Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

unless by "interest of individual teachers," you mean the "interest of union board members" you don't get how unions work.

the people who run a union have their phony baloney jobs secure with the way things are; why let someone start playing around with seniority?

First of all, kiss my ass.

Second of all, read my post before delivering the condescending and incorrect non-response to it.

Sorry, but the schtick wears on me sometimes. I understand how unions work. Rhee wasn't "playing around with seniority." She was offering to let some union members abandon some protections that come with seniority in exchange for the upside of additional merit pay. Her proposals weren't requiring anyone to give anything up.

Happy New Year!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

That's a fundamental problem with unions, just like the differing investment timelines b/t management and investor/owners is a fundamental problem for profit-making corps. You can attempt structure around it, but (1) the union/management will tell you that it's against your interests to do so, and (2) it's hard to design a structure that both works and does not, in fact, damage the interests of the teachers/investors.

ps: the paternalism of unions is occasionally shocking.

It's also possible that they thought they would prevent Rhee from doing other things they didn't like if they sucked her into a protracted and lengthy fight instead of giving her an easy win. I'm just speculating based on the agency problems inherent in unions (and hardly uncommon in other organizations). I never saw a good explanation of what they thought they were doing, in part because the WaPo is a poor imitation of journalism.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

First of all, kiss my ass.

Second of all, read my post before delivering the condescending and incorrect non-response to it.

Sorry, but the schtick wears on me sometimes. I understand how unions work. Rhee wasn't "playing around with seniority." She was offering to let some union members abandon some protections that come with seniority in exchange for the upside of additional merit pay. Her proposals weren't requiring anyone to give anything up.

Happy New Year!

numbskull, that wasn't how the union leadership would see it. what is the upside for them to let any change go?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

numbskull, that wasn't how the union leadership would see it. what is the upside for them to let any change go?

I, like anyone else who paid attention for even a second, understand full well that the union opposed Rhee. I never saw them explain it. I can conjure up several different explanations as to why they didn't like it. If you think you understand why they did what they did, either because you saw something I didn't or because of your superior grasp of unions/bargaining/politics/Washington D.C./the world, why don't you just say what it is in the sort of tone you'd use with people you like or are pretending to like, instead of trying to come across like such a massive asshole? Is it really that hard for you not to be a jackass in a simple conversation?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's also possible that they thought they would prevent Rhee from doing other things they didn't like if they sucked her into a protracted and lengthy fight instead of giving her an easy win. I'm just speculating based on the agency problems inherent in unions (and hardly uncommon in other organizations). I never saw a good explanation of what they thought they were doing, in part because the WaPo is a poor imitation of journalism.

If it was a stall, then Rhee should have moved on to the next issue. And the next time a raise was raised, say "I offered you more money, but you didn't want it" and discuss raises only ion connection with all pay proposals at once and openly blame *leadership* for refusing to give the teachers the options.

Also, the most common complaint I've seen from union leadership about merit pay is that it's a pretext/prelude to trying to require all the teachers to do more to avoid being fired (of course, they say it slightly differently).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

If it was a stall, then Rhee should have moved on to the next issue.

The contract was up, so that wasn't really an option.

Also, the most common complaint I've seen from union leadership about merit pay is that it's a pretext/prelude to trying to require all the teachers to do more to avoid being fired (of course, they say it slightly differently).

People often say things like that for listeners who think about these issues in a how-much-work-is-done-for-the-money way, especially people who think that teachers shouldn't complain because they get every summer off, and who wouldn't like that. I think a big issue that administrators would love to have more power over teachers -- because who wouldn't? -- and teachers would love to be free of that control -- because who wouldn't, especially when that control is being exercised by people who administer public schools?

To my mind, the issue is a lot like sentencing guidelines -- it pretends to be about the system's outputs, but it's really about the relative balance of power exercised by different actors within the system. Sentencing guidelines shift discretion from judges to prosecutors, who get to decide what's charged. School administrators would always like more power to fire teachers. It's not clear to me that has much to do with making schools work better.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

instead of trying to come across like such a massive asshole? Is it really that hard for you not to be a jackass in a simple conversation?

I said I didn't think you understand what drives a union, then I offered my opinion of what drives a union. you countered with "Kiss my ass."

if the question is "who can be meaner in an insult fight," I'll win every time.

if the question is "who starts the insult fights?" well, I say you win most times.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by cletus miller

another problem is the teacher's unions.

2!

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

First of all, kiss my ass.

Second of all, read my post before delivering the condescending and incorrect non-response to it.

Sorry, but the schtick wears on me sometimes. I understand how unions work. Rhee wasn't "playing around with seniority." She was offering to let some union members abandon some protections that come with seniority in exchange for the upside of additional merit pay. Her proposals weren't requiring anyone to give anything up.

Happy New Year!

When you say you know how Unions work, do you mean conceptually/intellectually or practically (i.e. how they impact an enterprises bottom line)?

If the public schools were a business, they would go out of business, i.e. bankrupt, with the cause being union labor costs. In the real world it wouldn't be about sacrificing for the children, it would be about sacrificing to avoid the bread line.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I said I didn't think you understand what drives a union, then I offered my opinion of what drives a union. you countered with "Kiss my ass."

if the question is "who can be meaner in an insult fight," I'll win every time.

if the question is "who starts the insult fights?" well, I say you win most times.

With Mods behaving like this its no wonder we have such a shortage of newberries.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

With Mods behaving like this its no wonder we have such a shortage of newberries.

I admit my contribution to the downward spiral

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Another problem is the Teacher's Unions, with Chicago's union calling for the return of a school board.

I don't normally respond to the same post twice, but in this case I will make an exception.....

On reading the article, I am left with the thought that moving control now is potentially disastrous. Having a smart guy like Rahm in charge is the way to go; although on reflection, having a functional retard (no offence) like Daley in charge probably made it inevitable that the CPS would continue to fail.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I admit my contribution to the downward spiral

sure, but your Modship is more honourary in nature given the lo-traffic state of whatever third tier board it is. No offence.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I said I didn't think you understand what drives a union, then I offered my opinion of what drives a union. you countered with "Kiss my ass."

You told me that I don't know how unions work. If you want to make friends, be friendly. If you want to be a jackass, well, then you don't really need any help from me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

When you say you know how Unions work, do you mean conceptually/intellectually or practically (i.e. how they impact an enterprises bottom line)?

If you want to join the conversation about the unions and Rhee, be my guest.

If the public schools were a business, they would go out of business, i.e. bankrupt, with the cause being union labor costs. In the real world it wouldn't be about sacrificing for the children, it would be about sacrificing to avoid the bread line.

If businesses could profitably do what we ask public schools to do, we wouldn't need public schools.