Sunday, November 25, 2007

Teacher strikes...

With the recent teacher's strike at Seneca Valley School District and the possibility of both Shaler and Hampton Schools facing a work stoppage -- what do you Tattlers think?

Should teacher unions be allowed to strike or should they be forced to use arbitration techniques instead?

Thirty-seven (37) states do not allow teachers to strike. Reform-minded state lawmakers want to make Pennsylvania the 38th state to protect taxpayers and children, but they need help to overcome the career politicians who pander to teacher unions.

With seeing so many strikes occur in the region lately, this Tattler thinks that there has to be a better way for both sides to come to an agreement. I understand that rising costs and health care have been hot button issues but how can schools in 37 states come to an agreement without a strike being an option.

What it shows is these negotiations can be done without striking. While this may sound good to some -- banning strikes will not happen in Pennsylvania anytime soon.

From the Pittsburgh Trib:

The enormous strength and influence of teacher unions in Pennsylvania makes the passage of a strike ban unlikely. And even if the General Assembly by some miracle passes a bill outlawing strikes, Gov. Ed Rendell will almost certainly veto it.

So what's your thoughts on this issue. Post a comment and get the conversation going.

Working to keep you posted...


Paul said...

Teachers should be allowed to strike as should anyone else. Of course the districts should be able to fire people who don't show up for work as well and that's the real problem in the state and region.

All the power has been placed in the hands of the unions and the forces that work in right to work states that keep everything in balance to create thriving ecomonies and growing communities have been distorted.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure that teachers should even be in unions. Why should seniority dictate who teaches our children? In my own personal experience, I've seen great teachers and professors let go b/c cuts needed to be made, and they happened to have the least years of service. I have a difficult time understanding the reasoning behind person(s) with bachelors and masters degrees being unionized. The better teachers should be able to negotiate for a higher wage and a better comp package, while the less-capable should be left out...just as it is in the business world.

Paul said...

""I'm not sure that teachers should even be in unions."

Everyone has the right to unionize. The problem is that by passing laws that prevent employers from treating union labor as any other employee you disrupt market forces that would keep them from suffering the consequences of poor decisions.

Instead of unions negotiating fair wages and benefits you end up with these tyrannical, pseudo organized crime appendages that force people who don't want to be in a union to join anyway, take money from their members against their will to use for non-union, mostly political activities and create seniority systems and work rules that protect bad teachers at the expense of good ones.

If the teachers unions were actually unions rather than the adjunct, militant wing of the Democratic and Socialist Parties they've become, it wouldn't be a problem.