Defund Teachers’ Union

Flanders

Verified User
Public sector unions are an abomination. None more than teachers’ unions, yet few Americans think about teachers’ unions as GOVERNMENT UNIONS designed to work against the American people.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?108284-The-Labor-Union-Myth&p=2760359#post2760359

Defunding the police could result in an UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE gift from God. Given the philosophical or ethical choice the American people will be far better off defunding teachers’ unions.

In addition to philosophy and ethics —— jerk teachers’ union out of the public trough and you automatically defund the Socialist religion:

In the wake of George Floyd’s death and the subsequent protests/riots calling for “defunding the police,” Democrats have started targeting police unions, saying they are obstacles to accountability and reform. Do they realize that the same can be said of teachers’ unions?

In a recent interview about reforming the police in his city, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said that “The elephant in the room with regard to police reform is the police union. … We do not have the ability to get rid of many of these officers that we know have done wrong in the past due to issues with both the contract and the arbitration associated with the union.” He said that it “sets up a system where we have difficulty both disciplining and terminating officers who have done wrong.”

If police unions operate like a protection racket —— teachers’ unions operate like shakedown artists whenever they ‘negociate’ pay increases and benefits:


Minneapolis City Councilman Steve Fletcher said the police union “operates a little bit like a protection racket.”

Frey and Fletcher won’t get an argument from us. Like other public-sector unions, police unions serve mainly to fatten salaries and benefits at taxpayer expense, make it harder to fire bad employees, and then dump campaign cash on the same people they are “negotiating” with.



chicago-school-3.jpg

https://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/chicago-school-3.jpg


It was Franklin Roosevelt, of all people, who understood the inherent problem this arrangement poses, warning back in 1937 that “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”

A Duke Law Journal study looked at 178 police union contracts and found that “a substantial number … unreasonably interfere with or otherwise limit the effectiveness of mechanisms designed to hold police officers accountable for their actions.”

The New York Times reports how police union membership has been climbing even as private-sector union membership has plunged, and that this gives unions “resources they can spend on campaigns and litigation to block reform. A single New York City police union has spent more than $1 million on state and local races since 2014.”

“The greater the political pressure for reform, the more defiant the unions often are in resisting it — with few city officials, including liberal leaders, able to overcome their opposition,” the Times reports.

No kidding.

All this applies equally, if not more so, to teachers’ unions. Through the collective bargaining process, they’ve made it nearly impossible to fire a teacher, unless the school wants to spend roughly two years and $200,000 doing it, according to Stanford Professor Terry Moe.

Teachers themselves admit that this is a problem. A survey by NPR and Ipsos looked at the views of K-12 teachers across America, with roughly half members of teachers’ unions and half non-unionized. Among the findings: 62% of organized teachers and 64% of non-unionized teachers agreed that the unions make it harder to fire bad teachers.

A study by the Fordham Institute looking at what it takes to fire bad teachers found that “For the most part, state and local policies create a tortuous maze of paperwork, regulations, and directives. Teachers who receive years’ worth of ineffective ratings are given multiple chances for improvement and reevaluation, and a single procedural violation by the administration starts the process over again.”

Teachers’ unions are the biggest and most relentless obstacle to education reforms such as charter schools and education savings accounts that would put more control in the hands of parents and break the union stranglehold over public education.

But don’t expect Democrats to ever extend their reasons for hating police unions over to teachers, for the simple reason that teachers’ unions dump far more money on Democrats than police unions.

While police unions give heavily to Democrats, they also support Republican candidates.

As one House Democratic leadership aide told Axios, “Police unions are very different. They’re very conservative, a lot of them are even Republican. They don’t have the same progressive beliefs.”

But teachers’ unions? In the past 28 years, they gave 96% of their campaign contributions to Democratic candidates. And they are huge contributors. In 2016, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association gave $64 million in political donations.

The result: student test scores have stagnated while per-pupil costs continue to climb. Millions of children remain stuck in failing schools. But hey, it’s mainly a real problem only for those in poor, minority neighborhoods. Why would Democrats care about that?

Now that the public is opening its eyes to the harm done by one public-sector union, perhaps it will start to realize that being anti-teachers’ unions isn’t the same as being anti-education. [GOVERNMENT TEACHERS UNIONS ARE ANTI-INDIVIDUAL-CHOICE.]


