5 ms·

I'm pretty sure that position, if fleshed out, would seem crazy to me. Can you try and flesh it out? Basically, I don't see how being employed by 'the public'

by Afton 17y ago

I'm pretty sure that position, if fleshed out, would seem crazy to me. Can you try and flesh it out? Basically, I don't see how being employed by 'the public' means that contracts that you agreed to and signed can be ripped up at will by the other party. Don't get me wrong, I think there is something wrong with the situation NYC finds itself in, but this anti-union response seems like a non-sequitor.

michaelcampbell 17y ago
Why is this a union issue and not a legal one? In other words, why do teachers need a union to enforce legally binding contracts?
- foldr 17y ago
  Because the law doesn't automatically enforce itself. It takes times and resources to go to court -- and usually more of each than a single individual has available.
  - eru 17y ago
    How about legal expense insurance?
    - akgerber 17y ago
      "Sue-somebody-who-screws-me" insurance seems like it has a pretty poor incentive structure.
    - foldr 17y ago
      Great idea. Now how about we form a union so we can spread the cost.
      - eru 17y ago
        Isn't insurance about spreading the cost already?
        foldr 17y ago
        Yes, and forming a union is an effective way of doing that. As other people have pointed out, it's unlikely that any more general form of legal insurance would make sense as a product. If I were a teacher, I think I'd far rather rely on a union -- made up of people who share my interests -- than a company which is going to do its best to deny my claims. And if I were an insurance exec, I don't think that insuring teachers' legal expenses would strike me as a particularly great business opportunity.
        yummyfajitas 17y ago
        Forming a union has the problem that it violates the rights of others (unlike buying insurance). If person E wants my labor, I have the right to trade it with him for money under any conditions we both find acceptable. If E's other employees band together, E and I both lose our rights - I can no longer freely sell my labor to him. That's as crazy as if Apple and Microsoft merged, and then got the government to declare Linux illegal.
        foldr 17y ago
        >Forming a union has the problem that it violates the rights of others (unlike buying insurance). Yeah, and if you want to be that simple-minded about it, banning unions violates the right of individuals to associate to protect their collective interests. I don't personally find it very interesting to have yet another discussion about libertarianism. I am not a libertarian. I am aware of the arguments for that position and do not find them persuasive. But it's kind of tedious that every argument about every political issue on this site seems to come back to this one discussion. Obviously if you are a libertarian, you will be opposed to unionization in general; I'm sure all of us here take that as read. Perhaps the rest of us can actually be allowed to discuss the issue at hand -- I have a feeling that any minute now someone is going to start copy/pasting Locke quotes.
gcv 17y ago
Based on my observations of the behavior of the UFT (the New York chapter of the national teacher's union) when I was in high school in the late 1990s, the anti-union response is absolutely on-target. http://educationnext.org/files/ednext20033_20.pdf http://educationnext.org/files/ednext20033_20.pdf Most importantly, read the section "The Case of Iftimie Simion". I was lucky enough to have been one of Simion's students, and can attest to his stellar talent. I also saw some of the fireworks that erupted between the principal and the UFT representative — they don't exactly keep students well-informed, but I knew all the parties involved, and believe that the facts of the story are completely true.
anamax 17y ago
> Basically, I don't see how being employed by 'the public' means that contracts that you agreed to and signed can be ripped up at will by the other party. Because "the public" can't take their money elsewhere if it doesn't like the decisions made by management. And, public employee unions can drive tax dollars into their members pockets. If Ford makes crap, for whatever reason, I can take my money elsewhere, so I don't care what stupidity it engages in.
- Afton 17y ago
  Ok. So you do think that being employed by 'the public' means that you shouldn't have the protection of a contract? That is, if you sign a contract, and you are a public employee, that contract should be worthless in asserting your rights under the contract? And this: > And, public employee unions can drive tax dollars into their members pockets. Makes no sense to me at all. Of course they can. That's kind of their purpose...
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Ok. So you do think that being employed by 'the public' means that you shouldn't have the protection of a contract? No, but thanks for raising a strawman. As I wrote, I think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't limited. > Makes no sense to me at all. Of course they can. That's kind of their purpose... I agree that that's their purpose. As a member of the public I object. Ford can't get my money without my agreement. Since govt can, I want different rules. And, if someone doesn't like those terms, they're free to find an employer that has the terms that they do like. As long as tax money isn't involved, I don't care.
    - Afton 17y ago
      Hardly a strawman >> Basically, I don't see how being employed by 'the public' means that contracts that you agreed to and signed can be ripped up at will by the other party. >Because "the public" can't take their money elsewhere if it doesn't like the decisions made by management. I also don't see where you are referring to when you say > As I wrote, I think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't limited. In any event I find it hard to grasp your position. You don't think that being employed by the government means that you shouldn't have the protection of a contract, and you do think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't.

by Afton 17y ago

michaelcampbell 17y ago

Why is this a union issue and not a legal one? In other words, why do teachers need a union to enforce legally binding contracts?

foldr 17y ago
Because the law doesn't automatically enforce itself. It takes times and resources to go to court -- and usually more of each than a single individual has available.
- eru 17y ago
  How about legal expense insurance?
  - akgerber 17y ago
    "Sue-somebody-who-screws-me" insurance seems like it has a pretty poor incentive structure.
  - foldr 17y ago
    Great idea. Now how about we form a union so we can spread the cost.
    - eru 17y ago
      Isn't insurance about spreading the cost already?
      - foldr 17y ago
        Yes, and forming a union is an effective way of doing that. As other people have pointed out, it's unlikely that any more general form of legal insurance would make sense as a product. If I were a teacher, I think I'd far rather rely on a union -- made up of people who share my interests -- than a company which is going to do its best to deny my claims. And if I were an insurance exec, I don't think that insuring teachers' legal expenses would strike me as a particularly great business opportunity.
        yummyfajitas 17y ago
        Forming a union has the problem that it violates the rights of others (unlike buying insurance). If person E wants my labor, I have the right to trade it with him for money under any conditions we both find acceptable. If E's other employees band together, E and I both lose our rights - I can no longer freely sell my labor to him. That's as crazy as if Apple and Microsoft merged, and then got the government to declare Linux illegal.
        foldr 17y ago
        >Forming a union has the problem that it violates the rights of others (unlike buying insurance). Yeah, and if you want to be that simple-minded about it, banning unions violates the right of individuals to associate to protect their collective interests. I don't personally find it very interesting to have yet another discussion about libertarianism. I am not a libertarian. I am aware of the arguments for that position and do not find them persuasive. But it's kind of tedious that every argument about every political issue on this site seems to come back to this one discussion. Obviously if you are a libertarian, you will be opposed to unionization in general; I'm sure all of us here take that as read. Perhaps the rest of us can actually be allowed to discuss the issue at hand -- I have a feeling that any minute now someone is going to start copy/pasting Locke quotes.

gcv 17y ago

Based on my observations of the behavior of the UFT (the New York chapter of the national teacher's union) when I was in high school in the late 1990s, the anti-union response is absolutely on-target. http://educationnext.org/files/ednext20033_20.pdf http://educationnext.org/files/ednext20033_20.pdf Most importantly, read the section "The Case of Iftimie Simion". I was lucky enough to have been one of Simion's students, and can attest to his stellar talent. I also saw some of the fireworks that erupted between the principal and the UFT representative — they don't exactly keep students well-informed, but I knew all the parties involved, and believe that the facts of the story are completely true.

anamax 17y ago

> Basically, I don't see how being employed by 'the public' means that contracts that you agreed to and signed can be ripped up at will by the other party. Because "the public" can't take their money elsewhere if it doesn't like the decisions made by management. And, public employee unions can drive tax dollars into their members pockets. If Ford makes crap, for whatever reason, I can take my money elsewhere, so I don't care what stupidity it engages in.

Afton 17y ago
Ok. So you do think that being employed by 'the public' means that you shouldn't have the protection of a contract? That is, if you sign a contract, and you are a public employee, that contract should be worthless in asserting your rights under the contract? And this: > And, public employee unions can drive tax dollars into their members pockets. Makes no sense to me at all. Of course they can. That's kind of their purpose...
- anamax 17y ago
  > Ok. So you do think that being employed by 'the public' means that you shouldn't have the protection of a contract? No, but thanks for raising a strawman. As I wrote, I think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't limited. > Makes no sense to me at all. Of course they can. That's kind of their purpose... I agree that that's their purpose. As a member of the public I object. Ford can't get my money without my agreement. Since govt can, I want different rules. And, if someone doesn't like those terms, they're free to find an employer that has the terms that they do like. As long as tax money isn't involved, I don't care.
  - Afton 17y ago
    Hardly a strawman >> Basically, I don't see how being employed by 'the public' means that contracts that you agreed to and signed can be ripped up at will by the other party. >Because "the public" can't take their money elsewhere if it doesn't like the decisions made by management. I also don't see where you are referring to when you say > As I wrote, I think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't limited. In any event I find it hard to grasp your position. You don't think that being employed by the government means that you shouldn't have the protection of a contract, and you do think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't.