User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 1.2930 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
that would then make him a perfect target to join a union. He could forfeit half his paycheck for 3 months so that the union exec could live a lifestyle of a higher quality than the owner of whatever job he's at, and feel happy that he is striking while the company is going under. It worked great for TWA.
I mean in the UK although unions lost the majority of their influnce and militancy through the 80s they are still somewhat respected/accepted by the majority of people but in the US there seems to be real deep-rooted anti-union feeling.
And umpires do?
Or is this more about having an "enemy" we can all agree to laugh at? A scapegoat for all the "calls" we see missed in our real lives. As sports is really just a convoluted series of morality plays, I think this might have more to do with it than anything.
Frankly I don't understand why it would be different in other countries. Isn't the mass media in the UK also made up of multinational corporations?
It was a comment on bashing unions, not the umpires' hours.
When I was a kid, my grandparents lived in Homestead, and whenever we went to see them, we drove past the historical marker commemmorating the Homestead Strike, and the graves of all but one of the workers shot by the Pinkertons. Seeing that really gives you perspective about the ways businesses will conduct themeselves without strong unions as a check and balance.
flournoy should try working 15 hours a day, 6 days a week, then come back here and see if he says the same thing.
Hey, I do that!
There's bashing unions and then there's bashing unions in sports. Just because the latter is one of the former doesn't mean they are the same.
Firing them all might seem tempting but (a) there are (at minimum) a handful of good umpires you'd be losing and (b) it would almost certainly lead to a marked decline in the quality of umpiring for a few seasons at the least, because there'd be a huge number of umpires promoted above their competancy level.
If someone can present a reasonable plan that gets around these issues, then fine, but I've not heard one yet.
Yes it did, but I'm not going to be sympathetic towards the umpires union because some guy in another line of work has to pull down 15 hour days 6 days a week.
Well, of course. You have to evaluate each union on its own merits and faults.
Evaluate, promote, and retain umpires based on competency rather than seniority? Make assignments and bonuses a matter of skill rather than a reward for extended service? That should do it.
Now, if you want a solution which works within the set of restraints imposed by the current Umpires Union, then I'm stuck. I suppose baseball could work to get ruled as a right-to-work environment, and then individually contract independent umpires, but that would also likely result in a strike by the Umpires Union, and I'm also not sure as to whether the Umpires have signed an exclusive contract with baseball.
Or, perhaps they could just bring back the genius who came up with the "Let's all quit. There's no way that this could backfire on us" negotiation strategy.
dispatch the primates! Make sure to put kevin and David Nieporent on one umpiring crew together to ensure a healthy checks-and-balance system. This umpiring crew would be the gold standard, which other umpiring crews would be measured by. The games would last over 2 days (at least) especially if Barry Bonds comes back and plays in one of their games. However, every call would be discussed painstakingly and the truth would eventually be revealed...or not. But primate umpiring crews would be progress.
At least for now, it seems like MLB is better with the devil they know than the one they don't
I would agree that they HAVE been a major force for good, especially for allowing workers to work a reasonable amount of hours. The days of the company towns, the violence of the Pinkertons, the not-so-Gilded Age, thank goodness those days are long gone.
But unions seem to be like the Democratic party, living off the shine from 50-75 years ago (New Deal, in the Dems case, and Civil Rights from 45 years ago). Most of what we see, at least with my East Coast bias, is obstructionist behavior. Philly sees its share of union intimidation with just enough violent behavior (at a property destruction level, not Pinkerton level). School teachers are seen as prima donnas and nearly impossible to remove, no matter how bad they are. God forbid you ask a drywall hanger to carry a folding table. Racist, too. There are some startling statistics in the Philly construction unions -- only 3% of union members at the ranks above the lowest (laborer) are black. A very high % of laborers are black. The unions are working on that, just as they were 10 years ago. There is no competition between union and non-union in Philly, virtually all the politicos are locked in with the unions.
