hanky1 said:

---

Teacher unions should be abolished. Put it as a ballot measure and it'll pass in CA with +70% support.

Actually, I am in favor of banning all public unions...teachers, police, firefighters, etc...

---

I'm not until there are some good public protections in place for employee rights. Then union corruption will be a bigger item for me.

Corporate and government corruption is much higher on my totem pole.

Mercury News: Politics, not science, drives school reopening demands

Quote:

---

The damage to our children could last a generation. The sooner we can get them back to the classroom, the better. Even if that unfortunately means capitulating to the teacher unions, whose political demands are not fully rooted in science.

---

The wording of "capitulating" there seems pretty telling. Is this a teacher's union or a cartel?

I'm frustrated as heck that CA kids aren't back in school, but I'm not in favor of abolishing teachers unions (or police, firefighter, etc).

It's important these professions have someone to fight for them. I don't even blame the teachers unions for my kids not being back. I blame the fact that we have zero check on their power.

Things we can do in CA to keep (teachers) unions power in check:

- We can have School Board positions appointed rather than elected. Elected board members are almost always individuals who received the most teachers union campaign donations.

- We can elect CA state representatives who are not entirely far left progressives. I've always been a blue person, but this whole school fiasco has opened my eyes to the need to try being purple for a while. A moderate conservative Governor sounds good to me for the next few years.


Anyone have other ideas?

75bear said:

---

I'm frustrated as heck that CA kids aren't back in school, but I'm not in favor of abolishing teachers unions (or police, firefighter, etc).

It's important these professions have someone to fight for them. I don't even blame the teachers unions for my kids not being back. I blame the fact that we have zero check on their power.

Things we can do in CA to keep (teachers) unions power in check:

- We can have School Board positions appointed rather than elected. Elected board members are almost always individuals who received the most teachers union campaign donations.

- We can elect CA state representatives who are not entirely far left progressives. I've always been a blue person, but this whole school fiasco has opened my eyes to the need to try being purple for a while. A moderate conservative Governor sounds good to me for the next few years.


Anyone have other ideas?

---

"Being purple" isn't going to help. The unions' job is to represent their members. They should have every right to do that job vociferously.

The problem is we have a political system dictated by money. The money on one side is all in on breaking unions and eliminating their ability to effectively bargain. The unions on the other side have no incentive to give to support a candidate that will support their right to bargain but who will also support the government employer doing its job and representing us in negotiations. This is a problem across all facets of politics, not just labor relations.

One thing I would ask you, though, is do you want to base your decisions on a pandemic or on normal times. Your internal debate is exactly why some unions have botched this so badly not thinking of the long term. I would argue that under normal circumstances the interests of parents and teachers align much more often than not.

I would also argue that, while I am upset with the behavior of some union leadership, they are not the primary issue. They are stupidly walking into a trap of letting school boards and districts use them as scapegoats. This is the issue. As early as April, school boards were on notice that this school year would be a challenge. Pretty early it was clear that we might have to implement serious changes in social distancing, bubbles, alternate schedules, etc. They chose to hope Covid would pass, and if it didn't it would mean they don't have kids in school. Either way, they don't need to do the hard and expensive work of having kids go back to school safely. Most have no plans for that. Right now, they are hoping to delay parents until the summer and that vaccines will save them and they can go back in the fall never having implemented any unusual measures for in person learning. If the teachers all agreed to go back tomorrow the school district would largely be left stammering with their pants down.

I'd point back to my post above that polling indicates that parents and teachers are largely aligned on the fact that at least some in person learning should be taking place (parents are somewhat more likely to support all in person while teachers are more likely to support hybrid, but the same percentage of both are against going back at all). The insult to parents coming from some union leadership and some school boards aside, teachers are not the issue and unions are not the issue. School districts do not want to go back because they have done precious little to prepare for the situation and aren't ready. They will wait you out and hope for business as usual in the fall. Heaven help you if there are major delays in getting vaccines out that leaves much of the population unvaccinated in August/September, because they still won't be ready.

hanky1 said:

---

Teacher unions should be abolished. Put it as a ballot measure and it'll pass in CA with +70% support.

