On Wednesday night, Chait expanded on his thoughts on the union in a lengthy Facebook post. Here’s a section of the post in which he explains specifically why he was against the unionizing drive at New York (emphasis mine):
I had several long conversations with organizers about the specific conditions in place at New York. Those conversations did not give me confidence that the union had a sensible strategy.
I think there are ways to push for higher salaries for lower-earning workers at New York, and I support this even at the cost of more established staffers like myself. I don’t believe the union would accomplish this better than a simple demand focused on this priority would.
What’s more, there are real risks to the entire institution that a union drive would bring. These risks are elevated when you do not have a profitable company, and when you depend upon a benevolent ownership, which we currently enjoy, to finance it as a public trust. I did get some reassurances about those risks and they attenuated my concerns, but did not eliminate them. I don’t know how this will work out, but I think the risks outweigh the benefits. And to be clear, those risks are borne by everybody on staff, top to bottom.
Chait is arguing here that he broadly agrees with the goals of the union—higher wages for those at the bottom—but that he doesn’t believe in their methods. (Likely a familiar argument to those who have organized their workplaces.) Yet he doesn’t give a reason why the alternative that he presents—“a simple demand focused on this priority”—would actually be more effective, or even possible without the organizing that comes hand-in-hand with a union drive. Collective action doesn’t just appear out of thin air (it takes hard, sustained work) and “simple demands” without the protection of a union can be risky for workers who are not well-established like Chait.
Prosecutors and investigators at the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s office voted Monday to unionize.
A majority voted by secret ballot to enter the St. Louis Police Officers Association, SLPOA President Ed Clark said in a statement.
I'm sure being members of the same union won't have any detrimental effects on their ability to prosecute for misconduct...
For a bit more context, the office chose to unionize to frustrate any attempts to reform the office that would come from the newly elected country prosecutor who just happens to be their first black county prosecutor. Also, the union supported his (white, shocker) opponent.
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
edited December 2018
The next teachers' strike coming up: Los Angeles. Red for Ed keeps marching on, because they have to.
That being said, Gov. Bevin in Kentucky is trying to undo the work done by the striking Kentucky teachers because, as we all know, he is both evil and an asshole. He's calling a special session of the legislature to cut pensions sneakily at the last moment to ruin Christmas, again.
Mayabird on
+1
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
With umbrellas in one hand and picket signs in the other, Los Angeles teachers braved cold, drizzly weather Monday morning as they walked off the job in their first strike in 30 years to demand smaller class sizes, more support staff at schools and better pay.
"Let's be clear, educators don't want to strike," United Teachers Los Angeles President Alex Caputo-Pearl said to a crowd of supporters during a morning news conference at John Marshall High School in Los Feliz. "We don't want to miss time with our students. We don't want to have less money for the car payment or less money for the school supplies that we always end up buying ourselves."
With umbrellas in one hand and picket signs in the other, Los Angeles teachers braved cold, drizzly weather Monday morning as they walked off the job in their first strike in 30 years to demand smaller class sizes, more support staff at schools and better pay.
"Let's be clear, educators don't want to strike," United Teachers Los Angeles President Alex Caputo-Pearl said to a crowd of supporters during a morning news conference at John Marshall High School in Los Feliz. "We don't want to miss time with our students. We don't want to have less money for the car payment or less money for the school supplies that we always end up buying ourselves."
Effectively all these strikes show us what we've known for years. Teachers, even BAD teachers, are performing an absolutely critical public service. 1 teacher allows say, 30 women (or men) to enter the workforce. Without those teachers, all those workers would have to quit to take care of their kids. Since their work (even considered in its most short termist way) is so critical, they have overwhelming strike power. 1 teacher deciding to strike, effectively places 30 other workers on strike in support of them, but the other workers literally can't go back to work till the teacher is happy. This situation (barring like, enslaving the teachers) is unavoidable. As such, disruptions due to angry teachers must be minimized by providing sufficient pay and benefits that teaching is a reasonably desirable profession.
And again, this simply considers them as day to day childcare provisioners, completely neglecting that they are far far more important to society than that considered over any longer timescale.
With umbrellas in one hand and picket signs in the other, Los Angeles teachers braved cold, drizzly weather Monday morning as they walked off the job in their first strike in 30 years to demand smaller class sizes, more support staff at schools and better pay.
