# Firing tenured teachers can be a costly and tortuous task



## Big Don (May 4, 2009)

*Firing tenured teachers can be a costly and tortuous task*

The LA Times Excerpt:
A Times investigation finds the process so arduous that many principals don't even try, except in the very worst cases. Jettisoning a teacher solely because he or she can't teach is rare.
                 By Jason Song

           May 3, 2009

        The eighth-grade boy held out his wrists for teacher Carlos Polanco to see. 

He had just explained to Polanco and his history classmates at Virgil Middle School in Koreatown  why he had been absent: He had been in the hospital after an attempt at suicide.

Polanco looked at the cuts and said they "were weak," according to witness accounts in documents filed with the state. "Carve deeper next time," he was said to have told the boy.

"Look," Polanco allegedly said, "you can't even kill yourself." 

The boy's classmates joined in, with one advising how to cut a main artery, according to the witnesses.

"See," Polanco was quoted as saying, "even he knows how to commit suicide better than you." 

 The Los Angeles school board, citing Polanco's poor judgment, voted to fire him.

But Polanco, who contended that he had been misunderstood, kept his job. A little-known review commission overruled the board, saying that although the teacher had made the statements, he had meant no harm.

It's remarkably difficult to fire a tenured public school teacher in California, a Times investigation has found. The path can be laborious and labyrinthine, in some cases involving years of investigation, union grievances, administrative appeals, court challenges and re-hearings.

Not only is the process arduous, but some districts are particularly unsuccessful in navigating its complexities. The Los Angeles Unified School District sees the majority of its appealed dismissals overturned, and its administrators are far less likely even to try firing a tenured teacher than those in other districts.
END EXCERPT
Tell me again how wonderful unions are...


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 4, 2009)

Big Don said:


> END EXCERPT
> Tell me again how wonderful unions are...


 
A wise man once said 'too much of a good thing is a bad thing'.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 4, 2009)

This is about the same everywhere else.  It's incredibly hard to fire a bad teacher and one of the reasons our schools suffer is because they simply cannot get rid of the dead weight.  

There are positives to teacher's unions, however.  Collective bargaining has raised the average salary for teachers above what teachers would be paid if schools were completely private.  

That's a good thing if your a teacher and its a good thing if you are trying to keep competent individuals interested in teaching...which is good for everyone.


----------



## Marginal (May 4, 2009)

It's a shame that tenure has absolutely no benefits, and only exists to give inept people jobs for life. A real shame.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 4, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Tell me again how wonderful unions are...


 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with unions, or the idea of unionization.

Unions just groups of people who voluntarily coordinate their efforts towards a common goal. That isn't evil or bad at all.

The problem is when these unions either engage in fraudulent activity, or use the combined strength of their members to achieve selective goals not commonly desired. But even then, the fault is not in the union itself, but in the individual members who choose to participate in that union.

Here, you have pointed out a problem with teacher's unions. Although I think the example used is a little weak, the teacher said a horrible idiotic thing, I'm not sure he should be fired for it perhaps if this is an isolated incident for this teacher suspended without pay and officially reprimanded would be enough, but the overall point is valid. In California, and New York, and many other parts of the country, teacher's unions have made it very difficult for incompetent, unqualified, or dangerous people to be removed from teaching positions.

However, this is not the fault of unions in general. This is the fault of specific unions, who have decided to protect evil or incompetent people instead of standing with everyone else and decrying their behavior. The schools are also partly to blame, because they agree to contracts with these unions knowing this sort of thing goes on. The individual union members are also to blame, because they choose to voluntarily associate with this organization, again knowing these things occur. 

But blaming this on unions is like blaming pedophile preachers on religion. Just because some people are evil, and some other people choose to hide their evil instead of standing against it, doesn't mean that the organizational structure those people operate within is inherently evil, or that everyone else who operates within it is either.

Yes. Some teachers who deserve to be fired, or even deserve some type of legal repercussion have managed to use they system to their advantage and avoid that fate. I completely agree. But blaming voluntary association for their actions is a logical disconnection. Blame the individual for his actions, blame the school for agreeing to union contracts which protect him from the consequences of those actions, blame the union bosses for being more interested in self aggrandizement and power then serving their members, and blame the members for voluntarily belonging to an organization that allows this kind of protection to occur.

But don't blame voluntary association as a concept.


-Rob


----------



## cdunn (May 4, 2009)

Once a union shop/school is established, unionization often ceases to be voluntary. But this does not cease to make them a critical bulwark against the overpowering strength of the employer, in the proper situations.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 4, 2009)

It's still voluntary. No one is forcing you to work there. You can always get another job. That may suck, but it's still an option.


