Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan
The pendulum has swung all the way to the other side... If you truly feel this way (above), your suggestions would be more towards a balancing of the equation.
The pendulum may have swung "all the way to the other side" in your neck of the woods, but hereabouts all the news for the last five years has been of union givebacks, concessions, and a general swing of the bargaining power to management. Unfortunately, it appears that in many, possibly most cases, management is more interested in the gross numbers rather than procedures for things like qualification, training, performance, and discipline. The good news is that, in some cases, school districts have significantly revamped teacher performance standards.
Let's look at some contemporary examples... Detroit for example. Much (as the large majority) of their debt is sourced in the unfunded liabilities of the public sector pensions, bennies and wages that have grown exorbitantly in the face of contraction of all other sectors... The 'union' there has everyone by the balls and refuses to budge.
They are canibalising themselves and the community at large... Nice thing for them though, is that the public has little recourse unless they opt for a salted-Earth policy.
So - exactly what risk (other than self-destructing from their own greed and stupidity) does the union face?
I gave you a contemporary example: the Indianapolis Public School system. And you agreed it was a case of the administration behaving in a way that was inimical to retaining good teachers. Thank you.
In the case of Detroit, several outcomes are possible, most of which involve the state or Federal governments taking over Detroit's obligations. But I don't really understand your point here. Did Detroit have a contract with its public sector unions, or did it not? And are you not generally a fellow who believes that contracts should be freely entered into, and then enforced according to their terms? Even if those contracts massively disadvantage one party? Is not "the law will not protect you from a bad business deal" a saying with which you agree?
The unions (and the public employees) are in a bad situation here. Detroit continue to contract with them for reasonably generous benefits while not knowing how it would pay for them. How is that the unions' fault? Detroit also increased
its public workforce while its population steadily declined. And now we have a very bad situation where public employees, retired or close to retirement, may be impoverished by a reduction in their benefits on which they rely to live.
Is it a bad situation? Absolutely. But let us say you are responsible for public employees' benefits, particularly retirement benefits. What would you do? Would you accept the impoverishment of your constituency, or would you hold out for state or Federal help?
Do you miss the fact that most of these public sector employees have worked for decades and rely primarily or even exclusively on their retirement benefits to live? You talk much about the accursed unions, but you have given me no indication that you understand that if the union caves in to the demands of the city, its members and beneficiaries will be on welfare for the remainder of their lives. Do you consider that an acceptable outcome?