4 ms·

An honest question: Why do highly skilled professionals like teachers require union representation whereas computer professionals do not?

by ryandvm 16y ago

dreamux 16y ago
There are a surplus of qualified teachers, in Canada at least I know of several people with teaching degrees and none of them can find work because the only time a spot opens up is if someone dies or retires. The software industry is in desperate need of people by comparison.
a688 16y ago
An honest question: Why do computer professionals not exercise their rights to prevent abuse (unfair firings, increased work hours without compensation, demeaning bosses) like some teachers? Edit: Also where do you get "require" from. Not all teachers belong to a union? Did you read the article at all?
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Whom would you rather be oppressed by: an employer you can quit from, or a guild you can't? Besides the end game of unions are what happened in Detroit.
  - beedogs 16y ago
    You're using one specific industry and one specific example to paint every single union with the same brush. Bravo.
    - gloob 16y ago
      It's generally accepted that the singular of "anecdote" is "proof".
    - tomjen3 16y ago
      I could use the PROSA versus CSC example (which is actually the IT-workers union against a computer service company) which is going on right now. CSC is trying to get rid of 22-months notices before firing any employee, the union has given notice of strike. But thats a Danish dispute which I doubt many here is familiar with, hence the Detroit example. And it is hardly "one specific" example: its multiple agreements with multiple companies.
- viggity 16y ago
  If I were to be abused by my workplace, I'd vote with my feet and leave. I'd rather work in a system where the quality of my work determines my wages and not my seniority or how many masters degrees I've obtained. I'd rather work in a system that doesn't strong arm my employer into paying benefits they can't afford. I don't know about you, but I'm not worried about my 401k being there in 40 years, but I'd be really scared if I had a municipal pension.
  - zarify 16y ago
    I feel I should speak up about this one as a teacher (admittedly Australian however) and a supporter of teachers unions. Let's assume we are in a performance based pay system. How do we measure performance? Is it average student grades? If so, then do we pay teachers who work in affluent areas more because every effort is afforded the students (tutoring etc)? Do we pay teachers who choose to work in more challenging schools less (and more likely have lower grades but possibly greater impact on students' lives with their successes)? What do we do with teachers hand picking elite classes to improve their perceived performance? It already happens even without performance pay? Or it could just be the luck of the draw. Sometimes I end up with difficult student groups simply because of a timetabling issue. Less pay? There are other metrics for teacher performance that have been proposed, and all the ones I have heard have been very flawed. Just to touch on the abuse bit at the start, if there was one employer in your town (as there effectively is in many rural areas when it comes to schools), should you relocate because of abuse you have received? (or indeed at all? Who doesn't deserve to feel safe from abuse in their workplace?)
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      This is a solved problem. The solution is Value Added Modeling. This has been known for many years, but unfortunately it doesn't fit within a soundbite. You build a statistical predictor of student performance, then you pay teachers proportional to Actual Performance - Predicted Performance. If teachers pick elite classes to improve their performance, the bar is raised. If their class has a predicted score of 80%, then the teacher needs an actual score of 90% to get a bonus. Conversely, if you get a class of low quality students, the predicted score might be 20%. To get the bonus, you need to achieve 30%. The only incentives you have are hand pick classes of students that you can improve. If you are great at moving students from the 50'th percentile to the 60'th percentile, but suck with other student groups, your incentive is to get a class of students in the 50'th percentile.
- ryandvm 16y ago
  Because if it means my pay is going to be related to how long I've been doing the job (as opposed to how good I am at it) then I'm not interested.
- viggity 16y ago
  A lot of states (Wisconsin and Iowa included) force teachers to pay at least some union dues, even if they aren't a member of the union
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Also where do you get "require" from. Not all teachers belong to a union? Many states require non-union employees to pay the union. I believe DC does as well. Your only choices are to be taxed by the union with voting rights or be taxed by the union without voting rights.
argv_empty 16y ago
Being a popular target for funding cuts and working a lot more (off-the-clock) hours than people typically seem aware of puts them in a weak bargaining position to begin with.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Education is a popular target for funding cuts simply because it makes up more than 1/3 of local government spending. Local governments spend more on education than they spend on police, fire, prisons, roads and health care put together. http://usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2009_US_total http://usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2009_US_total Teachers work fewer hours than the average professional, which includes time spent working at home. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf
cletus 16y ago
It depends on the country. For many (most?) countries, the education system is dominated by state-run schools. This typically means that there will be one very large employer and possibly several much smaller employers (ie private schools). In this scenario, the very large employer wields a disproportionate amount of power. I guess it's analagous to a monopoly or near-monopoly: the very fact that you are so dominant means rules apply to you that otherwise wouldn't to protect the market--competition itself--from breaking down. Unions are probably the mechanism for keeping the government, as that large dominant employer, honest. The problem is the reverse is also a problem: now the government and the private schools face a monopoly in the form of the teacher's union. That monopoly can--and does--extract unreasonable concessions [1]. An important aspect of unions is collective bargaining (pay, conditions, etc). This is a somewhat controversial topic that tends to divide down political lines. Collective bargaining sprang up in the Industrial Revolution and in periods like the Great Depression to protect workers from essentially bidding themselves down. [1]: http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/01/how-to-fire-an-incompetent-tea http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/01/how-to-fire-an-incompe...
daniel-cussen 16y ago
Highly credentialed != highly skilled.