Democrats (Accidentally) Make The Case Against Teachers’ Unions
I & I Editorial Board
June 15, 2020

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/06/15/democrats-accidentally-make-the-case-against-teachers-unions/

Finally, the federal government has no constitutional authority to be in education on any level, least of all subsidizing ‘higher education’ with income tax dollars. Whenever you give a thought to higher education remember this:


I would rather be governed by the first two thousand people in the Boston telephone directory than by the two thousand people on the faculty of Harvard University. William F. Buckley, Jr. (1925 - 2008)
 
Only way to defund teacher unions is to have them all quit the union.
But you are correct that public sector unions are a needless and harmful thing. Not to mention they're about the only ones left.
 
Can’t deny the reality, as the Unions faded so did the middle class, and income inequality grew larger

We can all thank St. Ronnie for that. Reichwingers don't care. They think that if you just work hard enough, that you too can be a 1-percenter.

It's puzzling why so few of them are wealthy, if that's true. lol
 
Start by getting rid of "Closed shop" laws and making the country "Right to work." If workers are not forced to join a union, many will choose not to. That limits the ability of unions to shake down workers for dues, particularly if a worker disagrees with the union. It also limits their ability to use dues money for political purposes as they would have less of it particularly from workers who disagree with their politics.

Unions didn't make America's middle class. Social and physical (ability to move to other places) mobility did. America for most of its history has one of the highest land ownership rates of any large country. That and the lack of a rigid social hierarchy allowed people to accumulate wealth. You want to destroy the middle class? Fix social hierarchy so people are pigeon holed into a specific place on that ladder and make them renters.
 
Do you Nazis pay for the teachers union?

To Penderyn:
Everybody pays.




I know you're against human rights,

To Penderyn: Only against the kind that have to be bought and paid for with a tax on income.


Public tax money does not go to teachers' unions.

To jacksonsptat22: Enlighten me. Where does the money come from?

And you might also show me the clause in the Constitution that gives federal, or state, or local government the authority to give tax dollars of any kind to education industry parasites. Before you reply:

See this article if you are not familiar with the patron saint of all teachers:

John Dewey: Bosom Serpent of American Education
Kelly OConnell
Sunday, February 24, 2013

http://canadafreepress.com/article/john-dewey-bosom-serpent-of-american-education

in this thread:

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ely-Crueller-Than-Wasps&p=3048446#post3048446


Can’t deny the reality, as the Unions faded so did the middle class, and income inequality grew larger

To archives: The private sector middle class shrank in size, while the government middle class grew in leaps and bounds —— as well as control the wealth they did not create. You read this thread, so you might want to read it again:


Obama was the first full-blown parasite to openly preach transforming the private sector middle class into a government middle class. Handing the nation’s wealth to tax dollar parasites began a long time ago. Obama completed the job of making educated professionals and a large segment of highly skilled workers dependent upon tax dollars.

Socialists taking liberties away from non-parasites to enhance their own incomes was essential. The very people who were once dedicated to freedom and individual liberties for everyone now derive their incomes from tax dollars.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...d-To-Violent-Revolution&p=3631272#post3631272


It’s why Republicans are so anti Union. They want no middle class.

To Phantasmal: I cannot speak for establishment Republicans, but I can say that freedom-loving Americans want no wealthy parasite middle class living on tax dollars.

Basically, Americans can go to the government to seek relief from corrupt wealthy private sector Americans, but there is no place to go when wealthy government officials are not only corrupt they betray the country with impunity. The Clintons and Biden & Son are cases in point.

We can all thank St. Ronnie for that. Reichwingers don't care. They think that if you just work hard enough, that you too can be a 1-percenter.

It's puzzling why so few of them are wealthy, if that's true. lol

To ThatOwlWoman:
Working hard never promised great wealth. Working hard for yourself and your loved ones did deliver the highest standard of living the world never thought possible until the U.S. Constitution and the original Bill of Rights was ratified.

Note that Democrat Socialists promise to lower a free people’s standard of living to Third World country levels.
 
Can’t deny the reality, as the Unions faded so did the middle class, and income inequality grew larger

At least you're honest education is not about what's best for the kids it's about what's best for the workers (teachers, administrators, bureaucrats etc.)

At the University level we (America) dominate. Not K-12 though. We have an educational system that is stuck in the past and many countries have passed us by. Yet we think our current broken model is acceptable, it just needs more money. And like the police union, the teachers union fights against reform and accountability for poor performing teachers.

