WSJ: Unions vs. the Right to Work

[WantaghConcernedCitizens]

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166011983939364.html?mod=WSJ_hps_RIGHTTopCarousel_1

For a teachers union, collective bargaining means that suppliers of teacher services to all public school systems in a state—or even across states—can collude with regard to acceptable wages, benefits and working conditions. An analogy for business would be for all providers of airline transportation to assemble to fix ticket prices, capacity and so on. From this perspective, collective bargaining on a broad scale is more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty.

[Chris_Wendt]

The Wall Street Journal is over-stepping its "journal"-istic mission to report the news. Their and your use of the word "collude" is offensive and inaccurate.

Collude: intr.v. col·lud·ed, col·lud·ing, col·ludes. To act together secretly to achieve a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose; conspire....

Teacher unions negotiate WITH school boards, and WITH state governments. Teacher unions "get" nothing other than what school boards and state governments are willing to grant them, or accede-to, in terms of wages, benefits, and working conditions.

Bad example, bad journalism, bad argument.

Be careful that flag you run up the flagpole, WCC.

Astonished (more or less).

Chris Wendt

[lilly]

Chris, it seems like you are too close to all of this, maybe given your lengthy tenure on the BOE?

Technically speaking, yes teachers' unions negotiate with BOE's and state gov, but collusion does not always mean deceitful, illegal, etc.

Here is Webster's def:

: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

(I added the itals.)

It could be just secret cooperation, eh? I don't know or really care, it sounds like an unproductive semantics argument in this situation.

The teachers union is the most powerful and wealthy union in NYS. Wouldn't they be considered a "special interest group" Cuomo referred to in his budget speech? Which political campaigns have they contributed to that have gotten us to this current economic crisis?

Look at charter schools in NY. We are way behind the rest of the country in # of charter schools (by a law or reg). Many public school teachers I have talked to about this viewed charter schools as an evil enemy siphoning funds from public school districts. Charter schools are just a paradigm shift presumably with the same goal as public schools, "the best interests of the kids". It was only when millions (or billions?) in race to the top funds were dangled in front of the states, that NY (begrudgingly?) increased the # of charter schools in the regs. It seemed like only when the issue was forced financially, that charter schools were finally "embraced" (i.e., # allowed increased in regs). And there are other examples e.g., teacher evaluations.

I'm not reading any of these discussions as "pokes in the eye". Seriously, IMO that is reading too much into it. To me it is more of stating fact used in discussions on this board.

Honestly, I could give a rat's patootie if Wantagh does or doesn't have a teachers union. However, if & when the presence of a union negatively affects kids, taxpayers, etc. or educational progress (e.g., charter schools in NY and presumably the WUT is part of that union), then yes I do have a problem with "unions". Wantagh = Triangle Shirtwaist Factory (NOT!!!!!). In fact, what school district on LI has such poor working conditions that employees have to protect themselves by unionizing?

[Chris_Wendt]

Charter Schools are way off topic, Lilly. Be very thankful that no one (Charles Wang, for example) has established a Charter School nearby that would draw Wantagh students away from the Wantagh Schools. Because, guess what? When the children leave Wantagh to attend the Charter School, so does money for their "tuition", books and health care costs at the Charter School, plus the money for their transportation to/from the Charter School.

Teacher evaluations are also off topic. If you would like to discuss teacher evaluations, for which I am game, then please start a separate thread. Okay?

The WSj article is just more union bashing, which is something altogether different than journalism. I am not game for union bashing, speaking of unproductive uses of one's time. Union bashing is all of a sudden fashionable, and there all of a sudden many experts on unions and collective bargaining, cropping-up all over the place.

The Wantagh School District happens to be, among other things, a public sector employer. Among the several things that school board members are (which, you are correct, that for many years I was too), they are employers with several hundred people working for them, day-in, day-out, year after year after year. The successes and achievements of the Wantagh Schools are wrought by the collective efforts of those several hundred employees operating under the policies of the school board and the leadership of the Administration and funding by the taxpayers, which the three of us (you, I and WCC) happen to be.

Anonymous bloggers coming on here bashing the unions which lawfully represent our employees are doing nothing less than poking them in the eye, while at the same time "demanding" give-backs and concessions. I mean what kind of dopey negotiating strategy is that?

(Fortunately, anonymous bloggers are not negotiators for the school district with the union.)

What the Wall Street journal is doing publishing this trash is beyond me. However, I doubt very much that the Wantagh School District negotiating team, or the WUT negotiating team, or the mediator, is going to give any weight to that piece of yellow "journalism"...which article IS the topic of this thread, however, not one that I started.

At least the Wall Street journal identified themselves, standing behind their own editorial nonsense. At the very least.

