The Observation Deck

I'll sit down with the bunch of ya---- you know my biases and that having been said I think all the posters on this thread should get together. After all, I think this conversation will be the microcosm of the larger discussion but presumably with civility over coffee.

Sean--- Saturday, 11:00 at the Root?

Stan

Saturday at 11 works for me.

...and here I was, thinking that the Observation Deck WAS a video game...

I might be able to swing by next week. Never met Roy face to face, but I think the world of Tim, as long as we avoid talking about education...

Actually, he might be surprised at the extent to which we would agree about many education-related topics...

...or perhaps he would not be. Personally, I think the man's a genius, particularly when he start's talking about bikes and bike safety.

Back to the banjo....the Lakewood Ohio Chautauqua tent event is coming up in June at Lakewood Park, and I am scheduled to play music for it...

...WAY off the topic, I know, but as the celebration involves Civil War era presentations, I'm thinking about growing a beard...

...now THAT'S a controversial issue, at least for me!

THREAD DRIFT, THREAD DRIFT, THREAD DRIFT!

Oh well, back to the Union, (or was that the Confederates? )

Maybe we could arrive at a compromise even bigger than the __________compromise that they tried to arrive at before the Civil War...

(this is a test )

Back to the banjo...

Gary--- You're rambling---- you gonna show?

I hope you guys can teach the people down in Columbus a little about civility! I will admit this is one issue I'm really struggling with.

On one hand, I don't think the government should take away the basic right to organize, but I also see a need for a greater accountability for public employee unions, especially when it's apparent that they may not be reflecting the best interests or economic realities of the people that ultimately pay their salaries. It's a strange conundrum simply because tax dollars are involved I think.

Gary Rice wrote:What part of "due process, employee rights, and collective bargaining" could you possibly have an issue with? We've been over this ground before about that video that you posted, and I still fail to see what the issue is with your point of view regarding all of this. You certainly have a right to your opinions concerning public employee unions. I would simply point out that many of the advantages that workers in virtually every field of endeavor in this country have benefited either directly, or indirectly, by victories won for them by unions.

As I said, unions have their place. In their early days, they did improved conditions immensely. If unions disappeared this very minute, would employers take us back to where we were before? I don't think they could, nor do I believe they would.
I never said I was against collective bargaining. Looking over what I wrote, the specific measures I discussed would simply limit the scope of collective bargaining. If COL/inflation increases 2%, is much more than 2% or even 3% necessary?

As far as that video goes, my whole issue is him saying that, 'the children take a back seat to the union. We want that power.'

Gary Rice wrote:Standing up for the American worker does not necessarily mean that one is slipping down a slide into "socialism", any more than being a "conservative" means that one necessarily has "fascist" tendencies.

The International Socialist Organization, Communist Party USA, Revolutionary Communist Party and more have all had a presence in Madison WI the past couple weeks, side-by-side with SEIU (who's former head, Andy Stern proudly stated once, "Workers of the World Unite. Its not just a slogan anymore its a way we need to do business.") and the AFL-CIO. These unions have never denounced these organizations. In their position, it would sicken me to be at a rally with them.

Gary Rice wrote:In a democracy, it is essential that each citizen be given a place at the table of public education.

Last time I checked, this country was formed as a republic. The Founder's knew a democracy was the wrong way to run the country...

John Adams wrote:Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

attrib: Benjamin Franklin wrote:Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy...it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.

On the other hand...

Karl Marx wrote:Democracy is the road to socialism.

Sean Wheeler wrote:The bogey man of socialism that destroys our way of life. I'm not buying it. I'm more scared of the bogey man that is publicly destroying my way of life and is the cause of this debate. This line of hyperbolic rhetoric is completely irrelevant to this conversation.

Perhaps another time then...

Sean Wheeler wrote:When does the public money become my money? I've always assumed that once I fulfilled the obligations of my legal contract, than the money is mine.

I'm not sure if we are on the same page. Let me try to clear things up:
I can't play fast and loose with my money, I'm not rich enough (yet). I imagine you aren't either. We can't spend $50,000 on a yacht or $300,000 on a second home because we know we have nowhere to get that money.
The government hasn't got that worry. As long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble.

You mentioned something there...about union dues. I'm curious. One thing I've heard a couple times is that the government's should stop allowing the unions to take their dues directly from paychecks. Are Lakewood/Ohio dues taken directly out of your paycheck or do you write a check every month?

