Are unions feasible today?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Many teachers aren't doing there part either. Helping kids cheat, changing answers on tests, etc.

The NYC public school system is immense, with more students than some whole states. And the student body is highly varied, not just in terms of abilities, but languages, nationalities. If the resources are not there for staff to do their job (eg, enough teachers for smaller classrooms, and enough time to permit Differentiated Instruction), it is nigh impossible to make absolute progress every single semester, especially when it is being compared to what level of progress the DOE thinks should occur.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Unions being powerful by non-government interference means is nothing bad at all. Just like companies being powerful is not bad.

Yes, workers who want to make more money can do that. They also can join a union. Again, I am unsure what you are trying to say. Unions are legal and can potentially be useful, and are definitely not immoral in it's basic existence.

Having too much power means they not only have more leverage on company, but on workers who don't want to even join.

Originally posted by Mindship
Lord knows, the education system is not free of idiots (including administration). But unfortunately, Bloomberg has set up a vicious cycle: there Had Better Be improvement, or I'm gonna shut you down. So to keep grades up while students make less effort, often grades are fudged.

The NYC public school system is immense, with more students than some whole states. And the student body is highly varied, not just in terms of abilities, but languages, nationalities. If the resources are not there for staff to do their job (eg, enough teachers for smaller classrooms, and enough time to permit Differentiated Instruction), it is nigh impossible to make absolute progress every single semester, especially when it is being compared to what level of progress the DOE thinks should occur.

School is going to be like the housing market eventually. The increased costs and the decreased value will cause it to collapse if something isn't done.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I'm not all over the place at all. Pay attention son.

Sure you are. You're talking about cooperatives as though they're public corporations, shareholders as though they are the workers or members of a cooperative; teachers who are paid with taxes, but who also pay taxes themselves; a fair wage and benefits and job security as though that isn't what everyone wants and that they're inherently counter-productive to selling goods. You're all over the place.

Originally posted by skekUng
Sure you are. You're talking about cooperatives as though they're public corporations, shareholders as though they are the workers or members of a cooperative; teachers who are paid with taxes, but who also pay taxes themselves; a fair wage and benefits and job security as though that isn't what everyone wants and that they're inherently counter-productive to selling goods. You're all over the place.

Tax money goes to pay teachers, 300 billion dollars a year to the education system. Shareholders can be employees too. Or cooperatives.

The whole system relies on each other and the producers are at the center of all of it. Fair wages are subjective, obviously the worker is more than likely to think they aren't paid enough.

This whole discussion has gone to different points, but my point is consistent. Sorry you don't understand that.

I chose to respond to the only part of your post that addressed my comments to you earlier. After that you assumed you were going to school me, but the whole response other than the first line was a continuation of the mischaracterization of those basic points you asserted in your first post, to which I had responded that you were all over the place.

Assuming that an employee of a publically traded company can just buy shares in that company and everything will proceed as though it were a cooperative is not true. Then to say that because teachers are paid with tax revenue, a union for them is even more abusive does not follow that point -even more so because it ignored that teachers pay taxes, too.

Originally posted by skekUng
I chose to respond to the only part of your post that addressed my comments to you earlier. After that you assumed you were going to school me, but the whole response other than the first line was a continuation of the mischaracterization of those basic positioned you asserted in your first post, to which I responded that you were all over the place.

Assuming that an employee of a publically traded company can just buy shares in that company and everything will proceed as though it were a cooperative is not true. Then to say that because teachers are paid with tax revenue, a union for them is even more abusive does not follow that point -even more so because it ignored that teachers pay taxes, too.

No, it won't proceed as one, but a shareholder has a right in the company.

My point about the taxes was that the enormous amount of money is coming from our checks unwillingly, and going to the education system, something that is costly and a reason for that is the unions.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
All of my comment regarded you, and all of it was accurate. You tried to assume I was some ignorant teenager or something else and I'm far from that. You only made yourself look ignorant.

No, it won't proceed as one, but a shareholder has a right in the company.

My point about the taxes was that the enormous amount of money is coming from our checks unwillingly, and going to the education system, something that is costly and a reason for that is the unions.

It is not my fault your opinions give one the impression that you are a teenager.

Being a shareholder is not the same as being a member/owner of a cooperative. If you understand the difference, then why are you presenting the two as though they are at all worthy of being equated?

My significant other is a 4th grade teacher in a non-union/no-cause state. The education budget is still very high, meaning a lot of money is taken from the pay checks of non-teachers to fund the education system here too. But don't forget that teachers pay taxes, as well. (which you seem to be ignoring. by your logic, they're shareholders and members of a cooperative.) The vast majority of education system costs are the result of how much it costs to accomodate, feed and supply the students. Relatively far less is the price of paying teachers. A fourth grade teacher with 5 years of experience earns more in salary and benefits in this state than does a teacher with tenure in NY state. It might be harder to fire them, but they earn 1o to 15 percent less than a teacher with equivalent credentials.

You two are so nice to each other, it warms my heart.

They are crazy about me.

Originally posted by skekUng
It is not my fault your opinions give one the impression that you are a teenager.

Being a shareholder is not the same as being a member/owner of a cooperative. If you understand the difference, then why are you presenting the two as though they are at all worthy of being equated?

My significant other is a 4th grade teacher in a non-union/no-cause state. The education budget is still very high, meaning a lot of money is taken from the pay checks of non-teachers to fund the education system here too. But don't forget that teachers pay taxes, as well. (which you seem to be ignoring. by your logic, they're shareholders and members of a cooperative.) The vast majority of education system costs are the result of how much it costs to accomodate, feed and supply the students. Relatively far less is the price of paying teachers. A fourth grade teacher with 5 years of experience earns more in salary and benefits in this state than does a teacher with tenure in NY state. It might be harder to fire them, but they earn 1o to 15 percent less than a teacher with equivalent credentials.

Firstly I never compared the two. If you were paying attention, you'd know I said a person can have direct power by being a shareholder, or own a portion of the company, that's a legal right. If they want more say, power, or income. Or they could contract their work in many cases. So there are other alternatives.

Many of the costs go to admin as well, with technological increases, education should be going down in cost, not up. It's becoming more and more expensive, and the important part is that the results are terrible. Grade inflation is still inflation and it causes more problems than it fixes. My point stands that our money is taking out unwillingly for a failing system that doesn't produce. Why is that hard to understand?

What part of that implies that I am emotionally invovled? I am unaffected by a teacher's union, as is my loved one. The absence of a union in this state for teachers does not play any part in our lives. There is also no struggling involved. I may not be able to afford to go on extravagant trips at the drop of hat, but we don't struggle. We were not one of those members of the middle class that are disappearing because, as you put it, we went into debt to achieve the so-called American dream. Having stated that my significant other is a teacher does not imply that I told you what I do for a living. I am well-versed in business practices. You may have had conversations with people on this site who implied they think money falls from the sky, but you are not speaking to one of those people in this case.

You said that a person can gain influence by becoming a shareholder in a company for which they work. If they want more say, more power or more income, what? That person is going to be listened to MORE because they're an employee, as well? No. It does not happen. What advantage does an employee have to enter a contracted worker position, if they have no muscle when they sit down at the bargaining table?

Yes, a lot of money goes into paying for administration. But that is costly even in a state with no union, like this one. How do you assume that technology to make learning easier and educating more productive is acquired? Charity? Technology costs money. I don't disagree that the results are umimpressive in many cases, but that is not the fault of unions. I completely follow your line of thinking about how hard it is to fire a bad teacher when a union is involved, but it also protects a great number of good teachers in bad situations.

Basically you're making the same mistake that No Child Left Behind made in approaching the school system; as though it were a private business where a die is cast and the merchandise rolls off the assembly line and costs could be kept low and profits maximized if you kept employee benefits to the bare minimum and replaced them with a machine as soon as possible. A child is not a widget, though. NCLB bases it's entire perspective on results, or product, as you're terming it. Federal dollars are awarded based on the goals met by a school, and its teachers. In a school district where the students are at a tremendous disadvantage because of the economic reality of the families that send their children there, the job of the teacher becomes harder, the school's test results are invariably lower than those of their middle and upper class counterparts. So the schools that need more money to properly educate their kids suffers because of variables not under the control of the teacher.

Originally posted by skekUng
What part of that implies that I am emotionally invovled? I am unaffected by a teacher's union, as is my loved one. The absence of a union in this state for teachers does not play any part in our lives. There is also no struggling involved. I may not be able to afford to go on extravagant trips at the drop of hat, but we don't struggle. We were not one of those members of the middle class that are disappearing because, as you put it, we went into debt to achieve the so-called American dream. Having stated that my significant other is a teacher does not imply that I told you what I do for a living. I am well-versed in business practices. You may have had conversations with people on this site who implied they think money falls from the sky, but you are not speaking to one of those people in this case.