"Let's be clear, educators don't want to strike," United Teachers Los Angeles President Alex Caputo-Pearl said to a crowd of supporters during a morning news conference at John Marshall High School in Los Feliz. "We don't want to miss time with our students. We don't want to have less money for the car payment or less money for the school supplies that we always end up buying ourselves."
Effectively all these strikes show us what we've known for years. Teachers, even BAD teachers, are performing an absolutely critical public service. 1 teacher allows say, 30 women (or men) to enter the workforce. Without those teachers, all those workers would have to quit to take care of their kids. Since their work (even considered in its most short termist way) is so critical, they have overwhelming strike power. 1 teacher deciding to strike, effectively places 30 other workers on strike in support of them, but the other workers literally can't go back to work till the teacher is happy. This situation (barring like, enslaving the teachers) is unavoidable. As such, disruptions due to angry teachers must be minimized by providing sufficient pay and benefits that teaching is a reasonably desirable profession.
And again, this simply considers them as day to day childcare provisioners, completely neglecting that they are far far more important to society than that considered over any longer timescale.
Ehh. I'd be careful about assuming that the parents of children will support teachers strikes. They may be in a bad situation during those strikes, but the vitriol I've heard from parents during strikes and non-strike protests, can be pretty fucking vile. And it's not being directed at anyone except teachers.
Not all, for sure. But a good portion of them. The kind of parents who blame the teacher for their child struggling at school, despite not putting any effort into the child's education at home.
I've literally heard people arguing for pay CUTS to teachers wages. Because they clearly have it so easy, only working 6 hours a day, and getting so many weeks off each year.
With umbrellas in one hand and picket signs in the other, Los Angeles teachers braved cold, drizzly weather Monday morning as they walked off the job in their first strike in 30 years to demand smaller class sizes, more support staff at schools and better pay.
"Let's be clear, educators don't want to strike," United Teachers Los Angeles President Alex Caputo-Pearl said to a crowd of supporters during a morning news conference at John Marshall High School in Los Feliz. "We don't want to miss time with our students. We don't want to have less money for the car payment or less money for the school supplies that we always end up buying ourselves."
Effectively all these strikes show us what we've known for years. Teachers, even BAD teachers, are performing an absolutely critical public service. 1 teacher allows say, 30 women (or men) to enter the workforce. Without those teachers, all those workers would have to quit to take care of their kids. Since their work (even considered in its most short termist way) is so critical, they have overwhelming strike power. 1 teacher deciding to strike, effectively places 30 other workers on strike in support of them, but the other workers literally can't go back to work till the teacher is happy. This situation (barring like, enslaving the teachers) is unavoidable. As such, disruptions due to angry teachers must be minimized by providing sufficient pay and benefits that teaching is a reasonably desirable profession.
And again, this simply considers them as day to day childcare provisioners, completely neglecting that they are far far more important to society than that considered over any longer timescale.
Ehh. I'd be careful about assuming that the parents of children will support teachers strikes. They may be in a bad situation during those strikes, but the vitriol I've heard from parents during strikes and non-strike protests, can be pretty fucking vile. And it's not being directed at anyone except teachers.
Not all, for sure. But a good portion of them. The kind of parents who blame the teacher for their child struggling at school, despite not putting any effort into the child's education at home.
I've literally heard people arguing for pay CUTS to teachers wages. Because they clearly have it so easy, only working 6 hours a day, and getting so many weeks off each year.
Ignorant people piss me off.
They're saying that without the free childcare provided by schools, many parents won't be able to work, whether they support the strike or not.
Education has so many things bundled up in it. It's like Healthcare or Public Services. Each industry has a bunch of shit you'd expect Joe Public to understand. Turns out people are selfish and don't give a shit a lot of the time.
People get angry at nurses for striking, because it hurts patients and if they don't like it they should find another job. People get angry at public service employees because "don't I pay your salary?!" kicks in. People get angry at teachers because it makes their day inconvenient. They've already shown little tolerance for public schools, with charters and private schools booming.
I really think we're in the territory where legislation is as necessary to protect employees as a right to strike is. Especially in high cost of living low wage areas of the country.
+10
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Repeal Taft Hartley. It's outdated and would be a good direction for labor to start reclawing all the lost gains of the last 60 years.
