Scalia found dead?

In the case in point, the non-union members were arguing that the previously held precedent–that they could still be charged by the union for their share of the cost of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, even though they aren’t charged anything by the union for any lobbying or political activity–still represented a violation of their free speech, as well as other things. So yes, they want to go back to being freeloaders on the back of the union bargainers.

Personally, I’d prefer to see a solution where the union collectively bargains ONLY for their members, and those individuals who choose not to join the union can negotiate their own contracts with the employer at their own will and skill. Fuck’em if they end up making minimum wage then…

The problem with that is the employer wouldn’t have much trouble rewarding people for NOT being in a union, then pull it out from under them once the union is gone or so weak that it can’t help anymore.

I’d go for that. I’d rather negotiate on my own than depend on the trainwreck that is the State Employee/Teachers union here. Two years with furloughs, four years with no cost of living or step increases and only one or the other in the few years since. Every year we get a grand email about the great deal they struck with the Governor and then when the budget comes out, it’s all been cut and we don’t hear another peep out of them. And this is what I’m supposed to be paying for?

Personally, I’d prefer to see a solution where the union collectively bargains ONLY for their members, and those individuals who choose not to join the union can negotiate their own contracts with the employer at their own will and skill. Fuck’em if they end up making minimum wage then…

I think this would be preferable to those who aren’t interested in the union as well, as they would then be negotiating their own wages based on their OWN performance, and not as some larger agreement across other employees who may be terrible teachers.

The unionization of teachers is indicative (not the cause of, merely an indication) of a problem with our public schools. Unions are present in situations where the workers have been commoditized. Where one worker is effectively equal to another, and can be replaced at will.

This isn’t how teachers are, or at least not how they should be. Teachers are professional educators, and their individual qualities and passions matter. It’s also kind of weird to me, in that unions are generally required when (in addition to the commoditization of workers described above) the employer is essentially looking to exploit the workers in some way. But it seems messed up that our public school system would be putting itself into that kind of position.

Oh I recognize the problems with such a system, but at least you wouldn’t have the whiners like were bringing this case.

Teachers unions are a response to the fact that public school systems have a local monopoly on employment for teachers, vastly reducing the bargaining power of a single teacher in employment negotiations-- if you don’t like the deal offered, you essentially have to move. Where teachers aren’t protected by unions (private schools) or their unions are weak, teacher salaries are crappy.

This. Teachers are often treated as contractors by the school systems, while principals and other administrators are treated like county employees proper. Most systems have a fairly major firewall between them and the teachers such that if a student gets hurt or there is some other legal issue, the school system is insulated from the problem and the teacher must face the lawsuit by themselves.

My wife is a teacher, and we’ve had multiple occasions where we have been very thankful for the teacher union’s legal support. Her dues are monies well spent.

Measuring “teacher performance” is incredibly complicated and controversial.

The unionization of teachers is indicative (not the cause of, merely an indication) of a problem with our public schools. Unions are present in situations where the workers have been commoditized. Where one worker is effectively equal to another, and can be replaced at will.

Not necessarily. Hollywood writers have a union, and associates at big U.S. law firms are all paid the same salary. Flexible salaries is not a sign of creative or “professional” work.

This isn’t how teachers are, or at least not how they should be. Teachers are professional educators, and their individual qualities and passions matter. It’s also kind of weird to me, in that unions are generally required when (in addition to the commoditization of workers described above) the employer is essentially looking to exploit the workers in some way. But it seems messed up that our public school system would be putting itself into that kind of position.

Teacher salaries are incredibly political, as is education in general. A public school district throws a lot of heft around, and there is no guarantee that it’s political leadership will necessarily have teachers’ interests at heart.

Also: Private and parochial schools are very much a thing in American education, and tend to be good places to work that are non-unionized. No one has to deal with a union to be a teacher.

Agreed, if the measurement is attempted on some sort of formulaic basis or primarily based on student achievement. Ultimately, it needs to be an assessment from a manager/administrator. Teaching is a critical task and it needs to be assessed in some way. Yes, managerial assessment is subjective and susceptible to bias, but that’s the way it’s done for most professionals from engineers to lawyers.

Having zero assessment mechanisms (as the unions often push for) is a disservice to our children. Teachers should be treated as the professionals that they are—including being subject to assessment.

Measuring “teacher performance” is incredibly complicated and controversial.

Well, measuring ANY employee’s performance is incredibly complicated and controversial, but that’s not in any way a reason for not doing it. We can’t just say that it’s hard, so evaluating their merit individually can’t be done. It just means we need to invest more effort into that measurement.

Also: Private and parochial schools are very much a thing in American education, and tend to be good places to work that are non-unionized. No one has to deal with a union to be a teacher.

I know a number of teachers but only one from a Catholic school. As you say though, i haven’t heard that private school teachers are abused by their employers, despite being non unionized.

You start by making sure the success of the teacher’ management is measured by the success of the teachers they manage. That is, today the relationship between school administration and school teachers is an adversarial one. While it remains so, everything is fucked.

disclaimer: I come from several generations of public school teachers. I myself am middle management in software engineering. See both sides on a regular basis.

I agree. It reminds me of a favorite line, “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.” Of course, I think we’re still working on “good” at this point.

I know a number of teachers but only one from a Catholic school. As you say though, i haven’t heard that private school teachers are abused by their employers, despite being non unionized.

They tend to be good places to work, but also are (on the average) significantly underpaid compared to their public school brethren. A bit of a trade off (and in case someone thinks to make the connection, they’re underpaid by considerably more than what union fees cost).

George Mason University had planned to rename their law school after Antonin Scalia, but their first attempt at a name, the Antonin Scalia School of Law, has been hastily changed after Twitter figured out that the acronym might not be what the school was shooting for.

Sadly I don’t think the Internet will forget the original name, nor will students and faculty. The only question is whether ASSLaw or ASSoL will be preferred.

I saw an article on this today, hilarious.

So the nominee is Gorsuch. I’ve just read that, never heard it. Anyone know how to pronounce that? Is it “Gore-Such”?

I suspect we’ll be hearing about him a lot over the next few weeks. Though with the Trump presidency, you never know, it could get drowned out by other things.

https://twitter.com/DKThomp/status/826603740991983616

Can’t blame gorsuch for the Senate being imbeciles.

I’m not blaming him for anything yet, just pointing out that he saw through their bullshit (as did Thomas last I heard and I’m not fan of him).

I know I’m going to disagree vehemently with this dude before long, but if this is his thought process I’m mildly optimistic.

I like this quote better, myself: