Question of the day

Here's the question I've been pondering as I watched the strike unfold at GM. Many progressives argue that unions are a necessary counterweight to the bargaining power of employers. I tend to think that power is generally about equally balanced between workers and companies--some workers have a lot of bargaining power, and some a little, but I don't see the power as being particularly asymmetrically distributed between workers as a class and employers as a class. But that's not how progressives feel, and I doubt we'll change each other's minds.

What I find difficult to argue with is that few of the progressives I know ever seem to think that there are any situations where workers have too much power. Even in situations such as the New York City transit strike, where the workers clearly have an enormous amount of employer over their employer both as a bargaining unit and as a voting bloc, progressives always side with the union.

So here's the question of the day for my liberal commenters: can workers acquire too much power? Is there any situation in which you have thought, or can even imagine thinking, that union power might have to be dialed back?

Comments

I know lefties who think union power was too great in 1980s Poland.

Posted by Chris | September 27, 2007 2:16 PM

It's simply not true that progressives always side with unions. That hasn't been the case with teachers' strikes and if I recall correctly it wasn't the rule during the transit strike, either.

It does seem to me that employer power is wildly disproportionate these days, what with the looting of pensions and the scaling back of benefits going on constantly. The prevailing attitude of conservatives is, "You're luck to have a job, so shut up and do as you're told." We're not back to the days of scrip wages yet, but I'll bet Wal-Mart would love that, and there'd be no shortgae of right-leaning "libertarian" types defending the notion on theoretical grounds.

After that company housing and armed Pinkertons could become the next goals.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 27, 2007 2:17 PM

It depends what you mean by "progressive" or "liberal". Donning that label for a second I can think of various examples. Especially unions in state-owned companies that are basically engaging in rent-sharing with management at the expense of customers and taxpayers. So maybe not a great American example. Pennsylvania liquor stores? 1970s Britain? There are some cases.

Posted by P O'Neill | September 27, 2007 2:22 PM

I think, if you think about it, you'll concede that your definition of what amounts to power of one over the other is so different depending on who's holding it-- the union or the bosses-- it makes this kind of comparison a practical impossibility.

Posted by Freddie | September 27, 2007 2:24 PM

MoeLarryandJesus,

Do you ever get tired of reading your own comments?

Posted by Harry | September 27, 2007 2:24 PM

But even if there are situations where the union/workers have "too much" power, do you not think that these situations are vastly outnumbered by situations where the upper hand is obviously held by the employers?

The imbalance of power is built in to the employer/employee relationship. At any time, the employer can cause a big problem for (at best) or destroy the life of (at worst) an employee, simply by firing them. There's basically no equivalent in the other direction for a single employee. (Maybe there are some rare exceptions to this, but for the most part it's true).

If imbalance of power by itself bugs you, and I think this is actually true for most people who think of themselves as progressives, then there's no way the employer/employee relationship is ever going to seem just. Unions and union power lessen the power gap somewhat, no matter what the other bad effects.

Posted by BP Beckley | September 27, 2007 2:38 PM

I still don't understand the rational that we shouldn't have unions, and quite honestly no one (including you Meg) has ever been able to convince me that it's a bad idea. Why shouldn't a group of people with common interests come together to achieve a goal that benefits all of them?

Regardless, I think unions often have too much power, and I recall that during the most recent transit strike of Dec 2005 you were hard pressed to find people who supported the opinion of the Transit Workers Union to go on strike, even here in ultra-leftist NYC. Certainly I thought they had a week position.

But their basic right to strike I did not have a problem with. How are we determining too much power? And why shouldn't a group of people with similar interests be allowed to use the power they have -- that is -- effectively shutting down a business in order to get what they want?

If they ask for too much, the business goes bust and the workers get nothing in the end. So why is this a problem? Seems to me this is an example of, to an extent, market forces at their finest.

Posted by Kate | September 27, 2007 2:44 PM

I think that you could rephrase the question, without changing the meaning, as "Are all liberals anarchosyndicalists?" That's a fairly easy question to answer, no?

Also, Kate is right that there is a difference between believing a given union is too strong and believing that policies that would weaken either that union or all unions are just.

Posted by Noah | September 27, 2007 2:47 PM

clearly have an enormous amount of employer over their employer
I have nothing of interest to add so I'll just point out this typo.

Posted by JasonC | September 27, 2007 2:49 PM

If imbalance of power by itself bugs you, and I think this is actually true for most people who think of themselves as progressives...

What about the imbalance of power between the state and the individual? Progressives seem to be rather fond of that one.

Posted by Noah Yetter | September 27, 2007 2:49 PM

Workers, no in theory, yes in reality. Unions, yes without qualification.

The question implies workers are monolithic. In 1989 there was a strike by the UFAWU (fishermen) in British Columbia. Many of the fishermen owned their boats and were effectively small business owners. Many didn't belong to the union and didn't go on strike. I did, and I was one of the people walking around the docks in Prince Rupert forcing non-strikers to leave port, basically by the threat of violence (there were always more of us than there were of them because we were organized and they weren't). This was an ethical failure that's always bothered me.

