R.W., a FB friend, posted this:
B.R.: Can you explain this? I'd like to hear what the conservative position is, and generally what this cartoon means.
R.W.: Yes, you see the child or KID as it is refered to, represents education in general. And the Unions are demanding more money from the tax payers (on the phone) or "Education" is going to suffer. The conservative position is the teachers should be taken out and shot. Chicago is broke. Unemployement is a critical levels and these idiots turned down a 16% raise when people I know are getting 2% and LESS! IF they have a job at all! Takes real BALLS but the Democrats in Chicago will problably cave because the teachers unions pump millions into democrat campaigns.
B.R.: Okay. But the person on the phone is the National Endowment for the Arts...
R.W.: National Education Association = NEA
B.R.: Ah that's less crazy. Thanks.
R.B.: Yep, it's the teachers fault. Good one.
Me: Yup, teachers are never at fault. Good one.
B.R.: Honest question: has the GOP always been anti-union, or is this a recent thing? I really don't remember so much animosity toward teachers before these last few years.
Me: I can't speak for the GOP since I'm not a republican, but I think most people on the Right like the concept of unions as a free market expression of consolidating power to further a cause. However, the quasi-socialist, corrupt, break-you-if-you-don't-yield attitude of a lot of unions is horrifying. Google "Trumka quotes" for a sampling.
B.R.: And do you think the NEA is one of those unions?
B.R.: And how are unions socialist? You know me; I disregard labels like that unless there are valid comparisons each time. Thanks Rich
Me: I was a public school teacher for 5 years. I am absolutely certain.
Me: Quasi-socialist.
Me: Do teachers advance based on productivity, merit, or results? Or do they advance based on years of service?
B.R.: Okay, can you tell me which socialist tenets that unions subscribe to? I don't know how teachers advance, I'm not part of that system. What I do know from reading a lot, knowing teachers, and the universal joke circulating since my birth, that most public school teachers don't make as much money as they deserve.
Me: Did you google "trumka quotes?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p71oypj6hHM
S.H.: Both FDR and AFL-CIO founding President George Meany opposed public sector unions. Here's why they're fundamentally a bad idea: In the private sector, companies who are in negotiations with a union are negotiating with their own money. That places a built-in limit on how much the company can give up - if they give up too much, they go out of business, and *nobody* has a job. But the "management" role in negotiations with public sector unions is typically filled by elected officials, who are *not* negotiating with their own money. They are negotiating with the taxpayers' money, which some of them seem to regard as a limitless resource.
This is a clear recipe for corruption. The public sector unions contribute heavily to elect politicians who are more likely to give them what they want because they want to keep those campaign dollars coming in. There's no down side for the politicians, because it's not their money that they're giving away, and, frequently, the bills (e.g., for those unfunded pension liabilities) won't come due until long after they've left office. As an aside, if you really want to scare the hell out of yourself, just Google "unfunded pension liabilities" and do some reading about the time bomb that's ticking out there.
The teachers' unions are just as guilty of this behavior as any other public sector union. In addition, teachers' unions are almost universally opposed to any attempt to be measured on how well they do their job, as most of us are. Compensation is nearly always based on things like seniority and how many continuing education credits they've earned. Example: my former daughter-in-law was a teacher in the Everett school district. She was a great teacher, and the students loved her. She was laid off strictly on the basis of seniority, and ended up having to move out of state to find a job.
Good teachers are indeed worth their weight in gold, and are frequently underpaid. Unfortunately, the teachers' unions stand in the way of preferentially giving those good teachers the rewards they deserve, and that's one of the biggest things that has to change if we seriously want to improve the public school system. And,
by the way, this is why so many conservatives support the concept of charter schools, which typically are not unionized.
R.W.: S.H. just defined socialism for you, B.R.. Because of the Union, all the teachers are paid the same. So the great ones "worth their weight in gold" are cheated out their just deserved compensation, and the teachers that should be strung up are protected and paid too much. In essence, money is taken from those who really earned it, and given to those who didn't. And that is socialism in a nut shell."
No comments:
Post a Comment