[Stormsmith]

...his mention of child sexual abuse is just hyperbolic rhetoric and has nothing to do with public sector unions. Why you may ask? Because if management (which is not unionized) fails to report a sexual assault to the proper authorities (not the school board, but the police as such behavior is a serious felony) the problem lies with the school board or administration and not the union member.

True. This is the law, not part of a collective agreement between management and teachers. For evidence of same, note the case of Jerry Sandusky, and the spill-over effects onto faculty (Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculty (APSCUF)). All the criminal charges levied are at Sandusky and at the administration level, none are at the Association.


The paradigm for sexual abuse/misconduct seems to be in keeping with doctors being required by law to report abuse to children. What surprised me was in some countries, the allegations were left on the teachers' records, annotated ith the finding(s), whether the charges be found to be valid or in; or unsubstaniated. For teachers who are the victim of false allegations, their careers are seriously compromised, and this burden doesn't help the situation for future promotion or transfers to other schools.

The teachers, administrators must report sexual misconduct, and frequently, the union cannot remove the report of misconduct from the teacher's record. This stands in contrast of the usual practise of not putting other forms of misconduct (swiping supplies etc) where the member is innocent, nor of the practise of eliminating or expunging the member's record of a finding of guilt aftersome period of time.

Of course he did not read the study, or if he did, he did not know how to understand it. He has his hair on fire (assuming he has any) by results which to someone who did read the decade old study would not seem so damning. For example the study does not rely on its own results but rather is a "survey of the literature". The Dept of Education who commissioned the study says:

(quote)The author’s use of the two words interchangeably throughout the report is potentially confusing
to the reader. Federal law gives separate and specific meaning to the words “sexual abuse,” and
such words should not be confused with the broader, more general concept of “sexual
misconduct.” (end quote)

This would be a good time to point out that sexual misconduct would include among the more serious offenses:
(quote)...showing students pictures of a sexual nature; and sexually-related conversations, jokes,
or questions directed at students(/quote)

And he would also know that this study did not limit itself to educators (union or not) but also included: "In this review, “educator” includes any person older than 18 who:

works with or for a school or other educational or learning organization. This service
may be paid or unpaid, professional, classified or volunteer. Adults covered by this
review might be teachers, counselors, school administrators, secretaries, bus drivers,
coaches, parent volunteers for student activities, lunchroom attendants, tutors, music
teachers, special education aides, or any other adult in contact in a school-related
relationship with a student.

Those figures would seriously skew any stats taken. Any interpretation would have to be carefully worded in order to not present confusing or obfuscating conclusions. I'll note here that a UK report indicated 2/3 of allegations were found to be false.

So I am afraid his strawman has gone up in flames again. Perhaps if he had taken the time to read the study an not just google some bullshit he would have spared himself this public humiliation..

It would do. The lesson here is never embrace a strawmen to your bosom if your hair is on fire.

Now, I never claimed teachers can't be fired. I said it was near impossible to fire them.

That is very much a distinction without a difference. Nearly impossible is not impossible I suppose. But then he argues the semantics without arguing the fact. And the fact is that teachers are not "near (sic) impossible to fire". Perhaps he missed the plethora of teachers male and female sent off tho to the hoosegow almost on a daily basis. For that is where people who commit sexual abuse of a child go. Teacher or not. Now telling an off-color joke?.........

Well, any teacher reported for sexual misconduct would be on leave that day. Teachers who are charged with offences of course will be in court defending themselves. These cases are frequently unproveable one way or the other, and the teacher is left hanging out to dry while the investigation proceeds to the point of being tried, with his/her caareer on hold and paying for trial lawyers, dealing with a destoyed reputation.

It may or may not be difficult to fire teachers, but its easy to sideline them and destroy their lives

EDIT

It is the law, here, that members requiring representation from their union must recieve a vigour defence (if it comes to an arbitrated showdown) just as a defendent is legally entitled to recieve from his/her lawyer

It takes very special circumstances to break a public union's strike. It isn't impossible - just very difficult for politicians in practice.

It takes one stroke of a legislative pen

[Rothbardian]

You see Stormsmith. I am going to let his trolling go. He is unable to post without wild flights of fancy.

If you ever grow up enough to make a post that isn't a masterpiece of passive aggression and strawmen, let me know, your input will be welcome.

It takes very special circumstances to break a public union's strike. It isn't impossible - just very difficult for politicians in practice.

As for my policy recommendations, it would be to open any sector in which government provides services to competition, removing, as much as possible, the inherent advantage of government employees.

Thus I would mitigate the power of teacher unions by allowing free entry to charter schools and voucher-funded private schools. I would do the same for the US (or British) post office, privatise fire-fighting and many other government services.

After that, public workers have every right to strike. And their employers (the government, acting on behalf of citizens generally) have every right to fire them. That's how the balance of power ought to be restored.

It's not that it's difficult for politicians, it's that there's no incentive to do so. And the question still remains unanswered: why do public sector employees need unions to protect them from an employer that has no evil 'profit motive'?

[Eran]

It takes one stroke of a legislative pen

Indeed. And that takes the joint decision of hundreds of people (legislators) to take an action that is typically against their immediate self-interest. That's why it is so rare, though not impossible.

why do public sector employees need unions to protect them from an employer that has no evil 'profit motive'?

