The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Arizona Continues To Suck (Banning Public Sector Unions Edition!)
Posts
The most effective avenue in all those cases is supposed to be the administration. If I have issues with other teachers, I do not run to the Teacher's Union; I inform the administration. If I have problems with payroll; I address my complaint to payroll. If teachers are violating state assessment rules, then I inform administration as to testing irregularities.
If administration fails to address what is in their job description, then you goto the Teacher's Union. You seem to be confusing the Union with management.
2)
I suppose I misinterpreted, but from the above it seems that you were arguing for complete public control over every aspect of public employment. If you just want to vote for politicians who will bargain harder against the unions, guess what, you already can!
The decision whether to exercise their right to collectively bargain is up to the workers involved. Not management. Not politicians. Not the supposedly objective public. I'm tired of pretending that labor rights are anything less than inalienable.
And that's with having a union to fight and scratch for those rights.
what in the world makes anybody think that taking away that extra bargaining power of the union will make it any easier for teachers, who most voters view as nothing more than glorified babysitters, to actually teach? Or earn a living wage?
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
You cannot force people to work for you do saying they "can't strike" is kind of idiotic. They just won't show up,
I, personally, do not agree with closed shops and the like. Unions can be just as corrupt and nasty as the corporations they say they're fighting, but I don't see anyone trying to make corporations illegal even after all the corrupt and evil shit they've done.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Private schools are the best in the country because there are hardly any poor kids at them!
It has nothing to do with the fact that the teachers are paid garbage wages. All that shows is that removing poverty from the equation means kids do better in school, which is something we already (should) know.
The fix for education in America isn't throwing money at schools or cutting teacher pay or race to the top. It's making sure no child goes to bed worrying about having electricity or a roof over their head.
OK. Let's make public employees' jobs hostage to the voters' whims. I say we start with your job. Everyone, let's have a vote on what we want to pay KFM. I vote for $20,000/year.
Are you seriously saying that public employees should have to just work for whatever the government is willing to pay them and shouldn't be allowed to lobby for increased pay or benefits at all? I absolutely guarantee you that the voting public (who are 95% retarded) are going to vote for whichever politician promises to pay them the least. Then we'll end up with all the uneducated incompetents working for the public sector. I guess then you'll be able to say "Hey! Government doesn't work!" and privitise it all, but it'll be because YOU BROKE IT.
2) Then you vote for them again. This isn't very hard.
I am familiar with labor law, thank you very much. The failure of certain states to grant citizens their rights does not mean that those rights are illusory, any more than Chinese tyranny proves that freedom of speech is not a right but a creation of the state.
Collective bargaining is freedom of association applied to the workplace. If workers want to organize in order to better their lot (pull themselves up by their bootstraps, as it were) then I see no reason that the state should prohibit them any more than they should prohibit the creation of political parties. I do see reasons, however, for the state to step in and ensure that labor and management bargain in good faith.
Edit: Anyways, my original point was just that unions and stronger employment laws go hand in hand. I think I made my point, so I'll be taking my leave now.
This is not what this is, it is not a "right to work" action.
If you outlaw strikes then anyone telling people not to work for collective bargaining reasons will be ARRESTED and IMPRISONED on racketeering and criminal conspiracy charges.
Striking teachers holding public protests outside schools will be forcibly removed by the police.
Removing the ability to strike attacks the first amendment in the most terrible ways possible.
Also there will still be contracts signed by state workers, but instead of a deal between two equal entities it will be between an individual and a powerful state. They will likely be terrible, involving giving up the right to redress working grievance in the courts and speak out against the school system or TALK ABOUT THE GAYS.
Unless you're willing to make the same rule for gigantic corporations, yes.
Actually, you can vote to decertify the union, or you can find a job in a non-union shop, or you can move to one of the several right-to-work states where it won't be a problem at all.
Edit'd for clarity.
You think that asking individuals to participate in the process that we have now is too onerous. That might mean participating in their workplace union, or seeking employment elsewhere, or moving to a jurisdiction with laws that are more in line with their philosophy.
So you'd rather destroy the whole system, that was fought for by individuals in order to protect their rights, and is the reason we have workplace protections at all today.
I think that's pretty silly.
Union members had their concerns regarding workplace treatment and job conditions addressed promptly by the union and management.
Union-exempt members had their concerns regarding workplace treatment, job conditions, and unpaid overtime addressed with an invitation to seek employment elsewhere.
I'm not sure why you think the latter is better than the former for the individual.
Think about it on a grander scale, then. Which is better for society? Having an apparatus where legitimate workplace grievances can be heard and resolved at a employer level (unsafe work environment, etc.), or forcing individuals to seek redress solely in the court system, where the cards are stacked against them both in the resources and expertise required to pursue litigation.
I know I said I'd be leaving, but I just have to agree with this. Our labor system sucks. I would happily replace it with a number of other systems (Nordic and/or German ftw). But those systems aren't on the table, completely unchecked capitalism is.
Because of History
Edit: And he who has the money has power in Washington
Because crab thinking is bullshit?
Uh, no it isn't. First, everyone is subject to those employment laws unions brought about (insufficient as they may be). Second, even nonunionized companies and industries have to treat their employees better than they used to for fear of unionization. Third, I don't think the way most employees are treated is acceptable at all. I think it's shit. But it could get much worse.
Also I would prefer not to live in a social darwinist state. I like unemployment insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security etc. So there's that too.