Public sector unions and their political influence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion is that the police union exists to fight for the interests of its members (i.e. cops), not the interests of the people served by the sector (i.e. everyday citizens). The same is true of the WTU, which flights for the interests of its members (i.e. teachers) and not the people served by the sector (i.e. students). This was clearest during the absurd and seriously damaging school closures. And the WTU's political muscle is formidable. There's another thread highlighting the money flowing into local races through DFER and others, which raises good points. But what can parents who oppose the WTU's policies do to influence this election?

Only hole in your logic is police don't serve citizens. The police are not legally obligated to help you if you're in danger.....

er....not sure you want to make this analogy, given last year.

That's not an analogy, it's a legal fact and there have been several court cases that reinforces this....

Pretty sure PP was suggesting that teachers didn't seem to be legally obligated to teach last year.

I think the relevant point is: as a citizen, we generally don’t have an individual right to any specific thing from public services like the police and schools. There are some exceptions, like special education, but even there, citizens cannot dictate exactly what their child gets. Instead, we have a broader right to be able to influence public services through the political process - talking to our representatives, elections, etc. Public sector unions with a right to bargain and make political endorsements put a huge barrier to our ability to influence public services through politics

So teachers shouldn't have the right to organize for their working conditions?

It's a 3-way negotiation here. You can't ignore teachers. And why would you want to anyway? Teacher-run environments are the best. Do you remember early charter school days when there were more charters that were focused on freeing schools from bureaucracy (not the corporate charters most have become now).

Teachers shouldn’t have the right to hold public services hostage as a bargaining tactic, no. Just like the power company can’t cut off power as a labor tactic. Most charters don’t have unions - and that’s one of the elements of their success.

When you have teachers at the brink of desperation, as DCPSs are right now, and a Mayor who openly hates them, you can expect fireworks. I don't want to strike, but were in year 3 without a contract and she is withholding back pay and appropriate raises so at some point push comes to shove.

I'm not sure how you measure charter "success" but would love for you to elaborate on that

Pretty sure the mayor hates the UNION, not "teachers".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion is that the police union exists to fight for the interests of its members (i.e. cops), not the interests of the people served by the sector (i.e. everyday citizens). The same is true of the WTU, which flights for the interests of its members (i.e. teachers) and not the people served by the sector (i.e. students). This was clearest during the absurd and seriously damaging school closures. And the WTU's political muscle is formidable. There's another thread highlighting the money flowing into local races through DFER and others, which raises good points. But what can parents who oppose the WTU's policies do to influence this election?

Only hole in your logic is police don't serve citizens. The police are not legally obligated to help you if you're in danger.....

er....not sure you want to make this analogy, given last year.

That's not an analogy, it's a legal fact and there have been several court cases that reinforces this....

Pretty sure PP was suggesting that teachers didn't seem to be legally obligated to teach last year.

I think the relevant point is: as a citizen, we generally don’t have an individual right to any specific thing from public services like the police and schools. There are some exceptions, like special education, but even there, citizens cannot dictate exactly what their child gets. Instead, we have a broader right to be able to influence public services through the political process - talking to our representatives, elections, etc. Public sector unions with a right to bargain and make political endorsements put a huge barrier to our ability to influence public services through politics

So teachers shouldn't have the right to organize for their working conditions?

It's a 3-way negotiation here. You can't ignore teachers. And why would you want to anyway? Teacher-run environments are the best. Do you remember early charter school days when there were more charters that were focused on freeing schools from bureaucracy (not the corporate charters most have become now).

Teachers shouldn’t have the right to hold public services hostage as a bargaining tactic, no. Just like the power company can’t cut off power as a labor tactic. Most charters don’t have unions - and that’s one of the elements of their success.

When you have teachers at the brink of desperation, as DCPSs are right now, and a Mayor who openly hates them, you can expect fireworks. I don't want to strike, but were in year 3 without a contract and she is withholding back pay and appropriate raises so at some point push comes to shove.

I'm not sure how you measure charter "success" but would love for you to elaborate on that

Pretty sure the mayor hates the UNION, not "teachers".

That doesn’t get me any closer to a contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion is that the police union exists to fight for the interests of its members (i.e. cops), not the interests of the people served by the sector (i.e. everyday citizens). The same is true of the WTU, which flights for the interests of its members (i.e. teachers) and not the people served by the sector (i.e. students). This was clearest during the absurd and seriously damaging school closures. And the WTU's political muscle is formidable. There's another thread highlighting the money flowing into local races through DFER and others, which raises good points. But what can parents who oppose the WTU's policies do to influence this election?

