Al Bundy;735206 wrote:This could be done in small districts, but how would the logistics play out in large districts where you have thousands of teachers negotiating contracts every year?

Just like any large company does it. Allocate a budget to each individual school. The district could assign representatives (perhaps the administrators at that school building) to each school to negotiate it. And it wouldn't need to be done every year. I don't renegotiate my contract yearly at my work.

People are making it seem more complex than it really is. It happens every day in the private sector, it can be implemented in the public.

ernest_t_bass;734972 wrote:I've said it before. I'd like to do away with the BIG union, and just have a local union group where we bargain for OURSELVES, and don't pay for lobbying.

This is actually a decent idea.

I Wear Pants;735212 wrote:This is actually a decent idea.

It's a great idea and one that gives the individual back the power to be more involved in their own negotiations and doesn't require them to pay a significant sum each year.

Which is why big labor would fight it tooth and nail, and find a way to stop it -- even if it had to use the threat of force to do so. Such individualized groups with no fees going to the big bosses would be a threat to their very existence.

We may still see high fees, but I'd like those high fees to stay local. To have in the bank in case we need legal representation, etc. I think it would hold us more accountable to our own school, and our own school more accountable to us.

ernest_t_bass;735366 wrote:We may still see high fees, but I'd like those high fees to stay local. To have in the bank in case we need legal representation, etc. I think it would hold us more accountable to our own school, and our own school more accountable to us.

I wonder how the larger Unions would pitch their position if it was indeed the members of the Unions who pushed for this ...

"Hush! It's for your own good!"

Writerbuckeye;735364 wrote:Which is why big labor would fight it tooth and nail, and find a way to stop it -- even if it had to use the threat of force to do so. Such individualized groups with no fees going to the big bosses would be a threat to their very existence.

And their cushy bank accounts.

dwccrew;734976 wrote:No, it's not what happens now. What happens now is politicians and government leaders, that receive campaign money from unions, negotiate contracts with public sector employee unions. If the market dictated how public employees were paid, they would see significant pay and pension reductions along with the private sector. This hasn't happened because the market doesn't dictate the value of a public sector employee, a union contract does. So even if an employee is shitty and does the bare minimum, they will still be rewarded through step pay increases whereas if the market dictated the pay and compensation, an employee would have to perform better than others to receive pay increase and improved compensation packages.

It is how the market determines it in the private sector (non-union) and that is how it would work in the public sector with SB5.

Your logic is flawed. Don't business also lobby and support politicians? All of the study's I have seen (and posted on here) find that public sector employees are paid less then there private sector counters when you control for education and experience. I would be happy to look at any study you can find that concludes otherwise.

Bigdogg;736112 wrote:Your logic is flawed. Don't business also lobby and support politicians? All of the study's I have seen (and posted on here) find that public sector employees are paid less then there private sector counters when you control for education and experience. I would be happy to look at any study you can find that concludes otherwise.

You mean like this one from March, that says public sector workers in 41 STATES EARN HIGHER WAGES AND BENEFITS THAN THEIR PRIVATE COUNTERPARTS?

The most telling aspect of this study is how much public sector pay/benefits have risen since 2000 compared to private employees. That is where the difference seems to have taken place. While private wages/benefits grew slightly or stayed flat, public compensation grew steadily.

Here's the link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-01-1Apublicworkers01_ST_N.htm

More data from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/06/us/public-private-employees.html

Bigdogg;736112 wrote:Your logic is flawed. Don't business also lobby and support politicians? All of the study's I have seen (and posted on here) find that public sector employees are paid less then there private sector counters when you control for education and experience. I would be happy to look at any study you can find that concludes otherwise.

My logic is flawed? Unions are supporting and lobbying for the very politicians they negotiate contracts with. Politicians buy votes from union members by giving cushy, overinflated contracts. Businesses can not vote. Employees of said business negotiate their pay and compensation with the business, not the politicians. Nice try though.

Also, see WB's link. Why don't you post some of those "studies" that show how public sector employees make less than their private sector counterparts. And please make it a recent study.

Here's a great piece that appeared in Reason Magazine that looks at both salary and benefits -- noting that job security and benefits, particularly pension, lower retirement ages, and retiree health care, are far above what is offered in the private sector. That has to be considered when comparing employment between the sectors.

http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary

Want to hear something funny?
I've heard so many people bitch about how much politicians make compared to firefighters/policemen/etc...
#1) Majority(not all) have a LAW degree. That's definitely worth their salary.
#2) Look at the salary of a UAW International Rep. The one rep here makes over $110,000 to represent union members... Seriously?

