Replies

The intent of going to individual contracts is to destroy the unions. Effectively they all become very well paid temps, they would be on their own for insurance and retirement. I believe this was proposed in Minnisota(?), they were going to pay them up wards of $120K a year, with the contract renewed annually.

Only the very best would hang around, however they amount of pay is needed to compensate for lack of benifits and security, it would also help pull talent from industry.The Union Pimps (my wife and I pay $130 a month in Union dues, she's a teacher) can go rot.

I understand where you are coming from. Did not realize that dues that far north were so expensive. Teacher union dues here run $465 a year. I wonder what benefits your union offers that ours do not? Biggest expense for us is legal fees for representation which run around $300 per hour. As I said earlier 10% of our members require 100% of our time and effort.

I am not a member of the union although I work for the union. Nor is my child who has been teaching for more than 13 years now. This explains my comment about tenure protecting poor, non-performing, incompetent teachers.

My liberal co-workers would disagree but "no child left behind" is the only time the educational bar has been raised since LBJ embraced the NEA as being positive for education. LBJ's 'Great Society' has almost destroyed real education in America.

Without really trying I can name a dozen or more teachers who refuse to send their children to public school because of its poor results. IMHO... the number one problem with union management/leadership is intellectual dishonesty; the second problem is that unions committee members are 100% democrat/want-a-be Marxist idealogs who are looking out for #1 and don't give a hoot about children. (These are not PTA enlightened individuals. Volunteer work to aid schools WITHOUT pay is a curse to them.)