Only hole in your logic is police don't serve citizens. The police are not legally obligated to help you if you're in danger.....

er....not sure you want to make this analogy, given last year.

That's not an analogy, it's a legal fact and there have been several court cases that reinforces this....

Pretty sure PP was suggesting that teachers didn't seem to be legally obligated to teach last year.

I think the relevant point is: as a citizen, we generally don’t have an individual right to any specific thing from public services like the police and schools. There are some exceptions, like special education, but even there, citizens cannot dictate exactly what their child gets. Instead, we have a broader right to be able to influence public services through the political process - talking to our representatives, elections, etc. Public sector unions with a right to bargain and make political endorsements put a huge barrier to our ability to influence public services through politics

So teachers shouldn't have the right to organize for their working conditions?

It's a 3-way negotiation here. You can't ignore teachers. And why would you want to anyway? Teacher-run environments are the best. Do you remember early charter school days when there were more charters that were focused on freeing schools from bureaucracy (not the corporate charters most have become now).

Teachers shouldn’t have the right to hold public services hostage as a bargaining tactic, no. Just like the power company can’t cut off power as a labor tactic. Most charters don’t have unions - and that’s one of the elements of their success.

When you have teachers at the brink of desperation, as DCPSs are right now, and a Mayor who openly hates them, you can expect fireworks. I don't want to strike, but were in year 3 without a contract and she is withholding back pay and appropriate raises so at some point push comes to shove.

I'm not sure how you measure charter "success" but would love for you to elaborate on that

Pretty sure the mayor hates the UNION, not "teachers".

That doesn’t get me any closer to a contract.

No, I'm sure it doesn't. Just saying that the choice of language is relevant. Saying "teachers" as if "teacher = union" is incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion is that the police union exists to fight for the interests of its members (i.e. cops), not the interests of the people served by the sector (i.e. everyday citizens). The same is true of the WTU, which flights for the interests of its members (i.e. teachers) and not the people served by the sector (i.e. students). This was clearest during the absurd and seriously damaging school closures. And the WTU's political muscle is formidable. There's another thread highlighting the money flowing into local races through DFER and others, which raises good points. But what can parents who oppose the WTU's policies do to influence this election?

Only hole in your logic is police don't serve citizens. The police are not legally obligated to help you if you're in danger.....

er....not sure you want to make this analogy, given last year.

That's not an analogy, it's a legal fact and there have been several court cases that reinforces this....

Pretty sure PP was suggesting that teachers didn't seem to be legally obligated to teach last year.

I think the relevant point is: as a citizen, we generally don’t have an individual right to any specific thing from public services like the police and schools. There are some exceptions, like special education, but even there, citizens cannot dictate exactly what their child gets. Instead, we have a broader right to be able to influence public services through the political process - talking to our representatives, elections, etc. Public sector unions with a right to bargain and make political endorsements put a huge barrier to our ability to influence public services through politics

So teachers shouldn't have the right to organize for their working conditions?

It's a 3-way negotiation here. You can't ignore teachers. And why would you want to anyway? Teacher-run environments are the best. Do you remember early charter school days when there were more charters that were focused on freeing schools from bureaucracy (not the corporate charters most have become now).

Teachers shouldn’t have the right to hold public services hostage as a bargaining tactic, no. Just like the power company can’t cut off power as a labor tactic. Most charters don’t have unions - and that’s one of the elements of their success.

Pepco is an employer they can't withhold labor they don't provide...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion is that the police union exists to fight for the interests of its members (i.e. cops), not the interests of the people served by the sector (i.e. everyday citizens). The same is true of the WTU, which flights for the interests of its members (i.e. teachers) and not the people served by the sector (i.e. students). This was clearest during the absurd and seriously damaging school closures. And the WTU's political muscle is formidable. There's another thread highlighting the money flowing into local races through DFER and others, which raises good points. But what can parents who oppose the WTU's policies do to influence this election?

Only hole in your logic is police don't serve citizens. The police are not legally obligated to help you if you're in danger.....

er....not sure you want to make this analogy, given last year.

That's not an analogy, it's a legal fact and there have been several court cases that reinforces this....

Pretty sure PP was suggesting that teachers didn't seem to be legally obligated to teach last year.

I think the relevant point is: as a citizen, we generally don’t have an individual right to any specific thing from public services like the police and schools. There are some exceptions, like special education, but even there, citizens cannot dictate exactly what their child gets. Instead, we have a broader right to be able to influence public services through the political process - talking to our representatives, elections, etc. Public sector unions with a right to bargain and make political endorsements put a huge barrier to our ability to influence public services through politics

So teachers shouldn't have the right to organize for their working conditions?