As one who attempts to be fair-minded, I'd be interested in hearing what unions have done lately as a force for good. Maybe they need to improve their PR.
this is the dumbest argument for unions. back in the 1800s and early 1900s, yes this was the main problem that forced unions into existance. but with the <sarcasm>modern</sarcasm> advent of labor laws (let alone child labor laws), minimum wage, etc this is no longer an issue. the law has taken over the original purpose of unions. so what did unions do to "adapt" to their seemingly imminent obsolence, they started strong-arming companies into ludicris.
and if that's not enough, this is a free market economy. if you don't want a 15 hour/6 day a week job, you can simply find work at another place that gives you less hours. but don't complain to me that you'll make less money because you work less hours (and the hourly rate is the same). you can't have your cake and eat it too.
and in the meanwhile, who are the people (today, no less) that are working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week with no overtime? illegal immigrants in illegal sweatshops who can't possibly unionize.
people think they're being protected by unions when in reality, it's the union heads/bosses who are milking unions to line their own pockets. they take money out of your pocket every month (union dues) so that they could talk to the company? and people sign up for this?
True, though I think that without unions, some of those things might creep back.
Keep in mind I see the modern abuse of/by the union. I'm just not sure what the solution would be, given the general scumbaggery of management/capitalism.
"
And poor citizens with 2-3 part-time minimum-wage jobs. Fast food joints and such are pretty thorough about keeping you under 40 hours a week, to keep you from accruing benefits, so if you're poor and you have to pay for your own medical care, you often need multiple low-paying jobs just to make ends meet.
Well, no wonder he sold all those albums, then.
I dislike unions in general (not just sports unions) because they are a negative force in the workplace. They stifle competition and are a drain on the economy.
Unions exist to protect the weakest, most incompetent members. By doing so, they place a ceiling on the strong. They negotiate collectively bargained pay-scales based on service time, not performance, destroying incentive to work hard. They make it almost impossible for companies to fire incompetent workers. You end up with a workforce just going through the motions, doing as little as they can and letting their unions take care of everything else.
Unions resist any improvements to the industry, as those improvements usually make some of the union members' jobs obsolete. Unions are Luddites, killing the economy. Want to know a dirty little secret about why the Japanese manufacturing companies (and Japanese car companies in particular) are kicking American companies' asses? The Japanese companies don't have to put up with the same union problems that the American companies do. Honda and Toyota threw in assembly lines and downsized their assembly workforce. Oops, that's a union issue in America. American companies are consistently behind the curve, fighting against the unions the whole way. The result is more expensive, lower quality products that nobody buys, but hey, we saved some good American jobs in the process! Oh wait, those jobs won't exist anymore after the companies go under. Darn, that didn't work at all, did it?
Ever wonder why teachers' unions oppose school choice? No, it has nothing to do with some idealistic nonsense about inner city kids. It's because the teachers' unions don't want to encourage competition in the workplace. It sure would be disappointing to have teachers trying to excel rather than trying to show up and collect their paychecks. Introduce school choice, and parents will unfailingly gravitate towards schools with good teachers. That means that the schools with bad teachers have problems to address: namely, getting rid of their bad teachers. (Uh oh, union issue!) Of course, I am assuming that these schools with bad teachers are government schools and not private schools, so they can't just go out of business like any normal company would.
Never mind that introducing school choice would place a higher demand on good teachers, rather than just "teachers," and that higher salaries would follow, providing competent teaching candidates incentive to take the jobs. (No more "Those who can't do, teach.") That is precisely how to improve our education system. But to the unions, protecting the jobs of the worst teachers is much more important.
Some poster above implied that if I had a crappy job, maybe I would like to join a union. Actually, if I had a crappy job, I would like to get a better job, not to have a union strongarm my company into keeping me in my crappy job and providing me with some incentives that help make my company less competitive.
I'll give you one example from the industry I'm most familiar with, the airlines.
While the airline union, like all unions rarely if ever takes any action without some self serving motive, there is one area where the union and the public interest is joined at the hip: Safety. They are, as the saying goes, all in the same boat together.
These days with profit margins razor thin or non-existent, there is a huge incentive for management to cut corners, and many of them are safety related. Pilots are constantly pressured to take aircraft with outstanding maintainance issues, or to look past duty day limitations, or to bring the flight in below weather minimums, "for the good of the team." Without union protection, the crew has to make a choice of "Do I do something possible unsafe and illegal or do I risk my job?" Two examples:
The FAA regs require a relief pilot to be assigned to the crew when the scheduled flight time exceeds 8 hours for a single leg. The Dallas-Honolulu flights in the winter always exceed 8 hours, averaging between 8.5 and 9 hours due to headwinds. However, some management bean counter figured out that if you fly low, (below the jet stream), they could make the scheduled flight time be a hair under 8 hours. The problem is, flying lower is much noisier and much rougher, and made for a very uncomfortable 8 hours for passengers and crew. But, it saved a few bucks by not having to pay for a third pilot. Inevitably, the crew shortly after takeoff would request a higher altitude for a safer more comfortable (and longer) flight, just as management counted on. Until the union put their foot down and said they weren't going to play that game anymore.
