In response to:

Hmm: Teachers' Union Membership and Political Influence Beginning to Decrease

JoJoStarbuck Wrote: Jul 03, 2012 11:23 PM
It's a shame because the teachers union could be a great organization with a significant role in shaping the education environment of the U.S. instead their leadership focuses on short term self serving goals, and ensuring they line their own pockets instead of addressing the failures of members, like not teaching, or taking a stance that focuses on education and not blindly following the lead of the democrat party. What an absolute disgusting waste.
Pat2881 Wrote: Jul 04, 2012 12:07 PM
Groups like the NEA started as professional organizations that were about how to do the best job at teaching and providing a quality education to children. Over time, what was a professional organization morphed into a union and began pursing political rather than educational goals. Had it stayed a professional organization that simply talked about improving the quality of its profession, it might not have the problems it currently faces. Of course, professional organizations do not usually demand that everyone in the profession join or that they pay exorbitant fees to become a member. I think my husband pays something like $50 a year to his professional organization, the Association for Computing Machinery, it's for computer pros.
Kevin348 Wrote: Jul 04, 2012 2:44 AM
JoJo,

Teachers unions will always be detrimental to the children.

Their mission is to look out for the best interests of the adults not he children. The head of the teachers union said as much a few years ago.
kitekrazy Wrote: Jul 04, 2012 11:49 AM
So what makes them any different from any other union? Did the UAW look out for America bargaining to the point GM laborers making $90 an hour.

Anytime you hear a politician or administrator say "it's for the children" it's always BS.

David4269 Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 3:15 PM
As the Wikipedia article on the subject notes, "Because reporting of abortions is not mandatory, statistics are of varying reliability." But they do note that the CDC suggests "since 1973, roughly 50 million legal induced abortions have been performed in the United States." Those missing children translate into unneeded teachers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

The tax dollars those liberal friends give to support those abortions are monies that is could have been going to education instead.

In many states, the liberal politicians, supported by the unions, have spent, rather than invested, the teachers' pension funds. The union thugs were well paid for looking out for the teachers' interests. Yet they didn't.
David4269 Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 3:16 PM
Shanker, a former president of the United Federation of Teachers, the second largest teachers union, once said, "When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren." In his farewell address, NEA general Counsel Bob Chanin said, “It is not because we care about children; and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child”

Teachers are naïve or stupid if they think a Union that doesn't care about the kids is going to care about them. But that fits nicely with another quote attributed to Union boss Shanker that, "..a lot of people who have been hired as teachers are basically not competent."

USA Today has a story on new numbers from the National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest teachers’ union: union membership is shrinking, and the demographic information about teachers has changed in a major way. All in all, it’s indicative a shift within the community of educators:

The National Education Association (NEA) has lost more than 100,000 members since 2010. By 2014, union projections show, it could lose a cumulative total of about 308,000 full-time teachers and other workers, a 16% drop from 2010. Lost dues will shrink NEA's budget an estimated $65 million, or 18%.

...