In response to:

Teachers’ Union Expelled from School District

Gerald230 Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 11:29 AM
Be real. Unions had a place and still do where ever the School Board doesn't have the smarts to have hired teachers who have the right set of values. I cannot state in a few words what are the right set of values, but it is pretty conservative while appreciating teaching our children to respect hard work and education is job number 1.
Pamela166 Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 4:27 PM
Gerald the union troll displays the poor education he got from union teachers; OR should that be the BRAIN WASHING he got?
DB07 Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 1:23 PM
Be real. It isn't that teacher's unions have outgrown their utility, it's that they had NO business coming into existence to begin with!
Rochesternative Wrote: Jul 07, 2012 10:22 PM
I'm as anti-union as teachers go. But way back in the day, teachers did need a union. For example female teachers couldn't teach after they were married, regardless of being a parent or not. For example: CONTROL OF FEMALE TEACHERS

1. You will not marry during the term of your contract.

2. You are not to keep company with men.

3. You must be home between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. unless attending a school function.

4. You may not loiter downtown in ice cream stores.

5. You may not travel beyond city limits unless you have the permission of the chairman of the board.

6. You may not ride in a carriage or automobile with any man unless he is your father or brother.

7. You may not smoke cigarettes.

8. You may...
Rochesternative Wrote: Jul 07, 2012 10:23 PM
8. You may not dress in bright colors.

9. You may under no circumstances dye your hair.

10. You must wear at least two petticoats.

11. Your dresses must not be any shorter than two inches above the ankle.

12. To keep the school room neat and clean, you must:

-Sweep the floor at least once daily
-Scrub the floor at least once a week with hot, soapy water
-Clean the blackboards at least once a day
-Start the fire at 7 a.m. so the room will be warm by 8 a.m.
bjohnson Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 12:00 PM
Be real! Under the unions the teachers who don't do their jobs are carried as dead wood. I've seen it way too much. It's about time teaching and school were taken away from unions!
FA Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 11:56 AM
This is 100% untrue. The unions don't "hire teachers", schools do, and unions protect the worst teachers while holding back the better ones. Most importantly, education unions have a very obvious pronounced agenda of turning this country into what they think will be a socialist utopia. It is THEY who are out of touch with reality, and have had a baleful influence in American culture by using teacher's union dues to lobby for political change. THIS is the reality. Unions are a "labor movement" rooted in a 19th century mindset. Teacher's unions are NOT about education, they are about negotiating contracts for perks for teachers. It has nothing to do with education.
Ron4993 Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 12:13 PM
FA I agree with you. My point, though not eloquently expressed, is that unions, thru negotiating contracts do indeed influence school boards in their hiring practices because they affect the budget. School boards get beyond this by raising taxes. Also, I have witnessed sweetheart agreements between unions and school boards where unions do use their influence to hire individuals that they prefer. May not be the majority but, any of this is not acceptable.
Original2 Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 1:35 PM
Nicely put.

Labor unions are an outmoded social invention- useful in the 19th and early 20th century, but toxic in the 21st when worker-protection legislation is ubiquitous.

No excuse existed EVER for public employee unions, except to enrich the union bank accounts, which were in turn siphoned off to Democrat politicians in a cozy and incestuous relationship that pillaged only the taxpayer.
Jerome49 Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 1:51 PM
FA -- You are 100% correct !!! Given a choice, many, if not most, teachers would not voluntarily join teacher's unions. School boards should not agree to deduct and remit union dues from paychecks. This should be non-negotiable. Further, all salaries, benefits and pensions for public school district employees should be the responsibility of the taxpayers in that school district, not of all taxpayers in the state.
Ron4993 Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 11:53 AM
"Be real. Unions had a place and still do"... My problem is that the negotiations are held between unions looking to max their power and wealth (ok, I'll except that) but what I disagree with is they negotiate with politicians that do not have any skin in the game. If they agree to contracts that favor the unions that could have financial short falls, "just raise taxes" and never really improve the fate of the students.
mforti Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 6:26 PM
They "negotiate with politicians that do not have any skin in the game"?!?!?!?!?

Democrat politicians have a LOT of skin in the game. The unions CONTRIBUTE HEAVILY to the campaigns of the Democrats who are supposed to be negotiating on the behalf of the taxpayers! Basically, you have a situation where both sides are on the UNION side, and nobody stands up for the taxpayers. How do you think we got in this mess?

It'll take a lot of Scott Walkers to get us free of these scams, but hopefully we'll have the clout after the November elections.

The trouble with education in this country starts and ends with unions. They are out-of- touch museum relics, fitting for a day that used rotary presses to distribute the news, but wildly inappropriate for an age that‘s both wired and wireless.

Unions have prevented, and continue to prevent, much-needed reforms in education, public finance and government. They cultivate a sense of entitlement wholly out of order for the times, which call for more self-reliance and entrepreneurship.

Frankly, unions suck.

Really.

They suck the money out of our wallets; they suck productivity out of workers; and suck up all the leavings from the...