Since unions cannot equally represent every worker, the question is akin to asking whether a democratic government can have too much power.

Basically: what Freddie said, only less pithily.

Posted by Seb | September 27, 2007 2:50 PM

I think the Teamsters union had too much power in the movie industry in the 80s and early 90s. Not sure what to think about SAG and the Writers' Guild. Hollywood is such an amoral cesspool that it's hard to assign the good guys' role to one gang of thugs over another.

I guess I think "have too much power" isn't usually the right question to ask. Rather it's "does the union actually represent most of the workers in its industry or aspire to do so; or is it more like a club which enforces its control only over the most lucrative segments of an industry, and consciously shunts non-union members into lower-paying jobs in the less profitable sectors of the industry?" I find those kinds of unions problematic. But I don't know much about this problem and am not sure what the solutions are.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 27, 2007 3:00 PM

Kate wrote: Why shouldn't a group of people with common interests come together to achieve a goal that benefits all of them?

In general, they should, and do have that right. Where such associations rightfully fall under governmental scrutiny, however, is when the association has the power to harm others without cause.

Where can we define "without cause"? I'm not sure, but I expect it falls somewhere under the same terms that define "too much power".

Kate wrote: But their basic right to strike I did not have a problem with. How are we determining too much power? And why shouldn't a group of people with similar interests be allowed to use the power they have -- that is -- effectively shutting down a business in order to get what they want?

The problem I have with this is the same problem I have with companies that exist solely for purposes of intellectual property holdings: they have no confiscatable assets that the aggrieved party can countersue for. Supposing the workers successfully shut down a business: the owner(s) have lost the value of the business, and possibly the assets of the business as well if the entity has debt liabilities exceeding assets.

If the business owners really were greedy or abusive, this might seem a just outcome; but who decides that? Who do the business onwers turn to if they believe they were wronged? Can they sue the union and expect to recover any significant amount of damages at all, let alone and amount equivalent to the loss of business?

A business can certainly make life miserable for individual employees, but a lazy or devious employee can bring down an entire business and unjustly harm the other employees and owners of the business. Some carefully-regulated assymetry in the employer's favor is a good thing; it serves as a microcosm of government in a setting where ungoverned behavior is destructive, but not always within the power of normal civil and criminal law enforcement to handle.

Posted by anony-mouse | September 27, 2007 3:13 PM

Noah Yetter writes: "What about the imbalance of power between the state and the individual? Progressives seem to be rather fond of that one."

This is especially stupid in light of the fact that habeas corpus is dead and unfettered warrantless surveillance is being performed by the most right-wing administration this country has ever seen.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 27, 2007 3:16 PM

anony-mouse asks: "Supposing the workers successfully shut down a business: the owner(s) have lost the value of the business, and possibly the assets of the business as well if the entity has debt liabilities exceeding assets.

If the business owners really were greedy or abusive, this might seem a just outcome; but who decides that? Who do the business onwers turn to if they believe they were wronged? Can they sue the union and expect to recover any significant amount of damages at all, let alone and amount equivalent to the loss of business?"

Is there some reason employees should be compelled to work for a business under terms they don't accept?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 27, 2007 3:19 PM

Sometimes Unions do have to pay:

http://tinyurl.com/2qc4nu

Posted by Kate | September 27, 2007 3:29 PM

Although I'm not a progressive, I suspect that they would not want members of the U.S. military to use their "bargaining power" to get higher wages.

Posted by James D. Miller | September 27, 2007 3:31 PM

MoeLarryandJesus wrote: Is there some reason employees should be compelled to work for a business under terms they don't accept?

Nope. Hence the 13th amendment. Was that meant to be some sort of counterpoint to my considerably more complex argument?

Posted by anony-mouse | September 27, 2007 3:33 PM

mouse:If the business owners really were greedy or abusive, this might seem a just outcome; but who decides that?

I would think the workers, who are actually employed by the business in question, would be best-equipped to decide where their interests lay.

On the whole I support unions. My problem with unions arises when the LEADERSHIP of the union starts getting delusions of grandeur and starts trying to run the business. Inevitably they start making decisions that are more in their own interest (but always in the name of the workers they represent, of course) than in the long-term interest of the membership. Workers are not helped if the business itself is destroyed.

Unions are important because they restrain the baser impulses of the greedier employers, who form the massive majority of employers in the world (very very few run their business in order to make their employee's lives better). Concurrent with the decline of union power we have had the skyrocketing of executive compensation; I think the two are closely related, as a union would justifiably demand that some of that largesse find its way into the pockets of the workers.

Posted by liberalrob | September 27, 2007 3:36 PM

I tend to think ... progressives feel...

Yes, that's my impression.