-Rob


----------



## arnisador (May 4, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> This is about the same everywhere else.  It's incredibly hard to fire a bad teacher and one of the reasons our schools suffer is because they simply cannot get rid of the dead weight.



And, because it removes some of the incentive to work hard, do extras, stay up-to-date...



> There are positives to teacher's unions, however.



Some teachers are pressured for having standards, teaching unpopular material, etc. So, some protections are good...but it's swung too far.


----------



## arnisador (May 4, 2009)

Marginal said:


> It's a shame that tenure has absolutely no benefits, and only exists to give inept people jobs for life.



There are benefits. It lowers salaries (hence taxes) because people see it as a significant benefit (usually estimated as being worth _at least_ $10k/year). It protects those teachers pressured to lower standards so little Johnny can pass, or who teach things like evolution or Tom Sawyer and are pressured by community groups to stop doing so. It gives teachers more freedom to innovate in their teaching without fear that one bad class could be the end of their careers. It encourages people to major in teaching Latin in college despite the fact that if they lose such a job when they're 50 years old they're in sad shape. It allows teachers more freedom to criticize the administration when it is lowering standards or the like, or to stick up for students (as when a school newspaper's student editor is being punished by the principal).

That having been said, it absolutely needs to become easier to fire tenured teachers.


----------



## CoryKS (May 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> It's still voluntary. No one is forcing you to work there. You can always get another job. That may suck, but it's still an option.


 
Unless you can't find another job, in which case you _do_ have to join the union if you want to work.

That's a pretty specious definition of the term 'voluntary', by the way.  Something that is truly voluntary should not include repercussions if you choose not to participate.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 4, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Unless you can't find another job, in which case you _do_ have to join the union if you want to work.


 
I'm not going to downplay the hardships of looking for work, I've been engaged in that activity for months, but no one is _forced_ to take a job. They choose to. There are alternatives. You may feel _pressured_ to take a job by outside forces, family, responsibilities, budgetary concerns, but the choice is still yours. And many people make choices not to participate in a union because they don't agree with it's practices. Those people may suffer for it, but just like people who choose to pay more to not shop at WalMart because they don't agree with their business practices, that is a sacrifice they accept on principle.



> That's a pretty specious definition of the term 'voluntary', by the way. Something that is truly voluntary should not include repercussions if you choose not to participate.


 
That's just silly. There are always consequences of our actions. If I choose not to go to church, I have made a voluntary decision, but some would argue that there are repercussions for that. If I choose not to go to a concert, I have made a voluntary decision, but I have also lost an opportunity to have an experience. And here, if I choose not to join a union, I have to work someplace that isn't closed to non union members.

Our actions, and inactions, have consequences. Those consequences should be considered before we act. The difference between voluntary and involuntary association isn't the lack of consequence, it's the lack of coercive force in the decision making process. You may suffer if you choose to participate or not, but the choice itself is your own.

According to your definition, there is no such thing as voluntary exchange or association, because choosing to act or not would always carry with it some repercussion.


-Rob


----------



## terryl965 (May 4, 2009)

As a teacher I find this to be just stupid the teacher in question should be removed if it is true plain and simple.


----------



## arnisador (May 4, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> As a teacher I find this to be just stupid the teacher in question should be removed if it is true



If this was the only time, it may be just good managerial and business sense to warn now, create a paper trail, and fire later if it repeats.


----------



## arnisador (May 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> There's absolutely nothing wrong with unions, or the idea of unionization.
> 
> Unions just groups of people who voluntarily coordinate their efforts towards a common goal.



Well, that wouldn't be so bad if the law didn't mandate recognizing them and negotiating with them. But they don't coordinate their efforts alone--the law forces employers to work with them if sufficiently many people want to unionize. It's not like voluntarily associating with the Freemasons.



> However, this is not the fault of unions in general. This is the fault of specific unions, who have decided to protect evil or incompetent people instead of standing with everyone else and decrying their behavior. The schools are also partly to blame, because they agree to contracts with these unions knowing this sort of thing goes on.


 
Can the schools simply refuse to enter into negotiations with unions, and just hire teachers individually? I don't think so. Once they're unionized, the employer's choices diminish...and the law mandates that school be taught. You can't close the high school for a year until you get a good contract with the teachers' union, and you can't fire underperforming union employees who "work to rule" or institute a work slowdown or sickout.

When working with unions is completely optional for the person paying the bills, I'll buy this argument. Until then, it's problematic. (I recognize that early on the unions stopped lots of abuses by factory owners and that that had strong positive value. Most of the needed protections are now in place, though.) The voluntary actions of a majority of workers can make all other workers there join or quit (based on the actions of others) and make the business owners have to change how they handle things.



