Organized labor likes what it sees politically

The unions are chomping at the bit to increase their ranks by signing on as many illegal or legal immigrants as it can. That can only happen if some kind of amnesty law is passed. You can be sure the unions are pressing hard on this kind of legislation. Their position is basically the same as the Catholic Church, which is drooling at the mouth with the prospect of all those migrants from Mexico and Central America filling churches in urban areas which are nearly ready to close due to declining memberships. So, it stands to reason that the labor unions and the Catholic Church are two of the biggest proponents of rights for illegal migrants.

I understand Karen Ackerman's point re: how popular the Democrats are among union members. However, I don't think her statistics hold up when transferred to a larger audience. Consider: Union membership has declined. So it would stand to reason that those who remained behind were more die-hard in their support of organized labor political causes than those who had departed. Add to that an unpopular war in Iraq increasing the popularity of Democrats nationwide, and those things alone account for the 74 percent union vote for Democrats in 2006. If you add more union members, that does not automatically guarantee that three of every four new union members is going to vote Democratic. In fact, statistical norms would dictate that the larger you grow a group, the more variances will be seen in the behavior of its members.

The strongest union by far is the NEA, IEA the teacher's unions along with the AFL/CIO teacher's unions. With their featherbedding practices bad teachers can't be removed because of tenure. Until America gets a hold of teacher accountability it will be bad for kids going to public schools. There are way too many administrators making way too much money and lazy teachers taking up space in our class rooms. The idea of throwing money at schools only adds more support staff when good teachers are what the schools desperately need.The politician that solves this problem will be universally applauded. But, the unions have to give up clout for this to happen and for sense to come back to America's educational system.Superintendents are making way too much money and doing little for their pay. The school boards just throw money at them hoping they will solve the problem. Schools have taken over with a bureaucracy that no one can get a handle on.We need good teachers less administrators and way too many support people. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

The average working American has seen stagnant wages and astronomical increases in energy cost since the Repubs have governed.

They long for the Clinton era when they finally made some headway in wages and gas was 1.60 per gallon.

But many will probably support Newt Gingrich because the great 90's were all possible because of him.

I've heard a lot of idiotic statements from Republics,but that one takes the cake!!!!!

The largest union segment that exists today is government employees. Their pay checks and their benefit packages are far above those of the private sector and in many cases bringing states, cities and other government operations to the brink of bankruptcy. Just look at NJ and California, both of these states are hamstrung by the costs associated with the government employee retirement packages.

As the stock markets continue to decline the value of their respective pension accounts will suffer… It is not going to be a pretty sight - especially in NJ where the unfunded retirement obligations exceed 56 billion dollars, that is twice the states annual budget.

California at least has two things that will help it through the coming financial storm, the weather and an entrepreneurial climate that fosters wealth. New Jersey on the other hand has in large part a union mentality, just check out the two worlds of Atlantic City to get a fell for the impact of unionized labor on the community. What a hell hole. It’s going to be dark days for NJ for sure!

Let's remember that the largest union is that of gov't workers, which includes teachers' unions. The dems have lined up eight canidates that are for larger, much larger, gov't - of course the unions are going to love them.

I love how the right has it in for the teachers union. Jerry white( who could use a little schoolin) says it protects lazy teachers. You know who's lazy Jerry? The majority of parents that don't take any responsibility in their own childs education. No child left behind is a disaster. Don't blow smoke up my butt Jerry, you'll probably lie about how you helped your kids, but I bet down deep you did nada when it came to their education. Stop looking for scapegoats and do the right thing. GET INVOLVED!

Ms. Ackerman, how about allowing teachers the "Freedom of Choice" to join, or not join, the teacher's union?

Or how about the "Freedom of Choice" not to have your mandatory union dues sent to Democrat candidates?

She's for "Freedom of Choice" like Lindsay Lohan is for sobriety.

I used to represent public employees in DuPage County and if you think they are solid Democrat you have no idea what you're talking about.

The primary reason government employees organize is to protect themselves from the political whims of school boards, village hall and the like.

bill r,

Good post. You're right. Maybe not about Jerry White, specifically (we can't know) but about people in general.

So many parents pass off their responsibilities to institutions. Then when their kid lands in jail or prison, they scratch their heads and wonder how the kid went wrong. The trend often cuts accross class, racial and political lines.

However, I have to agree with Jerry White that there must be accountablity for bad teachers. Tenure must not be the end all and be all of teachers' job security. Just as students' performance is evaluated, so must teachers' be.

Conversely (something Jerry doesn't touch upon) there must be comensurate rewards for good teachers. A good (I emphasize GOOD) teacher should never be lured to the private sector by wages and bennies.