Sean Wheeler wrote:To eliminate step raises is to nullify the worth of the experience and professional development that I increase on a yearly basis. I'd say that I become more valuable to the district with every year of experience I gain. I'm more efficient than I was, a bit wiser than I was, and increasingly more capable of honing my skills in the classroom.

I've never received a "step raise". In my time, I have received COL raises at the beginning of the year and merit raises to accompany promotions. I received those promotions because I had, as you put it, made myself more valuable on the job, whether through skills, location flexibility or being able to take on additional hours (when I was part-time).
As I see it, personal improvement feeds merit.

Sean Wheeler wrote:As it stands now, we are about to pass a merit pay system in this state WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PLAN AS TO HOW IT WILL WORK. This seems to me like a train wreck itching to happen. I can think of no more irresponsible part of this legislation. Where's the plan? Who's making it? Who does it apply to? Nobody knows because there isn't a plan.

I believe we are in agreement here.
If I may throw a thought out...is it possible they wish to leave the specifics of merit up to the school districts?

Stan Austin wrote:Saturday, 11:00 at the Root?

I work Saturdays, all day. I work Sundays too (I'm writing at work).

Now, we wouldn't want to be accused of being anti-democratic, would we?

Our United States is indeed a Democracy, as well as being a Republic. There is a difference between the pure definition of academic terminology and what actually develops in the real political world. We actually have kind of a hybrid government.

One of the best notations and commentaries of the American Democratic metamorphosis came from the 1830's study of American republican representative democracy by Alexis de Tocqueville's two volume study, titled "De la démocratie en Amérique" or "Of Democracy in America". Perhaps that study would be a good perusal to consider.

Roy would be correct in that the "pure" form of democracy, at least in the academic sense, was not highly regarded by many of the founding fathers. That point made, it should be noted that many democratic institutions and procedures were nonetheless made part and parcel of this country's foundations. In fact, it may well be argued that the two-party system (then between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans) came about very quickly, due in large part, to a dispute as to how much democracy there should be. (and principally, how centralized our Federal government should be)

Regarding limiting the percentage of collective bargaining, that happens quite naturally in the normal process of negotiation, because again, nothing happens that is not agreed to in the give and take of both sides. If there is a higher percentage of pay increase agreed to by both sides, that might well be offset by medical give-backs or postponements, for example. To attempt to limit the scope of collective bargaining would be to effectively destroy that process, at least in my view.

To suggest that unions "have their place" could be an unfortunate choice of words, I do believe, as there have been other groups in history that have also been told that they "have their place" in our country. I could only suggest that individuals or groups will indeed "have their place", and that WILL be the place that they are able to carve out for themselves in the American Dream. That could, and indeed, WILL never EVER be the place that someone else defines for them. I do believe that to be the context in which union power was alluded to, in that video.

As for whomever might have been rallying in Wisconsin, I think that I've probably seen all sorts of people show up at all sorts of rallies in my time. Left wing, right wing or chicken wing, just about anyone can show up just about everywhere in order to get their points across these days.

Especially during turbulent times such as these.

Back to the banjo...

Gary Rice wrote:Regarding limiting the percentage of collective bargaining, that happens quite naturally in the normal process of negotiation, because again, nothing happens that is not agreed to in the give and take of both sides.

The issue is that it's not a fair negotiation from the get go. There are federal and state laws that automatically bind the hands of management from certain paths or remedies during a negotiation that give labor the upper hand in the negotiation. It's not a 100% equal, fair fight between both sides. It needs to be equalized, both sides should have the same restrictions and same curbs so both come to the table with a truly equal position.

With that being said, I don't believe the way to achieve that balance is the way the extremists in WI, IN, and Columbus are trying to do it.

And a lesson for King Kasich in this fight, he may want to look at the latest approval ratings for WI Gov. Walker that just came out today...not pretty. The people in WI are obviously not pleased with the hard-nosed rhetoric, and I doubt Ohioans are much different.

Here's the poll I was referring to if anyone is interested:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... -wisconsin

First of all, as a disclaimer, I am after all, a retired teacher, and not an attorney, so I cannot comment as to the legalities of anything specific here.

That point made, I fail to understand why some might feel that management has more constraints than labor does with respect to negotiations.

In our country, we do have a law called the National Labor Relations Act.

The National Labor Relations Board was set up in order to investigate, and where necessary, address such infractions of that Act as might be brought to its attention.

In these kinds of disputes, both sides have very specific rules and codes of conduct that they must abide by.

