4 ms·

If the US did ban teachers and other vital public employees from unionization, there would in fairness need to be corresponding changes on the employer side. Am

by hugh3 16y ago

If the US did ban teachers and other vital public employees from unionization, there would in fairness need to be corresponding changes on the employer side. Among these could be a law to prohibit firing of these employees except under conditions A, B and C.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Why? The purpose of public sector employees is to benefit the public. The government should endeavor to provide as little benefit to it's employees as possible - just enough to retain the necessary workforce. Anything else is a waste of our money. A regulation of the nature you describe would potentially harm the public - an employee might be harming the public under conditions D, but would be unable to be fired.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Look, the A B and C bit shouldn't be taken too seriously, just some kind of law against firing 'em for random, arbitrary and capricious reasons while still making it easy for them to be fired for doing a bad job.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Look, the A B and C bit shouldn't be taken too seriously, just some kind of law against firing 'em for random, arbitrary and capricious reasons while still making it easy for them to be fired for doing a bad job. Why? If you're being paid by tax dollars, taxpayers should be able to fire you for any reason that they please. If you don't like those conditions, work for someone else who offers the conditions that you'd like. Yes, your fellow tax payers may well disagree with you about how to spend tax money. That's how democracy works. If you don't want "those people" to decide how to spend "your" money, perhaps you should carefully consider when you pay directly vs via govt.
    - mmt 16y ago
      If you're being paid by tax dollars, taxpayers should be able to fire you for any reason that they please. I agree. The rub is that it's not usually the taxpayers making that decision, but their elected representatives. I believe there's already a commonly applied differentiation between appointed and civil service[1] positions. [1] I don't know if these are the actual terms, so corrections are welcome.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > I agree. The rub is that it's not usually the taxpayers making that decision, but their elected representatives. Sorry - you don't get to hide behind representatives. > I believe there's already a commonly applied differentiation between appointed and civil service[1] positions. While there is a difference, the "you can't do things that piss off the voters" rule applies to both.
        mturmon 16y ago
        The representatives will, in practice, make decisions under the system you're describing. It was called the "spoils system" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system), it turns out to be a major vector of abuse by elected officials, and is the reasons the US civil service has safeguards for dismissing civil servants.
        anamax 16y ago
        They're the representatives that you elected, so if they behave badly, that's on you. There are no technical fixes for social problems.
- blahblahblah 16y ago
  How is it in the public interest for a teacher to be fired for giving a failing grade to the school administrator's, mayor's, or influential businessman's son/daughter/nephew/niece who goofed off in class, didn't do their homework, failed the tests, etc.? If you have no objective criteria for what constitutes a firing offense, you will have good teachers being fired for political reasons rather than educationally valid ones. If you eliminate the protections of tenure, you also destroy the teacher's ability to apply their professional judgment on educational matters in a uniform manner.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    If you eliminate the ability of a principal to fire teachers, you destroy the principal's ability to apply their professional judgement on educational staffing matters in a uniform manner. I'm not sure why you put your faith in the professional judgement of the teacher rather than the school principal.

by hugh3 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Why? The purpose of public sector employees is to benefit the public. The government should endeavor to provide as little benefit to it's employees as possible - just enough to retain the necessary workforce. Anything else is a waste of our money. A regulation of the nature you describe would potentially harm the public - an employee might be harming the public under conditions D, but would be unable to be fired.

hugh3 16y ago
Look, the A B and C bit shouldn't be taken too seriously, just some kind of law against firing 'em for random, arbitrary and capricious reasons while still making it easy for them to be fired for doing a bad job.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Look, the A B and C bit shouldn't be taken too seriously, just some kind of law against firing 'em for random, arbitrary and capricious reasons while still making it easy for them to be fired for doing a bad job. Why? If you're being paid by tax dollars, taxpayers should be able to fire you for any reason that they please. If you don't like those conditions, work for someone else who offers the conditions that you'd like. Yes, your fellow tax payers may well disagree with you about how to spend tax money. That's how democracy works. If you don't want "those people" to decide how to spend "your" money, perhaps you should carefully consider when you pay directly vs via govt.
  - mmt 16y ago
    If you're being paid by tax dollars, taxpayers should be able to fire you for any reason that they please. I agree. The rub is that it's not usually the taxpayers making that decision, but their elected representatives. I believe there's already a commonly applied differentiation between appointed and civil service[1] positions. [1] I don't know if these are the actual terms, so corrections are welcome.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > I agree. The rub is that it's not usually the taxpayers making that decision, but their elected representatives. Sorry - you don't get to hide behind representatives. > I believe there's already a commonly applied differentiation between appointed and civil service[1] positions. While there is a difference, the "you can't do things that piss off the voters" rule applies to both.
      - mturmon 16y ago
        The representatives will, in practice, make decisions under the system you're describing. It was called the "spoils system" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system), it turns out to be a major vector of abuse by elected officials, and is the reasons the US civil service has safeguards for dismissing civil servants.
        anamax 16y ago
        They're the representatives that you elected, so if they behave badly, that's on you. There are no technical fixes for social problems.
blahblahblah 16y ago
How is it in the public interest for a teacher to be fired for giving a failing grade to the school administrator's, mayor's, or influential businessman's son/daughter/nephew/niece who goofed off in class, didn't do their homework, failed the tests, etc.? If you have no objective criteria for what constitutes a firing offense, you will have good teachers being fired for political reasons rather than educationally valid ones. If you eliminate the protections of tenure, you also destroy the teacher's ability to apply their professional judgment on educational matters in a uniform manner.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  If you eliminate the ability of a principal to fire teachers, you destroy the principal's ability to apply their professional judgement on educational staffing matters in a uniform manner. I'm not sure why you put your faith in the professional judgement of the teacher rather than the school principal.