> But blaming this on unions is like blaming pedophile preachers on religion.


 
Not only is that an unnecessarily extreme example, the success of the lawsuits against e.g. the Catholic church shows it's an ill-chosen one.



> But blaming voluntary association for their actions is a logical disconnection.



I just don't see what's "voluntary" about it. As I understand it, in a typical state all teachers must join the union, and the school must negotiate with the union.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 4, 2009)

Each of your points individually accurate, but over I think you missed the point that I was trying to make. Perhaps that was my fault for being unclear.



arnisador said:


> Well, that wouldn't be so bad if the law didn't mandate recognizing them and negotiating with them. But they don't coordinate their efforts alone--the law forces employers to work with them if sufficiently many people want to unionize. It's not like voluntarily associating with the Freemasons.


 
I agree completely here. But the problem isn't the union, it's the laws that compel mandatory public education and that compel the employer to work with the unions. In a free market, people could unionize, and employers could simply replace all the union employees with non-union labor, or close down the business completely. This is the only way to fairly balance power between employers and employees. 



> Can the schools simply refuse to enter into negotiations with unions, and just hire teachers individually? I don't think so. Once they're unionized, the employer's choices diminish...and the law mandates that school be taught. You can't close the high school for a year until you get a good contract with the teachers' union, and you can't fire underperforming union employees who "work to rule" or institute a work slowdown or sickout.


 
Once again, this isn't the fault of the concept itself, but rather the implementation of that concept. People should have every right to agree amongst themselves that, "we won't come to work if they fire Dave," or, "we deserve more money, let's all hold out for a raise." But the employer should have every right to weigh those demands against the cost of replacing his entire work force and make the best business decision. I have worked at several places that considered unionizing, but decided not to, because we didn't think it was the best _business decision_ for us. The employer should have the same option.



> When working with unions is completely optional for the person paying the bills, I'll buy this argument. Until then, it's problematic. (I recognize that early on the unions stopped lots of abuses by factory owners and that that had strong positive value. Most of the needed protections are now in place, though.) The voluntary actions of a majority of workers can make all other workers there join or quit (based on the actions of others) and make the business owners have to change how they handle things.


 
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not actually pro-union. I'm just pro-"people's _right_ to unionize." If they want to work together, they have a right to. I don't need someone else bargaining on my behalf, I am capable of finding work and securing wages on my own.



> Not only is that an unnecessarily extreme example, the success of the lawsuits against e.g. the Catholic church shows it's an ill-chosen one.


 
I don't see how my example is "unnecessarily extreme." In both cases we have child abuse being protected by the organizational structure within which it occurs. And lawsuits against the Church as an organization don't show my example to be "ill-chosen" at all. I didn't say "blaming pedophile preachers on _the church_," I said, "blaming pedophile preachers on _religion._" Some people want to equate the individual criminal actions of participants in a system, and the system which protected those actions, on the underlying philosophies of the system itself. "Unions" aren't to blame for what happened here, any more than "Christianity" is to blame for pedophile preachers. The Union in question might be, just as the Catholic church might be.

But perhaps your disagreement with my position stems from a belief that mocking a suicidal child doesn't equate to pederasty. If that is the case, I would agree with you. Although both are clearly child abuse, and the individuals responsible for both were/are being protected by their governing bodies. So perhaps these news items would help to clear things up.

http://teachersunionexposed.com/bargaining.cfm


> In one case, school administrators in Seattle received at least 30 warnings that a fifth grade teacher was a danger to his students. However, thanks to a union contract that forces schools to destroy most personnel records after each school year, he managed to evade punishment for nearly 20 years, until he was finally sent to prison in 2005 for having molested up to 13 girls. As an attorney for one of the victims put it, according to _The Seattle Times_, You could basically have a pedophile in your midst and not know it. How are you going to get rid of somebody if you don't know what they did in the past?


 
http://ohmygov.com/blogs/state_and_...public-schools-cut-deals-with-pedophiles.aspx


> Teachers in the Oregon public school system accused of molesting students are offered financial incentives, confidentiality agreements, and even letters of recommendation to terminate their employment.


 
Again, I'm not arguing that the Unions were right, or that Unionization is inherently good, or that this guy shouldn't be prosecuted, or the reverse of any of those positions. All I'm saying is that these wrongs shouldn't be laid at the feet of the _idea_ of unionization, but rather at the feet of the individuals who perpetrated them and the people who protected them and the people who associate with them.

In a strange twist, I'm arguing in favor of collectivism by arguing in favor of individual responsibility.



> I just don't see what's "voluntary" about it. As I understand it, in a typical state all teachers must join the union, and the school must negotiate with the union.