Posted by McNamara | September 27, 2007 3:37 PM

A liberal in fairly good standing, I've long thought that unions just like those you refer to are possessed of excessive power, power that enables them to extract benefits the unfairly exceed those that accrue to other workers.

And I can see how this concession to reality might lead to an inference yet more discomfiting to liberals like myself. What differentiates the worker who's lucky enough to make cars for GM in Detroit under a union contract and for higher pay from one who makes cars at a non-union plant? Again, only an (unfair, irrelevant) power differential.

But also, I suspect that the market for rare CEO talent is more power-ridden, less market-force-driven, than is the market for rare singer or athlete or actor talent.

And the really interesting question is how the terms on which such talent can be exploited should be determined. The ratio of CEO pay to worker pay is today much higher than it was a generation or two ago, but I don't suppose that CEOs today are talented or worthy than they were then, nor that workers are less talented and worthy.

Nor do I suppose that life at the bottom is markedly less miserable today than it was then. Yet life at the bottom, on the best measures I've seen, seems to be markedly less miserable in Sweden or France than it is in the United States. But I doubt if American bottom-dwellers are less talented or worthy than are Swedish and French workers.

And perhaps one reason why the bottom is less miserable there than here is that there unions are stronger.

Posted by Pointtaker | September 27, 2007 3:43 PM

more mouse: A business can certainly make life miserable for individual employees, but a lazy or devious employee can bring down an entire business and unjustly harm the other employees and owners of the business.

I believe most unions have standards of professional conduct; this should be seen by employers as a BENEFIT of allowing a union, for just the reason you cite. The union has an incentive to self-police so "lazy or devious" employees don't become a management talking point during the next collective bargaining agreement negotiation.

Absent a union, the power is all on the employer's side; he controls the hiring and firing with absolute dictatorial power, and in a tight labor market such as we have it's not so easy to simply quit your lousy job and go find another. I don't condone sabotage but in such a lopsided situation I can understand its attraction.

Some carefully-regulated assymetry in the employer's favor is a good thing

Interesting; most conservatives/Republicans don't agree that there should be ANY regulation whatsoever.

Posted by liberalrob | September 27, 2007 3:47 PM

anony-mouse quotes and replies: "MoeLarryandJesus wrote: Is there some reason employees should be compelled to work for a business under terms they don't accept?

Nope. Hence the 13th amendment. Was that meant to be some sort of counterpoint to my considerably more complex argument?"

Your argument contained a lot more words but amounted to nothing. If a business is ruined because employees choose not to work for it, that's not a cause for legal action - nor should it be.

Perhaps you have some real-life example of whatever it is you're trying to say. If so, provide it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 27, 2007 3:51 PM

Kate provides: "Sometimes Unions do have to pay:

http://tinyurl.com/2qc4nu"

That's common when public employees are the strikers.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 27, 2007 3:54 PM

What about the imbalance of power between the state and the individual? Progressives seem to be rather fond of that one.

A legitimate point. It's possible to imagine that a genuine democracy would produce better results for most people without degenerating into arbitrary use of power by the few, but you probably dispute the possibility.

On the other hand, if the two choices are for me to be subject to arbitrary power of the state and for me to be subject to arbitrary power of corporations, why I am I better off with the coporations? You seem to think that less power for the state would mean more power for the individual, but I see no reason to believe that that's what would actually happen.

Posted by BP Beckley | September 27, 2007 3:59 PM

Anony-mouse wrote:

A business can certainly make life miserable for individual employees, but a lazy or devious employee can bring down an entire business and unjustly harm the other employees and owners of the business.

Prefixing "employees" with "individual" is semantically deceptive. A business can make life miserable for one, ten, one hundred, or all of its employees. Saying that a business can only harm "individual employees" is meaningless when those "individual" employees number in the hundreds or thousands, unless the business is harming each of those employees in uniquely individual ways...

Anyway. Assuming that your assertion that a "lazy or devious" employee can bring an entire corporation to its knees is true--maybe a janitor dumps a bucket full of cleaner into the network servers, I dunno--there's still no reason why the behavior can't be dealt with within either (1) the employer-employee relationship ("Your ass is fired!"); (2) Civil liability ("I'm suing you for damages!"); or (3) Criminal liability ("Go directly to jail for damaging my proper-tay!")

Which brings me to...

Some carefully-regulated assymetry in the employer's favor is a good thing; it serves as a microcosm of government in a setting where ungoverned behavior is destructive, but not always within the power of normal civil and criminal law enforcement to handle.

Under what situations would negligent or deliberate destructive behavior by an employee(s) more likely be prevented before the fact or alleviated after the fact by asymmetical government regulation favoring employers?

Posted by Immoralist | September 27, 2007 4:12 PM

"Is there any situation in which you have thought, or can even imagine thinking, that union power might have to be dialed back?"

