Unions

[Quovatis]

Jobs differ from the public and private sector.

In the private sector, companies hire you because they feel that you will ultimately make more money for the company than they have to pay you. If you are very good at what you do, they will pay more for your services to keep you around, etc. If you think you deserve a raise, you ask for it. If the company disagrees with your assessment, you can either accept that fact or look for another company that is willing to do better. If you suck at what you do, you will be fired.

In the public sector, it's very different. The government hires you not to make money, but to do the assigned job in the most efficient manner at the least cost. If you are very efficient and can do the work of 2 people for less, you will likely be promoted. If you suck at what you do, you will probably still have the job because of all the PC and bureaucracy in the government. It's so hard for the government to get rid of poor workers that it costs the taxpayers more money to hire others, plus the lack of services. It think that's the bigger problem, especially in education. It's not competitive, because sucky teachers can't be fired, not that good ones aren't paid enough. And I think the poor education system in the USA has more to do with other things besides the quality of the teachers.

And Hamma is right. It's a mindset problem. People think they are entitled to a particular job as if it is their right to have it. That is not the case.

I've been to Europe many times. Yes, they get paid a lot and get a ton of vacation time. They also go on strike very often. My first visit to Amsterdam was rather unpleasant because the garbage collectors union went on strike and there were piles of garbage 10 ft high on every street corner. Stuff like that happens all the time it seems. WTG unions. Without unions, you could simply hire others that are willing to work for the advertised pay level with no disruption in services. Nobody is forcing anyone to work at a particular job. We have choices.

[ItsTheSheppy]

The idea of the "rich" teacher or the "rich" police office is a fantasy I find surprising otherwise rational people maintain in their heads as fact. I have never known a cop or a teacher or a firefighter who made a reasonable living wage. I grew up the son of a cop and a nurse. We did not live a particularly glitzy lifestyle. Around where I live, the starting pay for a full-fledged teacher is about 30-35k a year. I make more than that, but I live in a one-bedroom apartment, with no dependents, and I just barely get by. And I don't even have a cable bill!

It's also important to remember that a lot of these folks aren't exactly spoiled for choice in the job market. Not everyone can be a millionaire; someone has to clean the toilets, or mine the coal, or drive the taxi. Somebody has to do it, and it always seems like the people most angry about those people demanding better pay are folks who enjoy the services provided by them, but who prefer not to do the jobs themselves. I'll tell you one thing: I like driving on roads, but I certainly don't want to pave them.

Why do we live in this culture where there's the feeling that they deserve to be paid meager wages? That they somehow haven't earned more money than, say, me, or you, or the next guy? Who set those rules? In my opinion, you deserve to make the money you can make, however you make it; if they unionize, and force better wages, good for them. Why is that a bad thing?

[Figment]

Typically Quovatis, if you don't pay well, you don't get good people for the job though since they'll go where the pay is better.

[Quovatis]

Pay is dictated by how many people can do the job. Are you seriously saying that someone who cleans toilets should make the same money as, say, a rocket scientist? 99% of the population can clean toilets, so of course the pay will be low. 35k a year with a the summers off is a pretty good deal, actually. I lived off of 25k a year, working year-round, and could afford my own house. I managed my money and didn't bitch about it. Again, nobody is forcing you to be a teacher or a cop.

[Quovatis]

Originally Posted by Figment

Typically Quovatis, if you don't pay well, you don't get good people for the job though since they'll go where the pay is better.

That's right. There is an equilibrium there. It's called the free market. If the company can't attract adequate workers for the pay, they will pay more.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Just so we're understanding each other here Quovatis, are you suggesting that poor people who work shit jobs deserve poverty, and that it's morally or ethically improper for them to be making money that's above their station?

If so, I'd be curious as to where you draw that feeling from, on whose authority it is to enforce that station, and what harm it does to say, you, if a teacher makes 80k a year versus 40k?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

Pay is dictated by how many people can do the job. Are you seriously saying that someone who cleans toilets should make the same money as, say, a rocket scientist? 99% of the population can clean toilets, so of course the pay will be low. 35k a year with a the summers off is a pretty good deal, actually. I lived off of 25k a year, working year-round, and could afford my own house. I managed my money and didn't bitch about it. Again, nobody is forcing you to be a teacher or a cop.

The same? I don't think anyone said that.

Enough to make a living? Yes, because it's a job that many can, but many don't want to do, plus the whole point of working is that you provide for yourself. Even if it's not an ambitious job.


When we look at the responsibility of teachers and the future of our next generations, then they got a very important job. More important than devising a new lens for an interstellar telescope? Perhaps yes, as they touch a lot more lives directly than a telescope ever will.

But I'd not want incompetents or zealots in charge of my kids teaching for instance. It should be possible to fire them, like anyone else.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Didn't they also create that communist political system in the first place when they created the Soviet Union?

Well, they didnt put in enough safeguards to stop a crazed mustachioed man from gaining power.

[Quovatis]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Just so we're understanding each other here Quovatis, are you suggesting that poor people who work shit jobs deserve poverty, and that it's morally or ethically improper for them to be making money that's above their station?

If so, I'd be curious as to where you draw that feeling from, on whose authority it is to enforce that station, and what harm it does to say, you, if a teacher makes 80k a year versus 40k?

No, they don't deserve poverty. But unskilled jobs generally pay low wages because pretty much anyone can do it. That's just how things are. The exact pay is determined by the current economy, not by policy. Artificially paying a worker more than they are really worth (i.e. what high minimum wage laws do for the so-called "shit jobs") doesn't help things. By paying them more than they are worth, the company can hire fewer people, leading to even more unemployment among unskilled workers.