Actually, I am in favor of banning all public unions...teachers, police, firefighters, etc...

---

If 70% would support that it would have been in the ballot already. It isn't hard to get something on the ballot under California's referendum process. You get that on the ballot it will be massively crushed at the polls.

SFBear92 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

Teacher unions should be abolished. Put it as a ballot measure and it'll pass in CA with +70% support.

Actually, I am in favor of banning all public unions...teachers, police, firefighters, etc...

---

I'm not until there are some good public protections in place for employee rights. Then union corruption will be a bigger item for me.

Corporate and government corruption is much higher on my totem pole.

---

A better solution would be to implement measures that completely insulate labor contract negotiations from any politics. Unions should negotiate hard for their members and should be sitting across from negotiators who negotiate hard for the best deal for their employers.

OaktownBear said:

---

75bear said:

---

I'm frustrated as heck that CA kids aren't back in school, but I'm not in favor of abolishing teachers unions (or police, firefighter, etc).

It's important these professions have someone to fight for them. I don't even blame the teachers unions for my kids not being back. I blame the fact that we have zero check on their power.

Things we can do in CA to keep (teachers) unions power in check:

- We can have School Board positions appointed rather than elected. Elected board members are almost always individuals who received the most teachers union campaign donations.

- We can elect CA state representatives who are not entirely far left progressives. I've always been a blue person, but this whole school fiasco has opened my eyes to the need to try being purple for a while. A moderate conservative Governor sounds good to me for the next few years.


Anyone have other ideas?

---

"Being purple" isn't going to help. The unions' job is to represent their members. They should have every right to do that job vociferously.

The problem is we have a political system dictated by money. The money on one side is all in on breaking unions and eliminating their ability to effectively bargain. The unions on the other side have no incentive to give to support a candidate that will support their right to bargain but who will also support the government employer doing its job and representing us in negotiations. This is a problem across all facets of politics, not just labor relations.

One thing I would ask you, though, is do you want to base your decisions on a pandemic or on normal times. Your internal debate is exactly why some unions have botched this so badly not thinking of the long term. I would argue that under normal circumstances the interests of parents and teachers align much more often than not.

I would also argue that, while I am upset with the behavior of some union leadership, they are not the primary issue. They are stupidly walking into a trap of letting school boards and districts use them as scapegoats. This is the issue. As early as April, school boards were on notice that this school year would be a challenge. Pretty early it was clear that we might have to implement serious changes in social distancing, bubbles, alternate schedules, etc. They chose to hope Covid would pass, and if it didn't it would mean they don't have kids in school. Either way, they don't need to do the hard and expensive work of having kids go back to school safely. Most have no plans for that. Right now, they are hoping to delay parents until the summer and that vaccines will save them and they can go back in the fall never having implemented any unusual measures for in person learning. If the teachers all agreed to go back tomorrow the school district would largely be left stammering with their pants down.

I'd point back to my post above that polling indicates that parents and teachers are largely aligned on the fact that at least some in person learning should be taking place (parents are somewhat more likely to support all in person while teachers are more likely to support hybrid, but the same percentage of both are against going back at all). The insult to parents coming from some union leadership and some school boards aside, teachers are not the issue and unions are not the issue. School districts do not want to go back because they have done precious little to prepare for the situation and aren't ready. They will wait you out and hope for business as usual in the fall. Heaven help you if there are major delays in getting vaccines out that leaves much of the population unvaccinated in August/September, because they still won't be ready.

---

So in OUSD's case, you think they aren't ready? I definitely see where SFUSD dragged its feet badly, but OUSD at least seems to have a plan with some detail, and had presented one to us months ago.

That said, I note the Oakland school board recently let a meeting go by without taking any action so that may be part of the problem here.

75bear said:

---

I'm frustrated as heck that CA kids aren't back in school, but I'm not in favor of abolishing teachers unions (or police, firefighter, etc).

It's important these professions have someone to fight for them. I don't even blame the teachers unions for my kids not being back. I blame the fact that we have zero check on their power.