A pilot friend of mine was once laid off by a major carrier and he got a job flying for a small, non-union, carrier flying from Miami to the Bahamas. One day, with the weather really lousy, he took off for Marsh Harbor. When he got there, the weather was below mins, he shot the approach twice, missed both times, and went back to Miami. When he got back to Miami, he was fired. "Everybody else (from this company) got in. Why didn't you? You are my first pilot in years do divert back to Miami? You just cost me a bunch of money!"
If you want to see why people dislike unions, look at what started this very thread: MLB wants to institute replay. The umpires' union is being obstructionist. Why? Because it can be.
Only in America folks, only in America...
They also prevent management from exploiting workers. "Hey, Jones over there put in three hours of work this weekend at home for no pay. Why didn't you do the same? I may have to re-evaluate the manning situation here."
Want to know another dirty little secret. Upper Management in Japan makes only 10X what the average worker makes, not 100X or 1000X like here. If the workers feel that more of the fruits of their labor goes either into their pockets, or the shareholders, or back into the company, they are more likely to be happy, productive, and go the extra mile. But when the lions share of the profits go into the pockets of the few top managers, they also take the "What about mine?" attitude towards their work.
Is instant reply an issue which falls under the CBA with the umpires? If so, how can you be so dismissive of the umpires concerns? It is a contact after all. I thought you were all about enforcement of contracts. You certainly felt that way when the MLBPA resisted mandatory unilateral drug testing in violation of their CBA.
You've cut the anti-union lead from 50-0 to 50-1. :)
Well, it's doing for a very good reason - because increased reliance on technology over human judgement threatens their working practices and will severely hamper their leverage with their employer. Sounds like a perfect time you want a union to step in on your behalf. It's just that everyone outside the union disagrees with them.
Unions are like strikes. Few believe they are worth it except the people involved in them. That's also why they are very, very necessary - because not many other people in the world care about anyone else's working practices, hours and job security anymore. Shame, really.
I'm sure there are good unions, but I think that most of us have not had good experiences with unions and that clouds our judgment. I think part of that is because when a union is doing a good job you don't really hear about it, so you only hear the negative things and those stick out. For example my dad was a teacher for a few years and his union sucked. A couple of friends work for UPS and they're in a union and I can't recall hearing anything that bad about it. Which one sticks out more in my mind? The teacher's union.
They care obviously, but it is merely their job or bonus on the line, not their life. And since the odds are low of a crash, they like to play the odds.
If that happens to you and you don't like it, then get a better job. If you're capable of providing value to your employer, then your employer will try not to run you off the job.
If that's the case, and if that contributes to failings of American companies, then those companies will die out naturally.
Unless Congress steps in and bails them out, of course.
David, do you actually think they are taking this action for no other reason? Seriously?
If you're capable of providing value to your employer, then your employer will try not to run you off the job.
Ummm.... no, not really. Not if you come from a massive of pool of people who can do the same job.
This is false. I've never worked for free on a weekend.
A company can absorb a tiny percentage of crashes and will manage to that limit as best as it can.
It's not a matter of life and death to management, is it? We all know there is risk in flying in an airplane. If you are in that plane, the amount of risk you are willing add to the base risk of flying is less than a manager sitting on the ground is willing to add.
EDIT: I owe Misirlou a beverage.
Hence you are not providing value to your company.
In my opinion, unions were very important at their infancy. They're still important now, but a lot of unions go too far. Do you know how long a high school teacher has to work in my local district before getting tenure? Two years. After two years of employment the school district needs to decide whether the teacher should be let go or offered tenure. If they're offered tenure, they can only be dismissed for egregious offenses (affair with student, physical abuse, etc.). So while they get reviewed every year, it doesn't really mean anything since their pay scale and job security are guaranteed. That's too far.
I would be in favor of scaling back unions' power somewhat. Of course, I do not have a practical solution for doing that.