It's a 3-way negotiation here. You can't ignore teachers. And why would you want to anyway? Teacher-run environments are the best. Do you remember early charter school days when there were more charters that were focused on freeing schools from bureaucracy (not the corporate charters most have become now).

Teachers shouldn’t have the right to hold public services hostage as a bargaining tactic, no. Just like the power company can’t cut off power as a labor tactic. Most charters don’t have unions - and that’s one of the elements of their success.

When you have teachers at the brink of desperation, as DCPSs are right now, and a Mayor who openly hates them, you can expect fireworks. I don't want to strike, but were in year 3 without a contract and she is withholding back pay and appropriate raises so at some point push comes to shove.

I'm not sure how you measure charter "success" but would love for you to elaborate on that

Pretty sure the mayor hates the UNION, not "teachers".

That doesn’t get me any closer to a contract.

No, I'm sure it doesn't. Just saying that the choice of language is relevant. Saying "teachers" as if "teacher = union" is incorrect.

You’re fighting in the semantics weeds boss the point is unions protect their members in this case teachers. Bowsers antagonistic attitude towards the union is reflected on teacher conditions in dcps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion is that the police union exists to fight for the interests of its members (i.e. cops), not the interests of the people served by the sector (i.e. everyday citizens). The same is true of the WTU, which flights for the interests of its members (i.e. teachers) and not the people served by the sector (i.e. students). This was clearest during the absurd and seriously damaging school closures. And the WTU's political muscle is formidable. There's another thread highlighting the money flowing into local races through DFER and others, which raises good points. But what can parents who oppose the WTU's policies do to influence this election?

Only hole in your logic is police don't serve citizens. The police are not legally obligated to help you if you're in danger.....

er....not sure you want to make this analogy, given last year.

That's not an analogy, it's a legal fact and there have been several court cases that reinforces this....

Pretty sure PP was suggesting that teachers didn't seem to be legally obligated to teach last year.

I think the relevant point is: as a citizen, we generally don’t have an individual right to any specific thing from public services like the police and schools. There are some exceptions, like special education, but even there, citizens cannot dictate exactly what their child gets. Instead, we have a broader right to be able to influence public services through the political process - talking to our representatives, elections, etc. Public sector unions with a right to bargain and make political endorsements put a huge barrier to our ability to influence public services through politics

So teachers shouldn't have the right to organize for their working conditions?

It's a 3-way negotiation here. You can't ignore teachers. And why would you want to anyway? Teacher-run environments are the best. Do you remember early charter school days when there were more charters that were focused on freeing schools from bureaucracy (not the corporate charters most have become now).

Teachers shouldn’t have the right to hold public services hostage as a bargaining tactic, no. Just like the power company can’t cut off power as a labor tactic. Most charters don’t have unions - and that’s one of the elements of their success.

When you have teachers at the brink of desperation, as DCPSs are right now, and a Mayor who openly hates them, you can expect fireworks. I don't want to strike, but were in year 3 without a contract and she is withholding back pay and appropriate raises so at some point push comes to shove.

I'm not sure how you measure charter "success" but would love for you to elaborate on that

Pretty sure the mayor hates the UNION, not "teachers".

That doesn’t get me any closer to a contract.

No, I'm sure it doesn't. Just saying that the choice of language is relevant. Saying "teachers" as if "teacher = union" is incorrect.

You’re fighting in the semantics weeds boss the point is unions protect their members in this case teachers. Bowsers antagonistic attitude towards the union is reflected on teacher conditions in dcps

I'm saying the public perception of the *union* is middling-to-bad after last year. The public perception of *teachers* is that they are tireless martyrs.

So suggesting that the mayor is against a bad entity will get public approval, but saying that the mayor hates selfless saints will not.

Public perception matters for voting, so it's relevant to the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion is that the police union exists to fight for the interests of its members (i.e. cops), not the interests of the people served by the sector (i.e. everyday citizens). The same is true of the WTU, which flights for the interests of its members (i.e. teachers) and not the people served by the sector (i.e. students). This was clearest during the absurd and seriously damaging school closures. And the WTU's political muscle is formidable. There's another thread highlighting the money flowing into local races through DFER and others, which raises good points. But what can parents who oppose the WTU's policies do to influence this election?

Only hole in your logic is police don't serve citizens. The police are not legally obligated to help you if you're in danger.....

er....not sure you want to make this analogy, given last year.

That's not an analogy, it's a legal fact and there have been several court cases that reinforces this....