Things we can do in CA to keep (teachers) unions power in check:

- We can have School Board positions appointed rather than elected. Elected board members are almost always individuals who received the most teachers union campaign donations.

- We can elect CA state representatives who are not entirely far left progressives. I've always been a blue person, but this whole school fiasco has opened my eyes to the need to try being purple for a while. A moderate conservative Governor sounds good to me for the next few years.


Anyone have other ideas?

---

It's been a while since Republicans have been able to put up reasonable candidates for major state offices, so I'm not sure they have any answers either. I would like it if they did, because that might help put more pressure on the current progressive government.

Part of why this frustrates me so much as a progressive and a Democrat is that it seems like such a terrible, preventable own-goal for unions and leftists to coalesce around the idea that schools should stay closed, usually for flimsy reasons not based in science. That's not going to help our movement in the long term.

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

75bear said:

---

I'm frustrated as heck that CA kids aren't back in school, but I'm not in favor of abolishing teachers unions (or police, firefighter, etc).

It's important these professions have someone to fight for them. I don't even blame the teachers unions for my kids not being back. I blame the fact that we have zero check on their power.

Things we can do in CA to keep (teachers) unions power in check:

- We can have School Board positions appointed rather than elected. Elected board members are almost always individuals who received the most teachers union campaign donations.

- We can elect CA state representatives who are not entirely far left progressives. I've always been a blue person, but this whole school fiasco has opened my eyes to the need to try being purple for a while. A moderate conservative Governor sounds good to me for the next few years.


Anyone have other ideas?

---

"Being purple" isn't going to help. The unions' job is to represent their members. They should have every right to do that job vociferously.

The problem is we have a political system dictated by money. The money on one side is all in on breaking unions and eliminating their ability to effectively bargain. The unions on the other side have no incentive to give to support a candidate that will support their right to bargain but who will also support the government employer doing its job and representing us in negotiations. This is a problem across all facets of politics, not just labor relations.

One thing I would ask you, though, is do you want to base your decisions on a pandemic or on normal times. Your internal debate is exactly why some unions have botched this so badly not thinking of the long term. I would argue that under normal circumstances the interests of parents and teachers align much more often than not.

I would also argue that, while I am upset with the behavior of some union leadership, they are not the primary issue. They are stupidly walking into a trap of letting school boards and districts use them as scapegoats. This is the issue. As early as April, school boards were on notice that this school year would be a challenge. Pretty early it was clear that we might have to implement serious changes in social distancing, bubbles, alternate schedules, etc. They chose to hope Covid would pass, and if it didn't it would mean they don't have kids in school. Either way, they don't need to do the hard and expensive work of having kids go back to school safely. Most have no plans for that. Right now, they are hoping to delay parents until the summer and that vaccines will save them and they can go back in the fall never having implemented any unusual measures for in person learning. If the teachers all agreed to go back tomorrow the school district would largely be left stammering with their pants down.

I'd point back to my post above that polling indicates that parents and teachers are largely aligned on the fact that at least some in person learning should be taking place (parents are somewhat more likely to support all in person while teachers are more likely to support hybrid, but the same percentage of both are against going back at all). The insult to parents coming from some union leadership and some school boards aside, teachers are not the issue and unions are not the issue. School districts do not want to go back because they have done precious little to prepare for the situation and aren't ready. They will wait you out and hope for business as usual in the fall. Heaven help you if there are major delays in getting vaccines out that leaves much of the population unvaccinated in August/September, because they still won't be ready.

---

So in OUSD's case, you think they aren't ready? I definitely see where SFUSD dragged its feet badly, but OUSD at least seems to have a plan with some detail, and had presented one to us months ago.

That said, I note the Oakland school board recently let a meeting go by without taking any action so that may be part of the problem here.

---

It is very easy to write a plan. Much harder to follow it. Are the school buildings actually ready? Have they put in the ventilation? Sanitizing stations? Social distancing? Anything the CDC guidelines suggest? What is your confidence level that if they had the go ahead tomorrow your kid would be in school?