You said that a person can gain influence by becoming a shareholder in a company for which they work. If they want more say, more power or more income, what? That person is going to be listened to MORE because they're an employee, as well? No. It does not happen. What advantage does an employee have to enter a contracted worker position, if they have no muscle when they sit down at the bargaining table?

Yes, a lot of money goes into paying for administration. But that is costly even in a state with no union, like this one. How do you assume that technology to make learning easier and educating more productive is acquired? Charity? Technology costs money. I don't disagree that the results are umimpressive in many cases, but that is not the fault of unions. I completely follow your line of thinking about how hard it is to fire a bad teacher when a union is involved, but it also protects a great number of good teachers in bad situations.

Basically you're making the same mistake that No Child Left Behind made in approaching the school system; as though it were a private business where a die is cast and the merchandise rolls off the assembly line and costs could be kept low and profits maximized if you kept employee benefits to the bare minimum and replaced them with a machine as soon as possible. A child is not a widget, though. NCLB bases it's entire perspective on results, or product, as you're terming it. Federal dollars are awarded based on the goals met by a school, and its teachers. In a school district where the students are at a tremendous disadvantage because of the economic reality of the families that send their children there, the job of the teacher becomes harder, the school's test results are invariably lower than those of their middle and upper class counterparts. So the schools that need more money to properly educate their kids suffers because of variables not under the control of the teacher.

They have to own more shares to have more power and control.

Technology does cost money but it provides leverage and ultimately keeps costs down, which is the point of technology.

I'm just talking about people having a choice in what school they want or using the money they spend for alternatives. Test scores are dropping all over, in all class levels. I do agree that poorer areas have worse education, that's one thing I wanted to help rectify in some areas myself.

In schools the education is the product in service, just like the government provides one; if it is too expensive and producing bad results, then something needs to be changed.

I think unions in the UK are a bit different to those in the US where they seem to still be stuck in the militant idiot phase but also happen to be wracked with corruption. Unions this side of the pond are pretty toothless in terms of strike action etc as a lot of non public sector unions are part funded by the companies their members work for and so have no strike clauses in their agreements with the companies.

They have their place along side co-operative and mutual movements to empower employees although they are less effective than either of those two for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by jaden101
I think unions in the UK are a bit different to those in the US where they seem to still be stuck in the militant idiot phase but also happen to be wracked with corruption. Unions this side of the pond are pretty toothless in terms of strike action etc as a lot of non public sector unions are part funded by the companies their members work for and so have no strike clauses in their agreements with the companies.

They have their place along side co-operative and mutual movements to empower employees although they are less effective than either of those two for obvious reasons.

Perhaps that's why so many people have a different view on them? From what I've seen the general consensus is that they are an outdated concept.

you aren't against something that plays the same function as a union so long as it isn't called a union?

Originally posted by inimalist
you aren't against something that plays the same function as a union so long as it isn't called a union?

I already said that in concept unions are good. It's just how it is applied.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Well at least we're on the same page so the personal attacks can cease. But yea, there were many fools, and many of them wonder why they're in the mess they're in.

They have to own more shares to have more power and control.

Technology does cost money but it provides leverage and ultimately keeps costs down, which is the point of technology.

I'm just talking about people having a choice in what school they want or using the money they spend for alternatives. Test scores are dropping all over, in all class levels. I do agree that poorer areas have worse education, that's one thing I wanted to help rectify in some areas myself.

In schools the education is the product in service, just like the government provides one; if it is too expensive and producing bad results, then something needs to be changed.

We're not on the same page. I disagree with your positions. I recall no personal insults.

Yes, perhaps they'll earn more money so they can afford those shares because the company will just hand them a living wage. So many companies are like that. and while tehy're handing out better wages out of the goodness of their hearts, the cost of living will also suddenly start to reverse it's 100 year trend.

Vouchers are a nice idea and very reasonable in theory, but that has not been what you've talked about in this discussion. neither will it help in poorer school districts where there are many factors against them, not the least of which is how those kids are going to get to those better schools in better districts where their already disadvantaged situation will also drag down the test scores of those other schools.