I can report in my professional educational experience, that I have seen unfair labor practice actions in the educational domain, and they can be long, drawn-out, and at times VERY expensive adversarial relationships that normally, either side in a labor dispute would probably prefer to avoid.

Neither school districts, nor local unions, have bottomless pits of money, and one of these actions can drain the till about as fast as anything else I can think of.

On another point that was made, I do feel that the actions of some (but not all!) of the Republican governors in some of these states has probably been the best thing that's happened to Democrats in a long time. They now have a huge cause to rally around. While this may be a tough go for quite a number of working people in the short term, I do think that some of those Republican governors tried to raise a bit too much of a ruckus at this particular time in history.

We know what our science teachers taught us about actions and reactions.

I just don't think those governors have the power base to make these big plans of theirs stick around for very long.

Just my opinions here, and I may be wrong. (but I don't think so )

Back to the banjo...

I think the public has the impression that the teachers unions have had the upper hand in contract negotiations because in many middle-class districts like Lakewood the relationships between the board and the union (at-least publicly) have seemed pretty cozy. I think that when real estate values where climbing faster than inflation it was much easier to go to the voters then to pressure the unions. Times have changed. The middle-class private sector has been getting hammered for 15 - 20 years, flat wages, stripped of pensions, reduced benefits and savings, and falling real estate values. We're hurting. The republicans have done a masterful job pitting middle-class against middle-class in a race to the bottom. All the while corporations and wall street have rack-up record profits and are holding record amounts of cash.

We are being told that SB5 is needed for budget reasons and I have know doubt that the budget the Kasich will propose next week will include breathtaking cuts to our schools and he is counting on the school boards using SB5 to implement the cuts. That being said they can't possibly think that the new law wont have numerous legal challenges and face referendum all delaying or preventing its implementation. In the end I see a lot of lawyers getting rich.

I'm curious about the merit based pay element. We hear this thrown out all the time, I can't see how it could work in a public/political setting. Without the workers having representation how will a fair process be developed or implemented? Are there examples of "merit" pay being effective in the public employment setting? It strikes me as a populist sound bite without proven results to back it up. Kind of like, "government should be run like a business" usually spouted out by someone with neither business or government experience. If there are real results showing the benefits of "merit pay" in public employment (more productive and effective workers and smaller budgets) I'll gladly say I'm wrong.

Bill

Bill Trentel wrote:Without the workers having representation how will a fair process be developed or implemented? Are there examples of "merit" pay being effective in the public employment setting?

Why do you need a union to make merit-based pay fair? Seems to work pretty well in the private sector and in many states in this country where there isn't a teacher's union, (GA for instance) but they still have teachers and they're not leaving en masse because they don't think it's fair.

I'm not saying that we need to get rid of the union, but I just don't see how the union is needed to guarantee fairness when it works so well in many other places without unions.

Gary Rice wrote:First of all, as a disclaimer, I am after all, a retired teacher, and not an attorney, so I cannot comment as to the legalities of anything specific here.

That point made, I fail to understand why some might feel that management has more constraints than labor does with respect to negotiations.

Gary, I'll try to explain with one extreme example, but it gets the point across. Here it is...

Teachers (or other union workers), if they don't get what they want, can go on strike. This effectively shuts down the schools and hamstrings the board and administration. This is a huge stick the union holds.

On the flip side, to be fair, the administration should have the right to fire the strikers and replace them all if they deem it makes economic or logistical sense. But they can't.

So effectively you have the ability for teachers to hold the administration hostage in a fight without the administration able to have any recourse so the "threat" is really one-sided. The teachers know they'll get their jobs back and probably get what they want. The administration doesn't win anything. There is no risk to the teachers union.

I know the example is extreme, but it does go to show you that the process is not equal.

In our country, we do have a law called the National Labor Relations Act.

The National Labor Relations Board was set up in order to investigate, and where necessary, address such infractions of that Act as might be brought to its attention.

Because all laws, processes, and departments in the US are fair and/or ensure fairness? I'm pretty sure most areas have opportunities.

I'd be interested to know Gary, would you be ok if public unions retained all their rights, but at the local level they were required to have their final contracts approved by the voters in a referendum, since ultimately we are the ones paying the contract?

Good morning Brian and everyone.

What a great and honest discussion this has been.

Excellent points and questions raised have been made by interested people regarding one of the most critical issues of our times.

I'll again try to offer my opinions on a few of these remarks, keeping in mind that I'm a retired teacher, and my opinions here are just that- my opinions.

One of the great things about this country, at least to me, is that Americans get REAL uncomfortable when any person or group appears to have too much power. At that point the questions begin, and if really good answers aren't forthcoming, the fur starts to fly.

I do not, for example, believe that the relationship between the Lakewood Schools and the LTA (Lakewood Teachers Association) could EVER have been "pretty cozy". Having experienced the interactions between a School Board and a Teachers Association in another district. I can tell you that negotiations are exactly that...negotiations. There are perpetually two different groups coming to the bargaining table with entirely different agendas, and as I indicated earlier, there are very specific procedures that need to be followed and very stringent remedies for the circumvention of those procedures. Were either side to try an end run around those procedures, labor law could be invoked and unfair labor practice charges could start to fly.

That's also, I would guess, why so few who are directly involved in a process of negotiations would feel free to comment to the media, because no one involved in negotiations presumably would want to be accused of anything that could be construed as being an unfair labor practice action.

In the negotiations that a Board, or a city has with a union, the Board or City represents the people, because that's how we do it in a representative democracy. It would be impractical, if not illegal, (but again, not being an attorney, that is just my own personal perception) to put proposed settlements directly to a referendum. For one, the public deals (through their school boards and their cities and states) with a number of unions representing police, fire, teachers, and other public workers. Having ballot-box referendums for each of those proposed contracts would probably be a very costly proposition indeed...

...and again, just a personal opinion here, but...I really think that attempting to do away with, or reduce the bargaining ability of those unions could also be a very expensive proposition for our society, as I think that we are all about to find out.

Accountability to the public comes through their elected representatives. A union, on the other hand, is strictly accountable to the membership of that union. Their leaders are also elected, and are accountable to their constituency, as well. And yes, regarding that worst case scenario, while strikes are always possible, I think that if you review the incidents of teacher strikes in Ohio, you will find that those sorts of things have been dramatically reduced over the years, again due in large part to the negotiations processes presently in place.

As far as merit pay goes, one of the big stumbling blocks that I, and I would suspect many other teachers might perceive, would be exactly how, and by whom, that would be decided. There is already a kind of merit pay in place already, if you think about it, with longevity and salary steps for continuing education. A PhD, for example, rightfully makes more than someone at the BA level. Some have wanted to tie merit pay to student achievement, but that is very difficult to objectively demonstrate or measure, and teachers, after all, are but one factor in the education of a child.

Again, these perceptions reflect simply my opinions as a retired teacher, and I may be wrong, however unlikely that may be.

Back to the banjo...

Gary Rice wrote:It would be impractical, if not illegal, (but again, not being an attorney, that is just my own personal perception) to put proposed settlements directly to a referendum.

It definitely wouldn't be illegal, and we'll just have to disagree on the practicality. Not saying it would be the best solution, but it's a solution to consider to swing the pendulum back to the middle and hold everyone accountable.

Accountability to the public comes through their elected representatives. A union, on the other hand, is strictly accountable to the membership of that union.

Except here's the rub, while unions are only representing their members, the elected representatives that are negotiating on behalf of the public, represent and are beholden to both the non-union and the very union members that they're negotiating with. And as anyone can tell you, unions put lots of money into elections and their endorsements to matter.

So looking at it completely objectively, there isn't anyone truly 100% on the side of only the administration.

As far as merit pay goes, one of the big stumbling blocks that I, and I would suspect many other teachers might perceive, would be exactly how, and by whom, that would be decided. There is already a kind of merit pay in place already, if you think about it, with longevity and salary steps for continuing education.

How are longevity and merit-based increases in any way, shape, or form merit-based pay?

A PhD, for example, rightfully makes more than someone at the BA level.

Why? They're not necessarily better at their job. I know a lot of people with advanced degrees who do a worse job than those with just a high school diploma. You'd hope they correlate, but you can't just make the assumption that it always does.

Quite honestly, whenever I hear teachers or their unions make the argument of "well how do you fairly figure it out", it just screams to me of feet dragging and a complete lack of truly wanting to be held accountable. And that lack of accountability hurts tax payers and most importantly, the students.

A good chunk of our states in this country do not have teacher's unions and they seemed to have figured out how to do this fairly, as has the private sector. Maybe it's time for Ohio to look to them for leadership on how to be fair to everyone?

I have no problem with unions, and as I've said, I don't think it's right to outlaw them, but the unions also need to be realistic. They just need to open their eyes to see that the people who are ultimately paying their contracts are not happy with the outcomes.

Something needs to change. The status quo is not working.