Teacher Strike Update

[Chris]

Plus there would be nothing standing in the way of the new teachers walking off the job at some point to demand even more money and benefits.

Exactly. Power really resides at the lower level, the employees, just like consumers, if people would just realize that.

[Chris]

Well, I guess getting another job is one way of fixing the problem on a personal level - but do we think someone who spent years at university qualifying to teach kids, would make a better server at McDonalds? My dad says trade unions have been an important part of any developed nation, and anyone who doesn't want them is happy to see vulnerable people exploited. It's interesting that the most successful societies have the highest level of trade union membership.

Who says it needs to be a job at McDonald's? Part of any job should involve communication, and teachers ought to be good at that.

[Chris]

As for unions, to me they're fine...as long as no one is forced to join them, or forced to pay dues like teachers, and as long as the law doesn't side with them any more than it does with those who employ them--the government should remain neutral.

[gamewell45]

I'm surprised some governor hasn't gone all Ronald Reagan/Air Traffic Controller Union on them.

I think it depends on the individual state; some states have laws prohibiting teachers/public service workers from striking instead giving them binding arbitration and other states allow striking. In Reagan's case, the ATC was critical for public safety; the teachers going on strike--while an inconvenience--is not a public safety issue.

[Abby08]

Don't teachers, by now, know what the job pays?

One teacher was holding a sign that read, "I took a 50% cut in pay to teach in Arizona.". Well, who's fault is that?

These teachers claim they're doing it for the students, well, while they're out protesting, the schools are closed....

Anyone who doesn't like their job, is free to quit.

[gamewell45]

Don't teachers, by now, know what the job pays?

One teacher was holding a sign that read, "I took a 50% cut in pay to teach in Arizona.". Well, who's fault is that?

These teachers claim they're doing it for the students, well, while they're out protesting, the schools are closed....

Anyone who doesn't like their job, is free to quit.

That's very true; slavery went out in 1865. If you don't feel you are being compensated fairly you have an unfettered right to withhold your services until either you feel you are being compensated fairly or you find another job. Just when 50,000 teachers walk off the jobs, finding replacements in a timely fashion can be a challenge. It's called action based on strength. The schools have the option of replacing them permanently or coming to an agreement with them.

[Dr. Who]

Since the law doesn't allow the employer to just terminate them unless they are wildcatting, it certainly is extortion.

I would have no problems with strikes if the employer could protect himself by just firing anyone who walks out.


Your use of the word "scabs" tells me much about your mindset. Most of the time, those "scabs" actually increase production and quality of work over the overpaid, pampered, union crybabies. The union also uses threats of force against its own members if they want to cross the picket line and go back to work. During the UMW strike against the BCOA, I interviewed a whole herd of UMW members who didn't want to be on strike and just wanted to go back to work, but as a number of them told me... they were scared to because once the strike was over, they would have to be underground with those guys and it was made clear to them just how easy it is for an "accident" to happen.

What was interesting about that strike was that when replacement workers were hired, production actually went UP per man hour. Over all production was still down because there weren't enough replacement workers to operate at full strength, but the workers they did have produced more per man hour than the union people did before the strike.

In that particular strike, UMW members lost their cars and in many cases, their homes because they stayed out so long. It wasn't that many of them didn't want to go back to work, they were afraid of what the union goons would do to them if they did.

All unions are not the same. Some are aggressive and militant and others are mindful of both sides of the equation and work to reach an equitable solution. Those unions that threaten their own members are actually criminal enterprise - they are literally run by criminals. They tend to be the among the more historical unions that were infiltrated by criminal elements a very long time ago.

People who are unionized are often employed in jobs that don't really have a great deal in the way of career advancement nor any really formal review process for performance. They don't tend to have stretch objectives because the job doesn't really allow for it, so these jobs don't have dynamic salary ranges. The only way they can increase their wages is to apply for a different position of which there are few available, or to unionize and as a group ask for increased wages and/or benefits.

[Cletus]

Many states have ridiculous protections for striking workers that prevent them from being fired. Personally, I think if they walk out on the job, it should be classified as job abandonment and they should be terminated for cause and ineligible to collect unemployment insurance.

[Cletus]

All unions are not the same. Some are aggressive and militant and others are mindful of both sides of the equation and work to reach an equitable solution. Those unions that threaten their own members are actually criminal enterprise - they are literally run by criminals. They tend to be the among the more historical unions that were infiltrated by criminal elements a very long time ago.

I saw violence against people and property from the Teamsters, United Mine Workers, United Auto Workers, Some hospital workers union in New York, a teachers union in Ohio... Almost all of them, even small ones engage in it either directly (through their members) or indirectly (through agitators brought in by umbrella organizations liker the AFL-CIO).

If someone works in a job with little chance for advancement, that is no one's fault but their own. They need to do whatever it takes to develop the skills necessary to move ahead. Blackmailing an employer is not the answer.

Unions want only one thing... power. They don't care how they get it or who gets hurt in the process. Trumka, when he ran the United Mine Workers, let his people lose their homes and vehicles rather than allow them to go back to work, even though many, many of them wanted to. They didn't, because they were AFRAID to. They feared violence their own union leadership.

People who are unionized are often employed in jobs that don't really have a great deal in the way of career advancement nor any really formal review process for performance. They don't tend to have stretch objectives because the job doesn't really allow for it, so these jobs don't have dynamic salary ranges. The only way they can increase their wages is to apply for a different position of which there are few available, or to unionize and as a group ask for increased wages and/or benefits.

Then get a new job.

[AZ Jim]

Here in RED Arizona support for the teachers strike is 66% in their favor.