 
Yes. You are correct. That is exactly what is happening. It is still voluntary for the individuals in the union to be a part of it, they could simply choose _not to be teachers. _But that aside, my point was never that the schools are volunteering to associate with the unions, but rather that unionization is a voluntary process of collective bargaining, which people should have the right to participate in, and which is not, in and of itself, evil.

Many people want to point at these ills and call unionization evil, just as many people pointed at the pedophile preachers and called _religion_ evil. Both positions are equally incorrect. Instead, let's point at pedophiles and people who mock suicidal children and say "you are wrong." Let's point at the people who harbor and protect them and say "you are wrong." Let's _not_ point at the idea of voluntary association and say, "it is wrong."


-Rob


----------



## Gordon Nore (May 4, 2009)

So, 



Is this thread about a sadistic teacher who should not be working in the classroom?
Is it about a tormented boy who needs a proper education provided by sensitive and qualified professionals?
Or is it about how bad unions are?

My take. This is a terrible situation, but there are other remedies. Professional associations not bound by union or management. In Ontario we have a teachers' college, which, among other things, adjudicates hearings into professional misconduct. The union represents the worker within his or her school board. This is a different level of accountability in which the profession holds itself accountable, and works outside arm's reach of union, management, or the government.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 4, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Is this thread about a sadistic teacher who should not be working in the classroom?
> Is it about a tormented boy who needs a proper education provided by sensitive and qualified professionals?
> Or is it about how bad unions are?


 
Well, since the *only* sentence in the original post that was, in fact, _original_ to the post, was "Tell me again how wonderful unions are..." I think the original poster was trying to make a point that unions, or at the very least _teacher's_ unions, are inherently bad.

I don't agree with that position, as I've tried to point out.

As to the other two questions you've raised, which I find to be far more important on the grand scheme, I generally agree with your position.

This particular teacher is clearly an asshat. We all say terrible things we wish we could take back. Perhaps if he had simply apologized and admitted he shouldn't have said it, this would have blown over. Perhaps if he had, and the parents and school had continued to persecute him, I'd be on _his_ side instead of against him. Perhaps he should be suspended without pay, or reprimanded, or administratively disciplined in some way. Do teachers waterboard? I've heard that can be quite effective.

The kid obviously needs more than just a better teacher. He needs therapy. He may need constant care. He might even need medication. Or maybe he just needs someone who cares about his problems to listen to him. Most first attempts at suicide really are a cry for help, that's part of why they tend to fail. Maybe he just needs a good karate class to work out his frustrations in. But one thing is obvious. He needs adults in his life who are interested in addressing his problems, not mocking them.


-Rob


----------



## arnisador (May 4, 2009)

I better understand your position now, *Thesemindz*, and of course voluntary association is an important and constitutionally guaranteed right. It's the mandated bargaining with the union that makes the situation unequal--one side voluntarily associates, the other is compelled involuntarily to accept the results. But I do think that saying that people "could simply choose not to be teachers", while certainly true, isn't a useful way of looking at things, if for no other reason than that we wouldn't want to drive all those people away from teaching.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 4, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I better understand your position now, *Thesemindz*, and of course voluntary association is an important and constitutionally guaranteed right.


 
That is more or less what I was trying to say.



> It's the mandated bargaining with the union that makes the situation unequal--one side voluntarily associates, the other is compelled involuntarily to accept the results.


 
And that is more or less where I see the problem laying as well.



> But I do think that saying that people "could simply choose not to be teachers", while certainly true, isn't a useful way of looking at things, if for no other reason than that we wouldn't want to drive all those people away from teaching.


 
Once again, I agree. It isn't the preferred solution. But under the current situation, it may be the only solution. Many people choose not to associate with organizations they view as corrupt every day, even to their own detriment, because they choose to stand on principle. Our best hope then would be that those principled educators would be able to find a place in the private sector, where there is less coercion and more choice.


-Rob


----------



## Big Don (May 4, 2009)

Unions were (note past tense) a valuable and important thing. That time is long past. Gone are the days when employees had no idea what their rights were. There are a ton of attorneys who would love to file suit against your boss for any abuse you take, why, then, do you need to pony up a portion of every paycheck to a union? Because it has been done for years, is NOT a good reason for anything.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 4, 2009)

Considering that the kind of voluntary association that unions represent is about the only thing that stands in the way of a complete impoverishment of teachers in this country, I'll take the unions.  Until we take care of the overarching system, we are stuck with lots of things we don't like.


