Those devious villians, forming a cabal to change the name of the proposition to accurately reflect what effect it was to have!
If you are unsure if vouchers are a good policy, that unions protest so hard against them should put you at ease that they work.
"Parental choice" is however uninformative (speaks of the perceived results and not the action about to be voted), highly subjective, and without any meaningful information.
Parents wind up sending children to different schools than they would have otherwise attended, in accordance with the parents’ choice.
Even the CTA opposition to the proposition implicitly conceded that, because they predicted doom for public schools after many children left for other schools. If after the proposition passes, children are going to new, different schools – parental choice will have undeniably been exercised.
They are only insterested in an honest accounting on the merits of their beleifs, right?
Also, it's fine to bitch about unions. They're not all perfect and there are certainly trade-offs. And (like anything) they can be perverted and misused. But overall they've done great things for the middle class in this country and we should all be very wary of powerful forces trying to hobble them.
Especially when it comes to teachers and education.
“The Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) is an Alexandria, Virginia based U.S. nonprofit conservative policy advocacy organization, founded on the principle of securing individual freedoms as embodied in the United States Constitution and state constitutions. It was founded in 1998 by former tobacco industry executives who sought to counter government restrictions on smoking, but is no longer associated with tobacco or smoking.” - Wikipedia
Oh no, it’s horrible. Teachers get paid well! This might attract great people to the job of educating the next generation! And they have banded together to represent their interests! This shall not stand.
And I apologize for going off-topic, but Poe's Law arguably underlies much of the recent drama about online censorship. Twitter, Mastodon, Patreon, etc. That is, many who feel strongly about various sorts of hate speech have zero tolerance for stuff that parodies and satirizes that hate speech. But of course, there are also lots of trolls out there, whose only goal is upsetting people and generating lulzy reactions. So confusion is understandable.
And that's how it is with Poe's Law. When you see and hear (for example) Lenny Bruce, Dave Chappelle, Bill Hicks, Richard Pryor or Chris Rock, you know that it's parody and satire. But when you read stuff online, there's no context.
Anyway, it's sad.
The argument is that you benefit from the union whether you are a member or not because you get the same benefits as union members because of the union's bargaining with the management, so you should pay.
I don't really agree with it, but that's the argument.
Dated sept 19,2018
[..]California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a law that aims to give public employee unions legal cover from potentially expensive lawsuits demanding that they repay certain fees to workers that the Supreme Court in June determined were unconstitutional.
The law, which takes effect immediately, says unions and public agencies cannot be held liable for fees that unions collected before the Supreme Court ruling in Janus vs. AFSCME on June 27 of this year.
That 5-4 court decision ended a 41-year precedent that allowed public sector unions to collect so-called fair share fees from workers who did not choose to join a labor organization but were still represented by a union. The fees often ranged 70 percent to 99 percent of full dues.
>In 24 U.S. states, employees who are working in a unionized shop may be required to contribute towards the cost of representation (such as at disciplinary hearings) if their fellow employees have negotiated a union security clause in their contract with management. Dues are generally 1-2% of pay. However, union members and other workers covered by collective agreements get, on average, a 5-10% wage markup over their nonunionized (or uncovered) counterparts.
>Some states, especially in the south-central and south-eastern regions of the U.S., have outlawed union security clauses; this can cause controversy, as it allows some net beneficiaries of the union contract to avoid paying their portion of the costs of contract negotiation.
>Regardless of state, the Supreme Court has held that the Act prevents a person's union dues from being used without consent to fund political causes that may be opposed to the individual's personal politics. Instead, in states where union security clauses are permitted, such dissenters may elect to pay only the proportion of dues which go directly toward representation of workers.
With Janus, the union that I was recently a member of lost about 1,500/55,000 members. Not a huge impact so far.
Do teachers unions have affiliations with teachers pension funds?
There must be some mutual back scratching going on...surely?
One of the things about unions is that there's really no grand conspiracy... they are quite open about what they want, and getting it generally involves a contract between two parties.
Show me whatever numbers you're using to bolster that assertion and then show me the same metrics for the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA).
This is an anti-union,
libertarianism propaganda piece, at best... please don't fall for it.
Edit: yup still at it https://twitter.com/WeAreCTA
That’s like saying we can’t take the teachers union claims about teachers demands because they support teachers rights?
Similarly, these folks have an agenda that drives everything they write. Read it, but do so with a critical eye and remember that the authors employment is tied to the positions/opinion that he is expressing.
The answers to the problems we have with education are nuanced and numerous. The convservative portfolio of solutions is narrow, and never, ever changes.
Imagine if conservatives dismiss all progressive points of view...and vice versa..won’t we all be talking to each other in our little echo chambers?
In person, totally different. I’ve worked on organization boards where we deal with diverse opinion and it is very different.
A lot of data in that piece can be spinned both ways. It depends on the audience. The audience for the unions are the teachers. The audience for publications like these are those who aren’t already pro-unions.
Everyone’s preaching to the their respective choirs. But some of us can be neither theist nor atheist..but kinda agnostic, no?