Pretty sure PP was suggesting that teachers didn't seem to be legally obligated to teach last year.

I think the relevant point is: as a citizen, we generally don’t have an individual right to any specific thing from public services like the police and schools. There are some exceptions, like special education, but even there, citizens cannot dictate exactly what their child gets. Instead, we have a broader right to be able to influence public services through the political process - talking to our representatives, elections, etc. Public sector unions with a right to bargain and make political endorsements put a huge barrier to our ability to influence public services through politics

So teachers shouldn't have the right to organize for their working conditions?

It's a 3-way negotiation here. You can't ignore teachers. And why would you want to anyway? Teacher-run environments are the best. Do you remember early charter school days when there were more charters that were focused on freeing schools from bureaucracy (not the corporate charters most have become now).

Teachers shouldn’t have the right to hold public services hostage as a bargaining tactic, no. Just like the power company can’t cut off power as a labor tactic. Most charters don’t have unions - and that’s one of the elements of their success.

When you have teachers at the brink of desperation, as DCPSs are right now, and a Mayor who openly hates them, you can expect fireworks. I don't want to strike, but were in year 3 without a contract and she is withholding back pay and appropriate raises so at some point push comes to shove.

I'm not sure how you measure charter "success" but would love for you to elaborate on that

Pretty sure the mayor hates the UNION, not "teachers".

That doesn’t get me any closer to a contract.

No, I'm sure it doesn't. Just saying that the choice of language is relevant. Saying "teachers" as if "teacher = union" is incorrect.

You’re fighting in the semantics weeds boss the point is unions protect their members in this case teachers. Bowsers antagonistic attitude towards the union is reflected on teacher conditions in dcps

I'm saying the public perception of the *union* is middling-to-bad after last year. The public perception of *teachers* is that they are tireless martyrs.

So suggesting that the mayor is against a bad entity will get public approval, but saying that the mayor hates selfless saints will not.

Public perception matters for voting, so it's relevant to the thread.

That’s all well and good but if your perception leads you to bowser bc you don’t like unions and do like teachers you’re gonna be in for a rough time in august if we don’t have a contract

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion is that the police union exists to fight for the interests of its members (i.e. cops), not the interests of the people served by the sector (i.e. everyday citizens). The same is true of the WTU, which flights for the interests of its members (i.e. teachers) and not the people served by the sector (i.e. students). This was clearest during the absurd and seriously damaging school closures. And the WTU's political muscle is formidable. There's another thread highlighting the money flowing into local races through DFER and others, which raises good points. But what can parents who oppose the WTU's policies do to influence this election?

Only hole in your logic is police don't serve citizens. The police are not legally obligated to help you if you're in danger.....

er....not sure you want to make this analogy, given last year.

That's not an analogy, it's a legal fact and there have been several court cases that reinforces this....

Pretty sure PP was suggesting that teachers didn't seem to be legally obligated to teach last year.

I think the relevant point is: as a citizen, we generally don’t have an individual right to any specific thing from public services like the police and schools. There are some exceptions, like special education, but even there, citizens cannot dictate exactly what their child gets. Instead, we have a broader right to be able to influence public services through the political process - talking to our representatives, elections, etc. Public sector unions with a right to bargain and make political endorsements put a huge barrier to our ability to influence public services through politics

So teachers shouldn't have the right to organize for their working conditions?

It's a 3-way negotiation here. You can't ignore teachers. And why would you want to anyway? Teacher-run environments are the best. Do you remember early charter school days when there were more charters that were focused on freeing schools from bureaucracy (not the corporate charters most have become now).

Teachers shouldn’t have the right to hold public services hostage as a bargaining tactic, no. Just like the power company can’t cut off power as a labor tactic. Most charters don’t have unions - and that’s one of the elements of their success.

Pepco is an employer they can't withhold labor they don't provide...

This is a wonderful insult!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion is that the police union exists to fight for the interests of its members (i.e. cops), not the interests of the people served by the sector (i.e. everyday citizens). The same is true of the WTU, which flights for the interests of its members (i.e. teachers) and not the people served by the sector (i.e. students). This was clearest during the absurd and seriously damaging school closures. And the WTU's political muscle is formidable. There's another thread highlighting the money flowing into local races through DFER and others, which raises good points. But what can parents who oppose the WTU's policies do to influence this election?

Only hole in your logic is police don't serve citizens. The police are not legally obligated to help you if you're in danger.....

er....not sure you want to make this analogy, given last year.

That's not an analogy, it's a legal fact and there have been several court cases that reinforces this....