An honest question: Why do highly skilled professionals like teachers require union representation whereas computer professionals do not?

by ryandvm 16y ago

An honest question: Why do highly skilled professionals like teachers require union representation whereas computer professionals do not?

dreamux 16y ago

There are a surplus of qualified teachers, in Canada at least I know of several people with teaching degrees and none of them can find work because the only time a spot opens up is if someone dies or retires. The software industry is in desperate need of people by comparison.

a688 16y ago

An honest question: Why do computer professionals not exercise their rights to prevent abuse (unfair firings, increased work hours without compensation, demeaning bosses) like some teachers? Edit: Also where do you get "require" from. Not all teachers belong to a union? Did you read the article at all?

tomjen3 16y ago
Whom would you rather be oppressed by: an employer you can quit from, or a guild you can't? Besides the end game of unions are what happened in Detroit.
- beedogs 16y ago
  You're using one specific industry and one specific example to paint every single union with the same brush. Bravo.
  - gloob 16y ago
    It's generally accepted that the singular of "anecdote" is "proof".
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    I could use the PROSA versus CSC example (which is actually the IT-workers union against a computer service company) which is going on right now. CSC is trying to get rid of 22-months notices before firing any employee, the union has given notice of strike. But thats a Danish dispute which I doubt many here is familiar with, hence the Detroit example. And it is hardly "one specific" example: its multiple agreements with multiple companies.
viggity 16y ago
If I were to be abused by my workplace, I'd vote with my feet and leave. I'd rather work in a system where the quality of my work determines my wages and not my seniority or how many masters degrees I've obtained. I'd rather work in a system that doesn't strong arm my employer into paying benefits they can't afford. I don't know about you, but I'm not worried about my 401k being there in 40 years, but I'd be really scared if I had a municipal pension.
- zarify 16y ago
  I feel I should speak up about this one as a teacher (admittedly Australian however) and a supporter of teachers unions. Let's assume we are in a performance based pay system. How do we measure performance? Is it average student grades? If so, then do we pay teachers who work in affluent areas more because every effort is afforded the students (tutoring etc)? Do we pay teachers who choose to work in more challenging schools less (and more likely have lower grades but possibly greater impact on students' lives with their successes)? What do we do with teachers hand picking elite classes to improve their perceived performance? It already happens even without performance pay? Or it could just be the luck of the draw. Sometimes I end up with difficult student groups simply because of a timetabling issue. Less pay? There are other metrics for teacher performance that have been proposed, and all the ones I have heard have been very flawed. Just to touch on the abuse bit at the start, if there was one employer in your town (as there effectively is in many rural areas when it comes to schools), should you relocate because of abuse you have received? (or indeed at all? Who doesn't deserve to feel safe from abuse in their workplace?)
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    This is a solved problem. The solution is Value Added Modeling. This has been known for many years, but unfortunately it doesn't fit within a soundbite. You build a statistical predictor of student performance, then you pay teachers proportional to Actual Performance - Predicted Performance. If teachers pick elite classes to improve their performance, the bar is raised. If their class has a predicted score of 80%, then the teacher needs an actual score of 90% to get a bonus. Conversely, if you get a class of low quality students, the predicted score might be 20%. To get the bonus, you need to achieve 30%. The only incentives you have are hand pick classes of students that you can improve. If you are great at moving students from the 50'th percentile to the 60'th percentile, but suck with other student groups, your incentive is to get a class of students in the 50'th percentile.
ryandvm 16y ago
Because if it means my pay is going to be related to how long I've been doing the job (as opposed to how good I am at it) then I'm not interested.
viggity 16y ago
A lot of states (Wisconsin and Iowa included) force teachers to pay at least some union dues, even if they aren't a member of the union
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Also where do you get "require" from. Not all teachers belong to a union? Many states require non-union employees to pay the union. I believe DC does as well. Your only choices are to be taxed by the union with voting rights or be taxed by the union without voting rights.

argv_empty 16y ago

Being a popular target for funding cuts and working a lot more (off-the-clock) hours than people typically seem aware of puts them in a weak bargaining position to begin with.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Education is a popular target for funding cuts simply because it makes up more than 1/3 of local government spending. Local governments spend more on education than they spend on police, fire, prisons, roads and health care put together. http://usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2009_US_total http://usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2009_US_total Teachers work fewer hours than the average professional, which includes time spent working at home. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf

cletus 16y ago

It depends on the country. For many (most?) countries, the education system is dominated by state-run schools. This typically means that there will be one very large employer and possibly several much smaller employers (ie private schools). In this scenario, the very large employer wields a disproportionate amount of power. I guess it's analagous to a monopoly or near-monopoly: the very fact that you are so dominant means rules apply to you that otherwise wouldn't to protect the market--competition itself--from breaking down. Unions are probably the mechanism for keeping the government, as that large dominant employer, honest. The problem is the reverse is also a problem: now the government and the private schools face a monopoly in the form of the teacher's union. That monopoly can--and does--extract unreasonable concessions [1]. An important aspect of unions is collective bargaining (pay, conditions, etc). This is a somewhat controversial topic that tends to divide down political lines. Collective bargaining sprang up in the Industrial Revolution and in periods like the Great Depression to protect workers from essentially bidding themselves down. [1]: http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/01/how-to-fire-an-incompetent-tea http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/01/how-to-fire-an-incompe...

daniel-cussen 16y ago

Highly credentialed != highly skilled.