----------



## CoryKS (May 5, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I'm not going to downplay the hardships of looking for work, I've been engaged in that activity for months, but no one is _forced_ to take a job. They choose to. There are alternatives. You may feel _pressured_ to take a job by outside forces, family, responsibilities, budgetary concerns, but the choice is still yours. And many people make choices not to participate in a union because they don't agree with it's practices. Those people may suffer for it, but just like people who choose to pay more to not shop at WalMart because they don't agree with their business practices, that is a sacrifice they accept on principle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Wow, this is the first time I've ever heard someone use a "voluntary exchange" argument to defend the labor cartels.  

Following your example, an employer ought to be able to offer workers $4.00 an hour and no medical benefits.  If one doesn't accept the terms, he is free to look elsewhere for employment.  Do you agree with that statement?  It just as easily fits your definition of 'voluntary'.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 5, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Wow, this is the first time I've ever heard someone use a "voluntary exchange" argument to defend the labor cartels.
> 
> Following your example, an employer ought to be able to offer workers $4.00 an hour and no medical benefits.  If one doesn't accept the terms, he is free to look elsewhere for employment.  Do you agree with that statement?  It just as easily fits your definition of 'voluntary'.



Some employers already do that and those jobs are filled by illegal immigrants.


----------



## Senjojutsu (May 5, 2009)

A quick background read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure

Amusing since tenure was meant to protect academic freedom at universities and colleges (in todays PC orthodox climate on campus?) and as a major job benefit that didnt cost colleges  in terms of salary.

Public teacher unions jumped on this university tenure concept to bastardize it and negotiated tenure down at the local level  and thus you have tenured teachers in elementary and high school public schools who are next to impossible to terminate, especially in regards to job performance. So unless they are having sex with their students  and depending on the actual state  well thats another thread. 

Now remember boys and girls, the school budgets are almost always the number one city/town taxpayer expense bucket within the USA. Worse still the local School Committees are often separate political fiefdoms, elected on their own and not appointed. These local elections are often dominated by the local public employee unions who support friendly candidates. The School Committee members then negotiate terms with the teacher unions the contractual employment agreements  and force feed these deals to the mayor/city councils. In the end the taxpayers and children be damned.


*BUT NONE OF THIS IS NEW!!! :flame:*

In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education concluded in *A Nation at Risk:* If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.


----------



## Gordon Nore (May 5, 2009)

Senjojutsu said:


> Public teacher unions jumped on this university tenure concept to bastardize it and negotiated tenure down at the local level  and thus you have tenured teachers in elementary and high school public schools who are next to impossible to terminate, especially in regards to job performance. So unless they are having sex with their students  and depending on the actual state  well thats another thread.



This is a trend I'm not familiar with. There's no such thing as a "tenured teacher" in Ontario. Such a designation applies only to university professors. Teachers, ie those licensed to teach in K-12, accumulate seniority, which provides protection in times of cuts, but that's it. Yes, a unionized teacher has a lot of protection here, but I think the professional body would strongly address the events described in the opening thread.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 5, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Wow, this is the first time I've ever heard someone use a "voluntary exchange" argument to defend the labor cartels.
> 
> Following your example, an employer ought to be able to offer workers $4.00 an hour and no medical benefits. If one doesn't accept the terms, he is free to look elsewhere for employment. Do you agree with that statement? It just as easily fits your definition of 'voluntary'.


 
Yes. I do and it does. Employers should be able to offer a penny a day, no benefits and no breaks.

And those that did would find it impossible to purchase labor as a commodity on the open market, because everyone would immediately go work somewhere that payed a reasonable wage. Market forces should set wages, not government fiat.


-Rob


----------



## Senjojutsu (May 5, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> This is a trend I'm not familiar with. There's no such thing as a "tenured teacher" in Ontario.


 
I'll do some searching overnight.
Whether they call it "tenure" per se at lower levels may be the issue.

But teacher unions, as self-interested parties, may throw out outrageous teacher behavior examples, but allow overall mediocrity to fester protecting the lowest common denominator of efforts/skills.

I need to also find recent examples of teacher unions against (academically) testing established teachers - to ensure those teachers knew the basic subject matter of what they were assigned to teach students.

The unions claimed that such subject tests were "not relevant".
Is that a great example of "irony" - everyone on this board could claim having to endure twelve, or sixteen+ years of "irrelevant" finals, exams, tests, pop quizzes etcetera...


----------



## Gordon Nore (May 5, 2009)

Senjojutsu said:


> I need to also find recent examples of teacher unions against (academically) testing established teachers - to ensure those teachers knew the basic subject matter of what they were assigned to teach students.



There was a big case in Texas many years ago, in which the governor at the time proposed huge education reforms, including, I think, a bump in teachers' pay. A precondition was a teacher test, which was roundly fought by the union. I believe a test was administered, but it was substantially watered down.