I figured that you couldn't let a "New Deal as perceived good" comment go by uncommented upon. :)
Another example within the airline safety relates to the pressure from management for pilots to stock the minimum amount of fuel to save cash - both on the fuel itself and on the extra fuel burn associated with the fuel weight. The unions give the pilots and associated crew the right to load as little or as much fuel as they feel they need, rather than what management feels they need (which is far too often based on the assumption that everything will go smoothly). While it may increase airline costs, it greatly increases airline safety.
If it is in their CBA, that would give them the legal right to object, but it wouldn't change my underlying point, which was not about legal rights but about the function of unions: if unions serve the function of obstructing changes that will improve the business for no other reason than protecting their jobs, it demonstrates the negative utility of unions.
My only real quibble with labor unions is the attempted whittling away of the freely entered arrangement on the other side. If workers have rights to negotiate collectively and enter into an agreement, the other side's rights to *not* negotiate with that group should also continue to be protected.
This is a circular argument. An exploitative employer will see the most value in someone he can exploit out of fear of unemployment. If someone does not allow themselves to be exploited, they will be seen (by you, from the outside) as someone who is not providing value and therefore deserving of termination. There's no way to win with how you've got it set up, no check or balance.
AND ONCE AGAIN: I see that there are legions of problems with unions and I am operating under a kind of base argument for their existence. They do need to be there.
Someone's right, either my co-workers and I to talk as a group or my bosses right to not deal with the group is going to have to be removed, or nothing is ever going to get done.
But they shouldn't have to talk to you. If the compensation your union is asking for is justified, they'll deal fairly quickly (most strikes are very, very short). That's the leverage unions have over employers.
But the leverage on the opposite end, when it's the unions making the unjustified demands instead of the employers, the employers should retain their rights to replace those workers.
Both sides push for government to enforce their leverage and to artifically reduce the leverage of the other side. Which suggests to me that government has little purpose in these negotiations, with the exception of police functions for crimes committed by either side, at least when there's not a compelling safety interest - there's far more justification for a government being involved in airline safety than in overtime pay for employees of a butter factory.
Absolutely. I have no problem with that. I may have a problem with strikebreakers, but not with the right of management to hire them.
edit: actually, I probably misused the term strikebreaker. I mean those who cross picket lines, not those who beat up strikers.
You don't need to define unjustified demands. I bought my current car for 25K. If the dealer had demanded 30K or I had demanded 20K, both of us were free to sell the car and my currency, respectively, to others.
The problem, though, is when Republicans say that I can only buy a car from that dealer or the Democrats say that the dealer can only sell that car to me. So we get ridiculous right-to-work laws on one side and ridiculous laws granting one side to right to coerce employees but not the other on the other side, so ability to enter into a contract is arbitrarily based on which letter more politicians have next to their name at the time.
This is another issue in which libertarians aren't simply Republicans that like to smoke pot, as a lot of people claim.
Also, were there any better or worse advancement paths in the union vs. non-union shop?
The fundamental job duty of the umpire is to call balls and strikes, safe and out, fair and foul. I haven't kept up with all the proposals for instant replay, but doesn't this one directly modify that job duty by having someone in MLB offices rather than a member of the umpiring crew make that call? If this were just a directive that the umps needed to review a screen near the field, that would be like changing from outside to inside chest protectors or from those wonderful maroon sports coats to the light blue shirts. But if I understand correctly, the proposal is removing (or at least affecting) a significant element of the job itself.
Also, were there any better or worse advancement paths in the union vs. non-union shop?
The union dues were nominal. The difference is more than eaten up by the increased price of health care. And i'm single.
I don't quite understand your second question, but in the union shop we'd get a set advancement every year (2 pay scale jumps) no matter what else happened, plus a cost of living adjustment. After enough pay scale jumps, you'd get an increase in title, which i guess could be considered a career advancement, in that if you left and were hired by someone else, you'd be able to put the new title on your resume. If you stay, the change in title doesn't really matter though, of course, as the money is what really counts.
In my non-union work, the raises and cost of living adjustment seem to be arbitrary, based on what the budget looks like that year. I'd much rather know ahead of time that i'm going to be earning a certain amount more.