Public sector employee unions, particularly Federal, due to lack of checks and balances. The larger the political entity, the worse it is. Plus, as mentioned above, as citizens they get to vote to approve the higher salaries they just asked for as employees.

Private sector unions have a natural, inevitable check on their demands - if they ask for too much they will eventually drive their employer bankrupt. The employer will usually push back and endure a strike before that point is reached, but even if it doesn't then they go bankrupt, a new competitor takes their place, and a correction has occured.

It's harder to bankrupt a town or city, but it can be done (see New York City in the early 70's) and market forces and/or the movement of population will force a correction.

It's much harder for the employees of a state government to force a natural correction, and a lot more innocent bystanders get hurt if they do.

The "natural check" on the demands of employees of the US government is pretty much nonexistent.

I don't know if public sector unions should be illegal, but at the least they should lose a lot of the protections and rights private sector unions have with regards to lockouts and replacement with non-union workeres.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | September 27, 2007 4:17 PM

The baseball players union.

For one thing, I thought unions were necessary to the extent workers were fungible and couldn't bargain for themselves. Where workers are fungible and can't bargain for themselves, I think unions may be a great idea from a policy standpoint. Am I to believe Alex Rodriguez needs collective bargaining to ensure he's not undercompensated, or fired next time he wrenches his knee and replaced by a similar third baseperson?

Posted by Matt | September 27, 2007 4:27 PM

Why shouldn't a group of people with common interests come together to achieve a goal that benefits all of them?

But unions do more than this. For example, at my last job, I was represented by a union. I didn't join the union, didn't like it, and didn't think it was benefiting me or most of my co-workers. But there was no way for me to opt out, because of the legal rules protecting unions.

Moreover, unions also often hurt those outside the firm who are not hired because the union has made hiring more expensive and risky for the firm. (Ironically, the more unions succeed in this, the higher the penalty for losing your job, which exacerbates the problem of power asymmetry between employer and employee that unions supposedly ameliorate.)

It is worth pointing out that "groups of people coming together to promote their own interests" also describes the kind of monopolies and collusive arrangements prohibited by anti-trust law.

Meghan, I'd like to read more on this topic. "Progressive" bloggers (e.g. Ezra Klein) are always saying how great unions are, but they never bother to address the counterarguments.

Posted by ed | September 27, 2007 4:29 PM

Random ?....wouldn't card check be a good way to determine the viability of a union in a particular industry?

Posted by Mike P | September 27, 2007 4:37 PM

Matt, ever hear of a guy called Curt Flood?

This is the type of thing I go to Wikipedia for:

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

That's why the baseball players have a union. Too much unchecked power amongst owners.

Posted by Kate | September 27, 2007 4:45 PM

I guess these discussions usually assume huge monolithic companies of thousands of workers, all pretty much alike.

I work as a computer programmer, my wife works as a pharmacist. In BOTH cases, the imbalance of power often seems to favor the employee over the employer, whether the employer realizes this or not. When your skills are so much in demand that other companies or headhunters are constantly inquiring about when you might be available, and when it might take your employer months to replace you - and more months to bring your replacement up to speed, it's hard to feel so intimidated by the employer.

Posted by Jens Fiederer | September 27, 2007 4:56 PM

I have a problem with unions backed by government rules. As far as the right to free assembly, that doesn't cover union shops where workers must be in the union to work there or the shop can only hire union workers, by law.

Let workers form associations and bargain for compensation without government backing.

I've been at a plant trying to determine how to fix a piping system that wasn't working properly. As a non-union engineer, though, I couldn't actually help out with any of the work, all I was allowed to do was stand and wait for the valve-opening guy to come and then the hose-hooking-up guy to come, etc... I wasted two days on something that should have taken a couple of hours because of the union work rules. Oh, and they kept taking breaks right in the middle of work because it was break time. It's okay, though, because we billed their company for all of our wasted time.

EI

Posted by Earneast Iconoclast | September 27, 2007 4:56 PM

ed:

I'm not disagreeing with you that there are lots of problems with unions. I'm not saying they're perfect and I'm not saying they should be the norm even. I'm just saying that I like the idea they're possible. I like the idea that, because of unions, we have a 5 day work week, 40 hours a week, no more child labor, and generally safe working conditions. All of that is directly attributable to unions.

My husband had to join a union when he was a grad student at the University of Kansas. He had to pay a minimal amount of dues for which he essentially got nothing. But he actually did receive a benefit because if not for that union I have no doubt that the amount of money he would have been paid would have been half.

Now not all universities require their grad students to join unions. In fact, most private ones don't. If my husband didn't want to join a union he could have easily gone to one of those non-union graduate schools and taught at a non-union rate.

Same is true of vitually any traditional union profession. You don't have to get the union jobs. But you do. Why? Because they generally pay better. Because being part of the union implies a certain skill set (even if it's not true). Because if you want to be a longshoreman on the LA docks it's nice to max out at $175K and a sweet pension. ed, you don't want the $175K and the sweet pension you can be a longshoreman somewhere they don't have a union.