Pretty sure PP was suggesting that teachers didn't seem to be legally obligated to teach last year.

I think the relevant point is: as a citizen, we generally don’t have an individual right to any specific thing from public services like the police and schools. There are some exceptions, like special education, but even there, citizens cannot dictate exactly what their child gets. Instead, we have a broader right to be able to influence public services through the political process - talking to our representatives, elections, etc. Public sector unions with a right to bargain and make political endorsements put a huge barrier to our ability to influence public services through politics

So teachers shouldn't have the right to organize for their working conditions?

It's a 3-way negotiation here. You can't ignore teachers. And why would you want to anyway? Teacher-run environments are the best. Do you remember early charter school days when there were more charters that were focused on freeing schools from bureaucracy (not the corporate charters most have become now).

Teachers shouldn’t have the right to hold public services hostage as a bargaining tactic, no. Just like the power company can’t cut off power as a labor tactic. Most charters don’t have unions - and that’s one of the elements of their success.

When you have teachers at the brink of desperation, as DCPSs are right now, and a Mayor who openly hates them, you can expect fireworks. I don't want to strike, but were in year 3 without a contract and she is withholding back pay and appropriate raises so at some point push comes to shove.

I'm not sure how you measure charter "success" but would love for you to elaborate on that

Pretty sure the mayor hates the UNION, not "teachers".

That doesn’t get me any closer to a contract.

No, I'm sure it doesn't. Just saying that the choice of language is relevant. Saying "teachers" as if "teacher = union" is incorrect.

You’re fighting in the semantics weeds boss the point is unions protect their members in this case teachers. Bowsers antagonistic attitude towards the union is reflected on teacher conditions in dcps

I'm saying the public perception of the *union* is middling-to-bad after last year. The public perception of *teachers* is that they are tireless martyrs.

So suggesting that the mayor is against a bad entity will get public approval, but saying that the mayor hates selfless saints will not.

Public perception matters for voting, so it's relevant to the thread.

That’s all well and good but if your perception leads you to bowser bc you don’t like unions and do like teachers you’re gonna be in for a rough time in august if we don’t have a contract

Because you are suggesting the union will strike? I'm sure that will help both the public perception of the teachers and the union.

Also, I don't like or dislike "unions". It's not "unions" that are the problem. It's the faction within this particular union that seems to want to close schools over and over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion is that the police union exists to fight for the interests of its members (i.e. cops), not the interests of the people served by the sector (i.e. everyday citizens). The same is true of the WTU, which flights for the interests of its members (i.e. teachers) and not the people served by the sector (i.e. students). This was clearest during the absurd and seriously damaging school closures. And the WTU's political muscle is formidable. There's another thread highlighting the money flowing into local races through DFER and others, which raises good points. But what can parents who oppose the WTU's policies do to influence this election?

Only hole in your logic is police don't serve citizens. The police are not legally obligated to help you if you're in danger.....

er....not sure you want to make this analogy, given last year.

That's not an analogy, it's a legal fact and there have been several court cases that reinforces this....

Pretty sure PP was suggesting that teachers didn't seem to be legally obligated to teach last year.

I think the relevant point is: as a citizen, we generally don’t have an individual right to any specific thing from public services like the police and schools. There are some exceptions, like special education, but even there, citizens cannot dictate exactly what their child gets. Instead, we have a broader right to be able to influence public services through the political process - talking to our representatives, elections, etc. Public sector unions with a right to bargain and make political endorsements put a huge barrier to our ability to influence public services through politics

So teachers shouldn't have the right to organize for their working conditions?

It's a 3-way negotiation here. You can't ignore teachers. And why would you want to anyway? Teacher-run environments are the best. Do you remember early charter school days when there were more charters that were focused on freeing schools from bureaucracy (not the corporate charters most have become now).

Teachers shouldn’t have the right to hold public services hostage as a bargaining tactic, no. Just like the power company can’t cut off power as a labor tactic. Most charters don’t have unions - and that’s one of the elements of their success.

When you have teachers at the brink of desperation, as DCPSs are right now, and a Mayor who openly hates them, you can expect fireworks. I don't want to strike, but were in year 3 without a contract and she is withholding back pay and appropriate raises so at some point push comes to shove.

I'm not sure how you measure charter "success" but would love for you to elaborate on that

Pretty sure the mayor hates the UNION, not "teachers".

That doesn’t get me any closer to a contract.

No, I'm sure it doesn't. Just saying that the choice of language is relevant. Saying "teachers" as if "teacher = union" is incorrect.

