Look for the Union Label

And then get sick.

In a defiant raspberry to the city Department of Education — and taxpayers — disgraced teacher Alan Rosenfeld, 66, won’t retire.

Deemed a danger to kids, the typing teacher with a $10 million real estate portfolio hasn’t been allowed in a classroom for more than a decade, but still collects $100,049 a year in city salary — plus health benefits, a growing pension nest egg, vacation and sick pay.

Mayor Bloomberg and Gov. Cuomo can call for better teacher evaluations until they’re blue-faced, but Rosenfeld and six peers with similar gigs costing about $650,000 a year in total salaries are untouchable. Under a system shackled by protections for tenured teachers, they can’t be fired, the DOE says.

“It’s an F-U,” a friend of Rosenfeld said of his refusal to quit.

Comments

[R.K. Brumbelow]

3 word solution: 1981, Reagan, PATCO

[Peg]

RK - a friend of mine (an Obama supporter) asked why I wished to have a new president. I told him that it was because the President continues to support policies that I think are literally destructive to our country.

This is but one example.

The President is a staunch union supporter. Now - while I am not (in theory) against the principles behind unions, how can you possibly not want to battle organizations that are committing these kinds of acts? Truly; it seems insane to me.

[R.K. Brumbelow]

Peg,
As you have correctly intimated theory != practice. Now, I am going to take you question above as rhetorical, given I suggested firing the entire union.

If you will allow me to maintain the theoretical aspect a bit longer, the theory behind unions is collective bargaining. I really do not see the substantial difference between Unions then and a placement company like Kelly Services* Both provide both trained and untrained workers at a negotiated wage for an additional cost, additional HR functionality, etc.

If a service company continued to bill me for services of a non working employee, or an employee I had released, I would consider that fraud and release the service company. Where I do see a difference is that the unions elect their officers, whereas staffing services hire them and there is minimal worker input. Given this difference then, the individual member of the union bears more personal responsibility for the union as a whole's actions than the staffing service employee. This difference then explains why, like Reagan, I would not only fire the union but also bar the union members from state employment.

Back to the practical:
Quick and dirty searches show there are currently 300k unemployed teachers. Now in a free market those 300k individuals would be the least employable of the lot and thus the least desirable, I suspect though that this is not necessarily the case. The source of all knowledge (cough wikipedia cough) states there are 80k teachers in NYC's DOE and that NYC provides housing subsidies to experienced teachers. Certainly one could find 80k replacements from a 300k pool.

*I choose Kelly services for 2 reasons only: 1 I have worked for them in the past on summer mill jobs when I was a teenager & 2 my middle name is Kelly (thus the K in RK)

[Peg]

Frankly, RK, I view public unions as wholly different from private. At least theoretically, private unions have real bargaining power with employers. There is a "free market" sense to them.

The way public unions have morphed, this does not exist. Politicians essentially use the unions as bargaining chips for votes. The unions do not deal with an adversary; they deal with politicians that buy their votes.

Public unions should be banned. If people wish to work in a position where unions are allowed, then they should choose to work in the private sector.

[R.K. Brumbelow]

I think we have a failure of communication here Peg.

My ultimate point is this: If you with to participate in collective bargaining, be willing to accept both the positives and the negatives as a part of the union.

Thus, if I as a business owner encounter bad behaviour on the part of a union, by nature of the union's very organization I have to treat every member of the union the same.

If then a union defrauds the business by behaviour such as described in the article you posted, then the union should suffer the consequences including termination of employment. Should union members not agree with what union leaders are doing, they should elect different union leaders, find another union or be independent.

[Peg]

RK- what you are saying makes sense. Public unions make no sense.

Because of the unholy alliance between some public unions and politicians, rationality and "what's good for the 'employer' (i.e., we the taxpayers) does not occur. These politicians and unions are on the same side; they do what is good for them. In some cases, this means keeping people who cannot do the job on the payroll forever.

You are imagining scenarios that common sense would say lead to a certain outcome. Common sense doesn't enter into it.