It's not collusion unless everyone in the profession is doing it and, from a free market economic standpoint, everybody has not joined the union. Unions, while impossible to get rid of, are also hard to get implemented. See what happened to Columbia's grad students trying to get a union in place. You have to treat your people pretty badly in order to get a large enough majority to agree to take on a union management.

So I don't understand what the bee in everyone's bonnet is about this and I don't understand why unions aren't okay. Seems to me it's a pretty good way to keep everyone on a even keel. When the unions behave like asses, they loose power (see, 1970s) and when employees are treated attrociously they gain power (see 1910s).

Posted by Kate | September 27, 2007 5:06 PM

I'm still waiting for MoeLarJ to demonstrate that he's more than a crank, and it just ain't coming. But a couple of my particular points seem to have confused multiple posters, so I'll work with the assumption that it's me:

One of the first things a union does is make it harder to single out any employee for any reason.

This may seem like a good deal if an employer is pone to fire without cause, but it tends to be a short step to the situation where an employer finds it very hard to fire with cause, because the union and the employer may have very different ideas about the value of a lazy or negligent employee who is a net loss to the business, but a net gain to the union so long as he contributes dues and a warm body toward the collective bargaining power. If employees are harder to get rid of, then the risk associated with adding one goes up and the employer will hire less of them. Then the union has to come back and negotiate stricter working conditions and more rigorous delimitations of whose job is what, and this not uncommonly gets to the ridiculous situation where the union goes ape on the employer if an employee is so much as found adjusting an AC vent or moving his own desk to a different wall of the office, because that's the defined job of the unionized maintenance crew.

It becomes an even worse deal if some employees might otherwise respond to incentives to perform better (or choose to perform better regardless), but the collectively-negotiated contract treats them as thought they were all equals because they all do the same nominal job. Having gone through the public school system for all of K-12, I witnessed this many times. Some teachers were barely there for the seven contractually-required hours and only assigned as much work as they could grade during their planning hour; others sometimes put in 8, 9, or 10 hour days, graded assigments on holidays and weekends, and were always available for another 15 minutes if a student had questions at the end of the day.

But the union contract said that their jobs were the same, therefore their pay could only be differentiated on the basis of the negotiated seven hours, the highest educational level obtained, and the number of years they had worked within the system.

Which just isn't right.

"Professional standards of conduct" are helpful, if enforced, but they generally can't make a seat warmer into a motivated worker, and a motivated worker can be contrawise discouraged by the limitations on his or her ability to advance. But that's the direction many unions end up when they try to represent a common denominator of interests among a non-uniform group of people.

Posted by anony-mouse | September 27, 2007 5:24 PM

I just think that if, like anony-whatever, you have worked your mind into thinking that today, in the American economy, it is the union or the workers who enjoy an unbalanced proportion of power, you've allowed your ideology to utterly cloud your minds to any kind of objective reality. There simply is no criteria by which you could now say that American unions are too powerful.

Posted by Freddie | September 27, 2007 5:54 PM

Kate: No question the reserve clause stuck it to baseball players and collective bargaining was probably a good idea to overcome the power owners had at that time. The question was whether workers could become too powerful; I think today's ballplayer needs collective bargaining like they need holes in their heads.

Posted by Matt | September 27, 2007 6:05 PM

Remember the scene in Wall Street where Gordon Gekko, the LBO raider, is talking to the union reps from Blue Star Airlines at Bud Fox's apartment, and he calls the Blue Star management "scum"? And Martin Sheen, who plays Bud's father, the head of the mechanics union, defends them ("That scum built this airline from one plane...")?

That respect for the entrepreneurs who build the businesses and create the jobs that make unions possible seems to be missing from today's left. When you don't respect business, you don't understand it, and when you don't understand it, you can take unionism too far, as the UAW has. It looks like they are finally willing to loosen their grip on the throat of the golden goose; we'll see if it is already be too late. Their union's membership as dwindled, and their attempts to blame everything on management ring hollow when companies like GM are successful internationally but not in the U.S.

Posted by Fred | September 27, 2007 6:17 PM

Freddie, do you ever actually make an argument designed to convince someone? Or do you just call anyone who disagrees with you stupid or ignorant or greedy?

For the record, I think that unions are generally too powerful by far in the public sector (but not in the private sector). For example, the California prison guards' union.

Posted by ed | September 27, 2007 6:17 PM

Because if you want to be a longshoreman on the LA docks it's nice to max out at $175K and a sweet pension. ed, you don't want the $175K and the sweet pension you can be a longshoreman somewhere they don't have a union.

Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people would like those cushy longshoreman jobs. Are they hiring?

Posted by ed | September 27, 2007 6:22 PM

ed: That was a reference to an argument that Meg and I had the *last* time she brought up unions which was, I believe, the LA Longshoreman's strike.