Plus, with inflation at 9.8% over the last 12 months (thanks fed), i'd rather have someone pleading my case to my employer during the cost of living adjustment process.
overall i think unions are good, a lot of employers will schedual you with just few enough hours to not give you benifits, but enough that they get all that they can from you before you cross that threshold. hell if it wasnt for the military i wouldnt have any medical benifits because it costs too damn much to get my own insurence. thats wher ei see unions as valuable. espically in the manufactering, and realy in and labor based job. you need those protections so you dont get ###### by some company.
in reguards to the airlines, flying and maintaining aircraft is expensive any way a company can save money and cut costs they will do it. and yeah sometimes it means they bypass FAA regs in hopes of not getting caught. most of the accidents that happen are because they are understaffed or ignoring regs. this even gos for the air traffic mishaps, they dont man the towers the way they should and with out a union those guys would be getting #### on even more.
In my non-union work, the raises and cost of living adjustments seem to be arbitrary, based on the idiot actions of people in a department other than mine.
I don't mind (well, I do, but I can understand how it could happen) not getting a raise if the company is not doing well financially. I do mind, however, not getting a raise because the company is doing poorly financially, partially because the executive team are handing each other 50% raises, while my program is the only one bringing in any significant amount of revenue.
At times like that, I can see the benefit of a union with known fixed pay raises.
Who else should get it? The tooth fairy? Mike Crudale? History has demonstrated time and time again that the only time working people gain meaningful improvements in their lives is after they've been fought for. It was workers, both inside and outside of unions who fought for and won these rights. Period.
People cite working conditions from the 19th century, as though the primary function of unions today was improving working conditions. As opposed to featherbedding, creating arcane job categories so that employees can refuse to do work because it belongs to some other union job description, preventing employers from firing incompetent employees, etc.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were posting from Fantasyland. My apologies.
Listen, the 'unions go to far' argument is a tiny bit valid, when referring to some unions who are generally useless, but it misses the point to the extent that pointing to A-Rod's 2006 ALDS performance as the essence of his value as a ballplayer.
Unions go to far? In a country with, what? 12% union density? A country which has seen a transfer of wealth to the top 5% unprecedented in history? Where millions of workers lack health care, and are an unexpected job loss or illness away from bankruptcy and foreclosure? Where the country's industrial base has been sold overseas, replaced my low-paying, insecure service sector jobs? Give me a ####### break.
I'm sure David would cite the airline union's demand for a relief pilot on legs greater than 8 hours IOW FAA regs is an example of featherbedding.
Hey, guess who you can thank for that.
EDIT: And I mean, other than government imposing huge tax burdens on companies, forcing them to do so.
The Republicans?
People in other nations who are prohibited by law from organizing? Governments who are willing to waive all health, safety, wage, and environmental regulations?
And that would invalidate the need for unions in my eyes about as much as me saying that Enron meant that all power companies should be state-run would fly for him.
Should a teacher be expected maintain control in the classroom? Be expected to show enthusiasm for his work? Notice if a child is not living up to her potential and discuss with the parents? Work to engage all children? If the kids in 3 of the classes in a grade progress to expectations every year but there is 1 that trails year after year and it's always the same teacher? C'mon, there ARE crappy teachers who are protected by the system. It shouldn't be a lot to ask to root them out, just like crappy Software Developers are rooted out.
EDIT: actually with offshoring, a lot of mediocre developers have been rooted out and even some competent ones.
As of 2005, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP in the US was 27.3%, which was 36th in the world (using available data), behind pretty much every other industrialized nation. While Americans may be overtaxed (which is a matter of individual perception), they still pay a lot less than most other places.
For reference, Canada is at 33.4%, the UK at 37%, Germany at 38.8% and France at 44.0%.
One of my college buddies, down south, spent a year as a teacher in a public high school. He made like $12k for the year, and then quit because he could earn significantly more as the assistant manager at AutoZone. That year, he lived in a one-bedroom apartment between a cemetery and the housing projects, and stockpiled free matzoh so he'd have something to eat.
There are crappy teachers, but there are also a lot of rules and regulations that limit a teachers ability to do their job.
Should a teacher be expected to maintain control? Of course. However, the only tool that a teacher has left to do so is verbal, and any verbal response which is considered excessive will result in the parents filing a complaint. Should a teacher notice if a child isn't living up to their potential? Sure, but this still requires parents who want to involve themselves with the child and the school. Should they strive to engage all student? Yes, but that also requires having students who want to be engaged. Should they be enthusiastic? Probably, but it's hard to be so every single day when you know you have limited tools for teaching and discipline at your disposal, and no effective means of recourse should you be accused of anything.