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

75bear said:

---

I'm frustrated as heck that CA kids aren't back in school, but I'm not in favor of abolishing teachers unions (or police, firefighter, etc).

It's important these professions have someone to fight for them. I don't even blame the teachers unions for my kids not being back. I blame the fact that we have zero check on their power.

Things we can do in CA to keep (teachers) unions power in check:

- We can have School Board positions appointed rather than elected. Elected board members are almost always individuals who received the most teachers union campaign donations.

- We can elect CA state representatives who are not entirely far left progressives. I've always been a blue person, but this whole school fiasco has opened my eyes to the need to try being purple for a while. A moderate conservative Governor sounds good to me for the next few years.


Anyone have other ideas?

---

"Being purple" isn't going to help. The unions' job is to represent their members. They should have every right to do that job vociferously.

The problem is we have a political system dictated by money. The money on one side is all in on breaking unions and eliminating their ability to effectively bargain. The unions on the other side have no incentive to give to support a candidate that will support their right to bargain but who will also support the government employer doing its job and representing us in negotiations. This is a problem across all facets of politics, not just labor relations.

One thing I would ask you, though, is do you want to base your decisions on a pandemic or on normal times. Your internal debate is exactly why some unions have botched this so badly not thinking of the long term. I would argue that under normal circumstances the interests of parents and teachers align much more often than not.

I would also argue that, while I am upset with the behavior of some union leadership, they are not the primary issue. They are stupidly walking into a trap of letting school boards and districts use them as scapegoats. This is the issue. As early as April, school boards were on notice that this school year would be a challenge. Pretty early it was clear that we might have to implement serious changes in social distancing, bubbles, alternate schedules, etc. They chose to hope Covid would pass, and if it didn't it would mean they don't have kids in school. Either way, they don't need to do the hard and expensive work of having kids go back to school safely. Most have no plans for that. Right now, they are hoping to delay parents until the summer and that vaccines will save them and they can go back in the fall never having implemented any unusual measures for in person learning. If the teachers all agreed to go back tomorrow the school district would largely be left stammering with their pants down.

I'd point back to my post above that polling indicates that parents and teachers are largely aligned on the fact that at least some in person learning should be taking place (parents are somewhat more likely to support all in person while teachers are more likely to support hybrid, but the same percentage of both are against going back at all). The insult to parents coming from some union leadership and some school boards aside, teachers are not the issue and unions are not the issue. School districts do not want to go back because they have done precious little to prepare for the situation and aren't ready. They will wait you out and hope for business as usual in the fall. Heaven help you if there are major delays in getting vaccines out that leaves much of the population unvaccinated in August/September, because they still won't be ready.

---

So in OUSD's case, you think they aren't ready? I definitely see where SFUSD dragged its feet badly, but OUSD at least seems to have a plan with some detail, and had presented one to us months ago.

That said, I note the Oakland school board recently let a meeting go by without taking any action so that may be part of the problem here.

---

It is very easy to write a plan. Much harder to follow it. Are the school buildings actually ready? Have they put in the ventilation? Sanitizing stations? Social distancing? Anything the CDC guidelines suggest? What is your confidence level that if they had the go ahead tomorrow your kid would be in school?

---

They do have this dashboard that indicates, after last month's update, they were fairly far along.

https://www.ousd.org/Page/20271

Of course, that also means it's been almost a month since the last update. Part of the problem has been that the process has been vague and opaque on all sides, which now forces parents to start demanding transparency.

Free Speech Not Free said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

Teacher unions should be abolished. Put it as a ballot measure and it'll pass in CA with +70% support.

Actually, I am in favor of banning all public unions...teachers, police, firefighters, etc...

---

Why shouldn't teachers be able to organize to further their interests? If their positions are unreasonable or unaffordable, just don't accede to them.


Vaccinate and then Reopen!

---

Because the people on the other side of the negotiating table are not negotiating with their own money, they are politicians negotiating for votes. It is a perverse market relationship, just like jacking up electrical rates in a snowstorm is a perverse market relationship.