Posted by Kate | September 27, 2007 6:28 PM

Freddie wrote: I just think that if, like anony-whatever, you have worked your mind into thinking that today, in the American economy, it is the union or the workers who enjoy an unbalanced proportion of power, you've allowed your ideology to utterly cloud your minds to any kind of objective reality. There simply is no criteria by which you could now say that American unions are too powerful.

Wow, that's convincing. Where did you learn to argue like that? Teach me, O wise debate master -- teach me how to insult without cause and avoid the substance of the claim while leaving my ideological prejudices unscathed. I need to be able to convince people, too!

Posted by anony-mouse | September 27, 2007 6:51 PM

"For the record, I think that unions are generally too powerful by far in the public sector (but not in the private sector)."

This is the real scandal. It used to be that no one begrudged public sector employees their cushy benefits and job security since we figured most of them were modestly paid. Increasingly though, public sector employees are demanding better-than-private sector wages while maintaining their cushy benefits and job security. My property taxes just went up 30% to pay the salaries of all the cops, principals, etc. here making $100k+ per year.

Posted by Fred | September 27, 2007 6:51 PM

I have yet to see anony-mouse demonstrate that he's anything but a half-bright quibbler, but when he writes -

"It becomes an even worse deal if some employees might otherwise respond to incentives to perform better (or choose to perform better regardless), but the collectively-negotiated contract treats them as thought they were all equals because they all do the same nominal job. Having gone through the public school system for all of K-12, I witnessed this many times. Some teachers were barely there for the seven contractually-required hours and only assigned as much work as they could grade during their planning hour; others sometimes put in 8, 9, or 10 hour days, graded assigments on holidays and weekends, and were always available for another 15 minutes if a student had questions at the end of the day.

But the union contract said that their jobs were the same, therefore their pay could only be differentiated on the basis of the negotiated seven hours, the highest educational level obtained, and the number of years they had worked within the system.

Which just isn't right."

- I have to assume he has exceptionally limited real-life experience and very poor powers of observation. In real life school administrators punish teachers who are burnouts or poor performers in general by assigning them to teach morons and troublemakers, by giving them the worst classrooms, by riding their asses in a myriad of ways.

It's hard to believe someone would really argue that his own "K-12" experience is significant evidence for his point of view, but we live in times where stupid arguments are winning elections and leadings to wars.

Which just isn't right.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 27, 2007 8:32 PM

ML&J,

You must be thinking about big city school districts. Think instead about the thousands of other districts out there which don't have "worst classrooms", etc. etc., but where a single teacher's salary accounts for anywhere between .5 and 5% of a local property tax hike.

It takes over two years to fire an incompetent teacher in New York State. It took NYC longer than that to finally fire a teacher (getting his salary) who was in prison with a felony drug conviction! Some new laws were then passed, so now that situation only takes a full year!

Teaching used to be the sort of job that had low pay because of the extra benefits like health insurance and pensions. Now most everyone gets health insurance, and teachers get regular, not low, pay. Their pension plans are millions times better than any company's. Try this test if you don't believe that. Go to any service organization's meeting (Kiwanis, Lions, Rotary) and talk to the retirees about how much they are making in retired pay. The greatest amounts are made by teachers! That's not necessarily a bad thing, but the teachers unions keep complaining how underpaid they are, when they aren't really. Especially if you calculate their wages on a pro rata basis.

Posted by Rex | September 27, 2007 9:55 PM

Rex writes: "Go to any service organization's meeting (Kiwanis, Lions, Rotary) and talk to the retirees about how much they are making in retired pay. The greatest amounts are made by teachers! That's not necessarily a bad thing, but the teachers unions keep complaining how underpaid they are, when they aren't really. Especially if you calculate their wages on a pro rata basis."

Teachers are (almost always) college graduates who could choose other, higher-paying professions to start. The tiny districts you're referring to generally pay doodly-squat to start. Teachers with advanced degrees generally max out pay-wise far, far below what they could get in the private sector, especially in math and science.

Traditionally the payoff has been that the benefits (health & pensions) were strong, and job security was good. Now the nationwide push is to reduce the benefits while at the same time increasing the suckitude of the job to new levels. Teachers are expected and usually required to have far more contact with parents, for example, than they ever did in the past. I'm absolutely floored by the amount of contact and involvement parents now have with schools, and the additional burdens on teachers.

Cranky yahoos want the teachers to work longer and harder for less pay, with less benefits, and then want to add on weaker job security. I don't blame teachers for telling their employers to take a flying fuck at the moon.

That said, I have no problem with merit pay proposals. Make them a part of the collective bargaining agreement. Expect to give something in return. Stop mouthing idiotic bromides about how teachers have he most important job of all while trying to rape them economically every chance you get.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 27, 2007 10:36 PM

"Teachers are (almost always) college graduates who could choose other, higher-paying professions to start."