With umbrellas in one hand and picket signs in the other, Los Angeles teachers braved cold, drizzly weather Monday morning as they walked off the job in their first strike in 30 years to demand smaller class sizes, more support staff at schools and better pay.
"Let's be clear, educators don't want to strike," United Teachers Los Angeles President Alex Caputo-Pearl said to a crowd of supporters during a morning news conference at John Marshall High School in Los Feliz. "We don't want to miss time with our students. We don't want to have less money for the car payment or less money for the school supplies that we always end up buying ourselves."
Effectively all these strikes show us what we've known for years. Teachers, even BAD teachers, are performing an absolutely critical public service. 1 teacher allows say, 30 women (or men) to enter the workforce. Without those teachers, all those workers would have to quit to take care of their kids. Since their work (even considered in its most short termist way) is so critical, they have overwhelming strike power. 1 teacher deciding to strike, effectively places 30 other workers on strike in support of them, but the other workers literally can't go back to work till the teacher is happy. This situation (barring like, enslaving the teachers) is unavoidable. As such, disruptions due to angry teachers must be minimized by providing sufficient pay and benefits that teaching is a reasonably desirable profession.
And again, this simply considers them as day to day childcare provisioners, completely neglecting that they are far far more important to society than that considered over any longer timescale.
Ehh. I'd be careful about assuming that the parents of children will support teachers strikes. They may be in a bad situation during those strikes, but the vitriol I've heard from parents during strikes and non-strike protests, can be pretty fucking vile. And it's not being directed at anyone except teachers.
Not all, for sure. But a good portion of them. The kind of parents who blame the teacher for their child struggling at school, despite not putting any effort into the child's education at home.
I've literally heard people arguing for pay CUTS to teachers wages. Because they clearly have it so easy, only working 6 hours a day, and getting so many weeks off each year.
Ignorant people piss me off.
They're saying that without the free childcare provided by schools, many parents won't be able to work, whether they support the strike or not.
Exactly. It doesn't matter what the parents THINK of the teachers. They need the incredibly discounted state provisioned childcare to enter the workforce, and the rich people whose kids go to fancy private schools need the poor people to be able to work.
Even excluding all the fringe benefits (like say, having an educated workforce, or preventing roaming gangs of ragamuffins looting your chimneys) teachers have us over a barrel. They should be well paid, and people should think, "Hmm, maybe I should become a teacher...." as a career choice because if that ISNT the case then teachers can hold the economy to ransom whenever they want.
Not surprising since "you're lucky you have a job at all" is the mantra in the US.
And the lack of protection for both unions, and employees in general, especially when it comes to firings.
Hard to start a union, when the boss can fire you as long as he doesn't use a discriminatory/disqualifying reason in most states.
Funny thing is, they actually can’t. It’s illegal to retaliate against employees for attempting to organize, per federal law, which trumps the at will employment of state law.
It’s only because an employer can fire you, then go on to survive the protracted legal battle that would follow, while you become poor and destitute, that allows them to do something shitty, despite the legality.
Not surprising since "you're lucky you have a job at all" is the mantra in the US.
And the lack of protection for both unions, and employees in general, especially when it comes to firings.
Hard to start a union, when the boss can fire you as long as he doesn't use a discriminatory/disqualifying reason in most states.
Funny thing is, they actually can’t. It’s illegal to retaliate against employees for attempting to organize, per federal law, which trumps the at will employment of state law.
It’s only because an employer can fire you, then go on to survive the protracted legal battle that would follow, while you become poor and destitute, that allows them to do something shitty, despite the legality.
It's really, really hard to prove, especially when they can just write poor performance reviews to justify it.
Not surprising since "you're lucky you have a job at all" is the mantra in the US.
And the lack of protection for both unions, and employees in general, especially when it comes to firings.
Hard to start a union, when the boss can fire you as long as he doesn't use a discriminatory/disqualifying reason in most states.
Funny thing is, they actually can’t. It’s illegal to retaliate against employees for attempting to organize, per federal law, which trumps the at will employment of state law.
It’s only because an employer can fire you, then go on to survive the protracted legal battle that would follow, while you become poor and destitute, that allows them to do something shitty, despite the legality.
I'm not referring to firing you for organizing. AFAIK, a lot, if not most states, have the ability to fire you, without cause. Your only recourse then, is to prove that it was for discriminatory or disqualifying reasons (ie, he fired me, and didn't say way, but he is openly bigoted against gays, and I was fired the day I finally came out).