I'm not sure I agree with banning all public sector unions but they need to be reined in, particularly police and corrections.

---

I'm not necessarily for abolishing public sector unions either, but it's worth noting that when they're being unreasonable it often takes a massive public outcry to get changes rolling, from people who I'm sure would otherwise prefer not to worry about it. The incentives definitely seem off.

---

---

Without public sector unions, employees would be at a tremendous disadvantage negotiating with state and federal governments for fair wages though. I think there's maybe an argument to be made on a local level (I've looked at the salaries for city manager, police chief, and several police officers in my town and think they're unreasonably high) where money flow problems are a greater issue.

Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.

dajo9 said:

---

Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.

---

FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.

If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...


Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!

Big C said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.

---

FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.

If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...


Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!

---

Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.

LMK5 said:

---

Big C said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.

---

FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.

If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...


Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!

---

Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.

---

Almost all teachers are in the 50-100,000 dollar range (gross annual salary, not including benefits, but with money taken out of that for retirement, which is basically matched). Most of those are in the 60-80 range. Do you think that's good money? A matter of opinion, I suppose.

LMK5 said:

---

Big C said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.

---

FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.

If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...


Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!

---

Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.

---

You better put an end to that practice right now! We cannot have teachers driving BMW's and owning houses.

Big C said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Big C said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.

---

FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.

If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...


Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!

---

Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.

---

Almost all teachers are in the 50-100,000 dollar range (gross annual salary, not including benefits, but with money taken out of that for retirement, which is basically matched). Most of those are in the 60-80 range. Do you think that's good money? A matter of opinion, I suppose.

---

In the Bay Area, that is not a lot of money. It's enough to live on, sure, but not extravagant by any means. And I don't think most of those folks would be driving BMWs.

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Big C said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.

---

FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.

If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...


Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!

---

Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.

---

Almost all teachers are in the 50-100,000 dollar range (gross annual salary, not including benefits, but with money taken out of that for retirement, which is basically matched). Most of those are in the 60-80 range. Do you think that's good money? A matter of opinion, I suppose.

---

In the Bay Area, that is not a lot of money. It's enough to live on, sure, but not extravagant by any means. And I don't think most of those folks would be driving BMWs.

---

Maybe if they bought 6 or 8 year old used BMWs.

Big C said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Big C said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.

---

FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.

If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...


Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!

---

Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.

---

Almost all teachers are in the 50-100,000 dollar range (gross annual salary, not including benefits, but with money taken out of that for retirement, which is basically matched). Most of those are in the 60-80 range. Do you think that's good money? A matter of opinion, I suppose.

---

That seems about right. My HS teacher friend mentioned to me he was making $70k about 10 years ago. He owned a home in OC. If his wife was making about the same you can do fine here. Now, we also have to realize that the pay is for 10 months of work with lots of off days, so I think it's pretty good, but I'm not nearly as affluent as most on this board so my yardstick is a little skewed I'll admit.

BTW my social worker daughter makes far less than the numbers you presented.

It's more pay than most people make. With far superior benefits than most people get. I don't begrudge them their pay, but then many of those union workers - particularly white union workers - turn around and vote against things to help non union, unemployed, or self employed people. Like a higher minimum wage or national healthcare.

Union workers are the haves in this country. Not haves like the 1% are haves, but still better off than most. I would be more impressed with unions if they did more to advance the agenda of the have nots.

dajo9 said:

---

It's more pay than most people make. With far superior benefits than most people get. I don't begrudge them their pay, but then many of those union workers - particularly white union workers - turn around and vote against things to help non union, unemployed, or self employed people. Like a higher minimum wage or national healthcare.

---

That is true of a lot of unions, though I doubt most teachers are voting that way.

LMK5 said:

---

Big C said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Big C said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.

---

FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.

If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...


Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!

---

Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.

---

Almost all teachers are in the 50-100,000 dollar range (gross annual salary, not including benefits, but with money taken out of that for retirement, which is basically matched). Most of those are in the 60-80 range. Do you think that's good money? A matter of opinion, I suppose.

