3 ms·

Unions didn't "leave out" anyone. Doctors have a professional association, which as you point out isn't quite sane in what it allows in terms of overtime. But a

Unions didn't "leave out" anyone. Doctors have a professional association, which as you point out isn't quite sane in what it allows in terms of overtime. But as a result becoming a doctor is a far more exclusive endeavor. Doctors are also paid quite well, in large part because of that exclusivity. Not trying to defend the worst of current union behavior, but even now unions are useful; thinking particularly about teachers' unions, which fight to get teachers decent pay. It doesn't work, unfortunately -- teachers are paid less than babysitters -- but they'd be paid even less without unions. That said, teacher tenure is too well protected by unions; a teacher who is no longer trying should be able to be fired. Not sure what a better alternative to union organization is. Probably workers earning equity in companies they join, as much as possible. And I'm not talking communism; there are companies today that practice this. But it could be that unions are like democracy: A terrible way to run things, but all the other options are worse.

dagw 11y ago
teachers are paid less than babysitters -- but they'd be paid even less without unions. Maybe in the median, but certainly not in the right tail. Lots of schools and their 'customers' are well aware of the value of great teachers, and freed from the 'fear' of being stuck with a bad tenured teachers combined with the competition to hire the best possible teachers will no doubt push their salary up. The real down side I see is that once the salary gap between the best and worst teachers starts to widen, then the schools in poorer areas and with lower budgets won't have a chance to afford employing good teachers and will be stuck with the 'leftovers' to an even bigger degree than now.
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  Private schools that entirely lack unions (or protected tenure) actually have significantly lower teacher salaries than public schools, so your theory is incorrect. Add to that the fact that public schools in most states are terribly underfunded, and teacher salaries are pathetic across the board. Administrator salaries, on the other hand, are often way too high. A law (covering government-run public schools) that limited administrator salaries to 120% of the median teacher salary at that school would likely to more to raise teacher salaries than a union could, I think.

dagw 11y ago

teachers are paid less than babysitters -- but they'd be paid even less without unions. Maybe in the median, but certainly not in the right tail. Lots of schools and their 'customers' are well aware of the value of great teachers, and freed from the 'fear' of being stuck with a bad tenured teachers combined with the competition to hire the best possible teachers will no doubt push their salary up. The real down side I see is that once the salary gap between the best and worst teachers starts to widen, then the schools in poorer areas and with lower budgets won't have a chance to afford employing good teachers and will be stuck with the 'leftovers' to an even bigger degree than now.

SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
Private schools that entirely lack unions (or protected tenure) actually have significantly lower teacher salaries than public schools, so your theory is incorrect. Add to that the fact that public schools in most states are terribly underfunded, and teacher salaries are pathetic across the board. Administrator salaries, on the other hand, are often way too high. A law (covering government-run public schools) that limited administrator salaries to 120% of the median teacher salary at that school would likely to more to raise teacher salaries than a union could, I think.