Actually, most of them couldn't, at least not with education degrees. I'd venture to say that only 25% of them could choose other higher-paying professions.

"The tiny districts you're referring to generally pay doodly-squat to start."

Tiny only by comparison to the large cities. And the large cities are notorious for paying LESS than the "tiny" districts. And with respect to the major metropolitan areas, the cost of living is less in the "tiny" districts with bigger salaries than the large districts pay.

"Teachers with advanced degrees generally max out pay-wise far, far below what they could get in the private sector, especially in math and science."

That's actually true for ONLY math and science teachers; most other teachers get a masters in education because they have to in order to keep their certification, as in New York, for example. And have you seen what is required for a masters in education? I'm not saying it's not worthwhile for a teacher to have one, but it's certainly not comparable to a masters in almost any other subject.

Posted by Rex | September 27, 2007 10:58 PM

Rex quotes and writes: ""Teachers are (almost always) college graduates who could choose other, higher-paying professions to start."

Actually, most of them couldn't, at least not with education degrees. I'd venture to say that only 25% of them could choose other higher-paying professions."

But of course you don't know the actual figures I'd be interested to see them - and if the teaching option weren't there, education grads would have to choose other options. In my own city most of the teachers have degrees in their own subject, and the trend nationwide is to encourage that.

""Teachers with advanced degrees generally max out pay-wise far, far below what they could get in the private sector, especially in math and science."

That's actually true for ONLY math and science teachers; most other teachers get a masters in education because they have to in order to keep their certification, as in New York, for example. And have you seen what is required for a masters in education? I'm not saying it's not worthwhile for a teacher to have one, but it's certainly not comparable to a masters in almost any other subject."

It costs the same. And I disagree with your premise. I've known plenty of English and "Social Studies" (a phrase I despise) teachers who found much richer pastures moving over to corporate in-house training positions. The skills needed to run a classroom translate very well to that world.

But of course you STILL don't even begin to answer the basic question - if you make it easier to fire teachers, and whittle away their benefits, exactly how do you propose to lure enough people into the profession? As things stand there are teacher shortages - especially of skilled teachers - in many places all over the country.

The conservative position seems to be that if we crack down on the lazy bastards and make them fear for their jobs while occasionally tossing one a few thousand dollars of "merit pay," the HOLY MARKET will solve the problem.

This is simply stupid. Which is, of course, why it appeals to conservatives.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 27, 2007 11:13 PM

ML & J,

You're right about teachers with advanced degrees making more money in the private sector. Why is that? Because these are RESEARCH degrees. Primarily, the reason one SHOULD get these degrees is to CREATE NEW KNOWLEDGE IN THE LAB (or field or computer screen.) They would make more because they would make something, or use their technical knowledge at a very high level. This is contrasted to teaching fundamentals at the most basic levels.

If K-12 teacher's are getting these, they are meerly stockpiling credentials for no other reason than padding their pay. Sure, they could've done it "for themselves", i.e. to prove that they have what it takes to make it to the top level of formal studies in their field.

But how does someone who is in, say, 10th grade benefit from having a teacher with a Master's degree worth of knowledge? They won't be taught at that level, or even at the level of an undergraduate. So essentially, that graduate-level knowledge is a waste for the teacher. They should instead focus on honing their presentation skills, time and class management ability, etc.

That's why merit pay is so important: we should pay teachers for RESULTS.

Posted by ___ | September 27, 2007 11:27 PM

___ writes: "But how does someone who is in, say, 10th grade benefit from having a teacher with a Master's degree worth of knowledge? They won't be taught at that level, or even at the level of an undergraduate. So essentially, that graduate-level knowledge is a waste for the teacher. They should instead focus on honing their presentation skills, time and class management ability, etc."

So you want to emphasize Education degree-type training over training in the field a teacher will actually be, uh, teaching. And you assume that all high school teachers are only teaching "at the most basic levels."

I don't even think that's worth addressing seriously, because it's simply stupid. Why not just hire undergraduates on a part-time basis? Give them lunch and $60 a day and see how that works out. Screw continuity and experience. Let's cheap out as much as possible.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 27, 2007 11:40 PM

I have yet to see anony-mouse demonstrate that he's anything but a half-bright quibbler,

Glasses...definitely a candidate for glasses.

Posted by anony-mouse | September 28, 2007 2:37 AM

anony-mouse quotes and writes: "I have yet to see anony-mouse demonstrate that he's anything but a half-bright quibbler,

Glasses...definitely a candidate for glasses."

I'm 45 and I don't need them yet, chuckles. I suggest that you need some remedial training in logic and prose, though. As you noted yourself: "But a couple of my particular points seem to have confused multiple posters, so I'll work with the assumption that it's me(.)"

Yes, it was you. It continues to be you. You're just inadequate for the tasks you set for yourself. This is no surprise coming from a sterling wit who picks "anony-mouse" as a username, but I suppose your wittier choices were already taken.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 28, 2007 3:10 AM

If you make it easier to fire non-performing teachers, or even just the bottom 10%, local taxpayers will support (by a simple majority, but that's all you need) pay increases or merit pay increases.

