The Myth of the "Powerful" Teachers' Union

[tonysam]

In my experience, not only are the teachers' unions NOT powerful, they are WORTHLESS defending teachers in "due process" hearings and will eagerly cut deals with districts to help an administrator and destroy a teacher's career.

This opinion piece hits it on the head. Too bad Huffington, Maher, and countless others, including many DUers, believe the "powerful union" bullshit.

Excerpts:

Fact: Teachers can be fired. Who honestly believes a teachers’ union—whether in California, Oregon or Connecticut—has the authority to insist that management keep unqualified teachers? Since when does a labor union dictate to management? Since when does the hired help tell the bosses what to do? The accusation is absurd on its face.

Fact: During the first two years of employment, any teacher in the LAUSD can be fired for any reason, with no recourse to union representation and no access to the grievance procedure. Two full years. If the district doesn’t like you for any reason, they fire you. No union. No grievance. Nothing. Could any arrangement be more favorable to management?

Yet, the myth persists, the myth of the Unqualified Teacher. Instead of identifying the real problems facing California’s schools (daunting as they may be), and trying to solve them, people stubbornly insist that thousands of our teachers—every one of them college-educated, credentialed, and having survived two years of scrutiny—need to be fired.

Let’s be clear; no one is suggesting that all teachers are “excellent.” Obviously, you’re going to find marginal workers in any profession. But, realistically, how many “bad” teachers could there be?

...

Fact: The fault for unqualified teachers remaining on the payroll lies entirely with the school administrators. These overpaid, $120,000 a year, gutless bureaucrats want us to believe that we live in a world turned upside down. A world where, fantastically, the bosses answer to the employees.

Much more

As a rule, principals don't answer to ANYBODY--the districts will defend them clear through the legal system. It matters not whether a teacher has tenure or doesn't. There is no comparison between the power a principal has over teachers and supervisors in private sector jobs. None. No supervisor in private sector work or in other governmental work has the power to destroy an employee's career. Principals do.

[NoNothing]

1. This is clearly a response

To this piece here:

http://www.laweekly.com/2010-02-11/news/lausd-s-dance-of-the-lemons/

And I have to admit, it is shocking. In a decade, only 4 teachers in the entire LAUSD were fired? Then we read the reason, which the OP suggests is because of the incompetence of the administrators or something:

"In the past decade, LAUSD officials spent $3.5 million trying to fire just seven of the district's 33,000 teachers for poor classroom performance — and only four were fired, during legal struggles that wore on, on average, for five years each. Two of the three others were paid large settlements, and one was reinstated. The average cost of each battle is $500,000."

Whose fault is it that such immense legal costs are required that it becomes cheaper to leave horrible teachers in the classroom?

[tonysam]

3. Who is to decide who is "horrible"? You?

By your analysis, I was fucking HORRIBLE although my firing had NOTHING to do with my performance in the classroom. I was wrongfully terminated.

It happens far more often than you think. And where do you get off on the idea administrators can do no wrong?

The "enormous" legal costs argument is hogwash. Districts don't pay for the legal costs--it's taxpayers via insurance companies, which is why they will drag out lawsuits for years and years on end, hoping teachers will settle for a pittance.

[NoNothing]

8. Standard deviation

In any sampling, the odds are very high approaching certainty that you will have mostly average, with a few at the very top and bottom.

And if the district doesn't pay the legal costs, who does? Does it come out of the city's general operations budget? I'm pretty sure the district *does* pay the legal costs. I think you're being awfully myopic here.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NoNothing]

11. Regardless of who is paying

It is coming out of somebody's budget. If the district is paying, then it is using money from the budget that cannot spent on something else, instead. 3.5 million dollars buys a lot of books. After all, there is only so much that the taxpayers are willing to give.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. The insurance companies are paying

All districts have liability insurance for just this purpose.

[NoNothing]

30. That wouldn't cover this

This is not a liability suit, it's ultimately a contract dispute.

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. Yes it will cover this

That's how districts pay all legal expenses these days - insurance.

[Reader Rabbit]

2. I'm beginning to believe that teachers' unions have been co-opted.

They've certainly been practicing a policy of appeasement when it comes to NCLB and RTTT. The Central Falls debacle should be a warning that appeasement will get them nowhere. If the unions don't start fighting back, teaching as a profession will cease to exist.