----------



## jetboatdeath (May 5, 2009)

My issue with the unions is from a workers side as well as an employer's.
Lets take a first year say plumber. This plumber went to school, lets say he is the best plumber in Illinois. He joins a union and is on the same pay scale as Billy wanna-be. How is that "fair" to the worker? 
How is that fair to the employer who cannot get rid of Billy wanna-be?

What incentive does the worker have to excel?
Unions were needed at one time before there were labor laws.
Now they are more of a political tool. 
I know a union plumber, unions played a BIG part in the last election (the open voting issue that was passed) His union was texting him ,calling him, 
telling him he had to vote at the local. They "encouraged" him to vote Obama. Why should a labor union have anything to do with the elections?
Because the politicians(both sides) dump in tons of money to buy the votes.
ALLOT of people are so pro union they will do anything they union says


----------



## arnisador (May 6, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Employers should be able to offer a penny a day, no benefits and no breaks.
> 
> And those that did would find it impossible to purchase labor as a commodity on the open market, because everyone would immediately go work somewhere that payed a reasonable wage.



Unless everyone lowers their wages to match that. Some countries have persisted at very low salary levels for a long time, after all. Although I largely agree with you in principle--let capitalism do its work--I accept a minimum wage as a necessary thing.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 6, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Unless everyone lowers their wages to match that. Some countries have persisted at very low salary levels for a long time, after all. Although I largely agree with you in principle--let capitalism do its work--I accept a minimum wage as a necessary thing.



Me too.  Theoretically, a minimum wage acts as a net that catches falling wages.  People point to the fact that the Federal Minimum wage being the same for 17 years as proof that the Free Market would set a fair price, but I have yet to see how the effect of the minimum wage could be teased out of that via some kind of social science study so that it would really support that claim.  How do we really know that wages would stay the same (or rise) if the minimum wage was removed?

Anyway, I can see how some businesses would fail because of minimum wages.  Certain kinds of farmers just don't have the overhead to support the workers they need in order to produce our food.  There has to be some kind of arrangement or our tables will simply not have those food items.

Ah well, good topic for a new thread.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 6, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> There was a big case in Texas many years ago, in which the governor at the time proposed huge education reforms, including, I think, a bump in teachers' pay. A precondition was a teacher test, which was roundly fought by the union. I believe a test was administered, but it was substantially watered down.


 
One major reform that could be made is to have a nation wide final, were the teachers are given a list of 'it may be this on the test' that includes like 5 possiblities. The teacehr doesn't know what to teach to, and is forced to give a general knowledge of the subject.
Then, after the final is given, the teacehr is graded based on the average test results. If the students average grade is a failing one, clearly the teacher is incompetent and needs to be fired. If the average grade is in the 90's, then the teacehr needs a promotion. And of course, there should 'you get this for this grade' thing. 

Also, Jetboat, I'm pretty sure the events in that story are actually illegal. Unions and employeers cann't encourage you to vote for anyone. They can encourage you to vote, but not for a person. A manager could get into legal trouble for just mentioning there party views during an election (i've seen it happen)


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 6, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Me too. Theoretically, a minimum wage acts as a net that catches falling wages. People point to the fact that the Federal Minimum wage being the same for 17 years as proof that the Free Market would set a fair price, but I have yet to see how the effect of the minimum wage could be teased out of that via some kind of social science study so that it would really support that claim. How do we really know that wages would stay the same (or rise) if the minimum wage was removed?
> 
> Anyway, I can see how some businesses would fail because of minimum wages. Certain kinds of farmers just don't have the overhead to support the workers they need in order to produce our food. There has to be some kind of arrangement or our tables will simply not have those food items.
> 
> Ah well, good topic for a new thread.


 
In the mean time, I do want to say this. There are exeptions to minimum wage laws. A server who can make tips doesn't have to be paid minmum wage (I make 2.13 an hour). I don't think the restraunt even has to pay an hourly wage, so long as your tips average out to you making minmum wage. So, when I clock out of my pancake house, I have to declare my tips. If my tips + wage don't equal atleast 6-somthing an hour (which is what minmum wage is right now), they have to pay the difference. There are pros and cons to not declaring tips.
Also, I think (THINK) a worker doesn't have to be paid minimum wage if they receive benefits equal to or greater then minimum wage. So, while you could say that 'well, they get a dental package equal to 2 dollars an hour, so I only need to pay them 4 dollars an hour'. Buying a packeage that _would_ be worth 2 bucks an hour for one worker, would become cheaper if you bought that same package for 30 workers (since most insruance companys make it cheaper for for people who buy in bulk). Again, I THINK, I'm not positive about that.
Third execption, if you are under 16, you don't have to be paid mininum wage, and direct family members don't either in some situations.

