4 ms·

Instead of calling an argument tired and hollow, why don't you explain why the argument is tired and hollow? I'm not trying to score some cheap political point

Instead of calling an argument tired and hollow, why don't you explain why the argument is tired and hollow? I'm not trying to score some cheap political points off you - I'd love a response that makes me think a bit, because when I hear someone say 'teachers unions are bad for education', my gut reaction is 'well, that's obvious', since any system where pay is based on seniority and poor-performers are difficult to fire has got to create perverse incentives. What am I missing?

redthrowaway 16y ago
I'll preface this by saying that I am no fan of unions, although I recognize their utility in some sectors and will go so far as to say that they have done an incredible amount of historic good for the middle class. Blaming teachers for failing educational standards has long been a tactic of those who wish to see public education marginalized. What they fail to point out, however, is that those countries with the best education systems also have strong teachers unions. I'm not implying causality between the two, merely correlation. It's certainly true that the structure of a union is not one that tends to reward or punish based upon performance, but those who hold unions to be the downfall of any organization place far too much weight on the idea of monetary incentives. Take Microsoft, for instance. Here's a company that has tried to implement performance-based monetary incentives, and, by most accounts, failed widely. It's not that people aren't incentivized by money, but rather that those who are really good at what they do care much more about their impact than their paycheque. They care more about doing something great and earning the respect of peers they respect than a 5%/year raise. The education system in America is shameful, something that it seems almost everyone can agree on. The fact is, however, teacher unions are by no means the major culprit. As I said earlier, chronic severe underfunding and a drive toward standardization that values passing meaningless tests over education is the true culprit. As a member of HN, I think I can go out on a limb and say you're either fairly technical, entrepreneurial, or both. Let me ask you: would you want to work for a failing organization that had a terrible product, didn't invest enough in development, and had ridiculous rules governing what qualified as success? The trouble with finding great teachers who take charge of their students' education is not the union, it's the system itself. The union may play a role in that, but it's simply not a primary one.
shou4577 16y ago
I don't know the original poster's reasons, but there are definitely some benefits to teacher's unions. My wife, a special education teacher, teaches at a pretty low income middle school. The school has a lot of problems, particularly with students not getting the attention that they need. The obvious solution is to hire more teachers and/or more paraprofessional assistants. Since there isn't funding to hire more people, the administration has turned to "alternative" solutions - namely to just make the teachers work much harder for the same amount of money. It is in their contracts that during two periods of the day, they are supposed to have non-instructional time to focus on the myriad of paperwork and other things necessary for teachers (lots of people forget that this stuff exists, when probably 50% or more of a teacher's time commitment is outside of actual instruction). The administration has already taken one of these two periods away universally, and attempted to take the other one as well recently. Thanks to a unionized workforce, they were unsuccessful. These types of things are common. You can't really fault the administration - their job is to get things as best as they can for the students, and when they have a limited budget that means entering into some gray area about what is best. In this case, the union pushing back means, that this course of action (work harder, work longer, no more pay) is not possible, which I think is a big reason that unions were started. Hopefully, this will work up the chain of command until better funding (or some other alternative) can be achieved. As you say, unions also have their bad side, like making it difficult to fire some people. I have a separate issue with pay based on seniority for teachers. While this system is obviously not ideal, most people don't understand that for teachers there is no chance for a pay raise any other way. This is contrary to many other professions, where working hard, and doing well for many years at a company will get you a promotion. The only promotion available for teachers is to become administrators, and that is such a different job that most teachers don't actually want it (it often requires a different degree anyway). That means that without pay increases for seniority there would be no pay increases at all. Start at $25k, stay at $25k. An ideal solution would be to give teachers raises when and if they earn them, but again, this is hard to judge. I see a lot of people claiming that standardized testing is the answer, but in these types of schools, students who don't like their teacher (and they hate school in general, so they hate all their teachers) will happily throw a test to get their teachers fired. Teachers will run screaming from the jobs where we need good teachers, leading to a further separation between the quality of education in low-income areas and high-income areas. Unions have pros and cons, so arguing that "unions are bad" simply because unions can be bad is tired and hollow. In the case of teachers unions, I think the system is currently better with them than without them, but a revamped system could do away with them.

