Insanity

[Partha]

I am for sane unions for people who may not have a lot of choices due to the economic conditions in their area.

Um, dude? It doesn't really matter if you're rich or poor if your boss is using your employment as a weapon against you. Nor does it matter if you're a college graduate or a high school dropout. A worker = a worker.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I am for sane unions for people who may not have a lot of choices due to the economic conditions in their area.

Um, dude? It doesn't really matter if you're rich or poor if your boss is using your employment as a weapon against you. Nor does it matter if you're a college graduate or a high school dropout. A worker = a worker.

Did anyone make sense of that post????

[Partha]

What part of 'a worker=a worker' is too much for you to grasp?

[Kulaf]

I am for sane unions for people who may not have a lot of choices due to the economic conditions in their area.

Um, dude? It doesn't really matter if you're rich or poor if your boss is using your employment as a weapon against you. Nor does it matter if you're a college graduate or a high school dropout. A worker = a worker.

I see. So how exactly do you motivate a worker to actually work if you cannot use their employment against then? And in your view of the world do the "bosses" not deserve a union? And if so if we are all in the same union then how do you motivate your subordinates to actually you know.......work?

[Partha]

That is a mighty impressive strawman you've built there.

[Lurker]

Well when I say that.....am I wrong? The only time I have ever seen a union backpeddle for anything significant is when it is faced with its own destruction. Like the UAW. Unless the union itself is in jeapordy.......things will not change because it is not in the unions own self interest as an entity to allow change.

You aren't entirely wrong. The UAW made major concessions a couple years ago when the health of the automakers became critical. And while teachers unions do make concessions each time their contract comes up for negotiation they need to be pressured into making significant changes, especially when it comes to issues like removal of teachers.

You set up a nice catch-22 that guarantees nothing changes. The union must be removed because it won't change, and the union won't change because the other sides real goal is removal of the union. That doesn't make for a good negotiating environment.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Well when I say that.....am I wrong? The only time I have ever seen a union backpeddle for anything significant is when it is faced with its own destruction. Like the UAW. Unless the union itself is in jeapordy.......things will not change because it is not in the unions own self interest as an entity to allow change.

You aren't entirely wrong. The UAW made major concessions a couple years ago when the health of the automakers became critical. And while teachers unions do make concessions each time their contract comes up for negotiation they need to be pressured into making significant changes, especially when it comes to issues like removal of teachers.

You set up a nice catch-22 that guarantees nothing changes. The union must be removed because it won't change, and the union won't change because the other sides real goal is removal of the union. That doesn't make for a good negotiating environment.

He's actually absolutely right. Unions never change unless pressured to change.

Let me ask you this, would you support the ability of schools to hire non-union teachers?

[Lurker]

He's actually absolutely right. Unions never change unless pressured to change.

Kulaf didn't say unions won't change unless pressured, he said they won't change unless faced with their own destruction.

Let me ask you this, would you support the ability of schools to hire non-union teachers?

Can you be more specific about how that would work and what the end goal would be?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Sure...

If schools could hire both union and non-union teachers, it opens up competition, removes obstacles to getting rid of problem teachers, and allows non-union teachers who excel at what they do to market their skills to the school that wants them the most.

[Lurker]

Nice that you limit that to only "non-union teachers who excel at what they do" and you don't factor labor cost in at all. So what steps would you take to prevent union teachers who excel at what they do from being replaced? How would it remove obstacles to getting rid of problem teachers? What steps would you take to prevent the unintended (jk) result of the union being destroyed for no other reason than to reduce employee benefits.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Nice that you limit that to only "non-union teachers who excel at what they do" and you don't factor labor cost in at all. So what steps would you take to prevent union teachers who excel at what they do from being replaced? How would it remove obstacles to getting rid of problem teachers? What steps would you take to prevent the unintended (jk) result of the union being destroyed for no other reason than to reduce employee benefits.

Last I checked, inclusion in a union is voluntary, so union teachers who excel at what they do could always drop out of the union.

As for getting rid of problem teachers.. a non-union teacher could be fired without the multi-year appeals process. If you're a good teacher and good at what you do, then getting employment at another school (just like the real world) shouldn't be hard. Schools have performance standards now, too. (And about time)

If you're a good teacher and can produce results, negotiate you're own benefits. Just like the real world.

Why do you think teachers need special protections?

[Lurker]

As I thought, your goal is to get rid of the union. The only guaranteed result for what you are proposing is that the union would be gone and teachers would receive less pay and benefits. Better teachers and schools, not so much.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Where do you get that my goal is to get rid of the union?

I explicitly stated that schools should have the choice between hiring union and non-union teachers. What is wrong with giving schools that choice?

[Lurker]

Schools are likely to use labor costs as the primary motivator for hiring, not quality of teaching, and your response to that was that the union workers can always quit the union. Other than that, I don't know where I got the notion your goal was to get rid of the union.

Also, it's workers that choose if they want to unionize, not the employer. To flip that would by default end unions in this country. And that isn't your goal at all, right?

[Embar Angylwrath]

As I thought, your goal is to get rid of the union. The only guaranteed result for what you are proposing is that the union would be gone and teachers would receive less pay and benefits. Better teachers and schools, not so much.

That's where I thought that you perceived my goal was to get rid of the union. Did I misconstrue that statement?

Also, schools have more pressing items thanbudgetary issues.. they have performance goals. If they don't meet performance goals, then the school is suject to all manner of repurcussions. Why not give the school all the tools they need to perform?

Yes or no Lurker... do you support a school's ability to hire non-union teachers?

[Lurker]

That's where I thought that you perceived my goal was to get rid of the union. Did I misconstrue that statement?

Try reading all that again. To recap... you came up with a scenario that guarantees the destrucion of unions by flipping the relationship from the worker to the employer, then I say I knew your goal was to get rid of the union, then you ask why I think that. Of course your goal is to get rid of the union, which is why I found it so funny when you asked where I got the idea from.

Yes or no Lurker... do you support a school's ability to hire non-union teachers?

No, I don't support creating a situation where union teachers are told to quit the union or lose their job. That's exactly what you described when I asked what steps would you take to prevent union teachers who excel from being replaced, and you answered that "union teachers who excel at what they do could always drop out of the union".

[Embar Angylwrath]

"Guarantees the destruction of the unions".. hyperbole thy name is Lurker...

Why do you think the choice of employing union and non-union teachers will "gurantee the destruction of the unions"? Its worked in the past.

[Lurker]

Its worked in the past.

Links please.

[Ddrak]

Unions should be completely worker oriented. The only law involved needs to be freedom of association, where an employer can not discriminate on employment based on whether the worker applying for a job is unionized or not. There should be no legislation mandating unions in any field - if the unions are doing their job then they are going to draw the employees to them and if they aren't then the employees will leave.

Yes, schools should be able to employ non-union teachers. In fact, schools shouldn't *know* whether the teachers they are employing are unionized or not up to the point where collective bargaining begins. Like I said - freedom of association is also the freedom to NOT associate.

Dd

[Lurker]

You're talking about 'right to work', and as you say that's completely worker oriented and the employer has nothing to do with it. In states that allow it, the worker has the right to join the union or not. If the worker doesn't join the union they pay no dues and they don't get a vote, but they do enjoy all the benefits and protections under the union contract.

As you pointed out, that's not what Embar is talking about. Embar is suggesting we put the employer in charge of whether unions exist or not. That defeats the whole purpose of workers organizing to protect their rights and guarantees unions vanish. But his goal isn't to destroy the union. Honest!