The above statement just floored me expecially since we are being raised on the stories of Enron, and now Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae with all the other sandwiched in between such as all the bank failures etc. etc. High performers paid better? You must not be familiar with the old saying “F_ck up, move up”.
This comparison would work if private corporations were funded by taxes. The bailouts are a separate issue, but the fact of the matter is, if a private company f_cks up, it will typically go out of business with no real impact on the tax payers. When public schools f_ck up, they have the power to hold students in them until their parents can afford to send them elsewhere. When you factor in property taxes AND private tuition, most parents can’t afford it, which makes all of the difference in the world.
Unions came about because workers needed to join together and fight for better pay and better working conditions.
And that has nothing to do with public sector unions. Teachers are already given plush jobs. They don’t have to work a full year to make their salary. I had a teacher in high school who exploited that fact by doing all of her grading during her classes. She then had enough time to work a second job, and as a result, had quite a lot of disposable income to enjoy since she was single.
Denying that is denying history. Fixing corrupt unions should be a high priorty, just as fixing corrupt politicians, but singling out the Union is business as usual for business. Try better.
What you have here is a union that has monopolized the school system, in a system where most students have no choice but to go to that union-monopolized school system. You’re guilty of denying reality here because you are being an ideologue. People who work for government entities should not be able to unionize because their pay comes from tax revenue, not corporate revenue.