You’re fighting in the semantics weeds boss the point is unions protect their members in this case teachers. Bowsers antagonistic attitude towards the union is reflected on teacher conditions in dcps

I'm saying the public perception of the *union* is middling-to-bad after last year. The public perception of *teachers* is that they are tireless martyrs.

So suggesting that the mayor is against a bad entity will get public approval, but saying that the mayor hates selfless saints will not.

Public perception matters for voting, so it's relevant to the thread.

That’s all well and good but if your perception leads you to bowser bc you don’t like unions and do like teachers you’re gonna be in for a rough time in august if we don’t have a contract

Because you are suggesting the union will strike? I'm sure that will help both the public perception of the teachers and the union.

Also, I don't like or dislike "unions". It's not "unions" that are the problem. It's the faction within this particular union that seems to want to close schools over and over.

I think teachers have been pounded so hard in public the past two years that they DGAF about public perception; I know I no longer do. I’d strike at this point for a new contract.
Nobody in the union is arguing for school closures. Sadly, many teachers are getting ROCKED on their EOY evaluations bc their students missed so much time due to DCPS quarantine policies (created via mayoral control and DC DOH, not the WTU). When they asked for a virtual option in Jan it was so those kids could have at least some learning rather than sitting on their butts at home all day for being close contacts.

[Anonymous]

Teachers own School Boards.

Police and Fire own City Councils.

Them or their shells influencing (buying) the organization in charge of governing them is the epitome of letting the Fox guard the hen house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teachers own School Boards.

Police and Fire own City Councils.

Them or their shells influencing (buying) the organization in charge of governing them is the epitome of letting the Fox guard the hen house.

What school board do teachers in dc own? Try and stay on topic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion is that the police union exists to fight for the interests of its members (i.e. cops), not the interests of the people served by the sector (i.e. everyday citizens). The same is true of the WTU, which flights for the interests of its members (i.e. teachers) and not the people served by the sector (i.e. students). This was clearest during the absurd and seriously damaging school closures. And the WTU's political muscle is formidable. There's another thread highlighting the money flowing into local races through DFER and others, which raises good points. But what can parents who oppose the WTU's policies do to influence this election?

Only hole in your logic is police don't serve citizens. The police are not legally obligated to help you if you're in danger.....

er....not sure you want to make this analogy, given last year.

That's not an analogy, it's a legal fact and there have been several court cases that reinforces this....

Pretty sure PP was suggesting that teachers didn't seem to be legally obligated to teach last year.

I think the relevant point is: as a citizen, we generally don’t have an individual right to any specific thing from public services like the police and schools. There are some exceptions, like special education, but even there, citizens cannot dictate exactly what their child gets. Instead, we have a broader right to be able to influence public services through the political process - talking to our representatives, elections, etc. Public sector unions with a right to bargain and make political endorsements put a huge barrier to our ability to influence public services through politics

So teachers shouldn't have the right to organize for their working conditions?

It's a 3-way negotiation here. You can't ignore teachers. And why would you want to anyway? Teacher-run environments are the best. Do you remember early charter school days when there were more charters that were focused on freeing schools from bureaucracy (not the corporate charters most have become now).

Teachers shouldn’t have the right to hold public services hostage as a bargaining tactic, no. Just like the power company can’t cut off power as a labor tactic. Most charters don’t have unions - and that’s one of the elements of their success.

When you have teachers at the brink of desperation, as DCPSs are right now, and a Mayor who openly hates them, you can expect fireworks. I don't want to strike, but were in year 3 without a contract and she is withholding back pay and appropriate raises so at some point push comes to shove.

I'm not sure how you measure charter "success" but would love for you to elaborate on that

Pretty sure the mayor hates the UNION, not "teachers".

That doesn’t get me any closer to a contract.

No, I'm sure it doesn't. Just saying that the choice of language is relevant. Saying "teachers" as if "teacher = union" is incorrect.

You’re fighting in the semantics weeds boss the point is unions protect their members in this case teachers. Bowsers antagonistic attitude towards the union is reflected on teacher conditions in dcps

I'm saying the public perception of the *union* is middling-to-bad after last year. The public perception of *teachers* is that they are tireless martyrs.

So suggesting that the mayor is against a bad entity will get public approval, but saying that the mayor hates selfless saints will not.

Public perception matters for voting, so it's relevant to the thread.

That’s all well and good but if your perception leads you to bowser bc you don’t like unions and do like teachers you’re gonna be in for a rough time in august if we don’t have a contract

Because you are suggesting the union will strike? I'm sure that will help both the public perception of the teachers and the union.