People want to bitch about lawmaker salaries but don't want to see how much their union representation is making and see where the real problem lies?

CenterBHSFan;734851 wrote:GREAT question, Fishy! I'd like to hear the responses to that myself!

Shockingly....no takers.

TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT SB5 IN OHIO TO LIMIT PUBLIC SECTOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/top-10-reasons-to-support-sb5-in-ohio-to-limit-pub

First, I haven't read all 90 pages, just about 10 or so. Second, I have worked in the private sector and also taught in Ohio prior to moving to teach in Texas.

I resented being forced to join a union when I was in Ohio. I received little to no benefit by union membership. Texas doesn't have collective bargaining. I did join the TCTA (professional organization for the discounts I receive mostly). We still work on a pay scale, decided by the board. We don't ever have the threat of a strike(teacher strikes should be illegal anyways). Through these tough times, we are losing teaching positions, and pay steps have been suspended. I make a fair wage for what I do, and I have job security. Those afraid of personal vendettas need to be nicer to their administrators.

Point being, collective bargaining has not been missed since I moved to Texas. If anything, my quality of life has improved. I am teaching the class I have always wanted to teach. I got this position based on my personal abilities over a teacher with much more seniority. While in Ohio I was trapped in a Sped class, while other History teachers from outside the district were hired to teach subjects, I wanted to teach. (simply because the administrator had friends that needed jobs) Union has done nothing for my career.

While in Ohio, I almost gave up on teaching, due to the politics. In Texas, I can't imagine a better career. I owe that to the lack of collective bargaining.

georgemc80;737967 wrote:First, I haven't read all 90 pages, just about 10 or so. Second, I have worked in the private sector and also taught in Ohio prior to moving to teach in Texas.

I resented being forced to join a union when I was in Ohio. I received little to no benefit by union membership. Texas doesn't have collective bargaining. I did join the TCTA (professional organization for the discounts I receive mostly). We still work on a pay scale, decided by the board. We don't ever have the threat of a strike(teacher strikes should be illegal anyways). Through these tough times, we are losing teaching positions, and pay steps have been suspended. I make a fair wage for what I do, and I have job security. Those afraid of personal vendettas need to be nicer to their administrators.

Point being, collective bargaining has not been missed since I moved to Texas. If anything, my quality of life has improved. I am teaching the class I have always wanted to teach. I got this position based on my personal abilities over a teacher with much more seniority. While in Ohio I was trapped in a Sped class, while other History teachers from outside the district were hired to teach subjects, I wanted to teach. (simply because the administrator had friends that needed jobs) Union has done nothing for my career.

While in Ohio, I almost gave up on teaching, due to the politics. In Texas, I can't imagine a better career. I owe that to the lack of collective bargaining.

/thread.

Someone that has experienced the teaching career with and without collective bargaining puts things into perspective. Now let's hear what all the doomsday and fear mongerers have to counter with.

georgemc80;737967 wrote:First, I haven't read all 90 pages, just about 10 or so. Second, I have worked in the private sector and also taught in Ohio prior to moving to teach in Texas.

I resented being forced to join a union when I was in Ohio. I received little to no benefit by union membership. Texas doesn't have collective bargaining. I did join the TCTA (professional organization for the discounts I receive mostly). We still work on a pay scale, decided by the board. We don't ever have the threat of a strike(teacher strikes should be illegal anyways). Through these tough times, we are losing teaching positions, and pay steps have been suspended. I make a fair wage for what I do, and I have job security. Those afraid of personal vendettas need to be nicer to their administrators.

Point being, collective bargaining has not been missed since I moved to Texas. If anything, my quality of life has improved. I am teaching the class I have always wanted to teach. I got this position based on my personal abilities over a teacher with much more seniority. While in Ohio I was trapped in a Sped class, while other History teachers from outside the district were hired to teach subjects, I wanted to teach. (simply because the administrator had friends that needed jobs) Union has done nothing for my career.

While in Ohio, I almost gave up on teaching, due to the politics. In Texas, I can't imagine a better career. I owe that to the lack of collective bargaining.

A million intertubez points to you, sir.

George: you sound exactly like the kind of teacher I want in the classroom. Congrats on getting to that sweet spot in your career.

Writerbuckeye;738019 wrote:George: you sound exactly like the kind of teacher I want in the classroom. Congrats on getting to that sweet spot in your career.

No kidding. Any teacher who is that confident in his or her own personal abilities ... such that they know they can negotiate for themselves ... is a teacher I can trust to stay motivated in 10 or 15 years, when my child may be in his classroom.

dwccrew;737971 wrote:/thread.

Someone that has experienced the teaching career with and without collective bargaining puts things into perspective. Now let's hear what all the doomsday and fear mongerers have to counter with.

You'll probably get as many answers to that as Fish did with his question. I think only 1 pro-union person replied.

georgemc80;737967 wrote:First, I haven't read all 90 pages, just about 10 or so. Second, I have worked in the private sector and also taught in Ohio prior to moving to teach in Texas.

I resented being forced to join a union when I was in Ohio. I received little to no benefit by union membership. Texas doesn't have collective bargaining. I did join the TCTA (professional organization for the discounts I receive mostly). We still work on a pay scale, decided by the board. We don't ever have the threat of a strike(teacher strikes should be illegal anyways). Through these tough times, we are losing teaching positions, and pay steps have been suspended. I make a fair wage for what I do, and I have job security. Those afraid of personal vendettas need to be nicer to their administrators.

Point being, collective bargaining has not been missed since I moved to Texas. If anything, my quality of life has improved. I am teaching the class I have always wanted to teach. I got this position based on my personal abilities over a teacher with much more seniority. While in Ohio I was trapped in a Sped class, while other History teachers from outside the district were hired to teach subjects, I wanted to teach. (simply because the administrator had friends that needed jobs) Union has done nothing for my career.

While in Ohio, I almost gave up on teaching, due to the politics. In Texas, I can't imagine a better career. I owe that to the lack of collective bargaining.

+1

georgemc80;737967 wrote:First, I haven't read all 90 pages, just about 10 or so. Second, I have worked in the private sector and also taught in Ohio prior to moving to teach in Texas.

I resented being forced to join a union when I was in Ohio. I received little to no benefit by union membership. Texas doesn't have collective bargaining. I did join the TCTA (professional organization for the discounts I receive mostly). We still work on a pay scale, decided by the board. We don't ever have the threat of a strike(teacher strikes should be illegal anyways). Through these tough times, we are losing teaching positions, and pay steps have been suspended. I make a fair wage for what I do, and I have job security. Those afraid of personal vendettas need to be nicer to their administrators.

Point being, collective bargaining has not been missed since I moved to Texas. If anything, my quality of life has improved. I am teaching the class I have always wanted to teach. I got this position based on my personal abilities over a teacher with much more seniority. While in Ohio I was trapped in a Sped class, while other History teachers from outside the district were hired to teach subjects, I wanted to teach. (simply because the administrator had friends that needed jobs) Union has done nothing for my career.

While in Ohio, I almost gave up on teaching, due to the politics. In Texas, I can't imagine a better career. I owe that to the lack of collective bargaining.

A+++++. Would read again.

georgemc80;737967 wrote:First, I haven't read all 90 pages, just about 10 or so. Second, I have worked in the private sector and also taught in Ohio prior to moving to teach in Texas.

I resented being forced to join a union when I was in Ohio. I received little to no benefit by union membership. Texas doesn't have collective bargaining. I did join the TCTA (professional organization for the discounts I receive mostly). We still work on a pay scale, decided by the board. We don't ever have the threat of a strike(teacher strikes should be illegal anyways). Through these tough times, we are losing teaching positions, and pay steps have been suspended. I make a fair wage for what I do, and I have job security. Those afraid of personal vendettas need to be nicer to their administrators.

Point being, collective bargaining has not been missed since I moved to Texas. If anything, my quality of life has improved. I am teaching the class I have always wanted to teach. I got this position based on my personal abilities over a teacher with much more seniority. While in Ohio I was trapped in a Sped class, while other History teachers from outside the district were hired to teach subjects, I wanted to teach. (simply because the administrator had friends that needed jobs) Union has done nothing for my career.

While in Ohio, I almost gave up on teaching, due to the politics. In Texas, I can't imagine a better career. I owe that to the lack of collective bargaining.

Yeah right ..... you're just a union buster in disguise.

QuakerOats;738156 wrote:Yeah right ..... you're just a union buster in disguise.

lol'd

Let's branch this topic out a little.

What are you thoughts on SCABS? (people who will do the job while the unions are on strike, don't be gross )

CenterBHSFan;738298 wrote:Let's branch this topic out a little.

What are you thoughts on SCABS? (people who will do the job while the unions are on strike, don't be gross )

I think they're mostly people who need work, and I get furious when people speak ill of them.

It's obvious they're willing to work, or they wouldn't sign up, so they're not lazy. However, they need the work, and they're willing to take the pay that others think they're above.

That's competition for you. Be willing to work harder than the guy next to you for equal or less pay, and you'll have a job longer than he will.