Bingo.
The only worry I have about union bargaining is the tendency to attempt to enforce the pressure by illegal acts. As long as substitute teachers’ cars aren’t being pelted with eggs, for example, I am happy to see the teachers make a collective demand and the district respond.
As long as the teachers have a right to walk away, and the district has a right to fire them for not working, the process should play itself out.
It doesn’t?
And isn’t another option to shift costs from other priorities?
BOTH sides, union and management, have a long history of illegal acts. Let’s just stipulate that. Carry on.
In Oregon, all taxes are collected at the state level and dispersed to the districts on a per-pupil basis. The theory is that equal money = equal education. The pension plan is also run at the state level, and this system is near bankrupt. These issues in the Medford District are wide spread throughout almost all levels of government and almost all departments. When the Legislature tries to raise taxes, some anti-tax group files an initiative and inevitably the voters strike the tax hike down.
The main problem is that just one single school district has about half the total students in the state, therefore they get half the money. This system works for them using economies of scale. This one single school district also has half the state’s votes, half the state legislature and almost always their mayor moves on to be governor.
Here’s the PDF file for the actual budget for 2013-14. The opening pages discuss the situations that are being faced by the school board. In a nutshell, the teachers are demanding something that cannot be paid for by the district. Unlike most other states, it’s actually illegal for the district to raise taxes within their district for school operating costs.
Blame rests solely on the state legislature.
Well there’s your problem. Don’t you know a proper teacher is supposed to stay unwedded and unbedded in this day in age? :rolleyes:
This is part of why a free-market model works so poorly for schools.
With a product like, say, chocolate chip cookies, it’s awesome for folks to choose. If the consumer (and here I specifically mean the person who selects and purchases the goods, not necessarily the person who uses them–that’ll be important soon) decides not to get cookies, that’s cool. If they decide to buy cheap cookies, that’s cool too, and if they decide to buy the world’s awesomest cookies, bully for them. Wanna make their own? Groovy. The market can decide the fate of both cookie and eater (with of course sensible health regulations to prevent rat poison being sold as cookies).
That doesn’t work with education, for several reasons:
So we can’t have a private market for education and expect good results. Society as a whole makes decisions about education (hopefully with a great deal of deference to what the professionals in the field advise). This works best via a monopoly on education: we’re all in this together.
Since we generally operate education according to a democratically-controlled monopoly (which isn’t so weird–it’s also how we operate the military, law enforcement, and sanitation, for example), teachers can’t really say, “I don’t like my employer, I’m gonna go find another one.” There are a lot of sunken costs in becoming a teacher, and the skillset isn’t super-transferable to other fields; there aren’t really other employers.
I mean, sure, you can switch districts, and plenty of teachers do: I realized last night that all three of the former mentors I had in my first few years of teaching no longer teach in my state (one having become a full-time mom who’s fighting for the rights of same-sex couples in my state, the other two having accepted teaching jobs in Asia, where they’ll be respected and paid better). But moving is not a realistic option for plenty of folks–my family, for example, is tied here by familial obligations not subject to free market forces.
I’m not completely convinced that union actions are the best way of resolving these disputes. But I do know that free market solutions when applied to public education don’t lead to good results.
The district doesn’t have a right to fire them for not working. That’s one of the underlying principles of labor law: the duty of employers to bargain in good faith (once a union has been certified.) Of course, since these are public employees, the state is free to prohibit strikes, but it looks like they haven’t, so they can’t be fired.
To me, these argue against giving teachers’ unions too much power. Because education is a necessity, as you say. Not educating the children is not an option in the same way that not buying cookies is. So if you give unions power over cookie manufacturing, the most they can impose on society is the lack of cookies. No huge deal. But if you give too much control of education to teachers unions, they effectively have society by the throat, and there’s no standing in their way.
I agree. An individual teacher can be seriously harmed.
But my point was about the long-term bigger picture - the school system as a whole needs new teachers to replace old ones, and if they don’t make it worthwhile they won’t have any. At some point, union or no union, they are going to have to make the compensation they offer worth the work they are requiring, or they won’t have any. So this would be a market corrective force. Although again, individual teachers could get harmed along the way (which is not unique to teachers, BTW, although I acknowlege that the size of some school dstricts could make it harder for them, as you note).
I tend to agree that public employee unions do not need the same rights and powers as private employee unions, since they can influence their employers at the ballot box.
But that makes no sense. What if they lose at the ballot box? Should their fate be tied to politics? Should they have lower pay just because they lost an election?
And on the other hand, government may not employ people in the private sector, but it can regulate the private sector. So why wouldn’t the same logic apply to all?
As I say, the union may not be the best solution to the tension between educators and their bosses. But I also don’t think free market solutions work well for education: supply and demand don’t result in fair prices. I do think we need a powerful organization to represent the voices of professional educators, and ultimately I think we need as a society to give more credence to what educators say about education, and less to what corporate tycoons say about education.
Well I don’t care about corporate tycoons, but it’s important to give credence to what taxpayers say about education. Everybody has all sorts of great ideas that involve other people paying the bills.
Although if these corporate tycoons want to actually pay for things themselves, then that’s fine too.
I’m not saying their pay should be lower. I’m saying their negotiating tactics have to be modified. It’s pretty obvious that police officers and EMS workers can’t be allowed to strike, and in countries with unitary healthcare systems the same is true of medical personnel.
Equally significant is the fact that public employees are generally well-treated. There is no profit motive in government and employees can vote for their political masters, and influence others to do so.
Yes, government regulates private employers, but it doesn’t run them. The mayor can pledge to hire 500 extra teachers. The governor can’t pledge to make XYZ Hospital System hire 500 extra nurses.
Figuring that taxpayers and voters are essentially the same group, I think I’m with you, sort of. Rather than paying attention to what voters say, I think that voters make the ultimate decision.
What I’m saying–and this isn’t like setting up a new system, but rather suggesting how we ought to think about things–is that, just as we pay attention to military leaders when making military decisions, and we pay attention to police and judges when making law enforcement decisions, we need to be listening to teachers when making decisions about education.
What teachers (generals, physicians) say about their fields might be self-serving, or too costly, or otherwise unwise; that’ll be true in any field. But right now, we treat generals as experts in military matters, police and judges as experts in law enforcement matters, and teachers as the enemy in education matters. That’s messed up.
I’ve not seen this attitude about teachers.
What I have seen is the teachers union being treated as the enemy in education matters. But that’s because the teachers union is suspected of being more heavily weighted to the self-serving aspect. I don’t think people look to the police union for guidance in law enforcement either.
Who else do they look to? It’s either the police unions or the police chiefs’ organizations.
In Medford, Oregon, where the strike is median teacher salary for elementary is $53,142. Middle and Secondary pay is slightly higher. The median household in Medford makes $36,481. So a household with a teacher as a single parent is making 45% more than the average household. A household with two elementary school teachers would make more than 82% of income tax filers nationwide, plus get summers off.
Salaries in the top 20% of the country are not rock bottom compensation.
That median household income figure is from 1999 - and the mean teacher salary is $46k. Nice cherry-picking.
Again, I’m here in NC, and I can definitely speak to that. There’s a lot of very superficial lip service given to respecting teachers in speeches that precede policy announcements that show a great deal of input from ALEC, Art Pope, and Bill Gates, and no input at all from teachers.
Can you address median household income for households headed by professionals utilizing a minimum of a four-year degree, and adjust it by years of experience in the field?
Because otherwise it’s not a relevant comparison.