However, I have to agree with Jerry White that there must be accountablity for bad teachers.
Posted by: [INSERT CLEVER POST NAME HERE] | August 4, 2007 12:17 PM

I agree with you on that. However, I still think that "bad" teachers are not a rampant problem or the core problem. We have gotten away from the responsibility of raising our children, and then looking for someone to blame. Learning doesn't stop at 3 pm in the afternoon. They need to learn manners, how to get along with others and this is not the job of the teachers. Do you have any idea what the liabilities exsit for teachers? They can't do much to help your child learn to be part of a society. Thats our job.

Doug,

You are talking DuPage county. What do you think the voting habits of Cook County Municipal Union Workers? Probably over 100% democratic.

Speaking of teachers' unions - let see what the teachers of Illinois get paid:

www.thechampion.org

Terry,

I agree.

Something else that happens is that public employees, who want to go management some day, tend to take a primary ballot of the predominant political party running their organization. I learned this after asking some union members to vote for a Democratic political candidate in a primary in DuPage County. They said that they'd vote for the candidate if he got to the general election because their bosses don't know how they voted in the general.

It's not right in DuPage County, Cook County, or anywhere else. But it is reality.

Don't even start complaining about teacher's salaries unless you're ready to address those outrageous CEO compensation packages.

The dems have lined up eight canidates that are for larger, much larger, gov't - of course the unions are going to love them.

Posted by: Terry | August 4, 2007 11:06 AM

Beanie boy one question.Is the federal govt.larger or smaller than in 2000 when Clinton/Gore left office?

Don't even start complaining about teacher's salaries unless you're ready to address those outrageous CEO compensation packages.

Posted by: dt | August 4, 2007 3:25 PM

Good point dt. I looked up Terrys state for the avg. salery for teachers in Illinios. 50k...one of the top...like # 6 in the country. 50k..wow..and you want them to not only teach but basically to raise them. Buying food for the table isn't the only thing they need. Do you know how many kids go to school and have no idea how to behave? I ask everyone to think....how many times have you helped with their homework? How many times have you met with their teachers? Do you present a good role model? Just something to think about.

Actually, the main point of academic institutions is socialization; learning the norms of society. When a kid spends their whole day in school the people that have the most effect on them are the teachers. Some kids don't go to school at 8 and their parents drop them off at six - at the baby sitter. They don't come home at 3 their parents pick them up at 5 or 5:30 - from an "after school" program or baby sitting. (Some kids don't see one or both parents until 8 or 9) A given that the majority of parents do not spend enough time with their kids. (Many because they are working)Yet in addition to that the institutions take over much of the socialization and normalization of children. They both have to step up, and they don't. One blames the other, but if you look at a juvenile detention center you will see that the problem is not one fold. It is two fold.

I'm not going to go into the parent's need to step up. Its importance in a child's - teen's - young adult's life is self evident. However, I will say that the trend in academic institutions is warehousing. Especially in urban areas where kids are taught how to pass tests at the expense of real subjects. Mostly bc of the pressure to show performance. The standards are lowered to get teachers in - especially in rougher neighborhoods or where deficient NY - (so you have teachers with the experience of TA in college teaching) and you have the higher echelons (the children rarely are exposed to). The echelons (with more knowledge and experience) get paid 100,000 + (we are talking administrators) (some teachers and college professors with tenure too) and then you have the majority of people paid 15-60,000. When its time to cut the budget the programs or personnel get taken away as does the quality of the education without questioning the pay at the top. Now I'm not saying that professors shouldn't be paid what they are worth. However, the amount of money that is pumped into schools and school programs does not show in the education level of our youth; behind that of the rest of the industrialized world. Children outside are expose to more at a younger age.

The type of individuals schools churn out is the direct impact of what schools do when they have our kids. Making sure that what is on paper is as good as in practice for any given teacher should be a rule; especially as the methods of teaching and subjects themselves evolve.

Instead I see the trend is, is that the majority of kids are being diverted to tutors for the most basic understanding of reading or math or science. (Ensuring that inflow to private businesses and in case of school sponsored programs; money being spent that is already allocated for these kids to learn this stuff during school hours.)

Please don't tell me that some kids are slower and therefore they need tutoring. I know that, and some is the operative word. Instead I see the trend is most not able to read or write at their grade level in school, and an increasing majority being diverted to tutors. That has a lot to do with teachers who teach the class measuring the pace after the small group of kids who get it; instead of the majority who don't. (If the majority don't the system is failing them along the way.) The bottom line is parents and schools are important. They both need to upgrade their standards of operation.

Crazy Duck,

I ain't gonna defend the growth of gov't over the past six years - it disgusts me too.

Bill R.

I believe the teachers chose that profession with the knowledge they wouldn't be making John Edwards type money. they made choices. I don't want my teachers raising my kids. Which parents are you talking about?

As far as the avg salaries, the School Districts range from $11K to $83K

As far as me Bill R. I see the teachers quite often since I volunteer in school programs.

A CEO and a teacher are much different - A CEO has had to work his way to the top, a teacher is protected by unions. A CEO takes risks, a teacher sits in a union.

I'm not defending the CEO salaries, especially the exit packages, but it is a matter between the shareholders and the CEO.