---

That seems about right. My HS teacher friend mentioned to me he was making $70k about 10 years ago. He owned a home in OC. If his wife was making about the same you can do fine here. Now, we also have to realize that the pay is for 10 months of work with lots of off days, so I think it's pretty good, but I'm not nearly as affluent as most on this board so my yardstick is a little skewed I'll admit.

BTW my social worker daughter makes far less than the numbers you presented.

---

Regarding the BMW, some teachers have an inheritance and others have a spouse that makes more. Some have both!

LMK5 said:

---

Big C said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Big C said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.

---

FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.

If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...


Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!

---

Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.

---

Almost all teachers are in the 50-100,000 dollar range (gross annual salary, not including benefits, but with money taken out of that for retirement, which is basically matched). Most of those are in the 60-80 range. Do you think that's good money? A matter of opinion, I suppose.

---

BTW my social worker daughter makes far less than the numbers you presented.

---

We all have career choices that we make. Sounds like you daughter decided job satisfaction over salary.

LMK5 said:

---

Big C said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.

---

FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.

If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...


Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!

---

Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.

---

Poorly paid? No. Not paid comparable to the required educational attainment? Yes. If we wanted the best of our highly educated people to go into teaching, we'd pay them. As a lawyer I'd say it is ridiculous to pay lawyers more than teachers. Let alone Soooooo much more.

dajo9 said:

---

It's more pay than most people make. With far superior benefits than most people get. I don't begrudge them their pay, but then many of those union workers - particularly white union workers - turn around and vote against things to help non union, unemployed, or self employed people. Like a higher minimum wage or national healthcare.

Union workers are the haves in this country. Not haves like the 1% are haves, but still better off than most. I would be more impressed with unions if they did more to advance the agenda of the have nots.

---

Why on earth would unions be expected to advance the agenda of anyone other than their members?

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It's more pay than most people make. With far superior benefits than most people get. I don't begrudge them their pay, but then many of those union workers - particularly white union workers - turn around and vote against things to help non union, unemployed, or self employed people. Like a higher minimum wage or national healthcare.

Union workers are the haves in this country. Not haves like the 1% are haves, but still better off than most. I would be more impressed with unions if they did more to advance the agenda of the have nots.

---

Why on earth would unions be expected to advance the agenda of anyone other than their members?

---

Why on Earth would I be expected to advance the agenda of unions?

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Big C said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.

---

FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.

If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...


Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!

---

Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.

---

Poorly paid? No. Not paid comparable to the required educational attainment? Yes. If we wanted the best of our highly educated people to go into teaching, we'd pay them. As a lawyer I'd say it is ridiculous to pay lawyers more than teachers. Let alone Soooooo much more.

---

Is it a market forces thing? What are Berkeley HS teachers paid compared to Cal professors?

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It's more pay than most people make. With far superior benefits than most people get. I don't begrudge them their pay, but then many of those union workers - particularly white union workers - turn around and vote against things to help non union, unemployed, or self employed people. Like a higher minimum wage or national healthcare.

Union workers are the haves in this country. Not haves like the 1% are haves, but still better off than most. I would be more impressed with unions if they did more to advance the agenda of the have nots.

---

Why on earth would unions be expected to advance the agenda of anyone other than their members?

---

Why on Earth would I be expected to advance the agenda of unions?

---

You wouldn't.

Unions aren't a charity or some liberal political group. They exist entirely to further the interest of their members. It is not their role or their place to further the cause of the downtrodden.

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It's more pay than most people make. With far superior benefits than most people get. I don't begrudge them their pay, but then many of those union workers - particularly white union workers - turn around and vote against things to help non union, unemployed, or self employed people. Like a higher minimum wage or national healthcare.

Union workers are the haves in this country. Not haves like the 1% are haves, but still better off than most. I would be more impressed with unions if they did more to advance the agenda of the have nots.

---

Why on earth would unions be expected to advance the agenda of anyone other than their members?

---

Why on Earth would I be expected to advance the agenda of unions?

---

You wouldn't.

Unions aren't a charity or some liberal political group. They exist entirely to further the interest of their members. It is not their role or their place to further the cause of the downtrodden.