Also, I don't like or dislike "unions". It's not "unions" that are the problem. It's the faction within this particular union that seems to want to close schools over and over.

I think teachers have been pounded so hard in public the past two years that they DGAF about public perception; I know I no longer do. I’d strike at this point for a new contract.
Nobody in the union is arguing for school closures. Sadly, many teachers are getting ROCKED on their EOY evaluations bc their students missed so much time due to DCPS quarantine policies (created via mayoral control and DC DOH, not the WTU). When they asked for a virtual option in Jan it was so those kids could have at least some learning rather than sitting on their butts at home all day for being close contacts.

Really don’t think you can fault the mayor for CDC recommendations. I’d love to see the union argue for the end to excessive quarantines. That seems, though, like it would offend the loud Twitter crowd of covid-nervous parents. Those people seem to sway R. White regularly. Also, wouldn’t the union argue that ending quarantines would make school less safe? Isn’t that one of their main things?

And CORE wanted schools — all schools — to go virtual every time community cases were over 200/100,000. In 2022. It’s just lying to suggest that “no one in the union is arguing for school closures.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion is that the police union exists to fight for the interests of its members (i.e. cops), not the interests of the people served by the sector (i.e. everyday citizens). The same is true of the WTU, which flights for the interests of its members (i.e. teachers) and not the people served by the sector (i.e. students). This was clearest during the absurd and seriously damaging school closures. And the WTU's political muscle is formidable. There's another thread highlighting the money flowing into local races through DFER and others, which raises good points. But what can parents who oppose the WTU's policies do to influence this election?

Only hole in your logic is police don't serve citizens. The police are not legally obligated to help you if you're in danger.....

er....not sure you want to make this analogy, given last year.

That's not an analogy, it's a legal fact and there have been several court cases that reinforces this....

Pretty sure PP was suggesting that teachers didn't seem to be legally obligated to teach last year.

I think the relevant point is: as a citizen, we generally don’t have an individual right to any specific thing from public services like the police and schools. There are some exceptions, like special education, but even there, citizens cannot dictate exactly what their child gets. Instead, we have a broader right to be able to influence public services through the political process - talking to our representatives, elections, etc. Public sector unions with a right to bargain and make political endorsements put a huge barrier to our ability to influence public services through politics

So teachers shouldn't have the right to organize for their working conditions?

It's a 3-way negotiation here. You can't ignore teachers. And why would you want to anyway? Teacher-run environments are the best. Do you remember early charter school days when there were more charters that were focused on freeing schools from bureaucracy (not the corporate charters most have become now).

Teachers shouldn’t have the right to hold public services hostage as a bargaining tactic, no. Just like the power company can’t cut off power as a labor tactic. Most charters don’t have unions - and that’s one of the elements of their success.

When you have teachers at the brink of desperation, as DCPSs are right now, and a Mayor who openly hates them, you can expect fireworks. I don't want to strike, but were in year 3 without a contract and she is withholding back pay and appropriate raises so at some point push comes to shove.

I'm not sure how you measure charter "success" but would love for you to elaborate on that

Pretty sure the mayor hates the UNION, not "teachers".

That doesn’t get me any closer to a contract.

No, I'm sure it doesn't. Just saying that the choice of language is relevant. Saying "teachers" as if "teacher = union" is incorrect.

You’re fighting in the semantics weeds boss the point is unions protect their members in this case teachers. Bowsers antagonistic attitude towards the union is reflected on teacher conditions in dcps

I'm saying the public perception of the *union* is middling-to-bad after last year. The public perception of *teachers* is that they are tireless martyrs.

So suggesting that the mayor is against a bad entity will get public approval, but saying that the mayor hates selfless saints will not.

Public perception matters for voting, so it's relevant to the thread.

That’s all well and good but if your perception leads you to bowser bc you don’t like unions and do like teachers you’re gonna be in for a rough time in august if we don’t have a contract

Because you are suggesting the union will strike? I'm sure that will help both the public perception of the teachers and the union.

Also, I don't like or dislike "unions". It's not "unions" that are the problem. It's the faction within this particular union that seems to want to close schools over and over.

I think teachers have been pounded so hard in public the past two years that they DGAF about public perception; I know I no longer do. I’d strike at this point for a new contract.
Nobody in the union is arguing for school closures. Sadly, many teachers are getting ROCKED on their EOY evaluations bc their students missed so much time due to DCPS quarantine policies (created via mayoral control and DC DOH, not the WTU). When they asked for a virtual option in Jan it was so those kids could have at least some learning rather than sitting on their butts at home all day for being close contacts.

