Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/12/2016 4:44:39 AM)
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/union-fees-in-jeopardy-in-plain-english/#more-237085 Seems the more liberal side didn't want to argue the merrits of the case, They didn't want to overturn Aboot. I personally think that civil servants serve at the whim and will of the people, not the union. I believe that unions are political because they dictate within their agreements budget decisions of the government. I believe they force support for issues that the individual does not agree with, but because the individual is a member of the union, must support because the decision isn't made by the individual but by the union.

servantforuse -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/12/2016 5:55:37 AM)
In Wisconsin the voters took control of this a few years ago. The unions are no longer in a position to dictate contracts for teachers and other public employees.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/12/2016 6:34:42 AM)
Merit based unions are interesting. People used to, and sometimes still do, get paid by how many items they produce in a day. By having merit numerically evaluated in a manner not tainted by bias or opinion, you can retain group negotiating rights and incentive hard work. Problem is with teachers, one class may want to learn, the next may not, so mathemitizing an evaluation of teacher performance is difficult if not downright impossible to do accurately

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/12/2016 11:10:21 AM)
No less people than Gompers, Meany, and FDR were against unionizaton of the public sector. The documents filed with the supreme court say strikes are 26x more likely to occur with unionized teachers than rtw teachers. And the durations are longer. In an employee / employer situation the employer has a reason to fight the unions. Our public "servents" rely on votes - and so too often do not have an adversarial relationship.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/12/2016 2:45:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Merit based unions are interesting. People used to, and sometimes still do, get paid by how many items they produce in a day. By having merit numerically evaluated in a manner not tainted by bias or opinion, you can retain group negotiating rights and incentive hard work. Problem is with teachers, one class may want to learn, the next may not, so mathemitizing an evaluation of teacher performance is difficult if not downright impossible to do accurately I have gotten into lots of - ahem - "discussions" with liberals over teachers, teacher's unions, etc. Those liberals and I agreed on two points, and those were, pretty much, the one you elucidated: it's damn difficult to accurately use merit to base promotions, pay, etc., but also that the current union method isn't all that great, either. Where we couldn't agree, however, is in working towards finding an equitable balance between merit and tenure-based systems. It's going to be typical that a 5-year teacher is going to be better than a first year teacher, simply because of experience, and that has little to do with teaching ability. But, is a teacher with 15 years that much better than a teacher with "only" 10 years? At some point in time, tenure becomes moot, when it comes to determining which teacher is doing a better job. You don't have to be good to get more in a tenure-based union. You only have to do well enough to not get fired (or enough to get brought back after being fired). Merit-based systems are better when the results can be quantified. That's where teaching is in such a fucked up place. Results are not easily quantifiable (I wouldn't agree it's "downright impossible"), so a strict merit system is going to be patently unfair, but a strict tenure system has shown itself to be a poor choice, too. My alma mater had a teacher who was 74 when she got fired several years ago. She was already a long-time teacher when I was going through school in the late '80's. She was fired because she fell asleep in class almost daily. After a couple months, the union got her her job back based on undiagnosed (at the time) sleep apnea, leading to her inability to stay awake (and, as a sleep apnea sufferer, I can completely understand the difficulty she had staying awake). The pattern of falling asleep in class, as it turned out, wasn't new, and had been going on for several years, at the very least. I know this was an extreme case and shouldn't be the basis for scrapping the entire tenure-based system. There has to be a better way than the current system, and it needs to be found asap.

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/12/2016 5:03:08 PM)
What public benefit do teachers unions convey?

DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/12/2016 6:30:40 PM)
From a strict right wing economic numerical analysis, by having teacher unions, negotiating power of employees increases. By increasing wages, you increase quality of the workers seeking a position. Therefore unions increase wages which increase competence. It's the general wage to merit correlation that is the basis of what people falsely call American capitalism

Termyn8or -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/12/2016 7:31:17 PM)
Hundred grand a year. "This Is Are Story". T^T

DesideriScuri -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/13/2016 6:21:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler From a strict right wing economic numerical analysis, by having teacher unions, negotiating power of employees increases. By increasing wages, you increase quality of the workers seeking a position. Therefore unions increase wages which increase competence. It's the general wage to merit correlation that is the basis of what people falsely call American capitalism Except, they don't. That's the problem with the current tenure-based system. As long as you're good enough to not get fired, you're going to have a job, and your raises will come as long as you continue to be good enough (or don't do something really fucking stupid) to not get fired. Dealing with teacher unions means you can expect an applicant of a certain quality level. I think State laws determine the requirements for a person to be a teacher, and the unions will make sure it doesn't allow members that don't meet those requirements (if a teachers' union represents non-teachers [ie. custodians, office staff, etc.], those members will likely be required to only meet the requirements of those positions). However, membership in a teachers' union only guarantees the members at least meet the lowest standard. It's not a guarantee of quality, expertise, etc.

mnottertail -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/13/2016 7:28:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux No less people than Gompers, Meany, and FDR were against unionizaton of the public sector. No. Just no. What they said was they did not see how a union could bargain with the federal government. David and Goliath being one thing, David and god being another.