---

The flaw with this argument is that the only reason unions exist is because of Congressional legislation starting with the Wagner Act of 1935. Without legislation businesses would negotiate with individuals, not unions. Municipalities would be able to do the same, depending on the local political climate. In 1935, union workers were the have nots and the public supported their efforts to improve their lives.

Since unions are just out for themselves, as are businesses, maybe we should just get rid of the Wagner Act and other union supporting legislation and let everybody exist entirely to further their own interest.

Chron:

Well, at this point it seems like every editorial board in the state has come out in favor of reopening schools. The tide is turning fast. Time for school districts and unions to get moving.

The Nation is about as left-wing as they come, and even they posted this over the weekend:

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It's more pay than most people make. With far superior benefits than most people get. I don't begrudge them their pay, but then many of those union workers - particularly white union workers - turn around and vote against things to help non union, unemployed, or self employed people. Like a higher minimum wage or national healthcare.

Union workers are the haves in this country. Not haves like the 1% are haves, but still better off than most. I would be more impressed with unions if they did more to advance the agenda of the have nots.

---

Why on earth would unions be expected to advance the agenda of anyone other than their members?

---

Why on Earth would I be expected to advance the agenda of unions?

---

You wouldn't.

Unions aren't a charity or some liberal political group. They exist entirely to further the interest of their members. It is not their role or their place to further the cause of the downtrodden.

---

The flaw with this argument is that the only reason unions exist is because of Congressional legislation starting with the Wagner Act of 1935. Without legislation businesses would negotiate with individuals, not unions. Municipalities would be able to do the same, depending on the local political climate. In 1935, union workers were the have nots and the public supported their efforts to improve their lives.

Since unions are just out for themselves, as are businesses, maybe we should just get rid of the Wagner Act and other union supporting legislation and let everybody exist entirely to further their own interest.

---

The massive flaw with this statement is corporations and governments are also collective bodies, or little u unions that are also given power by government organization and legislation. People were downtrodden in the first place because corporations and government employers were in an extremely unbalanced power dynamic with their workers. Now that the right to unionized has evened out that power dynamic, you want to hold it hostage by requiring them to do your political bidding. It is like demanding the Sierra Club fight abortion. Unions are not getting special privileges that their counterparts across the bargaining table don't get.

If you want to reduce union rights, fine. But it makes no sense to tell a group that is united by one purpose to take stands on issues that have nothing to do with that purpose and to which the individuals may disagree. It would be like going to a Cal game and refusing to cheer unless the rooting section agreed to support the 49ers.

I support the right to collectively bargain. I agree with their position when I agree and I disagree when I disagree. I don't think the solution is to take away their right to bargain until they become downtrodden again.

No one is asking you to advance their agenda. They are merely asking to have the right to advance theirs. I get that you don't like every agenda they have. I sense you are mad at police unions and they are a problem. The answer is not getting rid of union rights. They are powerful because like it or not people support them. You need to fight them politically. Hate to tell you, but police will still be powerful with or without specific union rights and you will have flushed those rights only for the ones who actually need protection

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It's more pay than most people make. With far superior benefits than most people get. I don't begrudge them their pay, but then many of those union workers - particularly white union workers - turn around and vote against things to help non union, unemployed, or self employed people. Like a higher minimum wage or national healthcare.

Union workers are the haves in this country. Not haves like the 1% are haves, but still better off than most. I would be more impressed with unions if they did more to advance the agenda of the have nots.

---

Why on earth would unions be expected to advance the agenda of anyone other than their members?

---

Why on Earth would I be expected to advance the agenda of unions?

---

You wouldn't.

Unions aren't a charity or some liberal political group. They exist entirely to further the interest of their members. It is not their role or their place to further the cause of the downtrodden.

---

The flaw with this argument is that the only reason unions exist is because of Congressional legislation starting with the Wagner Act of 1935. Without legislation businesses would negotiate with individuals, not unions. Municipalities would be able to do the same, depending on the local political climate. In 1935, union workers were the have nots and the public supported their efforts to improve their lives.