Really don’t think you can fault the mayor for CDC recommendations. I’d love to see the union argue for the end to excessive quarantines. That seems, though, like it would offend the loud Twitter crowd of covid-nervous parents. Those people seem to sway R. White regularly. Also, wouldn’t the union argue that ending quarantines would make school less safe? Isn’t that one of their main things?

And CORE wanted schools — all schools — to go virtual every time community cases were over 200/100,000. In 2022. It’s just lying to suggest that “no one in the union is arguing for school closures.”

You understand the difference between is and was, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion is that the police union exists to fight for the interests of its members (i.e. cops), not the interests of the people served by the sector (i.e. everyday citizens). The same is true of the WTU, which flights for the interests of its members (i.e. teachers) and not the people served by the sector (i.e. students). This was clearest during the absurd and seriously damaging school closures. And the WTU's political muscle is formidable. There's another thread highlighting the money flowing into local races through DFER and others, which raises good points. But what can parents who oppose the WTU's policies do to influence this election?

Only hole in your logic is police don't serve citizens. The police are not legally obligated to help you if you're in danger.....

er....not sure you want to make this analogy, given last year.

That's not an analogy, it's a legal fact and there have been several court cases that reinforces this....

Pretty sure PP was suggesting that teachers didn't seem to be legally obligated to teach last year.

I think the relevant point is: as a citizen, we generally don’t have an individual right to any specific thing from public services like the police and schools. There are some exceptions, like special education, but even there, citizens cannot dictate exactly what their child gets. Instead, we have a broader right to be able to influence public services through the political process - talking to our representatives, elections, etc. Public sector unions with a right to bargain and make political endorsements put a huge barrier to our ability to influence public services through politics

So teachers shouldn't have the right to organize for their working conditions?

It's a 3-way negotiation here. You can't ignore teachers. And why would you want to anyway? Teacher-run environments are the best. Do you remember early charter school days when there were more charters that were focused on freeing schools from bureaucracy (not the corporate charters most have become now).

Teachers shouldn’t have the right to hold public services hostage as a bargaining tactic, no. Just like the power company can’t cut off power as a labor tactic. Most charters don’t have unions - and that’s one of the elements of their success.

When you have teachers at the brink of desperation, as DCPSs are right now, and a Mayor who openly hates them, you can expect fireworks. I don't want to strike, but were in year 3 without a contract and she is withholding back pay and appropriate raises so at some point push comes to shove.

I'm not sure how you measure charter "success" but would love for you to elaborate on that

Pretty sure the mayor hates the UNION, not "teachers".

That doesn’t get me any closer to a contract.

No, I'm sure it doesn't. Just saying that the choice of language is relevant. Saying "teachers" as if "teacher = union" is incorrect.

You’re fighting in the semantics weeds boss the point is unions protect their members in this case teachers. Bowsers antagonistic attitude towards the union is reflected on teacher conditions in dcps

I'm saying the public perception of the *union* is middling-to-bad after last year. The public perception of *teachers* is that they are tireless martyrs.

So suggesting that the mayor is against a bad entity will get public approval, but saying that the mayor hates selfless saints will not.

Public perception matters for voting, so it's relevant to the thread.

That’s all well and good but if your perception leads you to bowser bc you don’t like unions and do like teachers you’re gonna be in for a rough time in august if we don’t have a contract

Because you are suggesting the union will strike? I'm sure that will help both the public perception of the teachers and the union.

Also, I don't like or dislike "unions". It's not "unions" that are the problem. It's the faction within this particular union that seems to want to close schools over and over.

I think teachers have been pounded so hard in public the past two years that they DGAF about public perception; I know I no longer do. I’d strike at this point for a new contract.
Nobody in the union is arguing for school closures. Sadly, many teachers are getting ROCKED on their EOY evaluations bc their students missed so much time due to DCPS quarantine policies (created via mayoral control and DC DOH, not the WTU). When they asked for a virtual option in Jan it was so those kids could have at least some learning rather than sitting on their butts at home all day for being close contacts.

I hope you get fired if you strike!

And spare me your supposed concern for students in quarantine. As if virtual would have been an improvement. Sure, no kids in school because a handful are quarantined. Makes a ton of sense! What WTU could have fought for in Jan was an end to quarantine and universal test-to-stay. But y’all were greedy and riding the political winds of an election year and R White’s search for a basis to oppose Bowser.

But yeah, you SHOULD be mad about the quarantine policy impact on your IMPACT. Why isn’t WTU calling for test-to-stay? Why isn’t the ever-virtue-signsling Laura Fuchs decrying the racial discrimination?