What harm does it do to me if a teacher makes 80k vs 40k? Well, since I, as a taxpayer, indirectly pay for this teacher, it does hurt me. By your logic, why stop at 80k...lets make every government worker a millionaire! The pay for a teacher should be whatever the market dictates. That is, get the best teacher possible for the lowest salary. If that number is 40k or 80k, I don't really care, but the reality seems to be on the lower end. But again, paying a teacher more doesn't necessarily mean you get a better education system. It's more complicated than that.

[Sirisian]

As mentioned this isn't a black and white issue as usual. The only union I know of in my life is the teaching assistants' union at my campus which meets once in a while to discuss pay and set contracts. I know one of the main leaders (just another TA student) who draws up the contracts and gets feedback for changes when discussing with the university. I would probably label them as a good union. They create honest systems in the contracts. For instance stuff like if they promise a person a TA they can't pull it before classes start which used to allowed and caused problems for students studying abroad here.

I'm neutral when it comes to unions. I'm not a member of the teaching assistants' union. I have wondered what it would be like without them. I imagine it would force people to draw up their own contracts with a lawyer, which I'd probably say few if anyone has the time to do. That or you sign the one the employer gives to you after reading it. The problem with the latter is if you find out something wasn't covered in it then you're out of luck. I guess that's where learning from experience comes into play.

I actually won't have to deal with unions as there aren't any for programmers as far as I know. For the jobs I've had I just negotiated the contract myself. (Which for CS fields isn't normally as complicated as it sounds. Remove stuff about them owning your personal code among other things).

I agree with the sentiment about public sector unions. There's a level of sanity that needs to employed there so it can't be exploited. What that level is, I have no idea.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Hamma

The solution isn't unions that's for sure. Sadly the solution is a total change of mindset which isn't going to happen.

Being a Police Officer, a Teacher, or a Firerfighter are all very noble professions that are important to society. But to go in and use a union to try and get rich at doing it when there is no money to go around is just totally silly.

I worked in education as a computer tech for the first 10 years or so of my career and I made pennies. But I didn't complain because sadly that's what I was stuck with. I pulled my eject button and moved into private industry.

You've been sold a lie here I'm afraid. Paying your teachers a decent wage isn't going to bankrupt the country. Somehow Canada (or at least Ontario, Alberta -- aka. Little Texas -- might be different) manages to sustain teachers which receive something like 2x the amount that US teachers make. And it isn't about "getting rich", it's about making the profession attractive to intelligent and capable people.

But, hey, I dunno, maybe it isn't important to try and draw the best people into professions like teacher or police officer. Maybe the people who struggled through crappy colleges and barely scraped by and can't get a job doing anything else are really the ones you want teaching your kids and keeping you safe.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

No, they don't deserve poverty. But unskilled jobs generally pay low wages because pretty much anyone can do it. That's just how things are. The exact pay is determined by the current economy, not by policy. Artificially paying a worker more than they are really worth (i.e. what high minimum wage laws do for the so-called "shit jobs") doesn't help things. By paying them more than they are worth, the company can hire fewer people, leading to even more unemployment among unskilled workers.

What harm does it do to me if a teacher makes 80k vs 40k? Well, since I, as a taxpayer, indirectly pay for this teacher, it does hurt me. By your logic, why stop at 80k...lets make every government worker a millionaire! The pay for a teacher should be whatever the market dictates. That is, get the best teacher possible for the lowest salary. If that number is 40k or 80k, I don't really care, but the reality seems to be on the lower end. But again, paying a teacher more doesn't necessarily mean you get a better education system. It's more complicated than that.

There's a couple places in your post here where you trip up.

First is labeling something as "unskilled". I'm going to go ahead and guess that you have never worked as a public school teacher, or as a police officer, or as a construction worker or coal miner and so forth. I imagine they would bristle to learn that their jobs, which tend to be very labor-intensive and feature long hours and constant training, are "unskilled". Calling them unskilled is just an incorrectly-assigned euphemism that masks a sentiment; here meant to stand for "Jobs I don't consider as important as mine".

Also, saying that the company paying them "more than they are worth" (again, a distinction you appear to be making without any authority to draw upon) is a fallacy. The company will pay them whatever the company determines is meaningful and necessary. That's why the wages are referred to as "negotiated". The union declares what they want, the company declared what they want, and they work out a deal. Nobody is being held hostage.

I'll thank you to avoid straw men; nobody is saying that teachers should make a million dollars. What we are saying is teachers should be allowed to unify and defend their right to be payed competitive and meaningful wages and to have nice things like health benefits and retirement plans; things most working Americans demand from their places of work. I will tell you straight-up that 35k a year is not a dignified wage to be payed for the amount of skill and effort it takes to be a teacher. If you disagree, I'm sorry, but you're wrong, flat-out. You clearly either don't know what teachers do, or have a very wrongheaded idea of how much effort that job requires, and the value the job brings to the community.

Paying teachers more would make the positions more attractive and increase competition for them. If the teachers who are already there can negotiate higher wages, good for them. If you're concerned about where your taxes are going, look at the budget breakdown of our country and see where your cents on the dollar are going. I'll save you some time: they're mostly going to guns and bullets. Education hardly factors. It should. But it doesn't.

[Quovatis]

First off, my "unskilled" comment relates to the discussion about cleaning toilets and flipping burgers. I never said teachers are unskilled, nor do I know of any teacher that gets paid minimum wage.

Getting paid "more than they are worth" refers to being forced to pay them more than the market dictates by law, not something I pull out of the air (i.e. minimum wage laws). This again refers to unskilled jobs, not teaching.

I was a teacher, getting 25k a year, and I didn't bitch. Where in the constitution does it say any worker has a RIGHT to a "meaningful" salary (and how do you define meaningful and who decides that)? Using the word "right" is not to be taken lightly.