<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Well, when you stated we needed to disband teacher</span>
’<span style="line-height:1.4em;">s unions, I assumed you meant that they had it too easy</span>
…
They have it far, far too hard. Unions exist to constrict their rights, pay, and benefits. A free market teaching system would see corporations competing for the best teachers (with incentives to the aforementioned categories) and would also see terrible teachers (who are presently unfireable for anything less than lawbreaking) punished, fired, and removed from the profession.
Well, when you stated we needed to disband teacher’s unions, I assumed you meant that they had it too easy…
They have it far, far too hard. Unions exist to constrict their rights, pay, and benefits. A free market teaching system would see corporations competing for the best teachers (with incentives to the aforementioned categories) and would also see terrible teachers (who are presently unfireable for anything less than lawbreaking) punished, fired, and removed from the profession.
While I agree with you, as it turns out, about the lot of teachers (as the son of two teachers, as it happens),
I'm afraid I don't agree as to the reason unions exist...it may be how they function when corrupt, but it surely isn't why people form them...
and it's probably useful to note that the idea of the market driving the value of a given group can hardly be said to reliably
drive it up for every group.
But we certainly don't disagree as to what teachers have versus what they so often deserve.
While I agree with you, as it turns out, about the lot of teachers (as the son of two teachers, as it happens),
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I'm afraid I don't agree as to the reason unions exist...it may be how they function when corrupt, but it surely isn't why people form them...</span>
and it's probably useful to note that the idea of the market driving the value of a given group can hardly be said to reliably
drive it up for every group.
But we certainly don't disagree as to what teachers have versus what they so often deserve.
Any government employee union is inherently corrupt. Why? Because market forces do not exist and employees are effectively insulated from competition. Unions in the private sector balance the interests of businesses against labor. When the union overplays their hand, the business collapses. When the business fails to listen to the employees, employees may strike or demand wage hikes.
I disapprove of unions in most cases, but there are rare occasions they may in fact be beneficial. This is not the case with public sector employees and there are very few functions of government that cannot be done better and cheaper by the private sector.
While I agree with you, as it turns out, about the lot of teachers (as the son of two teachers, as it happens),
I'm afraid I don't agree as to the reason unions exist...it may be how they function when corrupt, but it surely isn't why people form them...
and it's probably useful to note that the idea of the market driving the value of a given group can hardly be said to reliably
drive it up for every group.
But we certainly don't disagree as to what teachers have versus what they so often deserve.
Any government employee union is inherently corrupt. Why? Because market forces do not exist and the employees are effectively insulated from competition. Unions in the private sector balance the interests of businesses and labor. If the union overplays their hand, the business collapses. If the business fails to listen to the employees, they may strike or demand wage hikes. I disapprove of unions in most cases, but there are rare occasions they may in fact be beneficial. This is not the case with public sector employees and there are very few functions of government that cannot be done better and cheaper by the private sector.
To me, the problem with your reasoning is that, while the union protecting employees may be corrupt,
the business or government entity they are to be protected from most certainly is.
Further, those venal entities always have the organization (unity of purpose, ironically),
and the financial means not to play the game you describe one-on-one with workers,
but play it instead by controlling and co-opting regulating and legislating bodies.
They may be imperfect, but unions strike me as the only hope
of effectively directing or focusing the numerical potential of everyday workers.
And we prove that every time we vote against our own best interests.
?Anyway, the soap box is starting to chafe, so I'll step down now, I think.
Any government employee union is inherently corrupt. Why? Because market forces do not exist and the employees are effectively insulated from competition. Unions in the private sector balance the interests of businesses and labor. If the union overplays their hand, the business collapses. If the business fails to listen to the employees, they may strike or demand wage hikes. I disapprove of unions in most cases, but there are rare occasions they may in fact be beneficial. This is not the case with public sector employees and there are very few functions of government that cannot be done better and cheaper by the private sector.
You're logic is flawed in that many government jobs will never have competition whether the employees are unionized or not. While some jobs can be done cheaper by the private, it doesn't necessarily mean it'll be better. Btw most companies that get a government contract usually fleece the government instead of saving them money.
To me, the problem with your reasoning is that, while the union protecting employees may be corrupt,
the business or government entity they are to be protected from most certainly is.
