We also have a post up about this at the AFT NCLblog.
http://letsgetitright.org//blog/
My stupid sister quit her government job for a job that paid about $2000 a year more than she was making. At her low salary, that was a significant increase. Unfortunately, the job did not come with health benefits or even last very long. I too am a strong believer in unions!
I read about that case yesterday in both the Post and Daily News. Sorry I didn't send it to you. Many corporations are also finding ways to fire good employees for the most ridiculous reasons. One major beer producer fired an employee for drinking another brand on his own time, and the courts upheld the decision.
It's remarkable that more Americans don't see the value of unions. We're fed such drek by the major media that we're even smart enough to look after our best interests.
The problem isn't Americans' intelligence; it's that most big unions kind of suck. They refuse to revisit positions that date from the Depression era, and in any case they seem more concerned with running their PACs than with looking out for their members. Unions that have modernized and developed solid PR operations have done pretty well - look at the SIEU (compared to, say, the AFL-CIO).
You're right that some people wouldn't want to join a union, but I doubt its because they "don't see the value" of unions. They'd rather bet on their skills and accept at-will employment in exchange for potentially huge salaries, etc. Sure, unions give you job stability, but almost by definition they bolster less talented workers and create a ceiling for more talented ones. For example, I doubt young investment bankers would be particularly interested in forming a union.
I am a believer in unions and have belonged to several during my worklife. The sad thing is that the unions that DO exist are hanging on by their fingernails and the courts do nothing to help them. Union-busting has been going on for a couple of decades now, and it gets stronger each year. People can not afford to strike for any length of time, and there are always scabs that will cross a picket line for a paycheck,even if its temporary.
The union did not support me. I still feel that I would have gotten more for my money if I'd just flushed it all down the toilet and watched it swirl.
I'm sorry. I despise the union.
I doubt young investment bankers would be particularly interested in forming a union.
And I doubt most Americans are young investment bankers. From your comments, one would suppose the charters were creating wealthy teachers.
We don't have millions of Americans without health insurance because there are too many unions. And most of them, frankly, are not wealthy. To suppose the wealthy are representative of most people is preposterous.
The government doesn't fight tooth and nail against unionization because it's concerned about working people. Nor does it oppose raising minimum wage for our benefit. Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich might give you some notion of what non-union minimum wage Americans look like.
Anyone wondering about the effects of union need only compare Costco and Wal-Mart employees. Or unionized vs. non-unionized teachers.
I'm far more familiar with the flaws of unions than you'll ever be. With all their flaws, the young teacher, who just got a job at Brooklyn Tech, doesn't plan to ever take another non-union job.
Dusty,
I couldn't agree more. Don't forget to vote.
Mamacita,
Sorry we disagree. You're still one of my absolute favorite bloggers ever.
Calm down, I actually wasn't trying to stake out an anti-union position or make any comment about charter school teachers. My point was simply that the majority of big unions in this country are stuck in the past and that they bear lot of the responsibility for their decline. The SIEU is proof that unions can still thrive in the current political climate if they reach out to new segments of workers and adapt to new economic conditions.
And I wasn't suggesting that most people are wealthy. Believe me, I am more familiar with abject poverty than you think. I'm just saying that many young professionals - not a majority, but not a small group, either - have good reason not to be interested in the Depression-era unionism that most unions in this country still offer. If unions really want to survive, they have to broaden their appeal - again, look at the SIEU.
Thanks for your advice, but I'm quite calm. It was you who brought up the potentially high salaries that Fox News watchers believe to be in their future if only we can rid ourselves of that darn estate tax.
The UFT gave away the farm to appease right-wing interests, and the Post and the News still vilify us religiously. I'm afraid nothing but the total destruction of unions will make them happy, and it's remarkable Weingarten didn't know that.
I did.
The very real story of this very real teacher suggests that unions are vital to our interests. The appeal of the new-fashioned union-busting of GW Bush and friends, however modern it may be, eludes me utterly.
Did you know that Andy doesn't believe teachers have REAL jobs.
Check out his comment to Mildly Melancholy on the fact that she and teachers have this time off.
I don't think he said we don't have real jobs. What he said was that we aren't real grownups.
You could take that a number of ways. A lot of teachers I had were real grownups, with no joy in life whatsoever. I think there's something to be said for childlike qualities, and the hope that our children never lose them.
Unfortunately, the modern US is pushing all its people to be grownups. Grow up and forget about health benefits. Grow up and get rid of those archaic child labor laws. Grow up and work for minimum wage.
Grow up and be ready to get fired for discussing unionism at work.
When did I say anything about teachers specifically? I thought we were talking about the union movement, but I have nothing but respect for teachers. And when did I bring up the estate tax? For the record, I think repealing the estate tax is one of the stupidest policy ideas I've ever heard.
Don't confuse me with the News's or the Post's editorial board. Unions are important. My point is that even if the political climate is hostile to unions, whining about it doesn't solve anything. Calling people like me anti-union for pointing that out won't help you, either. Unions can grow and thrive even in this climate with the right leadership, and some have. Unfortunately, teachers unions today do a lot to deprofessionalize what should be one of the most respected professions. I hope that changes.
You didn't bring up the estate tax. I did--to make the point that a whole lot of Americans think its repeal will benefit them.
I'd say many of those same Americans think unions will not benefit them. They're dead wrong, as anyone familiar with the history of labor knows.
Your points, while clever, are superficial and utterly lacking in specifics. Furthermore, while it may be convenient to ignore everything I've written, or label it "whining," that doesn't constitute argument either.
Perhaps it's escaped your attention that this blog tends to talk about teachers. Arguing they'd be better off without unions shows little respect for them or their intelligence, and no knowledge whatsoever of history, let alone the post to which you chose to respond.
Again, I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying teachers would be better off without unions. I'm saying they'd be better off with better unions - unions that push for professionalism. In particular, I wish teachers unions would take the lead on teacher quality - agreeing on standards and enforcing them the way, say, doctors do. I think they ought to find merit pay systems they can live with rather than reflexively rejecting the idea. Those two things would go a long way towards professionalizing teaching. You and I both agree, after all, that bad teachers shouldn't be teaching, and that retaining more good teachers is they key to improving public education.
And schoolgal, "Andy" is a pretty common name.
OK Andy--now you're making a little more sense to me.
However, you're laboring under several misconceptions. First, the UFT has supported higher standards for teachers for years. The city has chosen, in order to artificially suppress pay, to lower them routinesly.
Also, when a study recommended merit pay to Klein (I'm sorry, but I can't remember which one), they specifically said it should come after all teachers were paid competitively. Klein chose to embrace the merit pay suggestion and ignore the competitive pay one.
And mostly, in the suburb where I live, we don't need to talk about merit pay. We receive hundreds of applicants for teaching jobs, interview and audition them, and pick the best. Those who fail to live up to expectations are not asked back, let alone given tenure.
You think Klein wants good teachers, but he does not. He'll take them if he can get them. I wrote in some detail here about what the chancellor wants.
If he can't get good teachers, scapegoats will do just fine.
Of course we'd be better off with better unions, and that's been a repeated, if not dominant theme of this blog. I'm afraid, however, you and I might have deep disagreements on what precisely constitutes "better."
Are you saying you are not the Andy who made that remark to MM?
Commenting by HaloScan