redthrowaway 16y ago

I'll preface this by saying that I am no fan of unions, although I recognize their utility in some sectors and will go so far as to say that they have done an incredible amount of historic good for the middle class. Blaming teachers for failing educational standards has long been a tactic of those who wish to see public education marginalized. What they fail to point out, however, is that those countries with the best education systems also have strong teachers unions. I'm not implying causality between the two, merely correlation. It's certainly true that the structure of a union is not one that tends to reward or punish based upon performance, but those who hold unions to be the downfall of any organization place far too much weight on the idea of monetary incentives. Take Microsoft, for instance. Here's a company that has tried to implement performance-based monetary incentives, and, by most accounts, failed widely. It's not that people aren't incentivized by money, but rather that those who are really good at what they do care much more about their impact than their paycheque. They care more about doing something great and earning the respect of peers they respect than a 5%/year raise. The education system in America is shameful, something that it seems almost everyone can agree on. The fact is, however, teacher unions are by no means the major culprit. As I said earlier, chronic severe underfunding and a drive toward standardization that values passing meaningless tests over education is the true culprit. As a member of HN, I think I can go out on a limb and say you're either fairly technical, entrepreneurial, or both. Let me ask you: would you want to work for a failing organization that had a terrible product, didn't invest enough in development, and had ridiculous rules governing what qualified as success? The trouble with finding great teachers who take charge of their students' education is not the union, it's the system itself. The union may play a role in that, but it's simply not a primary one.

shou4577 16y ago

I don't know the original poster's reasons, but there are definitely some benefits to teacher's unions. My wife, a special education teacher, teaches at a pretty low income middle school. The school has a lot of problems, particularly with students not getting the attention that they need. The obvious solution is to hire more teachers and/or more paraprofessional assistants. Since there isn't funding to hire more people, the administration has turned to "alternative" solutions - namely to just make the teachers work much harder for the same amount of money. It is in their contracts that during two periods of the day, they are supposed to have non-instructional time to focus on the myriad of paperwork and other things necessary for teachers (lots of people forget that this stuff exists, when probably 50% or more of a teacher's time commitment is outside of actual instruction). The administration has already taken one of these two periods away universally, and attempted to take the other one as well recently. Thanks to a unionized workforce, they were unsuccessful. These types of things are common. You can't really fault the administration - their job is to get things as best as they can for the students, and when they have a limited budget that means entering into some gray area about what is best. In this case, the union pushing back means, that this course of action (work harder, work longer, no more pay) is not possible, which I think is a big reason that unions were started. Hopefully, this will work up the chain of command until better funding (or some other alternative) can be achieved. As you say, unions also have their bad side, like making it difficult to fire some people. I have a separate issue with pay based on seniority for teachers. While this system is obviously not ideal, most people don't understand that for teachers there is no chance for a pay raise any other way. This is contrary to many other professions, where working hard, and doing well for many years at a company will get you a promotion. The only promotion available for teachers is to become administrators, and that is such a different job that most teachers don't actually want it (it often requires a different degree anyway). That means that without pay increases for seniority there would be no pay increases at all. Start at $25k, stay at $25k. An ideal solution would be to give teachers raises when and if they earn them, but again, this is hard to judge. I see a lot of people claiming that standardized testing is the answer, but in these types of schools, students who don't like their teacher (and they hate school in general, so they hate all their teachers) will happily throw a test to get their teachers fired. Teachers will run screaming from the jobs where we need good teachers, leading to a further separation between the quality of education in low-income areas and high-income areas. Unions have pros and cons, so arguing that "unions are bad" simply because unions can be bad is tired and hollow. In the case of teachers unions, I think the system is currently better with them than without them, but a revamped system could do away with them.