I will probably lose good friends over this, but it has to be said. Traditional unions, such as the Autoworkers or Longshoreman, perform a valuable service for their members. They negotiate wages, benefits and to some extent employment levels within private corporations. I have no problem with this.
Unions within government at various levels, and also the public schools, are another story. Unions are, especially when judged by their political contributions, almost exclusively Democratic. A non-unionized workforce would almost certainly more closely reflect the voting public at large. It would also reduce costs for taxpayers, who are now the vehicle politicians use to reward the unions that fund their political campaigns. Why do we permit these unions to create one-party control within schools and government? How does that benefit the public at large? Would wokism even have been possible within the educational system without a uniparty teacher workforce?
The problem with the teachers unions in particular is that they manage to exclude from the ranks of teachers highly qualified people who have worked in the private sector and prevent them from teaching in the schools! How does this benefit students, schools and new graduates?
As a general rule- NO ONE who works indoors or showers after work as opposed to in the morning needs a union. Done.
??
Worded a little weird. But yeah I know what you mean. And no they dont.
Teachers don’t realize there is no benefit to the ‘union’ (not a union in Maryland – they are technically termed ‘associations’). After the Janus case was heard by SCOTUS, teachers cannot be forced to pay for the NEA or AFT. These unions/associations are (and have been for awhile) nothing more than super PACs for the Democrats. These associations have long said (prior to Janus) that teachers don’t have to sign up with them, but the teachers paychecks were garnished for the amount of the dues regardless. Teachers really had no recourse at all, and just threw up their collective hands and gave in. That is no longer the case, as teachers can pay a service like LegalShield and tailor their retainers to suit their needs for far cheaper without the legal interference (a year of LegalShield is $25/month @$300/year vs. the higher going rate NEA/AFT charge. The teachers super PACs will often say that the legal representation they offer is far better and includes negotiation for contracts. Both are weak and bogus statements perpetrated by years of outright lies. How do I know this? I worked with Chet Elder years ago, who was the UniServe rep for this area (the guy you call when you ran into trouble as a teacher.)
Any teacher that believes that NEA/AFT are anything but what I shared above are kidding themselves. These associations don’t serve students/ families – quite the opposite and IMO should be seen for what they are – a very lucrative grift.
Yes!