Where I live most of the time, Australia, if you are fired, it needs to be for cause. And there's a government agency dedicated to fighting for worker's rights, Fair Work Australia, which among other things, will help you fight against unfair dismissal. Australia also has a fairly robust social safety net that helps to prevent you from becoming destitute while you're fighting said unfair dismissal.
Basically, from what I've seen (and I admit, I may be wrong, I'm not a workplace advocate), in America, the onus is on the employee to provide proof of being fired unfairly. In Australia, the onus is on the employer. That's not to say employers always get dicked over. Just that the employee is the one with leverage if the firing was in any way illegitimate.
Not surprising since "you're lucky you have a job at all" is the mantra in the US.
And the lack of protection for both unions, and employees in general, especially when it comes to firings.
Hard to start a union, when the boss can fire you as long as he doesn't use a discriminatory/disqualifying reason in most states.
Funny thing is, they actually can’t. It’s illegal to retaliate against employees for attempting to organize, per federal law, which trumps the at will employment of state law.
It’s only because an employer can fire you, then go on to survive the protracted legal battle that would follow, while you become poor and destitute, that allows them to do something shitty, despite the legality.
500:1 ratio of counselors to students is...that's backwards, right?
Journalists are bad at math, alright. Yes, it's backwards. Also: still WAY too high. My school is about 300:1 and they do not have a good understanding of a majority of those kids.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+12
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
500:1 ratio of counselors to students is...that's backwards, right?
Journalists are bad at math, alright. Yes, it's backwards. Also: still WAY too high. My school is about 300:1 and they do not have a good understanding of a majority of those kids.
I would imagine it is at least an improvement
+8
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
500:1 was about what they had at my high school and it was a nightmare
no school I went to ever had a real nurse on staff
usually all we had was one of the admin staff with a little basic medical training
I'm not sure what a full time nurse would have done with their day at any school I went to.
Administer shots for kids who need them, provide first aid to students and staff, administer vaccinations and keep immunization records, schedule screenings for various conditions... School nurses do a lot of stuff when they exist.
no school I went to ever had a real nurse on staff
usually all we had was one of the admin staff with a little basic medical training
I'm not sure what a full time nurse would have done with their day at any school I went to.
Administer shots for kids who need them, provide first aid to students and staff, administer vaccinations and keep immunization records, schedule screenings for various conditions... School nurses do a lot of stuff when they exist.
Every day though? Vaccinations and records takes maybe a few minutes per student and that's only what, flu shots? Maybe some scheduled vaccinations in the earlier years, but earlier schools are proportionally smaller too
People shouldn't be needing first aid constantly either or you have a bigger problem
Posts
Bad news: Jon Chait opens mouth in response, inserts both feet:
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-county-prosecutors-vote-to-unionize/article_e8422a8f-0fbb-584c-96b6-ff4391b6c6b0.html
I'm sure being members of the same union won't have any detrimental effects on their ability to prosecute for misconduct...
For a bit more context, the office chose to unionize to frustrate any attempts to reform the office that would come from the newly elected country prosecutor who just happens to be their first black county prosecutor. Also, the union supported his (white, shocker) opponent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/17/reformer-won-election-st-louis-county-da-his-future-subordinates-might-join-police-union
That being said, Gov. Bevin in Kentucky is trying to undo the work done by the striking Kentucky teachers because, as we all know, he is both evil and an asshole. He's calling a special session of the legislature to cut pensions sneakily at the last moment to ruin Christmas, again.
:hydra:
Effectively all these strikes show us what we've known for years. Teachers, even BAD teachers, are performing an absolutely critical public service. 1 teacher allows say, 30 women (or men) to enter the workforce. Without those teachers, all those workers would have to quit to take care of their kids. Since their work (even considered in its most short termist way) is so critical, they have overwhelming strike power. 1 teacher deciding to strike, effectively places 30 other workers on strike in support of them, but the other workers literally can't go back to work till the teacher is happy. This situation (barring like, enslaving the teachers) is unavoidable. As such, disruptions due to angry teachers must be minimized by providing sufficient pay and benefits that teaching is a reasonably desirable profession.
And again, this simply considers them as day to day childcare provisioners, completely neglecting that they are far far more important to society than that considered over any longer timescale.
