question about teachers union and public schools

So, the teachers union has completely unmasked themselves in the past year as an organization that is for teachers (maybe) and for itself (mostly), but not for it's customers (parents and students). So, could the public school system simply become non-union? Must they hire union teachers at all? Is there some kind of government contract that says they have to? Seems like that would be an easy fix. The teachers who want to remain union could go look for a private school that would hire them, and they wouldn't have to fight. Win-win.

 

Government funds the teachers, the teachers fund union, the union funds Democrat campaigns, the Democrats increase funding to teachers, and around and around it goes.

the practical effect is teachers as a body are being taxed by government to fund Democrat campaigns. It’s just going through a middle man to do it. The unions get rich, the Democrats get elected, and the teachers still do a terrible job and don’t get paid that much since it’s all going to union dues.

Which, of course, should be illegal. Unions should have zero ability to fund campaigns, likewise any other institution funded by taxpayer dollars.

 

*yawn*

Another ...Unions bad...... thread ?

*yawn*
*yawn*

 

Teachers union contracts are negotiated usually every 4 years with local school boards and local teachers union representatives. That's why we have giant salary differences between wealthy neighborhoods and their nearby city neighbors who maybe less affluent

 

Do you have children in school?

 

Funding to teachers??? Dear God! We cannot have that. Next thing you know, our children are going to start becoming.... (gasp!)... educated!

 

And its the perfect example of why the GOP hates unions, and hate the middle class....They can give all the lies one can spew....Just look at right to work laws and for education charter schools!
The GOP plan, a race to the bottom!

 

You missed the point so badly I can only assume you did it on purpose which makes you intellectually dishonest. Congratulations

 

No. YOU missed the point of why, following your own logic, teacher unions would be GOOD.

 

his point is a valid one. the teachers are not "funded" like some find of charity. they EARN every penny that their union can negotiate for them

 

Are you a teacher ?

 

so teachers unions are good because they funnel taxpayer dollars to democrats?

okaaaay buddy.

And please feel free to explain how your strawman relates in any way to this line of thought.

it doesn’t. So again, huge swing and miss.

 

Yes. Do you have children in school?

 

I bet you also lose it when corporations and PAC donate extraordinary amount of money to political campaigns.

 

Members of teachers unions are just like all Americans they can vote for whom ever they wish. If they feel the Democrats basically are more in line with their aims and expectations then they'll vote Democrat, if not they'll vote Republican.

 

No it isn’t. There is zero defense or legitimate argument for supporting taxpayer dollars going to fund political campaigns.

 

Too bad it hadn't worked that way in some districts in 60 years.
Note NYC spends more per capital on education than any other school in the country yet most kids don't graduate at all, and most if those that do are functionally illiterate. Meanwhile charter schools, often with half the funding and generally treated like ugly step children by so called education establishment, graduate kids that go on to college. The question is why do we keep funding abject failure?

 

you have not convinced me that this is "taxpayer money. " the teachers are paid wages and it becomes THEIR money, doesn't it?

 

So now you act as if you don't remember what you said?

YOU: "Government funds the teachers, the teachers fund union, the union funds Democrat campaigns, the Democrats increase funding to teachers, and around and around it goes."​

Sounds to me that funding to teachers (i.e. education) is great. Why aren't Republicans also funding education? And what party would you expect teachers unions to fund? The one that favors funding for education, or the one that opposes funding for education?

Now... if you're going to change what you said... change it! But don't go accusing anybody else of your own faults (intellectual dishonesty)

BTW "teacher unions funnel taxpayer dollars"

Absolutely teachers should be allowed to do with the money they earn whatever the hell they want! Do you disagree? If so, are you promoting some sort of communist agenda, or something?

 

Like with virtually all unions, the membership can vote for whomever they like, but their dues fund Democrats.

 

Which part of it isnt taxpayer money? They are public sector employees, by definition that is taxpayer money. which is then taxed by unions that then donate to political campaigns in order to get more influence and money from the politicians they elect that then give them more money so they get more donations.

you really don’t see the circle of BS even though it’s a mile deep?

 

Here is a twist....If a teacher had an abortion and she paid for it, would that mean it was paid for by tax payers?............LOL..........this is getting funnier and funnier!

 

Well, considering the responses already on this thread, can you blame them?

 

In what way did I change what I said or forget it? You never contested what I said, you made the strawman argument that what I said magically means I’m in favor of defunding teachers. Which is so far off the mark you had to be deliberate about it which makes you dishonest.

a dishonesty that furthermore isn’t alleviated by anything I’m reading in your rambling rants.

You seem entirely clueless in fact to the dynamics of teachers unions. You think teachers are in control of their money? How laughably absurd

 

Teachers have the right to unionize. There are some valid criticisms of public sector unions, but I haven’t seen a valid one on this thread. If you’re mad about teacher unions funneling money to the Democratic Party, take it up when John Roberts, and all the conservative justices for their ruling on Citizens United, because apparently money is speech, or something along that line.