Why have the TPTB been able to foment so much union hatred?

Great Debates
181

The people who pay most of the income taxes in DC are almost overwhelmingly in favor of the plan. The residents of Northwest DC (where the vast majority of the income taxes come from, seem to support the plan based on who they voted for int the primary).

Not in DC, not with the teacher’s union.

Teaching doesn’t have to be scalable and frankly I would pay more than twice as much for a good teacher than I would for an average teacher at least if it were my kids in that class.

If your opinion is that the top 10% of teachers in the district aren’t worth 100K then what are the bottom 10% of teachers in the district worth? Because right now they get the same amount as the top 10% more or less.

Noone is talking about paying them all like investment bankers. What percentage of teachers do you think are expected to earn 100K?

Everybody TALKS about how much they value education but I think the people in the DC area actually do value education. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that DC has so many graduate degree/capita (I think they lead in college degrees and professional degrees as well if you count the surrounding suburbs).

The average household income tops 90K/year and I don’t think people begrudge the best teachers from earning the average household income.

I think there was a time when they were better than they are now.

OK, so you think that perhaps the unions would do a better job during prosperous economic times than when there were people dealing drugs two blocks from the white house. OK thats a reasonable hypotheses.

Well those problems have been falling for more than a decade and we have only seen continuing degradation in our school system during that time. DC is doing MUCH better in terms of crime and poverty than it once was. It is no longer the murder capital and hasn’t been for quite some time and yet we didn’t see scholastic improvements in the school system until Rhee came along. Or were those the effects of all those long term investments the teachers union proposed during the last 50 or 60 years finally coming to fruition?

Don’t get me wrong, I think Teachers can be a vital and important part of crafting the best solution for our kids but my focus is on the effect the education will have on the student’s future. I think teachers are a very important element and I think that having parents that constantly stress the importance of education is a very important element of that but in the end, the interests of the parents and teachers come second to the interests of the students… at least for me they do.

182

Yes but a closed shop doesn’t eliminate the voice of management while a non-inuion shop eliminates the voice of labor.

183

Why?

It’s a condition of employment. Management can say “You cannot work here unless you…” do any number of things.

184

No it doesn’t. A worker can still petition management for some concession. Workers can draw up petitions and present them to management. If there is enough support for it and it is reasonable, management is likely to grant it. Or part of it. If they don’t, and the workers find it an important issue, one by one they can leave and seek a better deal elsewhere. No, just because a union does not have a seat at the table does not mean that the workers don’t.

185

We were discussing a voice that actually has some power, not a voice that begs and cajoles. Note the language you use: petition, concession. This is language indicating that the power is all in the hands of management.

Yes, workers can leave an unreasonable employer But capital is fluid; families are not so fluid. A worker may not be able to survive such a move, especially in a difficult economy.

Of course, we can imagine the parallels all day long. Imagine a shop in which management petitions workers for some concession, asking workers to do something instead of making it a condition of employment. That’s the equivalent of what you’re talking about.

186

I assume the idea is similar to “No taxation without representation.” Employers are by their nature more powerful than their employees, and can royally screw them over. The ability to work together with other people is an inherent right of humanity. Heck, seeing as most employers are corporations, it’s a freedom they themselves enjoy, but wish to deprive from those who work under them.

It’s how tyrannies are made.

187

In the end, it all comes down to: do I want to go to work today? If it sucks bad enough, you don’t go. No one is holding a gun to your head. Most of us have had jobs that we didn’t like. I know I did. I evaluated the degree to which I could change circumstances there, then either tried to change them or left. This is why one should get educated well enough to be able to be really good at something, whether it be accounting, lawyering, plumbing or felling trees. You tip the scales in your favor by making management want to keep YOU. Not Joe average or Sam the lazy schmuck. YOU.

188

Indeed–nobody is forcing you to go to work in a union shop. That’s exactly the point that I’m making.

189

I misread the quote, actually, so I take my question back.

190

But the union is interfering with the meeting of the minds, between an employer and an employee. It adds a layer that muddies the relationship. It prevents me from negotiating a fair wage for what I have to offer.

Also, it helps people when they have the greatest number of opportunities in which to strike the best deal for themselves. You might be worth $X to Employer A, but $2X to Employer B. Unions interfere with that. They’re also inefficient. They’re create an extra layer that may raise the average wage (beyond where it should be) in order, in part, to pay union dues. Nope. They are unnecessary in the U.S. today. Even unhelpful.

191

I think this is exactly why some people want them gone.

192

That’s not true. Since Gompers time, plenty of laws have been passed. Groups like OSHA have been established. Without unions we’re not going to revert to a hundred years ago.

And no, nobody wants that.

193

Absolutely. We don’t need safe working conditions, laws against child labor, vacations and reasonable work weeks. That stuff is bad. It spoils us.

194

What about police unions and firefighter unions. There is power in organization. Companies call them associations instead of unions. The NFL has a union fighter against the Owners Organization. They both know of strength in numbers. Baseball players have been at war against the Major League Owners Assoc. The owners realize they are more vulnerable if separate.
I guess it requires a certain misplaced arrogance to think you have power as a lone employee. But there is no shortage of such arrogance.

195

Ah, but you are just arguing. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that you can’t back up a single thing you wrote there. Got some facts? Bring 'em next time.

196

Except, oh, the Republican Party. And various (prolly most) Tea Party groups. And Libertarians.

Or have you got some cites to back up your assertions?

197

Which would mean something if the politicians that enacted the plan didn’t have to get elected. Furthermore, since private donations subsidized the cost of enacting the plan, it’s not entirely clear that people would have actually been willing to pay for it in full.

What are you basing that on? Is there any union that is as strong or stronger today than in recent years?

Then why don’t you send your kids to an expensive private school? Honestly, you are always gonna reach the limits of an individual’s resources or desire to pay. You may be fine with paying your kid’s teacher 2x the salary, but are other people willing to subsidize your desire? I think the answer is a resounding no.

Also, scalability is very important because we cannot actually attract enough great teachers to the profession. More importantly, the effect that one teacher has limits their relative utility. If a teacher can only teach, say, 200 kids per year, how can you justify paying them more than you would two teachers that are less effective? Particularly since you could have one of those two teachers teaching, and the other tutoring specific students that need extra help.

That’s not my opinion; I just recognize most people don’t agree that paying teachers well is a high priority.

Not sure. But if the percentage is too low, by design, or by happenstance, then you would have a hard time selling teachers on giving up tenure (etc.) for the remote possibility of a raise.

They do. But they also live in MD and VA. The problem is that people TALK far more than they take action. They are fine paying for their kid to get a good education, but will they also subsidize some kid in SE? More likely, they will just move to MD near like-minded people.

Remember, that is the household income, not (usually) one person. Regardless, if high teacher salaries were necessary and welcomed, you should see those salaries somewhere, no? Elite private schools often don’t pay that much.

What are you basing that on? Even though I would imagine you’re correct, is there any proof of that assertion, or the magnitude of change?

But the older kids in school today, and their parents, came up when all those things were the norm. Just because the problems aren’t what they once were doesn’t erase the victim’s scars.

While I think we are generally on the same page, I think you overestimate the effect of teachers, and the teacher’s union. DC collectively has some of the worst schools, while the surrounding suburbs have some of the best. Do you really think the teacher’s unions are largely responsible for the disparity?

198

I cite both reality and common sense.

Now, If you have a counter argument, feel free to offer it up. Or feel free to show where you think my thinking is flawed. That’s kind who this whole thing works. Since you offer neither, I can only assume that you think my opinion and reasoning is sound, but you don’t like the conclusion so you try to disparage what I wrote by characterizing as mere opinion. Hey, guess what? It is opinion. Based on, as I said, reality and common sense. And my own personal experience in the job market.

I await your counter argument or pointing out where my thinking is flawed.

tick…tick…tick…tick…

199

Do you want sites that labor laws have been passed. Or that an entity called OSHA exists? Please.

If you want to quibble with my “nobody” wants that, I’ll concede to a whopping victory on your part here.:eek: As I’m sure there are some people somewhere that might want to turn back the clock to 1910. :rolleyes:

But, let’s look at a claim that you made, that is more specific. You claim that the Republican Party wants to revert back to a hundred years ago. Surely that rather astonishing claim is based on something. So, please share this evidence that the Republican Party—either in whole or in large part—wants to abolish OSHA and all the labor laws that have been passed in the past 100 years.

tick…tick…tick…

200

But why does the union get to decide who should work there and who doesn’t? That should be management’s decision, and whoever they employ should then get a free decision on whether they should join the union. How is anything else acceptable in a free society?