[tonysam]

4. You better believe it. It happened with me.

What else could be the explanation for Washoe Education Association's executive director to "coincidentally" take a job working for the human resources chief officer just weeks after she defended me in two hearings but some two months before the due process hearing? She took a FUCKING BRIBE IN THE FORM OF A JOB in order to help my negligent principal, who didn't do one damned thing she was supposed to do by the union contract and Nevada law. She did this so I could NOT have her as a witness at my hearing because of "conflict of interest" or other such rot. The HR chief officer was the one who targeted me for firing, not the principal, but she was pressured to do it.

[tonysam]

52. By the way, I talked over the phone with an attorney today.

Unfortunately, because of the statute of limitations regarding filing complaints with the EEOC and the Department of Labor, I am limited on filing a federal lawsuit. However, I can sue over the FMLA violations committed by my former principal and the school district.

She told me she cannot "wrap herself around the fact" I was NOT allowed to amend my forms--I mean they are FORMS, for cryin' out loud--when I had submitted them too early yet the district didn't even contest my being very ill with the sinus infection which incapacitated me. I was FIRED over them, while the principal claimed I was a liar for submitting them too early and accused me of "dishonesty" because a physician's assistant wrongfully checked off the blank saying I could return to work when in fact I had asked for and received a much stronger antibiotic when the sickness returned and I stayed home because I was too sick yet submitted the forms too early having misread the three weeks' rule. The attorney couldn't seem to understand the admonition by the previous principal (which had been retaliatory since I would not violate federal law for him) was NEVER implemented by the last principal. It boggled her mind.

Well, join the club, attorney X. I told her the principal either didn't even know what in the hell she was doing since she had never disciplined an employee before, or else she fired me in order to get the HR head honcho off her back. She also asked me about how the hearing went. She couldn't understand I wasn't allowed witnesses at all at my hearing, that the union's lawyer said as for my witnesses, "it's just going to be you," while the district had six lined up, including the principal. She asked me about how the hearing officer was, and I told her, and she told me she's had other clients who had trouble with this particular hearing officer. It sounds like he is a bad one.

I am supposed to get the union's law firm to fax the principal's dismissal notice and the other principal's admonition to this attorney so she can have a clearer picture on how to proceed.

Wish me luck on this case.

[YvonneCa]

15. Some are not unions at all.They are...

...'associations.' Many teachers...and I include myself in this...are too busy to pay attention to the difference until it affects their job. Then they find they have no support.

[tonysam]

18. That's what mine was--an "association."

It was nothing more than a very expensive social club. Tragically, it did little to help me and everything to help the principal.

[tonysam]

5. Who in the hell is unrec'ing this? Are there really anti-union people on DU,

and if so, why are they HERE?

[Catshrink]

20. Probably just the usual teacher-bashers.

There seems to be an epidemic of them here lately.

[hughee99]

6. Interesting read, I do take issue with one thing though...

"No supervisor in private sector work or in other governmental work has the power to destroy an employee's career. Principals do."

Really, the principal has more power over a teacher than a boss does in a private sector job? I'm not saying that teachers have it so great, but I can be fired any reason with no recourse. After 2 years, I can STILL be fired for no reason. After 20 years, I can STILL be fired for no reason, and with no recourse. My pay can be arbitrarily cut for no reason, they are under no obligation to restore it. Is this in comparison to other UNION jobs (since it's about the teachers Union being weak compared to other unions), or just other jobs in general?

[tonysam]

7. Yes. That is MY comment.

You don't have disclosure questions on applications in the private sector that are equivalent to school districts. I've worked in both sectors. The school district applications REQUIRE that you disclose the name of your last supervisor, the idiot who fired you, and they ask if you have ever been disciplined or fired, and you can be sanctioned by the licensing board if you lie. You MUST explain it--no weasel words--under threat of perjury. And they DO check your references. You are effectively blackballed from the profession forever.

You can still be fired for no reason as a teacher--tenure is just the right to a hearing. I don't think you understand districts can fabricate charges and commit what amounts to crimes in hearings in order to get rid of a teacher. Districts DEFEND the wayward principals--at the cost of the taxpayer. The unions are basically worthless in these hearings and regularly cut deals with the districts in order to keep the negligent or malicious principal. It's NOT an even playing field.