As far as teacher salaries and CEO's, like all other salaries, its a matter of supply and demand.

It's time the unions begin to listen to their rank and file and not their monolithic leaders. Believe me, most of us are not in the Move-on crowd. And believe it or not, most of us appreciate our jobs and our
employers. The union leadership does not create jobs except for themselves; in fact, they have destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country, including the one I used to have. If the AFL-CIO keeps up the way it is, they can have my card back.

Bruce,

Saying that I should have the option as a member to withhold my dues if I don't like the decisions the union makes is like saying I can withhold my taxes if I disagree with government policies.

If I don't like what the union reps do, I can try to change the reps - you might have noticed a lot of that being done last November. That's how representative government functions, in case you forgot - we pick the representatives to make choices for us. If we don't like the choices, we try to throw them out on their butts. They're at least as open as any stockholder's meeting.

Which brings up a thought -- does your "Freedom of Choice" shibboleth extend to stockholders who find corporate funds being used to support politicians they don't like, or are you a complete political hack?

Never mind; I've read these threads often enough to know the answer to that one........

Baltimore Tom,

Bruce did not say "I should have the option as a member to withhold my dues if I don't like the decisions the union makes"

Sounds reasonable to a free person.

He said "your mandatory union dues sent to Democrat candidates"

On your shareholder point -Get the mandatory part - shareholders don't have to own the shares if they don't like the company.

Get it straight dude before you start opening your mouth about what other people are saying! Otherwise you look like a lying SOS.

Yonkers,

You're right that unions don't create jobs, just as you are incorrect that unions "...destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs...."

This blogger has 1st chair negotiated about 130 union contracts throughout the Chicago area. as such I'd tell union members that it is very much in their self-interest to work hard and make a quality product unless they'd like to see their job end up in the non-union south, Mexico or China, or in the case of public employees - outsourced. I'd also tell the occassional neophyte company rep. who would tell me we didn't care about the company that we did indeed care because the company couldn't provide raises or benefits if they weren't profitable.

On employee/union member discipline/termination: On more than one occasion I've told union members that the union isn't the public defenders office. This is codified in law. In fact, I've had my life threatened for not taking a few discharge cases to arbitration.

My personal favorite urban lore on this is the notion that union members get three passes before they can be fired. I've been told this by union members and company supervisors alike. So I'd outline a couple of scenarios like: Does that mean you get to get caught stealing on three occassions before you're fired? Does that mean the boss has to take three punches in the nose before you're out the door.

And lastly, to all the TENURE experts who've posted here I'll bet not one of you can quantify it.

As if you didn't know, the "Freedom of Choice" proposal that Bruce is talking about mentions exactly what I said. If he can't defend it, it is surely beyond the grasp of a wannabe flack like you.

Now go back to the kiddie table and let the grownup defend his position, if he can.

Baltimore Tom,

I got you guys (you, zook and the loon) figured out, you got picked on a lot in the play yard and retreated to fighting from behind a computer screen. If you were out in the real world talking the way you do you’d get smacked upside the head by adults trying to see if you would ring like a bell.

Someday maybe when you have a thought of some merit you’ll share it with the rest of us, till then we unfortunately won’t be able to see what note your empty heads would ring, i'm thinkin its D minor.

The above postings show little knowledge concerning the tenure procedure. Teachers are fired ALL the time. (1)Tenure doesn't give a free lifetime pass to teachers; (2) tenure system started long before teacher's unions. In the early 60s, when I started teaching, the NEA was an organization that administrators forced you to belong to, otherwise you were't acting as a professional. Other than AFT, there were no teacher "unions."
I will give you a quick lesson on what tenure means. It began early in the 20th century, to prevent situations such as: Aunt Tillie on the school board from arbitrarily firing someone to create a vacancy for her niece who had just graduated from college. It also gives a teacher a modicum of academic freedom. Tenure begins after a probationary period of usually three years, by that time an administrator should have a good idea of the competance of the teacher. Tenure simply means that there is a procedure for firing some on tenure. That he or she has the right of a public hearing before their contract can be terminated. Usually, what happens is that the teacher, prior to such a hearing, is given a choice. They can go through the public humiliation of airing dirty laundry or resign. Many times, there is a promise of a recommendation letter if they will choose the path of resigning. Most choose the latter choice. Consequently, the vast majority of teacher firings might not even look as if that teacher has been fired.

Icant believe that the unions would even invite hillary considering the FACT that she sat on the board of wal-mart, the MOST anti-union company in the world, and she and her husband signed into law nafta and gatt. it doesnt get any more anti-union than that. whatever is convenient at the time is how the clintons think and the sheeplike unions follow close behind.

Icant believe that the unions would even invite hillary considering the FACT that she sat on the board of wal-mart, the MOST anti-union company in the world, and she and her husband signed into law nafta and gatt. it doesnt get any more anti-union than that. whatever is convenient at the time is how the clintons think and the sheeplike unions follow close behind.