What taxpayers object to is increasing salaries for a profession which includes a lot of mediocre performers. This is being exacerbated by states not picking up their fair share of school funding, leaving local property tax increases to make up the difference.

An experiment a state could try: statewide salaries including local merit pay, with cost of living variations if needed, and the guaranty that teachers moving from one district to another keep their salary level (based on experience). Then let the market decide which districts are the most attractive, by counting which have the most applicants. Then examine those districts to see just why they are more attactive than usual.

Posted by Rex | September 28, 2007 3:50 AM

A union has too much power when it's a monopoly.

Just like any other organization, unions can extract rents if there isn't a competitive market.

Obviously there's room for debate about the definition of a monopoly. The 70+% percent of autoworkers that were in the UAW in the 1970's strikes me as somewhat monopolistic (though you'd need to gather some more data than simply market share to determine if they're monopolistic). Today's 25% probably isn't monopolistic.

Posted by ChE | September 28, 2007 10:58 AM

Rex just landed on this planet: "An experiment a state could try: statewide salaries including local merit pay, with cost of living variations if needed, and the guaranty that teachers moving from one district to another keep their salary level (based on experience). Then let the market decide which districts are the most attractive, by counting which have the most applicants. Then examine those districts to see just why they are more attactive than usual."

Wealthy districts will accept that plan when pigs fly, Rex. But while you're here, I hope you're enjoying our native cuisine.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 28, 2007 11:01 AM

Since MoeLarryAndJesus is able to comment on this thread throughout the day, into the wee hours of the morning, and then late the next morning, perhaps he isn't the best person to comment on merit pay or the free market.

Posted by Fraggle Rock | September 28, 2007 2:35 PM

Fraggle Rock writes: "Since MoeLarryAndJesus is able to comment on this thread throughout the day, into the wee hours of the morning, and then late the next morning, perhaps he isn't the best person to comment on merit pay or the free market."

Perhaps you just lack my energy and the stones to try self-employment, chuckles. I'm glad youspent some of your precious free time track of my activities, though.

Coffee break's over. Back on your head.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 28, 2007 3:07 PM

Make that "keeping track" before you get back on your head. And I hope you get the reference.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 28, 2007 3:09 PM

Yeah, seeing the time & date stamp next to your "name" is really sneaky. For my next trick, I guess I'll repeal habeus corpus.

And no, I don't get the "back on your head" reference. But then, I went to a college where I was often taught by undergraduates making $60 dollars a day.

Posted by Fraggle Rock | September 28, 2007 3:33 PM

Fraggle replies: "Yeah, seeing the time & date stamp next to your "name" is really sneaky. For my next trick, I guess I'll repeal habeus corpus."

Try learning to spell it first. And who said anything about it being "sneaky"?

"And no, I don't get the "back on your head" reference. But then, I went to a college where I was often taught by undergraduates making $60 dollars a day."

Then you were ripped off.

The reference is to a joke about the devil showing a new arrival around Hell while explaining that the newbie can pick his version of hell from several choices. The first few are all horrible places of dismemberment and demonic rape and so forth. Then they come to a place where the damned are standing in a river of waist-level shit, and they're all drinking coffee, which is what you could expect of the damned.

Maybe you can finish the joke yourself on your next break. If not, ask your boss for help.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 28, 2007 6:20 PM

Teachers are (almost always) college graduates who could choose other, higher-paying professions to start.

Actually, it is well known that education majors rank among the lowest in standard testing scores (SAT, GRE, LSAT). Most of the teaching majors I knew (not all, but most) had washed out of a different major. And I know one technician who got out of the education college because he wasn't being challenged.

That said, I have tremendous respect for people who aspired to teach from the beginning. Some of them are quite good, and I owe a lot to them.

Posted by Eric H | September 29, 2007 12:36 AM

noun cetoniinae surrogateship theobromine dorsispinal tillering sunyie bask
http://www.southcomgroup.com/ >OEMSuppliers.com.
http://www.healthboards.com/heart-disorders/

Posted by Anastasia Fuller | November 22, 2007 5:43 AM

noun cetoniinae surrogateship theobromine dorsispinal tillering sunyie bask
http://online.tvguide.com/detail/movie.aspx?tvobjectid=133540 >TV Guide Online: Aberration
http://samlongoria.com

Posted by Casey Riggs | November 28, 2007 9:11 AM

occasionalness gaypoo pyodermatitis entogenous historicize chargeably compare tosk
http://www.fabulousfoods.com/features/diabetic/hidtreasures.html >Fabulous Foods: Hidden Treasures
http://gba.gamespy.com/gameboy-advance/summon-night/

Posted by Blanca Cunningham | December 17, 2007 6:08 PM