It happens every day. Teachers have no rights whatsoever.

[hughee99]

10. I understand that districts check references and can fabricate charges

effectively making it so that no one will hire you. I'm just not sure why you think that doesn't happen in other professions as well? I'm not taking issue with your assessment of what can be done to teachers, I'm just saying that it happens in other professions too.

[tonysam]

12. It DOESN'T happen in other fields.

You have a STATE LICENSING BOARD which requires answering disclosure questions under threat of perjury. They will SANCTION you if you lie on an application and they will suspend your license. You have school district applications which REQUIRE answering disclosure questions AND explanations under threat of perjury. The reason for those questions is to try and screen out "dangerous" teachers to students. However, since principals can fire teachers for any reason, whether they have tenure or not, other districts will screen you out of a job anyway. They will NEVER take a chance on a fired teacher.

They aren't even on the same level as private sector jobs. Quit trying to pretend being fired as a teacher is less harmful to a teacher than being fired in a private sector job is to that employee, or that they are in any way equivalent. They aren't. You can never work in your field again if you are fired in teaching, as long as there is a huge glut of applicants and as long as principals aren't held accountable in any way for their actions towards teachers.

[hughee99]

14. Are you kidding me?

"You can never work in your field again if you are fired in teaching, as long as there is a huge glut of applicants."

So what you're saying is having a black mark (deserved or not) against your name hurts you because there are a lot of applicants so they'll just dismiss you automatically. No shit. As for being required to not commit perjury in your interview, are you really making a big complaint that they won't let a teacher lie in an interview? Is that where you want to hang your hat in this argument? Yes, the getting fired for no cause or based on completely fabricated charges is not good at all, but teachers have it so much worse than everyone else because they're not allowed to lie on subsequent job applications? It also sounds like your suggesting that if the applicant pool dried up, some of these teachers would get a look.

It happens everywhere, I've interviewed hundreds of people and, at times when there's a lot of applicants, been told not to bother with someone for the smallest of issues. Go work for the border patrol and find out how hard it is to get them to hire you with bad reviews or allegations of wrongdoing (real or fabricated) in your past. Dealing with confidential records? In many cases, same shit there. Yes, there are definitely jobs were being fired doesn't mean much, but being fired as a teacher isn't as "unique" an experience as you seem to think.

I would add this, the school system in the town I grew up in has fired (not counting downsized during budget cuts) 2 teachers in the last 19 years. So it may be next to impossible to get a job as a fired teacher (and I've NEVER disputed that) but it seems to be pretty damn tough to get fired.

[tonysam]

17. I guess you don't get it and you never will.

The standards are FAR MORE STRINGENT in public education because teachers work with kids. Got it? It's apples and oranges when you talk about firings of teachers and firings of people in private business. It isn't the same as in private industry. You don't work with kids in private industry sitting on your ass in front of a computer all day.

It isn't "next to impossible" to fire teachers. It is EASY. It is just that administrators didn't initiate termination proceedings against teachers except in the most egregious circumstances because it undermined staff morale and kids did not have a stable learning environment when their teachers are gone. That is changing, and kids are being screwed over.

When somebody tells you something opposite of what you have been led to believe--and by the way, you don't KNOW how many teachers have been fired from your school district because it is not generally made public as those are personnel matters--and knows what he or she is talking about, perhaps you should listen.

[tonysam]

19. And then how does a teacher answer these questions

asked on the Medford School District application, similar to thousands of school district applicatons across the United States?

A. Have you ever been placed on a plan of improvement or formally disciplined for work performance?
Yes __________ No __________

I would have to answer "yes"; however, the school district NEVER implemented the disciplinary action or put me on a plan of improvement, as was required on the (retaliatory) admonition, and as required by the union contract and Nevada law.


B. Have you even been released or discharged from employment because of unsatisfactory service or misconduct?
Yes __________ No __________

I would have to answer "yes" despite the fact the principal who fired me violated both the union contract and Nevada law when she did so.

Those are honest answers, but not one school district in the country is going to believe those answers. They simply call up the principal--a PERJURER at my hearing--who would then say she would not "rehire" me because I was "dishonest" as she claimed on her phony dismissal recommendation.