Since unions are just out for themselves, as are businesses, maybe we should just get rid of the Wagner Act and other union supporting legislation and let everybody exist entirely to further their own interest.

---

The massive flaw with this statement is corporations and governments are also collective bodies, or little u unions that are also given power by government organization and legislation. People were downtrodden in the first place because corporations and government employers were in an extremely unbalanced power dynamic with their workers. Now that the right to unionized has evened out that power dynamic, you want to hold it hostage by requiring them to do your political bidding. It is like demanding the Sierra Club fight abortion. Unions are not getting special privileges that their counterparts across the bargaining table don't get.

If you want to reduce union rights, fine. But it makes no sense to tell a group that is united by one purpose to take stands on issues that have nothing to do with that purpose and to which the individuals may disagree. It would be like going to a Cal game and refusing to cheer unless the rooting section agreed to support the 49ers.

I support the right to collectively bargain. I agree with their position when I agree and I disagree when I disagree. I don't think the solution is to take away their right to bargain until they become downtrodden again.

No one is asking you to advance their agenda. They are merely asking to have the right to advance theirs. I get that you don't like every agenda they have. I sense you are mad at police unions and they are a problem. The answer is not getting rid of union rights. They are powerful because like it or not people support them. You need to fight them politically. Hate to tell you, but police will still be powerful with or without specific union rights and you will have flushed those rights only for the ones who actually need protection

---

There are also things that we as (I assume) non-union workers only enjoy as assumed rights because unions bargained for them (five-day work weeks, vacation time, health benefits, etc.). I'm sure not everyone here gets all of that precisely, but they exist as an assumed baseline because of the negotiations done by unionized workers.

That doesn't mean they are always right. Sometimes unions are wrong (I think the teacher's unions in west-coast states are steering the wrong way right now), but we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and abolish them all.

And yes, I also acknowledge there is some nuance here with pubic-sector unions whose workers provide essential services. Strikes and work stoppages can be catastrophic with many of those, so some further regulation may be needed here.

The more I hear the more I'm inclined to oppose unions and collective bargaining since they have become impediments to the public good like national healthcare and sane municipal budgets.

EDIT - And apparently in California you can't even get your kids in school like the rest of the country, because of unions

dajo9 said:

---

The more I hear the more I'm inclined to oppose unions and collective bargaining since they have become impediments to the public good like national healthcare and sane municipal budgets.

EDIT - And apparently in California you can't even get your kids in school like the rest of the country, because of unions

---

The more I hear the more I'm inclined to oppose democracy and elections since they have become impediments to the public good like national healthcare and sane municipal budgets.

You think unions do more to fight national healthcare than corporations? Especially those in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries? Should we wipe all laws off the books allowing formation of corporations and the laws that support them?

Fight unions over every issue if you wish. Taking away their ability to have that fight is an undemocratic hissy fit of Trumpian proportions. You don't have national healthcare because you don't have the votes.

Municipal budgets that are out of whack are out of whack because of government mismanagement. To the extent any of it is based on union contracts, that is due to government negotiators doing a bad deal.

By the way, my wife is a non-union state employee. First of all they have significantly adjusted pensions so there is a lot more employee contribution and the benefit is not nearly as valuable. That said it is very valuable. I personally think pensions are stupid because there is too much fluctuation in there value depending on individual circumstances. That said, the pension that is offered absolutely factors in to the job decision. If the pension is not part of the package, you will need to pay more. Of course unions are going to want commensurate value if they give up a benefit. It is up to government negotiators to find something of value to trade or to stand their ground.

OaktownBear said:

---

You think unions do more to fight national healthcare than corporations? Especially those in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries? Should we wipe all laws off the books allowing formation of corporations and the laws that support them?

Fight unions over every issue if you wish. Taking away their ability to have that fight is an undemocratic hissy fit of Trumpian proportions. You don't have national healthcare because you don't have the votes.

---

Agree completely. Unions haven't always been great on this issue, but they are not the primary opposition to national healthcare, not by a long shot. Unions have their problems, but abolishing them entirely would create more problems than it would solve.