How Do You Define Morality?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by DanaC

What's really peculiar to my mind about the way our culture relates to the economy, is that we usually pay more for luxuries than we do for necessities. Cetainly in terms of the way we pay wages. A doctor is a necessity for the country, a footballer is not. Who do we pay more?

But... but... you want poor people to be able to afford necessities!

Originally Posted by DanaC

What's odd though, is that the the top of the heap brain surgeons and research scientists who are as rare as the top of the heap footballers, are paid less than the Beckhams of the world.

You've shot your own analogy right there--can you name a single "top of the heap" brain surgeon or research scientist? The average person in your country watches and enjoys football, and especially enjoys Beckham himself. The average person does not require brain surgery, and certainly doesn't receive it from that one top surgeon. It's not about the rarity of the person, it's about the quantity of service they provide.

What confuses me is what we pay teachers and those who care for our children.
We need to create demand in that market to raise the quality of those doing the job.

[9th Engineer]

I would generally agree to the idea of making teaching positions very well paid, and making them very dependent on performance. You would need to abolish teachers unions, make the training program very rigorous and demanding, and have schools compete for the best teachers. Essentially you would need to limit the field much more to achieve a consistently higher quality of teacher.

[DanaC]

You would need to abolish teachers unions, make the training program very rigorous and demanding, and have schools compete for the best teachers.

If you have schools competing fo rthe best teachers, would that not mean that some schools lose that competition and end up with most of the less effective teachers? What's the chances that the school that failed to attract the better teachers would likely be the ones erving poorer areas?

The teacher's union is the most wrecked piece of shit you can imagine!

[DanaC]

Why, what's wrong with it?

When I was involved it, in no way, represented teachers best interests.
The ways in which this was evident are too long to list... just know that "no way" is literal.
That it is called a union is a joke, it is as much a union as a building on a college campus is.

[DanaC]

When I was involved it, in no way, represented teachers best interests.

Unforgivable. We have a few unions who are a bit ineffective, but the worst is when you get a branch (it's rarely a whole union that's at fault, more likely a branch in a particular part of the country) where the branch officers are working primarily to continue their own role. I've come across one or two like that. One of the Leeds branches of one of the major general unions is awful fo rthat. They run it like a club. They are getting paid by their nominal employer, to work for the union and represent their members interests: instead they fuck about wanking each other off about how great they are, knocking off at 3 on Friday to go to the pub and just not being effective, or interested in their members' struggles.

I know this because they got so pissed off with the few who did do their job and therefore made them look bad that they effectively ran one of them out of the union. Made up a bunch of stuff, slurred him and ended with him having to change unions. Shame, he really gave a shit about his members. The worst of the guys at that union, is an incompetant alcoholic and if he ever had to try and survive again in Social Work he'd end up pensioned off before you can say "drunken twat".

But...in my experience there's usually enough decent people working in most union branches that most of them at least try to represent their members effectively.

In terms of teaching unions: I think the NUT is a solid member led union. Certainly my interraction with teachers from that union and their reps has impressed me.

In the US with the teacher's union, it is a national problem.
They just will not stand-up for what the teacher's need.
There is a perception problem, that when they do that they are "holding the children hostage". Which is utter bullshit!
It is clear that teachers are not paid well enough and do not have proper benefits, otherwise we would have enough qualified, decent, teachers. THAT is clear.
Not only that, when local administrators break rules it it next to impossible to get the union to stand-up for the teacher.
We are expected to work during our breaks and when we eat... the list is endless.

[DanaC]

*Shakes head* that's really sad. The old argument of 'holding children/patients/victims of crime/etc" hostage by demands for fair pay and conditions is something that really winds me up. It's the argument that's always levelled at the teachers, nurses, the rank and file police and prison wardens, firemen etc by politicians over here too. We recently had the first ever wildcat strike by prison warders, who had finally had enough of being told their requests for fair pay and more attention to safety would not be considered.

One of the worst effects of the Thatcher years (and I must confess it has continued apace under my own party) on unions was losing the right, in many parts of the public sector, to collective bargaining. It has declawed many of the most potent unions and has tended to particularly damage pay and conditions for teachers.

I wish I had the time and my hands felt better.
Just say that it was a LONG day for all the teachers.
Last straw for me was in the teachers lounge with about ten teachers, some of them lifers.
I said, after he left, "does it get any better?".
Most just shook their head.
I said "fuck this, I'm not doing this any more".
No one said "stay, it is worth it, do it for the kids... etc".... several, that day and the next told me they wished that they could and are going to quit when they can. That they envied me.
That was ALL I heard.
Once I got to teaching college and when I get to now by phone, internet and the occasional visit, it is the most rewarding thing I have in my life next to my wife and son.
More than actually doing the thing I am teaching.
That is how bad it is... it can ruin that for people.
The US educational system is a black-hole right now and I lay 90% of it squarely on the doorstep of the teacher's union.

Really, teachers are not going to need to strike... we are just quitting.

[DanaC]

In your opinion, where did the teacher's union go wrong? I mean in terms of how it represented its members. What do you think they should have done differently? (if it's too long and involved to go into I understand)

I don't know... but to me... it seems like it works for the enemy, or itself.
Somewhere, it lost it's charter.
They need to ONLY work for the interests of the teachers.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by DanaC

In your opinion, where did the teacher's union go wrong? I mean in terms of how it represented its members. What do you think they should have done differently? (if it's too long and involved to go into I understand)

It pays teachers on how long they've been working, not performance.

Then we have the problem with merit pay and teachers just teaching for standardized testing. The only real way to make teaching very efficient, I am talking about what is best for the students, is a subjective pay that varies by how well the teachers teach that goes beyond standardized testing but that is extremely difficult if not impossible.