[hughee99]

22. Why does the questionnaire even matter then?

If they call your principal, and you're principal tells them your dishonest, why do the questions even matter? They're going to call and check your references anyway, and your principal is going to tell them this anyway. Even if you didn't have to give them anything but your reference information, you'd be in the same boat. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not disputing a single thing that you say happens to teachers. You've been through the process and been thoroughly screwed over...

BUT other industries check references too (not all, or even most). Being a teacher certainly isn't the same as just any other job, but there are plenty of other professions out there who will check references, plenty of other bosses in other industries who will say you're dishonest, incompetent, or unreliable and that they wouldn't hire you, and plenty of corruption and covering management's ass in any sort of appeals system if there even is one.

[tonysam]

23. It is simple

They have to have it in writing.

This isn't about "checking references" so much as they want to check your character. If you lie on an application, not only can a district terminate you, you can have your license suspended. And then if you work at another district, you have to disclose the suspension for lying on an application.

It has to do with perceived "character" of applicants. It is much more stringent in public education because of the fact you work with kids.

I don't know how to make it more clear. You are blackballed from ever working in school districts again.

[hughee99]

27. I get it, and I haven't disputed ANYTHING you've said

about what can happen to teachers...

Yes, they can absolutely put you in a tough spot by initiating some sort of disciplinary action which, whether deserved or not, goes on your record. Then when you apply for a new job as a teacher, you're forced to either disclose this information (in which case the new school almost certainly won't consider you for a new position with so many other applicants who don't have this same issue) OR you can lie on your application and omit the fact that such action was taken, in which case you're perjuring yourself. The only course of action you can really take is to fight the disciplinary action to get it removed, but with a corrupt system that's more interested in defending the administration than seeing actual justice done, you don't have much of a chance either. I get it.

Here's what I've said... This sort of shit can and does happen to other people too. Not in every line of work, not in every state, but it certainly happens. Teachers aren't the only licensed profession, the only ones that check references, the only ones that don't take an applicant's word at face value, the only one that has a corrupt disciplinary appeals process designed to protect management, or the only ones that would pass over a candidate with even a hint of trouble. I'm not saying being a teacher is the same as any old job, but it's not top secret pentagon clearance either, or having the FBI visit your friends, family, acquaintances and past girlfriends just to process your application to the boarder patrol.

You seem to be concerned about what they can do if you lie on an application, but you have to LIE ON AN APPLICATION for that to come into play. If your issue is that you can't get away with lying on your application, you're not going to get any sympathy here. I do agree that an administration can take arbitrary disciplinary action with little recourse for the teacher, put it on your record and completely F' up your future employment chances. The issue, as far as i'm concerned is ONLY the ability of the school administration to put some disciplinary action into your file, and the teacher not having a fair chance to fight it. If everything in a teachers file is fair and deserved, then I don't have a problem with forcing teachers to disclose it, or schools not selecting applicants on that basis.

[tonysam]

51. I meant "apply" at another district. Too late to change the post. n/t

[hughee99]

21. When you hang out with a few dozen teachers on a regular basis,

you know who was fired, who was downsized, and who left on their own. 2 teachers have been fired. Not 3, not 1, EXACTLY 2.

One more thing, sort of unrelated to the OP but more to your argument here (which is why I'm not going to drag this line off any further). A lot of topics get discussed here, politics, defense, union issues, sports, military issues, gender and racial issues. I've given my opinion on many different topics and often disagreed with people from both a philosophical standpoint, and based on my view of a situation vs. someone else's.

I've never been told, "You can't understand it because you're not (black/female/gay/in the military/the current president of the united states)"

I have been told that I can't understand it because I'm not a teacher, though, probably more than a dozen times. Apparently I never seemed to learn what it was to be a teacher in the 3 years I taught math in a public school (7th graders, which one might call "kids").

So just because I'm not a teacher now, I don't have any idea what I'm talking about, but you, having been a teacher, are an expert on ALL OTHER PROFESSIONS enough to know that no one has it worse than you? Since I've been both an apple AND an orange why is it exactly that YOU'RE the expert?

Good stuff!

[tonysam]

24. Not the same as having firsthand experience. n/t

[FBaggins]

25. Sometimes "firsthand experience" removes your objectivity.

No offense, but this often appears to be the case in your posts. Energy and passion are never lacking... objectivity is another thing altogether.

