Saturday, November 29, 2008

Help me out here

The teachers unions love to claim that more dollars for public education -- translate the comment to bigger salaries for public school teachers -- equals better performance. In essence, salaries and performance are a tautology -- they are one and the same. Yet ...

The Columbus Dispatch ran an article on Saturday, November 29, detailing the salaries of state-level union officials ... and the teachers are upset. Upset!?!

Salaries equal performance, ergo the highly-paid union officials are performing better than they would have on a lesser salary. Right? Isn't that the party line? Therefore, the teachers better off.

Seriously, isn't that the same nonsense drummed into parents and taxpayers at the local level: give the teachers more and better results follow.

It appears the line of reasoning is fallacious and offensive only when the teachers are paying the bill. Hmmm.

Note: I thought unions were the guarantor of a workers paradise. Yet the unions and their members, and the unions of the unions, can never seem to get their own house in order. Could it be that Marx's dialectical materialism is not truth? Could it really be so?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

There are abuses and excesses in the public sector, the corporate world and the union halls. That doesn't mean that any of them should be abolished (as you advocate). It means they should be fixed.

Anonymous said...

Based on the taxpayer-funded largesse that has been amassed for teachers through the education syndicate's legislative and lobbying prowess, I'd say that the union bosses have performed very well for their clients. What's the problem with them earning six figure salaries? Oh yeah--it's coming out of the teachers' pockets instead of taxpayers' pockets. Silly me for being so insensitive...

Contrast the average union official's salary with that of the average salary and benefits package of our central office administrators. Now THERE is an example of folks who get paid very handsomely for doing very little.

Where is the outrage by the teachers over their ridiculously high salaries? Oh, silly me again...the teachers don't fund those positions--the taxpayers do.

Jim Fedako said...

1:24 --

I never advocate abolishing unions. I advocate abolishing their political advantage over property owners.

Union excess is simply the political power they hold over others.

If unions want to compete with nonunion workers on a level playig field, more power to them. But they never do. Why? They can't compete. That's true. Plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

Incompetence enmasse = safety in numbers = collective bargaining.
It's all a circle jerk done on the Producers by the inunspired, the inimaginative and the unmotivated, through their unions.

Abolishing unions' political power abolishes unions themselves. Without legal and legislative encumbrances that extract from private enterprise favors for the people described above, what good are they?