Further, those venal entities <span style="line-height:1.4em;">always have the organization (unity of purpose, ironically),</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">and the financial means not to play the game you describe </span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">one-on-one with workers,</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">but play it instead by controlling and co-opting regulating and legislating bodies.</span>
They may be imperfect, but unions strike me as the only hope
of effectively directing or focusing the <span style="line-height:1.4em;">numerical potential of everyday workers.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">And we prove that every time we vote against our own best interests.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">?Anyway, the soap box </span>
is starting<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> to chafe, so I'll step down now, I think.</span>
You stated: "To me, the problem with your reasoning is that, while the union protecting employees may be corrupt, the business or government entity they are to be protected from most certainly is."
All people are self-interested, therefore the organizations and businesses they work for reflect this same self-interest.
In the case of the business, market forces (aka: competitors) act as a counterbalance and keep inherent corruptions in check. Not so with governmental organizations.
No matter how one chooses to characterize it, "greed", "corruption", etc., are points of view which describe self-interest, something fundamental to all living entities.
There's no need for you to be so rude towards EauVive.
If you don't want to answer a perfectly reasonable question in a civil fashion, then shut up.
The perfectly reasonable "I have no clue about this subject except for this one "fact" that is wrong and I can't be bothered to spend 10 seconds to look it up on this thing we call the internet which everyone knows I have because I posted this on a forum"?
Please. The one "fact" was another dig against poor neolithic Americans without (flawed) NFC systems and public schools that don't start till kids are 6 years old.
His follow up question was the same "but is it free and official like we have it here?" Yes, it's free and part of the official curriculum otherwise I would not have mentioned it when he claimed we didn't have public (aka free) schooling before age 6. Hell, we even have pre-K assessment testing at age 4. School systems have been adding pre-K programs aggressively.
US public school systems have become rigorous where Kindergarden is the new 1st grade (and sometimes 2nd grade) and we're seeing far more skill and drill teaching at the pre-K/K level that didn't use to start till 1st or 2nd grade. 10 years ago only 15% of kindergartners could read at the end of the year. In Montgomery County Maryland the number is now 90%.
Whether this is really a good thing or not I don't know. We don't have a lot of play time any more.
The perfectly reasonable "I have no clue about this subject except for this one "fact" that is wrong and I can't be bothered to spend 10 seconds to look it up on this thing we call the internet which everyone knows I have because I posted this on a forum"?
Please. The one "fact" was another dig against poor neolithic Americans without (flawed) NFC systems and public schools that don't start till kids are 6 years old.
That's called ‘Clovis culture’ (though it was more paleolithic than neolithic, in fact ). Fair enough: I could have more or less figured it out myself.
Frankly, I asked because I faintly remember an American series episode in which somebody apologized because (s)he was out of money to pay the kindergarten. That's what kindled my curiosity.
Quote:
Whether this is really a good thing or not I don't know. We don't have a lot of play time any more.
Well, every scientific study conducted over here comparing the performance of children entering the school system at 3 versus those entering it at 6, when it becomes mandatory, pointed at a clear advantage for the first, especially in socialization. So I'm not surprised by these figures.
Quote:
So in short...bugger off.
Yep, I think it’s a good idea I don’t tack on anything on trade unions… I won't pour oil on fire, as we say over here.
Comments
Easier said than done.
Oh, certainly. Still, it’s the change that needs to be made if education is to get itself out of the rut that is killing it.
They have it far, far too hard. Unions exist to constrict their rights, pay, and benefits. A free market teaching system would see corporations competing for the best teachers (with incentives to the aforementioned categories) and would also see terrible teachers (who are presently unfireable for anything less than lawbreaking) punished, fired, and removed from the profession.
While I agree with you, as it turns out, about the lot of teachers (as the son of two teachers, as it happens),
I'm afraid I don't agree as to the reason unions exist...it may be how they function when corrupt, but it surely isn't why people form them...
and it's probably useful to note that the idea of the market driving the value of a given group can hardly be said to reliably
drive it up for every group.
But we certainly don't disagree as to what teachers have versus what they so often deserve.
Any government employee union is inherently corrupt. Why? Because market forces do not exist and employees are effectively insulated from competition. Unions in the private sector balance the interests of businesses against labor. When the union overplays their hand, the business collapses. When the business fails to listen to the employees, employees may strike or demand wage hikes.
I disapprove of unions in most cases, but there are rare occasions they may in fact be beneficial. This is not the case with public sector employees and there are very few functions of government that cannot be done better and cheaper by the private sector.