And let's just save each other some time and assume that you reply to this post with five vulgarities and insults and I reply with the statement that I'm not seeking your approval.

[hughee99]

29. So you have firsthand experience in applying for non-teaching jobs

after being fired from other non-teaching jobs? (Jobs like Police, Bank Security, Armored Car Services, classified defense industry positions, etc...)

[jody]

13. Obviously teachers' unions are different in every state and their power is different at local and

state level but the Alabama Education Association is clearly the most powerful political force at the state level and its Executive Director Paul Hubbert is the most powerful lobbyist in the state.

[Hannah Bell]

16. "Hubbert is currently co-chair of the Alabama Democratic Party,

and a popular target for criticism from the state's Republican party and leadership."


"Editorial: Paul Hubbert standing in the way of charter schools"

http://blog.al.com/press-register-commentary/2010/01/post_26.html

[jody]

31. Hubbert is also a target of Democrats who promote progressive programs. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

33. link?

[jody]

34. Me! n/t

[Hannah Bell]

35. well, i had to smile at that. are you the only one in alabama?

[jody]

36. The Alabama State Board of Education unanimously supported charter schools and some of the members

are Democrats.

Reply to your post "Editorial: Paul Hubbert standing in the way of charter schools"

See link below:

Board of Education Resolution re Charter Schools

State Board of Education Members

[Hannah Bell]

37. you're saying charters are a "progressive reform"?

[jody]

38. I accept California as a progressive state. It has 860+ charter schools with 300k students. Given

the failure of Alabama schools to do well on the basic tests in reading, mathematics, and science I and my Democrat colleagues are willing to see if charter schools will work in our state.

MA has 65 charter schools with 25,579 students

NY has 154 charter schools with 44,000 students

DC has 100 charter schools with 30,026 students

SOURCE: http://www.edreform.com/_upload/CER_charter_numbers.pdf

[Hannah Bell]

39. So, you think charters are a progressive reform. Well, they're not,

but I now understand where you're coming from, & see that my initial post was on the money.

[jody]

40. What would you present to CA, NY, MA, & DC supporting your position that charter schools are not

progressive reform?

[Hannah Bell]

41. your question is idiotic.

[jody]

44. That's your opinion but I stand with Obama who supports "expanding innovative charter schools" n/t

[Hannah Bell]

46. that's your right, as it is mine to disagree. the destruction of public education & public unions &

the turning over of tax dollars to private contractors is not a progressive reform.

it's in direct opposition to every principle of progressivism.

and it opens the door to complete privatization, increasing inequality, & the theft of publicly-purchased facilities.

[jody]

47. You used the phrase "progressive reform" and we both know there is no consensus on its meaning but

Merriam-Webster defines progressives as "one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action".

I believe trying another approach to public education is progressive reform and I can understand why teacher unions feel threatened.

[Hannah Bell]

48. "trying another approach" is meaningless bullshit-speak.

"progressive" both historically & currently, is associated with the progressive movement of the 19-teens, & with the left.

not with giving government money to private parties to take over public education & jobs.

[jody]

49. Do you contend that all the approaches to charter schools tried so far or to be tried are no more

effective than the traditional approach to public school education?

I can see you have a strong emotional investment in this issue so I'll stand by my original post #13 to the OP and wish you a pleasant evening.

:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

50. I contend that anything done in a charter school can be done in a public school.

I contend that charters are being established to destroy public education.

I contend that there is not a damn thing wrong with an emotional investment in things that matter, & that bringing up an opponent's "emotion" in a conflict is a time-honored tactic of officious little upper-class twits used to elevate themselves & denigrate their opposition.

A pleasant evening to you as well.

[jody]

42. Obviously you disagree with Obama who "called for tying teachers' pay to student

performance and expanding innovative charter schools Tuesday, embracing ideas that have provoked hostility from members of teachers unions."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/10/obama-education-plan-spee_n_173405.html

[Hannah Bell]

43. yes, i disagree with obama. on many, many things.

nor do i find him to be any exemplar of progressivism. it is, in fact, to laugh.

[jody]

45. We certainly agree on one thing, we disagree with BO on many things. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. My union has lots of power

I'm sorry to hear others are so weak.