11 ms·

You list teachers, who in my opinion are the poster children of how problematic unions are. And there are some phenomenal teachers out there. There are teacher

You list teachers, who in my opinion are the poster children of how problematic unions are. And there are some phenomenal teachers out there. There are teachers that change lives profoundly. But they don't need the unions, and the terrible teachers who should be fired /are/ protected. It's really messed up, most people have first-hand experience with it, and they are a corrosive factor in the end.

e40 6y ago
This is the elephant in the room. Unions make it much harder to fire low performers. I think they have great benefits, but this terrible side effect. For another example look at police unions.
- rzz3 6y ago
  Public unions are a bad idea in general. The citizens collectively employ the government, and that government shouldn’t have a right to organize against the people whom it serves. So in my opinion, these two examples of toxic public unions shouldn’t be applied to private unions.
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    I agree. I’m indifferent to private sector unions. None of my business if it isn’t my workplace. But public sector unions are a path to corruption. Both major parties exploit these so I can’t blame a single party here either. What better way to consolidate power than by aligning with a public service union and “bargain” with them while being incentivized to grow membership in that union to further consolidate power. If anything I’d support public sector unions if members were not allowed to vote for offices that represent their “management” or control their budgets. Could you imagine a private sector union appointing the management of the company they negotiate with?
    - HideousKojima 6y ago
      >Both major parties exploit these so I can’t blame a single party here either. Republicans in Wisconsin abolished public unions back in 2011 (though admittedly they had exemptions for police and firefighters) and there was nationwide outrage from the left about it. There have been recent calls from the left to abolish police unions but those seem almost exclusively about police unions' ability to protect corrupt/brutal/racist cops and not about their ability to bilk taxpayers. So while it's not completely clearcut, the right has a much better record for opposing public unions than the left.
      - nemo44x 6y ago
        Republicans have only opposed the unions that don’t support them. Police unions, like the ones in Wisconsin, supported Gov. Walker so he conveniently didn’t break them. That’s corrupt in my opinion and unprincipled. You have begun to see labor movements distance themselves from police unions. I’d expect at some point it will be politically acceptable for Democrats in places like Wisconsin to strike back at them, which I’d support. So long as the other unions in the public sector are broken too. No public sector should be able to unionize. If these groups want to lobby then fine. Lobbying, although corrupt in many ways, does not beholden tax payers to corrupt contracts.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Unions in many places explicitly have board seats. No need to imagine it. Of course a board seat is not voting control over management.
    - door99 6y ago
      > Could you imagine a private sector union appointing the management of the company they negotiate with? Yes that would be fantastic.
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  No actually what unions do is make sure that any "firing" is done fairly and with the law and not used to harass or discriminate.
- datavirtue 6y ago
  The barrier to removal creates low performers. I worked in education for years and saw first hand how lazy and shitty grown adults can be (professors). However, I would never condone eliminating unions. The faculty need a bastion against those who control the money ("the administration")--think about the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Otherwise you would never have the few professors that make the whole system worth it. We need to strengthen unions and make sure the unions' and management are aligned on the same objective. This takes a rational and inclusive approach by both sides. In my experience if either side is mainly concerned with their own silo the whole thing gets very toxic. Unionized employees are not the enemy and neither are management.
_qulr 6y ago
This is complicated, because public schools (and police departments, mentioned by another replier) are not for-profit entities. I don't think we can treat public employee unions and private employee unions the same. Public schools, police departments, etc., are usually "political" entities, run by elected officials such as school boards and city councils. I would say there's no guarantee whatsoever in these cases that the leadership of those entities are even interested in compensating/promoting the "top performers" among teachers, or police. There's no direct financial incentive. The "outcomes" of a school — student education — don't provide much of a feedback mechanism to the financial performance or governance of the school. Likewise with police departments, etc. If anything, poor performance by these public entities may lead to calls for increased funding, standing the incentives on their heads. Part of the reason for public employee unions is to protect the members specifically from political interference. The alternative is not necessarily "merit" based compensation but rather political favoritism and retribution.
- nemo44x 6y ago
  > Part of the reason for public employee unions is to protect the members specifically from political interference. That’s one side of the coin. The other side is to be a large enough entity to influence elections and then “negotiate” with those you helped get elected. Is it any wonder that states with large public service unions are in debt (even with high taxes) and have unsustainable pension obligations? I’m not blaming a party here either. Democrats and Republicans tend to align with teachers and police respectively here and it creates the same problem. It’s why public employees should never be allowed to unionize. FDR himself expressed this of all people. It’s an inevitable path to corruption. We can’t expect a reasonable “collective bargaining” when both sides of the negotiations are in bed.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > The other side is to be a large enough entity to influence elections and then “negotiate” with those you helped get elected. That's the nature of politics. Businesses and business leaders lobby politicians and donate to their political campaigns too. It's strange to single out unions when there are so many different kinds of political interest groups, often with much more money than unions. Public employee unions are bad, but the Tavern League, for example (I'm from Wisconsin), is ok? The National Rifle Association is ok? The National Landlord Association? Businesses and interest groups of every kind are donating money to the politicians who will directly regulate them. Why specifically exclude public employees from that?
jonahrd 6y ago
I think it's pretty hard to claim that the reason there are bad teachers is because it's hard to fire them because they're unionized. There are a lot of potential reasons: - The pay is crap - The "prestige" is crap - The barrier to entry is low In Finland, for example, there are excellent teachers because the profession is treated as on par with doctors. I don't think it's fair to blame unions for this difference in culture.
- wang_li 6y ago
  Your first two reasons are not valid reasons for being a bad employee. Both are knowable before taking the job. If you take a job knowing the pay is bad and you justify being a bad employee because the pay is bad, you’re a shitty person. The third reason I don’t think is true. Teaching is in the class of occupations that require government certification.
  - confidantlake 6y ago
    It isn't about the employee choosing to do a shitty job because the pay is low. It is about the super talented, smart, ambitious person never going into the field in the first place because the pay is shitty.
    - wang_li 6y ago
      I'd say that super talented, smart, and ambitious describe a finer gradation of employee than the simple good/bad in the earlier comments. It's just my opinion, but, as in most occupations, you don't have to be the cream of the crop to be a good employee.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  Teacher pay in the US is pretty good, if you take into account hours actually worked and benefits, especially very generous retirement ones.
  - acdha 6y ago
JediWing 6y ago
The rubber room story that is trotted out all the time is the exception, not the rule. The very existence of teachers unions has probably kept tens or even hundreds of thousands of people from being out of work without healthcare during a global pandemic. In my experience, having a teacher as a spouse, discipline of even union employees is not rare when warranted.
mikelward 6y ago
The best teachers have to fight to get paid what they are worth. The best teachers have to fight for the resources they need to do their job well. Most teachers are being asked to do unreasonable and unsafe things during COVID.
door99 6y ago
> You list teachers, who in my opinion are the poster children of how problematic unions are. Teachers unions are extremely important. They are “problematic” only in the sense that they are one of the few unions that have genuinely strong bargaining power these days.