Indeed. Perhaps this is an opportunity for some of our statist companions to reflect on how oppressive and unjust the benevolent hands of government officials can be. After all, if they can oppress popular and useful teachers, how much more are they in a position to oppress those who are out of the public's favour (like successful businessmen).

[Drlee]

Indeed. Perhaps this is an opportunity for some of our statist companions to reflect on how oppressive and unjust the benevolent hands of government officials can be. After all, if they can oppress popular and useful teachers, how much more are they in a position to oppress those who are out of the public's favour (like successful businessmen).

Thanks for the argument for public sector unions. Government agencies can indeed be oppressive and unjust in all sorts of things not the least of which in how they pay employees. For example let's look at the continuing reniging of the US government from a contract to provide retired soldiers with lifetime free medical care. Or perhaps their changing retirement rules after people have faithfully participated in the system for years.

I am not certain that your second point is true. I do not think that successful businessmen are out of the public's favor. I think that there are many whose avericious assault on their employees has caused them to fall from favor. For example the Waltons. Many years ago Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, was seen as a bit of a home-grown hero. His organization is not out of favor because we dislike businessmen. It is because they openly abuse employees and use their massive wealth to shout down those who would point it out.

I think Eran, that candor demands that you admit that there is no louder political voice in America than the business sector. Especially since the Citizen's United decision.

[Stormsmith]

Indeed. And that takes the joint decision of hundreds of people (legislators) to take an action that is typically against their immediate self-interest. That's why it is so rarish, though not impossible.

Its rarish, but this isn't why.

In the UK or Canada, a majority cabinet can write its own ticket, and tend to move more according to public opinion that because of the policies of the loyal opposion.The House of Lords and the Canadian Senate have no real clout.

In America, it requires a majority in both houses of congress, and sometimes super majorities.

Here, large swaths of public servants are designated "Essential Services". This includes cops to teachers to medical staff. Their right to strike has been severely curtailed. Medical staff generally recieve fairly good settlements because they can refuse overtime, and they can switch off their cell phones if they're being called in to fill in for someone else's absenteeism. Public opinion puts pressure on the employer to settle quickly. Teachers go on work to rule. They go to their classes, and babysit. No clubs, no sports teams, no instruction. Cops haven't gone on strike here for decades, and when they last did, they all booked off sick with Blue Flu.

Other public union's strikes are brought to a close by legislative action if the public or business community squawks. This includes the Ferries system, the Liquor Board, and so on. The government cannot- nor wants to break unions. Its happy to control them with the legislative pen. There are very few private unions in 'essential service' status, so the government doesn't act against them

[Rothbardian]

Indeed. Perhaps this is an opportunity for some of our statist companions to reflect on how oppressive and unjust the benevolent hands of government officials can be. After all, if they can oppress popular and useful teachers, how much more are they in a position to oppress those who are out of the public's favour (like successful businessmen).

And then they can explain what the point of having a government in the first place is if it's prone to being oppressive and unjust.

I am not certain that your second point is true. I do not think that successful businessmen are out of the public's favor. I think that there are many whose avericious assault on their employees has caused them to fall from favor. For example the Waltons. Many years ago Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, was seen as a bit of a home-grown hero. His organization is not out of favor because we dislike businessmen. It is because they openly abuse employees and use their massive wealth to shout down those who would point it out.

I think Eran, that candor demands that you admit that there is no louder political voice in America than the business sector. Especially since the Citizen's United decision.

He's referring to successful businessmen in a free market. You know, absent an institution of oppression and injustice to use for their own ends.



It is interesting how statists can rant about how much influence corporations and businesses have over government and ignore the fact that with that influence has come the very ever expanding government they think will solve the problem.

[Phred]

It is interesting how statists can rant about how much influence corporations and businesses have over government and ignore the fact that with that influence has come the very ever expanding government they think will solve the problem.

Be careful, Rothbardian. Drlee is no statist. He is a Real Conservative™. He favors the conservative approach to governance, not the liberal approach.


Phred

[Drlee]

^^

IT IS.....A-L-I-V-E !

[Rothbardian]

Be careful, Rothbardian. Drlee is no statist. He is a Real Conservative™. He favors the conservative approach to governance, not the liberal approach.


Phred

If you're not an anarchist, you're a statist.

[Drlee]

If you're not an anarchist, you're a statist.

If you are an anarchist you will soon not be. About the time your parents stop paying your bills.

[Rothbardian]

If you are an anarchist you will soon not be. About the time your parents stop paying your bills.

I'm glad you've given up on pretending you have an actual point to make, or anything to contribute.

[Eran]

Thanks for the argument for public sector unions.

Not so much as an argument against public decision-making altogether.

After all, I don't want to have to belong to an active and effective "union" just so as not to be abused by public officials. I want that (i.e. being protected from official abuse) to be the default position of members of society.

For example let's look at the continuing reniging of the US government from a contract to provide retired soldiers with lifetime free medical care. Or perhaps their changing retirement rules after people have faithfully participated in the system for years.

I am not sure all those commitments have indeed been contractual (as opposed to campaign promises or other non-binding representations). But regardless, we can both agree that government can easily be abusive and not self-disciplining.

If you are an anarchist you will soon not be. About the time your parents stop paying your bills.

Interesting. I only became an anarchist about 25 years after my parents stopped paying my bills. In fact, it only took place a few years before I stopped paying my children's bills...