no problems with any of those things. It is wrong that an unfit man of questionable loyalty to America, who lost the popular vote should have that power and that tells us there is something fundamentally wrong with the system itself. It's time America took off the training wheels and started governing itself. The alternative, we are beginning to see, is simply unacceptable.
--Hiram
Ah but who is to determine what is a Union "Benefit" or "Detriment"?
If young gifted Teachers stay under paid relative to their Older Peers due to the Steps / Lanes schedule?
If young lower paid Teachers can only get jobs in challenged schools and classrooms because their more experienced and higher compensated peers are allowed to avoid them?
When young gifted teachers are laid off while older lack luster performers are retained?
Hiram,
Brett Kavanaugh was around long before Trump, and a bunch of Senators will need to concur. It will be interesting to see what happens.
All I'm saying is that everything they get they need to negotiate for themselves. If it's less than what they'd get under the Union, too bad, so sad.
Moose
My point...
What if the union is costing the best teachers money and positions?
Please remember that Unions focus on getting Teachers raises and protecting Teachers who have been there longest. Not on ensuring the best most proficient Teachers are rewarded and protected.
Will the Union pay them back?
How will it be determined?
"I know I would have been very angry and conflicted if I was forced to pay for Education MN in order to work in a MN Public School"
You can work at a charter school, then.
After all, if everything you say is true, then we can safely assume that excellent charter school teachers are paid better than similarly excellent unionized counterparts who are held back by the man. Right?
What if the union is costing the best teachers money and positions?
If money were the issue, they wouldn't be teachers.
--Hiram
Unions are under attack because managers know if they can break them, they can drive overall wages are down. That's why they work so hard to put anti union judges on courts, and their policy has been a success.
--Hiram
Sean,
Unfortunately Education MN also lobbies to ensure the Union Schools get more funding than charters... Is that a benefit or detriment???
I am aware there are good and bad things about unions, at least for the older employees. I am not sure they benefit the kids or younger employees though. And my point is that I believe Teachers should be free to pay dues if they choose. They should not be legally mandated to do it.
Hiram,
If money is not an issue for Teachers, they really should not be paying the Union...
I am not sure anyone wants to drive wages down, as much as they want to ensure the best employees are compensated well. and the questionable employees are shown the door or compensated appropriately.
Some simple math... If money does not matter to Teachers and they want smaller class sizes... Drop wages by 10% and higher 10% more Teachers.
The reality is that money, benefits and job security matters greatly to the Teachers. They are human and capitalists like the rest of us.
People do want to drive wages down. That has been a consistent Republican policy from the era of Ronald Reagan. It's why they invest so much in putting anti working people judges on the Supreme Court. And the policy has been successful. The anti union justices are now focusing on public employee unions, not so much because those folks are motivated by money, but because they are all that is left. There was a time when union contracts set the market for wages for everyone. That time is past.
--Hiram
This is an interesting Pro Con Piece
I am always amazed that Public Employee Unions did not get going until the 1960's...
Maybe that like the war on poverty was our society going to far Left.
Hiram,
Who are these people who want to drive wages down?
You do remember that the vast majority of Republicans are workers?
Who are these people who want to drive wages down?
Business people. Along with lower taxes, it's what large donors to the Republican Party want. And while the Republican right demands that Republican appoint pro life justices, what's most important to Repubican contributors is that they be anti labor. Which all of them in recent years, have been.
--Hiram
Personally I think that is Liberal mumbo jumbo...
Most Republicans I know have no problem paying big salaries as long as the employee's perceived value matches the salary.
Otherwise CEOs, athletes and/or other workers would not be paid so well.
Please remember that it is a Liberal concept to pay / give with few performance or improvement expectations.
Most business people I know are very interested in reducing the cost of a labor. It's why they work so hard to put anti labor justices on the Supreme Court.
--Hiram
Hiram,
How do explain that so many people in the USA are paid more than $100,000 per year + benefits?
I mean if businesses seek to minimize compensation, why do they pay so much?
Post a Comment