Chris Wendt

****************************************************************************************************

Post script:

These salacious threads bashing school employees' unions generate lurid reader interest in and drive traffic to this site eager for either outrage or a good laugh. Regrettably, with about 100 participants per day, there is not much discourse, here, on how to save money, how to save our schools, how to save our children from the approaching firestorm.

So, you can have-at the unions, if that is what you are up for. Count me out of that action, but try to understand why I seem to take their part in response to some of this unjust contumely being posted here. If you don't get that, then you can call me or speak to me in person.

[lilly]

First off, I've already had breakfast so no indigestion worries. Second, it is way too nice a day (hint of spring?) to take any of your post, including the biting adjectives, personally. Third, I am sitting here with a big smile on my face that you can't see through a message board.

Mar 1, 2011 16:15:36 GMT -5 Chris_Wendt said:

Be very thankful that no one (Charles Wang, for example) has established a Charter School nearby that would draw Wantagh students away from the Wantagh Schools. Because, guess what? When the children leave Wantagh to attend the Charter School, so does money for their "tuition", books and health care costs at the Charter School, plus the money for their transportation to/from the Charter School..

You are too close to it. This is exactly what the teachers union would say.

Chris Wendt, union shill.

Let's just play devil's advocate. Do you think a taxpayer or parent would really care if there were a charter school in Wantagh that delivers same level but different or even better results more cost effectively? I doubt it.

And charter schools and teacher evals are germaine to the discussion since they were used as examples of how union influence (aka WSJ's "collusion") can stand in the way of progress. Just open this morning's paper with the state senate and Cuomo trying to quickly get rid of LIFO and use evals for the NYC school lay-offs, what a political mess that could turn out to be. Dean Skelos (who according to the news has been heavily supported by the union) isn't backing it bc he says the teacher evals could be "unfair". In the meantime, NYC is facing 4,000+ teacher lay-offs and they can't touch the "rubber room" teachers, which includes those with performance issues, disciplinary actions or even a child abuse conviction. Taxpayer $'s pay those rubber room salaries. As a taxpayer, don't care how you get to the end result legally, but to have a system that permits this situation is just plain wrong. And taking off their union hats, I'd like to meet a Wantagh teacher who thinks it is ok to have a rubber room of teachers on full pay who can't/shouldn't be allowed around kids. I doubt there is one. In what sane world is any of this remotely acceptable?

I am taking issue with your complaints about poking the WUT in the eye during general discussions on this board, finding them inflammatory and counter-productive (seriously, not kidding). To not allow free (thinking) discussion is censorship. If anyone from the WUT is taking offense to them, I'd be surprised and disappointed. Yes, it is in vogue to union bash, since the current economic/budget mess (for school districts, county, state, federal) is due in part to the public sector union contracts. I'm seeing general discussions here, not necessarily personal attacks on WUT. To pretend that any of this is not happening (see Wisconsin mess or NYC teacher union leader saying NY is bluffing about no $) by not mentioning it on a message board is well, ridiculous.

I've been purposely biting my tongue about posting specific suggestions for cost savings measures since it would be beating a dead horse. The white elephant in the room is where the bulk of our $ is spent. 74% of the WSD budget is spent on salary & benefits which includes a 10.2% increase in benefits (a $1.5m we, as taxpayers have to produce out of thin air). We cannot sustain 6% or even 2.7% annual salary increases. And the funniest thing is all the complaints about unfunded mandates should include salary & benefits e.g., benefits have increased from $6m to $16m in the last 10 years. The taxpayers don't have the $ for it anymore since they've taken salary decreases themselves. Take out facilities, utilities, transportation and there isn't a whole lot left to play around with for cuts. Plus, we've been doing tax increases with cuts to the kids which resulted in a contingency year anyway. That's not working anymore. Suggestions such as Princeton Plan or partnering with Seaford might reap a few hundred thousand in savings of the $70m budget but we aren't prepared to act immediately. So, I'm game for any "real" savings but I doubt there is off of the probably less then 5% we have input on.

[Chris_Wendt]

I've had my say about the subject WSj Op-Ed piece. Take what I have said for what it is worth to you.

The last paragraph of the subject article is dispositive:

"The national fiscal crisis and recession that began in 2008 had many ill effects, including the ongoing crises of pension and health-care obligations in many states. But at least one positive consequence is that the required return to fiscal discipline has caused reexamination of the growth in economic and political power of public-employee unions. Hopefully, embattled politicians like Gov. Walker in Wisconsin will maintain their resolve and achieve a more sensible long-term structure for the taxpayers in their states."

Mr. Barro is a professor of economics at Harvard and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

The professor's characterization, "...a more sensible long-term structure...." is highly subjective, very diffuse and totally undefined, other than by reference to the (iron-fisted, management-by fiat-style, euphemistically called) "resolve" of the "embattled...Gov. Walker".

Don't cry for me, Wisconsin!

Chris Wendt