In schools the product is not the service of educating; the product is the educated child. Splitting hairs perhaps, but an important distinction.

Originally posted by skekUng
We're not on the same page. I disagree with your positions. I recall no personal insults.

Yes, perhaps they'll earn more money so they can afford those shares because the company will just hand them a living wage. So many companies are like that. and while tehy're handing out better wages out of the goodness of their hearts, the cost of living will also suddenly start to reverse it's 100 year trend.

Vouchers are a nice idea and very reasonable in theory, but that has not been what you've talked about in this discussion. neither will it help in poorer school districts where there are many factors against them, not the least of which is how those kids are going to get to those better schools in better districts where their already disadvantaged situation will also drag down the test scores of those other schools.

In schools the product is not the service of educating; the product is the educated child. Splitting hairs perhaps, but an important distinction.

Good post.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
From what I've seen the general consensus is that they are an outdated concept.

No, what you've seen is the result of a concerted effort to demonize unions in any form or fashion and the resentment that people without unions tend to feel towards those industries that do. If you ask people in a situation where they have no access to a union, the public opinion is often that they are corrupt, detrimental to employees and free enterprise and exist solely to keep bad employees in a job they do not deserve. This has been largely funded by corporate interests that would like nothing more than to pay minimum wage and no health benefits to their employees. Sadly, children that aren't very well educated grow up and tend to believe the majority of propoganda to which they are exposed, no matter how contrary to their own good it might be.

Originally posted by skekUng
We're not on the same page. I disagree with your positions. I recall no personal insults.

Yes, perhaps they'll earn more money so they can afford those shares because the company will just hand them a living wage. So many companies are like that. and while tehy're handing out better wages out of the goodness of their hearts, the cost of living will also suddenly start to reverse it's 100 year trend.

Vouchers are a nice idea and very reasonable in theory, but that has not been what you've talked about in this discussion. neither will it help in poorer school districts where there are many factors against them, not the least of which is how those kids are going to get to those better schools in better districts where their already disadvantaged situation will also drag down the test scores of those other schools.

In schools the product is not the service of educating; the product is the educated child. Splitting hairs perhaps, but an important distinction.

Are you kidding? People can't afford to buy a few shares in anything? They can't afford to invest and put away money? Are these same people the ones who buy constant crap and owe more than they make? Like the typical American? Living beyond their means. If a person doesn't save or invest their money that is on them. How can people who come from other countries dirt poor surpass our youth on tests and become more successful than people who have been here year after year? It happens quite often.

Many things have been talked about, what factors? If something is overly expensive and not working than it doesn't work.

A business has a product and a service, their product they give you is education as a service, you're talking more or less the end product. Why is it costing more for worse results.

Originally posted by skekUng
No, what you've seen is the result of a concerted effort to demonize unions in any form or fashion and the resentment that people without unions tend to feel towards those industries that do. If you ask people in a situation where they have no access to a union, the public opinion is often that they are corrupt, detrimental to employees and free enterprise and exist solely to keep bad employees in a job they do not deserve. This has been largely funded by corporate interests that would like nothing more than to pay minimum wage and no health benefits to their employees. Sadly, children that aren't very well educated grow up and tend to believe the majority of propoganda to which they are exposed, no matter how contrary to their own good it might be.

There have been numerous union workers complain about the coercion to join a union and the wages and the lack of returns some get. It's not propoganda. Employees are expensive, and jacking up the pay on all employees will only raise the prices of everything else. Paying everybody more just to do it won't fix anything, no differently than printing money. People need to vote with their feet. That job is not their only option in this day and time and for someone to believe that is ridiculous. Employees have to be paid, covered, insured, have to have workers comp, need to be trained, they have to be covered when they break your equipment supplies etc. And most of the workers in America have terrible ethic. They do just enough to get by, and many do nothing at all. When a company has a choice of getting work that has less overhead with harder workers, they are going to take that option. If a company is falling apart then everyone loses their job. When the automotive industry is bleeding 1 billion a month and people were still striking, then whatever job they lose they deserve. They don't care about the company, only themselves. Being paid 30/hr to do basic low skilled labor in an assembly line is outrageous. Many professionals who are more educated and skilled don't start out with that much.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Or maybe the way they go by achieving their goals.

I already said that in concept unions are good. It's just how it is applied.

collective labour is good until it has any ability to impact the company that pays them?