e40 6y ago

This is the elephant in the room. Unions make it much harder to fire low performers. I think they have great benefits, but this terrible side effect. For another example look at police unions.

rzz3 6y ago
Public unions are a bad idea in general. The citizens collectively employ the government, and that government shouldn’t have a right to organize against the people whom it serves. So in my opinion, these two examples of toxic public unions shouldn’t be applied to private unions.
- nemo44x 6y ago
  I agree. I’m indifferent to private sector unions. None of my business if it isn’t my workplace. But public sector unions are a path to corruption. Both major parties exploit these so I can’t blame a single party here either. What better way to consolidate power than by aligning with a public service union and “bargain” with them while being incentivized to grow membership in that union to further consolidate power. If anything I’d support public sector unions if members were not allowed to vote for offices that represent their “management” or control their budgets. Could you imagine a private sector union appointing the management of the company they negotiate with?
  - HideousKojima 6y ago
    >Both major parties exploit these so I can’t blame a single party here either. Republicans in Wisconsin abolished public unions back in 2011 (though admittedly they had exemptions for police and firefighters) and there was nationwide outrage from the left about it. There have been recent calls from the left to abolish police unions but those seem almost exclusively about police unions' ability to protect corrupt/brutal/racist cops and not about their ability to bilk taxpayers. So while it's not completely clearcut, the right has a much better record for opposing public unions than the left.
    - nemo44x 6y ago
      Republicans have only opposed the unions that don’t support them. Police unions, like the ones in Wisconsin, supported Gov. Walker so he conveniently didn’t break them. That’s corrupt in my opinion and unprincipled. You have begun to see labor movements distance themselves from police unions. I’d expect at some point it will be politically acceptable for Democrats in places like Wisconsin to strike back at them, which I’d support. So long as the other unions in the public sector are broken too. No public sector should be able to unionize. If these groups want to lobby then fine. Lobbying, although corrupt in many ways, does not beholden tax payers to corrupt contracts.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Unions in many places explicitly have board seats. No need to imagine it. Of course a board seat is not voting control over management.
  - door99 6y ago
    > Could you imagine a private sector union appointing the management of the company they negotiate with? Yes that would be fantastic.
Mauricebranagh 6y ago
No actually what unions do is make sure that any "firing" is done fairly and with the law and not used to harass or discriminate.
datavirtue 6y ago
The barrier to removal creates low performers. I worked in education for years and saw first hand how lazy and shitty grown adults can be (professors). However, I would never condone eliminating unions. The faculty need a bastion against those who control the money ("the administration")--think about the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Otherwise you would never have the few professors that make the whole system worth it. We need to strengthen unions and make sure the unions' and management are aligned on the same objective. This takes a rational and inclusive approach by both sides. In my experience if either side is mainly concerned with their own silo the whole thing gets very toxic. Unionized employees are not the enemy and neither are management.