Good performance should be rewarded and bad performance punished. Unfortunately, it's very hard to establish whether a teacher is good or bad based solely on student performance.
Public school teachers up in Ontario, Canada, start at around the mid-30s, with some variation depending on the location of the school. If they started at $12K, there would be a massive shortage of teachers, as they could earn more than that as a WalMart greeter. I hope your buddy was exaggerating his plight.
I was still in school in the same city at that time, so I spent a fair bit of time with him, and no, not so much. He did get clipped a bit on salary because he wasn't licensed - but the fact that they couldn't attract licensed teachers with their salary structure is pretty illustrative in and of itself. And that's 12k for the school year, which would've prorated out to more for a calendar year.
Teachers up here in PA tend to get a fair bit more, and surprise surprise, the applicant pool is much better.
[Edit: To be clear, we're talking about a 2001-ish time frame here.]
It's obviously ridiculous, of course. I second Ryan's #88, as well, and urge readers to think about that last clause.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean "he wasn't licensed"? Do you mean he didn't have a teaching certificate? I ask, only because I didn't realize was possible to teach in a public school without a teaching certificate.
Also, even pro-rating that 12K out over a full year doesn't really put him much above minimum wage. I hope, for his sake, the benefits were good, or at least existed.
Year-to-year, sure. It's not that hard to look at an established track record and see that a teacher's students perform recognizably worse than those of his colleagues consistently and determine that there is a problem.
I'm not even thinking about housing. Just covering food and transportation would consume most of $12K over a year. - even assuming $50 a week for groceries, $20 for gas, and about $1K for car insurance and upkeep (all of which I consider to be low), that puts him at $4.5K before even considering housing, taxes, clothes, or any incidentals.
I've lived on that much a year as a student, but that was under student conditions. I can't imagine doing the same after graduation.
Yeah, he had a college degree, but not a certificate. The district back then was allowed to hire people without certification on a waiver, as long as they were making some effort to become certified, so they had him enroll in one class to satisfy the requirement and then turned him loose. I think they've tightened that up in the interim, but back then, a whole bunch of the teachers at the school were on the same kind of arrangement.
He did, at least, have some teaching-related job experience, which probably helped.
Ryan, I didn't mean to say that any of those items I ticked off were easy or doable in all cases or required every minute of every day. I was responding (in kind, I suppose) to #77 which seemed to be a blanket defense of all teachers.
Unfortunately, it's very hard to establish whether a teacher is good or bad based solely on student performance.
Sure, there are a number of other criteria, I didn't elaborate there. It's hard to evaluate performance on any job that isn't "assembly line" in nature. But just as bad programmers/designers/analysts are weeded out through studying results, personal inspection of their work, targeted assignments and a period of probation with strict rules of engagement have been the norm where I have worked. Something similar should be in place for problem teachers; should it be very hard work to get rid of a bad teacher, yes indeed, but not onerous or next to impossible.
Saying parents will gravitate towards schools with good teachers is like saying baseball players will gravitate towards teams with good managers. Most players consider the dollars and the wins, and I doubt when they think of the wins that they attribute that to the manager moreso than the players on the roster. It's a lot easier to evaluate the wins than what, if anything, the manager had to do with them. A lot of managers lose their jobs because they were dealt a bad hand (by the GM, by injuries, etc.), even though they played it very well. It's very common in baseball, and it would be common in the world of teachers if unions didn't protect against this.
That said, (AFAICS) unions haven't come up with solutions that protect teachers AND satisfy parental concerns adequately. Were there a teaching equivalent of Questec, that'd be a great start.
On the general topic of unions, I'm in favor of them, because I think their very existence provides protection for their members. I'm not in favor of a significant number of union actions, which seem to me as counterproductive in the long run.
Looks like they have. From the NC public schools FAQ (Link)
So there you have it. As of four years ago, about 20% of NC public school classes were being taught by someone who wasn't certified, didn't have a college degree, or didn't understand what they were talking about. And that's probably up from when my friend was teaching.
Thanks for the clarification. I think we're generally in agreement.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main