Since there was some news, and the old thread is >100 pages. Here's a new thread to discuss unions.
So what's so great about unions. Well, pretty much no mater how big of a fuck up you are. You get to keep your Job.
In my personal experience with it, say you are a shitty library worker a a local community college. You regularly go on hour lunches, leaving your coworkers in the lurch. Go wander around the campus talking to friends for 40 minutes on trips to the mail room that is 5 min away. Come in late, leave early. Hide in your office rather than help students. You don't know how to check out materials to students despite working there for 13 years, refuse to follow basic procedures, and are generally so worthless that your 2 co-workers, also union employers, complain about you to management and keep logs of your various absence. If you keep this up for 6 months, a note is attached to your file. Which you can then appeal.
But lets go a bit bigger.
Say you are a cop looking for an armed 6ft+ 300lb black male in a gray Nissan Titian. And because your a god damn idiot, you shoot 103 rounds into a blue Toyota Tacoma with two Hispanic women inside(or ram and shoot a Black Honda Ridgeline with a white guy in it). Now if you or I did this we'd go to jail for 2 counts of attempted murder, or assault with a deadly weapon, or some other such charge. But if you are an LAPD cop, you not only are free from jail. You get to keep your job, driving around a city with a gun on the tax payers dime.http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/02/police-officers-who-shot-two-innocent-women-103-times-wont-be-fired/357771/
Say you are a teacher in NYPS, and you start sexually harassing your female students. Man that's gonna get you fired for sure, right? Nope, instead of being fired, you are sent to a 'reassignment room' where you can do pretty much whatever you feel like, and still get pay/healthcare/pension benefits. http://nypost.com/2013/01/27/one-year-on-the-job-13-years-in-rubber-room-earns-perv-teacher-1m/
Why is this? Because here is the process to fire a teacher.
Anyways on to the news.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/us/california-teacher-tenure-laws-ruled-unconstitutional.html?_r=0
LOS ANGELES — A California judge ruled Tuesday that teacher tenure laws deprive students of their right to an education under the state Constitution. The decision hands teachers’ unions a major defeat in a landmark case, one that could radically alter how California teachers are hired and fired and prompt challenges to tenure laws in other states.
“Substantial evidence presented makes it clear to this court that the challenged statutes disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students,” Judge Rolf M. Treu of Los Angeles Superior Court wrote in the ruling. “The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience.”
In the ruling, Judge Treu agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that California’s current laws make it impossible to get rid of the system’s numerous low-performing and incompetent teachers; that seniority rules requiring the newest teachers to be laid off first were harmful; and that granting tenure to teachers after only two years on the job was farcical, offering far too little time for a fair assessment of their skills.
Further, Judge Treu said, the least effective teachers are disproportionately assigned to schools filled with low-income and minority students. The situation violates those students’ constitutional right to an equal education, he determined.
“All sides to this litigation agree that competent teachers are a critical, if not the most important, component of success of a child’s in-school educational experience,” Judge Treu wrote in his ruling. “There is also no dispute that there are a significant number of grossly ineffective teachers currently active in California classrooms.” ...
It's a pretty interesting ruling.
The ruling was that in essence that the laws requiring: Tenure after 18 months, The exhaustive firing procedure, and Last In First Out layoff rules, create a mass of ineffective teachers that prevent students from receiving their education, and these teachers are more likely to be in minority districts.
It's pretty novel framing the argument in the Brown/Butt language. And while there will certainly be appeals, I don't know what exactly they can be. You'd essentially have to argue that either:
These grossly ineffective teachers don't exist.
The laws don't contribute to their retention.
They aren't disproportionately in minority districts.
All 3 of which seem like pretty hard positions to back up.
How do you spell Justice?B D S
Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.