_qulr 6y ago

This is complicated, because public schools (and police departments, mentioned by another replier) are not for-profit entities. I don't think we can treat public employee unions and private employee unions the same. Public schools, police departments, etc., are usually "political" entities, run by elected officials such as school boards and city councils. I would say there's no guarantee whatsoever in these cases that the leadership of those entities are even interested in compensating/promoting the "top performers" among teachers, or police. There's no direct financial incentive. The "outcomes" of a school — student education — don't provide much of a feedback mechanism to the financial performance or governance of the school. Likewise with police departments, etc. If anything, poor performance by these public entities may lead to calls for increased funding, standing the incentives on their heads. Part of the reason for public employee unions is to protect the members specifically from political interference. The alternative is not necessarily "merit" based compensation but rather political favoritism and retribution.

nemo44x 6y ago
> Part of the reason for public employee unions is to protect the members specifically from political interference. That’s one side of the coin. The other side is to be a large enough entity to influence elections and then “negotiate” with those you helped get elected. Is it any wonder that states with large public service unions are in debt (even with high taxes) and have unsustainable pension obligations? I’m not blaming a party here either. Democrats and Republicans tend to align with teachers and police respectively here and it creates the same problem. It’s why public employees should never be allowed to unionize. FDR himself expressed this of all people. It’s an inevitable path to corruption. We can’t expect a reasonable “collective bargaining” when both sides of the negotiations are in bed.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > The other side is to be a large enough entity to influence elections and then “negotiate” with those you helped get elected. That's the nature of politics. Businesses and business leaders lobby politicians and donate to their political campaigns too. It's strange to single out unions when there are so many different kinds of political interest groups, often with much more money than unions. Public employee unions are bad, but the Tavern League, for example (I'm from Wisconsin), is ok? The National Rifle Association is ok? The National Landlord Association? Businesses and interest groups of every kind are donating money to the politicians who will directly regulate them. Why specifically exclude public employees from that?

jonahrd 6y ago

I think it's pretty hard to claim that the reason there are bad teachers is because it's hard to fire them because they're unionized. There are a lot of potential reasons: - The pay is crap - The "prestige" is crap - The barrier to entry is low In Finland, for example, there are excellent teachers because the profession is treated as on par with doctors. I don't think it's fair to blame unions for this difference in culture.

wang_li 6y ago
Your first two reasons are not valid reasons for being a bad employee. Both are knowable before taking the job. If you take a job knowing the pay is bad and you justify being a bad employee because the pay is bad, you’re a shitty person. The third reason I don’t think is true. Teaching is in the class of occupations that require government certification.
- confidantlake 6y ago
  It isn't about the employee choosing to do a shitty job because the pay is low. It is about the super talented, smart, ambitious person never going into the field in the first place because the pay is shitty.
  - wang_li 6y ago
    I'd say that super talented, smart, and ambitious describe a finer gradation of employee than the simple good/bad in the earlier comments. It's just my opinion, but, as in most occupations, you don't have to be the cream of the crop to be a good employee.
xyzzyz 6y ago
Teacher pay in the US is pretty good, if you take into account hours actually worked and benefits, especially very generous retirement ones.
- acdha 6y ago

JediWing 6y ago

The rubber room story that is trotted out all the time is the exception, not the rule. The very existence of teachers unions has probably kept tens or even hundreds of thousands of people from being out of work without healthcare during a global pandemic. In my experience, having a teacher as a spouse, discipline of even union employees is not rare when warranted.

mikelward 6y ago

The best teachers have to fight to get paid what they are worth. The best teachers have to fight for the resources they need to do their job well. Most teachers are being asked to do unreasonable and unsafe things during COVID.

door99 6y ago

> You list teachers, who in my opinion are the poster children of how problematic unions are. Teachers unions are extremely important. They are “problematic” only in the sense that they are one of the few unions that have genuinely strong bargaining power these days.