And if nothing else, you could always hire people under the table.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 6, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Unless everyone lowers their wages to match that. Some countries have persisted at very low salary levels for a long time, after all. Although I largely agree with you in principle--let capitalism do its work--*I accept a minimum wage as a necessary thing*.


 
Ok. I don't.

It's a complete government intrusion into a free economy, and hurts those at the bottom of the pay scale the most. It pushes people out of the labor market, raises prices, and causes low end wage compression. It's not good for the poor, it _destroys _them.

If everyone paid a dollar a day, then everyone's income would be lowered to that level, and companies would have to lower their prices in a commensurate fashion in order to continue to operate. Those businesses that didn't do so would go out of business. 

It's an unsupportable position. You can't think of money in nominal value. You have to think of money in it's comparative value as it relates to the local economy. If people are making a hundred pennies, or a hundred dollars a day, the local economy will have to compensate in order to function. 

Minimum wage is government intrusion. Every time it goes up, people lose jobs and prices increase. In one business I worked for, when the minimum wage went up, the cost of the food went up and the size of the portions went down. Now, not only did the same amount of money buy you fewer portions the portions were also smaller. That's what minimum wage causes.

You can argue that business are evil, or that they don't _have_ to raise their prices, but facts are facts. Business exists to make a profit. If the government cuts into their profit margin in some way, they will adjust their business model to compensate. That means fewer entry level positions, higher prices, and reduced product quality.

Let the free market set wages just like it should set the prices for every other commodity. Market forces will cause prices to stabalize over time.

But of course, you can't examine these things in a vacuum. Our current economic system, including the minimum wage, is deeply and tragically influenced by fiat currency and government interference in the free market in an inumerable number of ways.

Minimum wage laws are destructive. And worse, they hurt most the very people they purport to protect. And worst, those people are often too uneducated to understand what they are voting for every time they vote to increase the minimum wage.


-Rob


----------



## arnisador (May 6, 2009)

You're looking at a single country. If we don't have a minimum wage, _China_ will drive down our wages...and it will be painful.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 6, 2009)

arnisador said:


> You're looking at a single country. If we don't have a minimum wage, _China_ will drive down our wages...and it will be painful.


 
Except that China can't sell it's goods to people who can't afford to buy them. And like us, the businessmen in China want to make a profit too.

The argument just doesn't wash. In order to stay in business, McDonald's has to be able to sell its products. In order to buy those products, people have to be able to afford them. No matter how poor people are, anyone who wants to sell to them will have to lower their prices to a level the market can bear. In order to sell those products at a profit, McDonald's will have to be able to buy their raw materials at a lower cost than they offer their products to the consumer. In order for McDonald's to be able to afford those raw materials, their suppliers will have to lower their prices as well.

It works in both directions. In an unregulated free market, the price of goods and services will stabilize based on supply and demand. Labor is a commodity which McDonald's has to compete for on the open market, just like bread and cheese and french fries. They will pay the market price for that commodity, whatever that price is. And the market will adjust in response to that.

Companies can't charge ten thousand dollars for their products when their customers are making ten cents a day. They would go out of business. You can see this influence reflected in our society everywhere you look. During our current economic crisis, restaraunts are offering five dollar pizzas, and ninety-nine cent menus, gas has plummeted in price, car dealerships are offering huge discounts on their vehicles. It isn't out of charity. It's because they were priced beyond what the buyer could afford, and the businesses had to compensate.

All that aside, what justifies forcing someone at gun point to pay _any_ specific wage, minimum or otherwise? What gives anyone the right to say that someone's labor is worth any specific amount other than that agreed to by the worker and the employer? I have worked with people who were worth far less than seven dollars and change an hour, yet the state _requires_ that they be paid as much. In the absence of a minimum wage, these people would get paid what they are worth. And if they wanted more, they'd have to improve their value to their employer.

Minimum wage is violent coercion. It is destructive. It costs employees opportunities, it costs businesses oppotunities, it costs customers opportunities. More importantly, it is immoral on its face.


-Rob


----------



## Big Don (May 6, 2009)

arnisador said:


> You're looking at a single country. If we don't have a minimum wage, _China_ will drive down our wages...and it will be painful.


Which is where quality comes into the equation. 
Do you want a McJob, that pays accordingly, or will you be a professional?


----------



## arnisador (May 7, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> In an unregulated free market, the price of goods and services will stabilize based on supply and demand



In theory, eventually, if no govt. mucks things up. That could be a long time with a lot of "what ifs" in between.



> Minimum wage is violent coercion. It is destructive.[...]More importantly, it is immoral on its face.