While I agree with you, as it turns out, about the lot of teachers (as the son of two teachers, as it happens),
I'm afraid I don't agree as to the reason unions exist...it may be how they function when corrupt, but it surely isn't why people form them...
and it's probably useful to note that the idea of the market driving the value of a given group can hardly be said to reliably
drive it up for every group.
But we certainly don't disagree as to what teachers have versus what they so often deserve.
Any government employee union is inherently corrupt. Why? Because market forces do not exist and the employees are effectively insulated from competition. Unions in the private sector balance the interests of businesses and labor. If the union overplays their hand, the business collapses. If the business fails to listen to the employees, they may strike or demand wage hikes. I disapprove of unions in most cases, but there are rare occasions they may in fact be beneficial. This is not the case with public sector employees and there are very few functions of government that cannot be done better and cheaper by the private sector.
To me, the problem with your reasoning is that, while the union protecting employees may be corrupt,
the business or government entity they are to be protected from most certainly is.
Further, those venal entities always have the organization (unity of purpose, ironically),
and the financial means not to play the game you describe one-on-one with workers,
but play it instead by controlling and co-opting regulating and legislating bodies.
They may be imperfect, but unions strike me as the only hope
of effectively directing or focusing the numerical potential of everyday workers.
And we prove that every time we vote against our own best interests.
?Anyway, the soap box is starting to chafe, so I'll step down now, I think.
You're logic is flawed in that many government jobs will never have competition whether the employees are unionized or not. While some jobs can be done cheaper by the private, it doesn't necessarily mean it'll be better. Btw most companies that get a government contract usually fleece the government instead of saving them money.
You stated: "To me, the problem with your reasoning is that, while the union protecting employees may be corrupt, the business or government entity they are to be protected from most certainly is."
All people are self-interested, therefore the organizations and businesses they work for reflect this same self-interest.
In the case of the business, market forces (aka: competitors) act as a counterbalance and keep inherent corruptions in check. Not so with governmental organizations.
No matter how one chooses to characterize it, "greed", "corruption", etc., are points of view which describe self-interest, something fundamental to all living entities.
There's no need for you to be so rude towards EauVive.
If you don't want to answer a perfectly reasonable question in a civil fashion, then shut up.
The perfectly reasonable "I have no clue about this subject except for this one "fact" that is wrong and I can't be bothered to spend 10 seconds to look it up on this thing we call the internet which everyone knows I have because I posted this on a forum"?
Please. The one "fact" was another dig against poor neolithic Americans without (flawed) NFC systems and public schools that don't start till kids are 6 years old.
His follow up question was the same "but is it free and official like we have it here?" Yes, it's free and part of the official curriculum otherwise I would not have mentioned it when he claimed we didn't have public (aka free) schooling before age 6. Hell, we even have pre-K assessment testing at age 4. School systems have been adding pre-K programs aggressively.
US public school systems have become rigorous where Kindergarden is the new 1st grade (and sometimes 2nd grade) and we're seeing far more skill and drill teaching at the pre-K/K level that didn't use to start till 1st or 2nd grade. 10 years ago only 15% of kindergartners could read at the end of the year. In Montgomery County Maryland the number is now 90%.
Whether this is really a good thing or not I don't know. We don't have a lot of play time any more.
So in short...bugger off.
The perfectly reasonable "I have no clue about this subject except for this one "fact" that is wrong and I can't be bothered to spend 10 seconds to look it up on this thing we call the internet which everyone knows I have because I posted this on a forum"?
Please. The one "fact" was another dig against poor neolithic Americans without (flawed) NFC systems and public schools that don't start till kids are 6 years old.
That's called ‘Clovis culture’ (though it was more paleolithic than neolithic, in fact
). Fair enough: I could have more or less figured it out myself.
Frankly, I asked because I faintly remember an American series episode in which somebody apologized because (s)he was out of money to pay the kindergarten. That's what kindled my curiosity.
Whether this is really a good thing or not I don't know. We don't have a lot of play time any more.
Well, every scientific study conducted over here comparing the performance of children entering the school system at 3 versus those entering it at 6, when it becomes mandatory, pointed at a clear advantage for the first, especially in socialization. So I'm not surprised by these figures.
So in short...bugger off.
Yep, I think it’s a good idea I don’t tack on anything on trade unions… I won't pour oil on fire, as we say over here.