Ehh. I'd be careful about assuming that the parents of children will support teachers strikes. They may be in a bad situation during those strikes, but the vitriol I've heard from parents during strikes and non-strike protests, can be pretty fucking vile. And it's not being directed at anyone except teachers.
Not all, for sure. But a good portion of them. The kind of parents who blame the teacher for their child struggling at school, despite not putting any effort into the child's education at home.
I've literally heard people arguing for pay CUTS to teachers wages. Because they clearly have it so easy, only working 6 hours a day, and getting so many weeks off each year.
Ignorant people piss me off.
They're saying that without the free childcare provided by schools, many parents won't be able to work, whether they support the strike or not.
People get angry at nurses for striking, because it hurts patients and if they don't like it they should find another job. People get angry at public service employees because "don't I pay your salary?!" kicks in. People get angry at teachers because it makes their day inconvenient. They've already shown little tolerance for public schools, with charters and private schools booming.
I really think we're in the territory where legislation is as necessary to protect employees as a right to strike is. Especially in high cost of living low wage areas of the country.
Exactly. It doesn't matter what the parents THINK of the teachers. They need the incredibly discounted state provisioned childcare to enter the workforce, and the rich people whose kids go to fancy private schools need the poor people to be able to work.
Even excluding all the fringe benefits (like say, having an educated workforce, or preventing roaming gangs of ragamuffins looting your chimneys) teachers have us over a barrel. They should be well paid, and people should think, "Hmm, maybe I should become a teacher...." as a career choice because if that ISNT the case then teachers can hold the economy to ransom whenever they want.
Source: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
And the lack of protection for both unions, and employees in general, especially when it comes to firings.
Hard to start a union, when the boss can fire you as long as he doesn't use a discriminatory/disqualifying reason in most states.
Per a local union organizer, Oakland teachers have begun a wild cat strike.
More of this, please.
Funny thing is, they actually can’t. It’s illegal to retaliate against employees for attempting to organize, per federal law, which trumps the at will employment of state law.
It’s only because an employer can fire you, then go on to survive the protracted legal battle that would follow, while you become poor and destitute, that allows them to do something shitty, despite the legality.
It's really, really hard to prove, especially when they can just write poor performance reviews to justify it.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I'm not referring to firing you for organizing. AFAIK, a lot, if not most states, have the ability to fire you, without cause. Your only recourse then, is to prove that it was for discriminatory or disqualifying reasons (ie, he fired me, and didn't say way, but he is openly bigoted against gays, and I was fired the day I finally came out).
Where I live most of the time, Australia, if you are fired, it needs to be for cause. And there's a government agency dedicated to fighting for worker's rights, Fair Work Australia, which among other things, will help you fight against unfair dismissal. Australia also has a fairly robust social safety net that helps to prevent you from becoming destitute while you're fighting said unfair dismissal.
Basically, from what I've seen (and I admit, I may be wrong, I'm not a workplace advocate), in America, the onus is on the employee to provide proof of being fired unfairly. In Australia, the onus is on the employer. That's not to say employers always get dicked over. Just that the employee is the one with leverage if the firing was in any way illegitimate.
So what're you are actually saying is they can.
Labor journalist.
They were technically asking for 6.5% but the money was never the major thing.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Journalists are bad at math, alright. Yes, it's backwards. Also: still WAY too high. My school is about 300:1 and they do not have a good understanding of a majority of those kids.
I would imagine it is at least an improvement
but also maybe those counselors were just shit
This is like, regular. I'm not sure I've been in a school with a full time nurse since elementary in the early 90s.
usually all we had was one of the admin staff with a little basic medical training
Though my high school was <5 minutes from the hospital and all lower schools <10
Wow, it’s like unions work or something
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
Nice to see some solidarity.
Every school I ever went to had a nurse, I think.
Whats a community school?
One focused on partnerships with community organizations that promote social welfare. Health services, social services, etc.
I'm not sure what a full time nurse would have done with their day at any school I went to.
Administer shots for kids who need them, provide first aid to students and staff, administer vaccinations and keep immunization records, schedule screenings for various conditions... School nurses do a lot of stuff when they exist.
Every day though? Vaccinations and records takes maybe a few minutes per student and that's only what, flu shots? Maybe some scheduled vaccinations in the earlier years, but earlier schools are proportionally smaller too
People shouldn't be needing first aid constantly either or you have a bigger problem