You really don't understand how unions and contracts work, do you? It is not about protecting the poorest workers - why would any union member want to do that? It makes more work for everyone else and makes all look bad. It is about making sure the contract is followed (especially language pertaining to discipline and dismissal) in each and every case.
If a lousy worker is being kept around it is because a manager somewhere is too lazy to do their job and get rid of the worker.
Too many would rather pawn-off a bad worker on another department or group rather than document the problems, attempt corrective actions, and dismiss the worker if that action doesn't improve performance.
Pretty common if you were driving a 1971 Vega with its unsleeved aluminum block and cast iron head and ran with it low on oil and low on coolant as so many of them did back in the day.
These days cars require so little maintenance that many folks don't even bother with the tasks they should perform. Change the timing belt? Why? the car still runs.
perhaps they'll just go "old school" and park em in front o a TV set.
Already got burned by something like this when a nephew stayed with us for a few days. Children can be more clever than non-parents expect.
A) Violating their contracts by firing some teachers that happen to be fucking up our children.
Don't be an idiot. Follow the contract which has provisions (Yes, they ALL do) to get rid of the bad teachers. If the school administrators will not do their jobs FIRE them and hire some that will. Same for the school board.
Too many bad administrators and school board members hiding behind the teacher's union contract - not bad teachers being protected by it
You don't need to set-up the bad teachers for a lawsuit that they'd win by shredding their contract.
The union and its members do NOT want poor performers in their ranks, why the hell would they? But they will, and must fight tooth and nail to protect their contract.
The administrators concerned retired comfortably without consequences to their careers.
Really retired? Too often around here they "retire" to collect their pension, than are re-hired at an even larger salary while they collect their pension. We have pay so much to lure them back so we can continue to partake of their "experience."
See, such bullshit isn't 't just for Wall Street, it is right there on Main Street, too. The only more egregious double-dippers we have in my state are the twits that run *and get elected) to the state legislature...where they go to fuck-up education even more.
Which is precisely why the education of those who will inherit our future shouldn't be left up to the whims of self-serving narcissistic union leaders.
Looks like the fedora-wearing, big-boss union leader/gangster canard is out again. 1973 called and they want their generalization back.
The local union members elect their local union leaders from within their own ranks.
The union negotiated contracts are designed this way to protect the union members that have paid the most dues. This is common across the board with union contracts.
Baloney. Why would the union members that do their jobs want to protect the folks that aren't? Your argument does not hold water. Once an ineffective worker if fired, their replacement will generally be a member of the union as well - paying dues.
What is common to all unions is they will fight to protect the contract and make sure it is followed, regardless of whether the employee is a "good" one or a "bad" one - unions want the contract language to be followed - always and for everyone.
> Administration agreed with us in both cases, but they could not do anything....
Someone saying "can not do anything" = "I'm a lazy ass who can't be bothered to do my job".
Because that needs to be said again.
The only lazy workers getting protected by unions (because they can blame their incompetence on the union) are lazy supervisors that refuse to do the job they are paid to do: supervise.
Bullshit. The cases above were the consequence of teacher unions. Period. Administration agreed with us in both cases, but they could not do anything....
It pretty much takes a criminal charge against a teacher to get union to cooperate with administration.....
Pure baloney. The administration was clearly too lazy to do their jobs - meaning exercise the management right, discipline, and dismissal sections of the contract. It was clearly easier for them to commiserate with you about that awful teacher knowing if they dragged their feet long enough your child would move onto the next grade away from that teacher and the administration would not have to perform some of the "unpleasant" aspects of their job and actually discipline and possibly fire a "bad" teacher.
there is no reason the teacher's union member that are doing heir jobs and doing them well will want their union to protect "bad" teachers.
But ok, you go right on ahead believing this is all about unions protecting incompetent teachers. (Yes, incompetent teachers exist, so spare me your anecdotes. Incompetent police officers, doctors, firefighters, pilots, accounts, lawyers, etc. also exist. It's called life.)
what not one of the union demonizing, canard quoting people can tell me is why would a union want to protect the poor performers?
Do you know who runs the local union? The folks from the same employer elected by local union members - not some nebulous union-boss bogey men in fedoras. Why would the folks that do their job and do it well want to protect people that aren't? Poor performers make more work for the people that actually do their jobs or make the whole group look bad - They'll resent the poor performers, not want them protected.
What a union will VIGOROUSLY do is protect the contract by making sure that the contract is followed - particularly language in the contract regarding discipline and dismissal. I guess to those with an anti-worker agenda this could look like protecting a bad worker, but it is making sure the rules are followed regardless of who is in the hot seat.
When I was chief steward there was an awful worker we all would rather have seen gone, they were a constant source of stress for everyone else with the poor attitude and performance that poisoned what ever office s/he was placed in. Why did s/he last for years? Because of union protection? No, it was because the so-called supervisors didn't want to follow the steps outlined to get ride of a poor worker - it was easier to transfer that loser around to different departments. S/he stayed not because of union protection, but because management refused to exercise the "management rights" they had enshrined in the contract.