Musicmystery -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/13/2016 1:45:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/union-fees-in-jeopardy-in-plain-english/#more-237085 Seems the more liberal side didn't want to argue the merrits of the case, They didn't want to overturn Aboot. I personally think that civil servants serve at the whim and will of the people, not the union. I believe that unions are political because they dictate within their agreements budget decisions of the government. I believe they force support for issues that the individual does not agree with, but because the individual is a member of the union, must support because the decision isn't made by the individual but by the union. I believe you don't understand how representation works.

Musicmystery -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/13/2016 1:48:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux No less people than Gompers, Meany, and FDR were against unionizaton of the public sector. The documents filed with the supreme court say strikes are 26x more likely to occur with unionized teachers than rtw teachers. And the durations are longer. In an employee / employer situation the employer has a reason to fight the unions. Our public "servents" rely on votes - and so too often do not have an adversarial relationship. Just the opposite. Before unions, strikes were common -- as many as 26/year. That number dropped dramatically with collective bargaining to 0-2/yr.

Musicmystery -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/13/2016 1:49:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse In Wisconsin the voters took control of this a few years ago. The unions are no longer in a position to dictate contracts for teachers and other public employees. They don't "dictate" the contracts. There's a long process of meetings and member surveys to draw up union objectives prior to the negotiation. Then the membership votes the contract up or down.

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/13/2016 2:27:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux No less people than Gompers, Meany, and FDR were against unionizaton of the public sector. The documents filed with the supreme court say strikes are 26x more likely to occur with unionized teachers than rtw teachers. And the durations are longer. In an employee / employer situation the employer has a reason to fight the unions. Our public "servents" rely on votes - and so too often do not have an adversarial relationship. Just the opposite. Before unions, strikes were common -- as many as 26/year. That number dropped dramatically with collective bargaining to 0-2/yr. You are incorrect. Popular "wisdom" but the briefs at the court show exactly the opposite. Strikes at union represented school districts occur 26 times more often than RTW states. If you think I am incorrect - find me a section from the Supreme Court amicus that supports your belief.

servantforuse -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/13/2016 3:14:47 PM)
When liberal school boards negotiate with teachers unions the unions do dictate their contracts. Scott Walker and a republican legislature put an end to all of it.

KenDckey -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/13/2016 5:00:36 PM)
My son said the CTA took over representation of the trades at least in his district. He went to the Union Rep about something and they told him that they had no clue what he was talking about. They neither understood the trade or the termonology of the trade. He asked why then did they take over the trade representation after having good representation by their parent union. He said he was told that the teachers were afraid of a trade strike and then they wouldn't be allowed to cross the picket line.

Musicmystery -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 8:11:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux No less people than Gompers, Meany, and FDR were against unionizaton of the public sector. The documents filed with the supreme court say strikes are 26x more likely to occur with unionized teachers than rtw teachers. And the durations are longer. In an employee / employer situation the employer has a reason to fight the unions. Our public "servents" rely on votes - and so too often do not have an adversarial relationship. Just the opposite. Before unions, strikes were common -- as many as 26/year. That number dropped dramatically with collective bargaining to 0-2/yr. You are incorrect. Popular "wisdom" but the briefs at the court show exactly the opposite. Strikes at union represented school districts occur 26 times more often than RTW states. If you think I am incorrect - find me a section from the Supreme Court amicus that supports your belief. Sounds like an apples and oranges situation. In New York City, for example, and New York State generally you're wrong. In fact, NY officials are practically begging for the court to uphold current law for this reason. At the very least, you're cherry picking.

Musicmystery -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 8:14:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse When liberal school boards negotiate with teachers unions the unions do dictate their contracts. Scott Walker and a republican legislature put an end to all of it. Not at all, same reasons I shared before (which you ignored, other than to suck off Scott). My girl is on the state negotiating team. I get an earful about every stage of this very long and very collaborative process. If your voice isn't part of it, it's because you decided not to speak.

TwistedBindWeed -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 8:28:03 AM)
To my way of thinking (true)negotiation is a 2 way process - not quick and labourisous but at least should lead to an outcome that both sides can agree to and be committed .

DesideriScuri -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 11:09:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TwistedBindWeed To my way of thinking (true)negotiation is a 2 way process - not quick and labourisous but at least should lead to an outcome that both sides can agree to and be committed . One of the problems with public unions is that those at the negotiating table aren't negotiating with their own money. They are negotiating with the public dollars. If the two sides come to an agreement that requires more public dollars, the general citizenry will have to fork it over. Teacher negotiations aren't "about the children." It's about the teachers and the union. Will Billy and Sally get a better education because their teachers have a 1.5% increase in their step raises? Will Billy and Sally get a worse education if the teachers have to now have a co-pay for medical procedures and office visits? Of course neither of those things are the case, but that doesn't really matter, as long as the right story is told. Ever wonder how "it's for the children" when a teacher union strikes?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875