You're seeing ghosts everywhere. Chill. It's going to be all right.


----------



## Senjojutsu (May 7, 2009)

Getting back to education...

Some information across the fruited plain:
http://teachersunionexposed.com/protecting.cfm 

"I don&#8217;t represent the children. 
I represent the teachers."
&#8212; Al Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers 

In the People&#8217;s Republic of Massachusetts, never mind union contracts &#8211; tenure &#8211; called &#8220;professional teacher status&#8221; is part of state law:

M.G.L. CHAPTER 71. PUBLIC SCHOOLS

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/71-41.htm 
Section 41. For the purposes of this section, a teacher, school librarian, school adjustment counselor, school nurse, school social worker or school psychologist who has served in the public schools of a school district for the three previous consecutive school years shall be considered a teacher, and shall be entitled to *professional teacher status* as provided in section forty-two&#8230;

Once a Massachusetts teacher is tenured we have then have the &#8220;*A*&#8221; word:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/71-42.htm 
Section 42. Dismissal or demotion of teachers or other employees of school or school district;* arbitration *


----------



## Thesemindz (May 7, 2009)

arnisador said:


> In theory, eventually, if no govt. mucks things up. That could be a long time with a lot of "what ifs" in between.


 
Sure. Since we know that government *will* "muck things up" we should just give up on the notion of voluntary contractual agreements all together. Good point.



> You're seeing ghosts everywhere. Chill. It's going to be all right.


 
Nope. It's not. And I'm not "seeing ghosts." Things are bad, and they're gonna get worse. Hold on to your butts.


-Rob


----------



## geezer (May 7, 2009)

Senjojutsu said:


> Getting back to education...


 
A few random observations... well ok, a _half-dozen_ of them:

1. One seriously messed up excuse for a teacher (the sorry individual described in the OP) shouldn't tarnish the whole profession.

2. "Tenure"?!? _What's that?_ I've been a public high school teacher for nearly 15 years, and we sure don't have it. For the first three years we are on "probationary contracts." Administration can choose *not* to renew our contracts for _any reason_, and they don't even have to tell us why. Just say "bye" --that's all. After three years of experience, _and_ getting positive evaluations, we are placed on _continuing contracts_. Then, if administration chooses to fire us, they have to state a reason and we are entitled to contest the dismissal. That's all. It's not _tenure_, like a university professor has. It's just a chance to argue your case if someone wants to boot you out. Cops, firemen, and postal workers probably have way more job security. And sometimes better pay, too.

3. Dangerously powerful teachers unions? _Not where I work_. The NEA is practically laughed at by our Administration. I joined for the insurance policy they offered so I could afford to defend myself when some student gets mad over a grade and decides to accuse me of something sick. --Hey, I've seen things like that ruin the careers of some good people. Other than that, our "union" has no more power (out here in the "wild west") that an ordinary individual on his own has.

4. Teachers and their unions out of control? Good lord! Do you have any idea how badly we are micromanaged by layers upon layers of incompetent and overpaid administrators or management? Or how much time is taken away from teaching kids to comply with all the PC bureacracy, the testing, and bogus paperwork? Think of the kind of _fun_ you have filling out all your income tax forms. Now layer the same kind of fun paperwork on top of all the other duties teachers have. Now do you get the idea?

5. Private schools the answer? OK, _if you are rich_ enough. I was priveledged to attend a great boarding school for two years of high school, some 30 years back. But guess what? The way the cost of education has skyrocketed, that place now costs something like $30 grand a year. Well, it doesn't look like _my _kids are going there...LOL.

6. Private enterprise and the free market solves everything. _Sure. Lets go back to the sweatshops_ of the "Guilded Age". Just don't blame _me_ when the peasants rise up and storm the factories. Riots, strikes, oppression, _real_ class warfare, and ultimately tyranical repression, are inevitable outcomes of applying such extremist ideologies... be they ultra-rightwing, or radical leftist ideologies. Remember the Soviet Union anyone?

Besides... the martial arts are taught privately (which is a _good thing_ in my opinion), and the market rules. But still, that hasn't eliminated the bad teachers who are out there selling belts, abusing their students, degrading the quality of their arts and teaching absolute garbage. So why would it work any better in our education system? Just a thought...


----------



## howard (May 13, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> ... if I choose not to join a union, I have to work someplace that isn't closed to non union members.
> -Rob



Assuming you choose to stay in your chosen trade or profession, good luck with that - unless you live in a state with a right-to-work law (basically, the South).

For example, let's say you're a professor and want to teach at a public university in New Jersey. Impossible unless you join the union (AFT).

There are myriad other examples in closed-shop states.


----------

