The Great Union-Busting Thread

[DGuller]

Excessive barriers to entry are one of the signs that the position is overpaid.  There are a variety of ways to deal with a glut of truly qualified applicants when you pay too much:  make the requirements unnecessarily stringent, have people wait in lines for years for a chance at a job, or have some unofficial connections/bribe requirements.

As opposed to creating a pool of unqualified job applicants? That makes perfect sense. Perhaps the local McDonald's in your area can work out a transfer policy to the local school system. People can go from being the 'fry guy' to a Principal in six months. 

As usual, I'm a total loss as to the logical connection between the post quoted and your reply to it.

[garbon]

Wow, so you have to endure an ENTIRE YEAR of at-will employment? 

After four years of college and three years of previous job experience. Yes, it is followed by a year of at-will employment. After that, there are standards that must be met each month or you get in trouble. Once you have gotten in trouble three times within 3 years than termination unless of course you are female or non-white but that is another issue that has nothing to do with being Union or non-Union.

What are the qualifications for your job?

I've had 4 years of college and 3 years of job experience. I'll still likely be on at-will employment for the rest of my career.

[Strix]

Teaching has never really struck me as a job that one goes into for great pay. Love of the field seems more important and perhaps for some the vacation (although seems like a lesser bonus). However, it seems like a foolish decision to enter a low-paying position that often gets the axe when it comes to righting state budgets - one wouldn't even beg getting to do one's passion! *

*Although perhaps the news media just over-represents teacher layoffs.

You made the obvious point that Berkut is ignoring. Teaching, law enforcement, military service, etc, and so on, are more careers or "callings" than avenues to great pay. Job security is what makes it possible to deal with the inherent stress involved in those fields. Once you strip away all the "benefits" and "perks" associated with the job than people won't bother to get the education and training required to get those jobs. Yes, pay will go down, costs will go down, and quality will go down.

[Strix]

Excessive barriers to entry are one of the signs that the position is overpaid.  There are a variety of ways to deal with a glut of truly qualified applicants when you pay too much:  make the requirements unnecessarily stringent, have people wait in lines for years for a chance at a job, or have some unofficial connections/bribe requirements.

As opposed to creating a pool of unqualified job applicants? That makes perfect sense. Perhaps the local McDonald's in your area can work out a transfer policy to the local school system. People can go from being the 'fry guy' to a Principal in six months. 

As usual, I'm a total loss as to the logical connection between the post quoted and your reply to it.

Blame the people who educated you. It's their fault. They were overpaid. Perhaps if they were in a more competitive field than you wouldn't face the daily handicap of being you.

[Strix]

I've had 4 years of college and 3 years of job experience. I'll still likely be on at-will employment for the rest of my career.

And what career is that? Anyways, find a career that offers better job security but lower pay. It's what a lot of people do. It makes them lazy and overpaid to Berkut but it is what it is.

[Barrister]

Teaching has never really struck me as a job that one goes into for great pay. Love of the field seems more important and perhaps for some the vacation (although seems like a lesser bonus). However, it seems like a foolish decision to enter a low-paying position that often gets the axe when it comes to righting state budgets - one wouldn't even beg getting to do one's passion! *

*Although perhaps the news media just over-represents teacher layoffs.

You made the obvious point that Berkut is ignoring. Teaching, law enforcement, military service, etc, and so on, are more careers or "callings" than avenues to great pay. Job security is what makes it possible to deal with the inherent stress involved in those fields. Once you strip away all the "benefits" and "perks" associated with the job than people won't bother to get the education and training required to get those jobs. Yes, pay will go down, costs will go down, and quality will go down.

I find there's less stress in my government job than there was in private practice.

There isn't actually a hell of a lot of training or education required for law enforcement or military.  There is a lot of training required to teach, but that's fairly recent.  Back when my mother started she got a teacher's certificate with one year of university.

[garbon]

I've had 4 years of college and 3 years of job experience. I'll still likely be on at-will employment for the rest of my career.

And what career is that? Anyways, find a career that offers better job security but lower pay. It's what a lot of people do. It makes them lazy and overpaid to Berkut but it is what it is.

Pharmaceuticals. But no thanks, I'll keep my higher pay and jump around to other positions when needs be. I've no intention of staying with one company or geographical area for life.

[garbon]

There is a lot of training required to teach, but that's fairly recent.  Back when my mother started she got a teacher's certificate with one year of university.

That's why I wonder if perhaps if the 'perks' aren't going to be there, if the route to becoming a teacher should become easier.

[DGuller]

Blame the people who educated you. It's their fault. They were overpaid. Perhaps if they were in a more competitive field than you wouldn't face the daily handicap of being you.

Possibly.  Can you humor me, though, and restate the point you tried to make with McDonalds workers in a way that's conveying some thought?

[CountDeMoney]

The problem with Wisconsinites is that they think small.  By undoing 50 years of civil rights all they've accomplished is the need to build twice as many lavatories and drinking fountains.  If they undid 150 years of civil rights they could kidnap black people and man the civil service with slave labor.

Actually, the labor movement in Wisconsin spawned worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, the 8 hour work day, and the 40 hour work week.  Only took 7 labor deaths shot by state militiamen in 1886 to give you your Saturday off.

Ungrateful fucks.

[Slargos]

The concept of unions isn't hard to defend. The practices of some unions are.

Spitting on a hundred years of Worker driven progress in the area of basic liberties is pretty stupid even for Languish.

If you don't know where you've been, how the fuck can you know where you're going? Simpletons.

[crazy canuck]

There is a lot of training required to teach, but that's fairly recent.  Back when my mother started she got a teacher's certificate with one year of university.

Its not that different.  You can have a degree in something completely unrelated to teaching and still get a teacher's certificate in one year.

[Sheilbh]

The concept of unions isn't hard to defend. The practices of some unions are.

Spitting on a hundred years of Worker driven progress in the area of basic liberties is pretty stupid even for Languish.

If you don't know where you've been, how the fuck can you know where you're going? Simpletons.

I think Americans have a different experience of unions than Sweden or even the UK because I find the level of dislike just utterly incomprehensible.  It's like gun laws it's something I read the opinions of people and just can't understand it, I never encounter it.  I think there's one of those cultural gaps.

[Slargos]

There is a lot of training required to work as a teacher, but that's fairly recent.  Back when my mother started she got a teacher's certificate with one year of university.

FYP. People have been teaching for thousands upon thousands of years without university credentials. 

[DGuller]

The concept of unions isn't hard to defend.

That's debatable.  In isolation, I think it is a very hard concept to defend, because effective unions are cartels in nature, and have to employ coercion to function.  It gets complicated when you consider the historical context, when unions first arose in response to some pretty reprehensible practices of the employers.