So call me a right-winger, a racist, anti-union or whatever the usual names are but the results speak for themselves.
 
Public tax money does not go to teachers' unions.

? WTF are you talking about? Property taxes pay for schools and salaries. Those tax monies are used to pay unionized teachers salaries. And they are negotiated without the taxpayers consent or input. Shut the fuck up and learn something.
 
We can all thank St. Ronnie for that. Reichwingers don't care. They think that if you just work hard enough, that you too can be a 1-percenter.

It's puzzling why so few of them are wealthy, if that's true. lol

Shouldn't a retired teacher be here defending the teachers union?
 
Public tax money does not go to teachers' unions.

Agreed. Not to mention that it's a violation of the First Amendment to shut down freedom of association. Notice that there are no calls for "Defunding Police Unions" because only a fucking moron believes unions are government funded.
 
Start by getting rid of "Closed shop" laws and making the country "Right to work." If workers are not forced to join a union, many will choose not to. That limits the ability of unions to shake down workers for dues, particularly if a worker disagrees with the union. It also limits their ability to use dues money for political purposes as they would have less of it particularly from workers who disagree with their politics.

Unions didn't make America's middle class. Social and physical (ability to move to other places) mobility did. America for most of its history has one of the highest land ownership rates of any large country. That and the lack of a rigid social hierarchy allowed people to accumulate wealth. You want to destroy the middle class? Fix social hierarchy so people are pigeon holed into a specific place on that ladder and make them renters.

By federal law you cannot be compelled to join any union; in Agency Fee Payer states while you cannot be forced to join a union, you can be required to pay a fee equal to the costs associated with contract maintenance and bargaining fees; in right-to-work states you cannot be forced to join a union nor pay any costs as well. We call call them "freeloaders" since they are covered by the contract and unions are legally forced to represent them and pay nothing towards the costs which I feel is unfair but that's the law.

If the country wants a national right-to-work law, the unions should not be forced to represent the non-union employees in the bargaining unit aside from making sure they receive the same wages or higher.

In a side note; we have a shop in Miami (right-to-work state) that was composed of approximately 200 represented employees but only 8 were paying members of the union. Every four years when it would be time to bargain for a new contract (which would affect them as well), they'd all join the union, paying the $2.00 initiation fee, vote on a contract and when once ratified they'd all resign en mass. This really pissed off the regular dues paying members, so we fixed that problem by changing the initiation fee from $2.00 to $1,000. Boy were the non-union guys upset at that but there was nothing they could do about it and when the next time contract talks came up only another 20 or so were willing to pay the fee, but they all stayed as members. There is more then one way to skin a cat. :)
 
Only way to defund teacher unions is to have them all quit the union.
But you are correct that public sector unions are a needless and harmful thing. Not to mention they're about the only ones left.

The only way for the teachers in right-to-work state to "defund" the teachers unions would be to conduct a denitrification vote; theoretically if all the teachers were to quit I think the union would simply let the contract in existence expire and "walk away" although most teachers are smart enough not to do that since it would leave them at the mercy of their employers and most of them know how that goes.

The public sector unions are not about the only ones left; there are over 7,500,000 or 6. 4% private sector members of unions and 7,187,000 or 33.9% of public sector members of unions.

So to say that public sector union are about the only ones left, is not true. Likewise to say they are a needless and harmful thing is is debatable. Perhaps you could elaborate more on this as to why you feel that way?

https://www.epi.org/publication/2019-union-membership-data/
 
The only way for the teachers in right-to-work state to "defund" the teachers unions would be to conduct a denitrification vote; theoretically if all the teachers were to quit I think the union would simply let the contract in existence expire and "walk away" although most teachers are smart enough not to do that since it would leave them at the mercy of their employers and most of them know how that goes.

The public sector unions are not about the only ones left; there are over 7,500,000 or 6. 4% private sector members of unions and 7,187,000 or 33.9% of public sector members of unions.

So to say that public sector union are about the only ones left, is not true. Likewise to say they are a needless and harmful thing is is debatable. Perhaps you could elaborate more on this as to why you feel that way?

https://www.epi.org/publication/2019-union-membership-data/

FDR explained it.
 
Agreed. Not to mention that it's a violation of the First Amendment to shut down freedom of association. Notice that there are no calls for "Defunding Police Unions" because only a fucking moron believes unions are government funded.
Do you think police unions are a good idea, that they do good work?
 
Back
Top