A while ago, ‘Grok’s friend NH State Representative George Lambert started a thread discussing NH SB1 which would repeal to the Evergreen Clause (now passed). Simply put, Evergreen meant that all union contracts compensation agreements would remain in force if the two parties could not agree on a new contract. I jumped in after seeing a reply complaining that the public should not be involved in the negotiation process (edited to fit a more bloggish format) :
Before Evergreen, if a public sector union did not get a contract resolved, the situation remain static; people had their jobs (e.g., teachers) and current pay / benefits while negotiations proceeded. Please note: if the employees do not like the conditions, they can leave and get a job somewhere better. Remember, NO one is entitled to anything – including a job. The problem with Evergreen is that the other side, the taxpayers, have no recourse. They have to pay the additional costs regardless of the expired contract. There is no way to "win" in this situation.
With respect to crying over the fact that teachers and public servants are "drastically underpaid" compared to entertainers and sports stars because of misplaced societal values
- They are not drastically underpaid and certainly not at the bottom either (do your homework vis-a-vis average / median wage comparisons which are open source available).
- Top level entertainers are not overly paid either.
If they really feel that they are severely underpaid, why would public service workers stay in the job? That would mean that they are stupid; I doubt that.
The reason for top entertainers (including sports) get the pay they do is that…
…people are willing to pay their companies a lot to watch their employees perform. These folks are the cream of the crop and the absolute number of them at that highest level is extremely small after years of winnowing. They just posses skills that average (or even above average) folks just do not have; thus, they are paid the premium for their services that they do.
I used to think otherwise until I sat and reasoned out "why does this seem to be unfair?" and came up with the answer: they ARE that MUCH better than the rest of us at what they do. Again, people are willing to pay that small handful of people – willingly! And because people pay that extra amount, it IS fair – a fair exchange of money for a performance that none of us could duplicate.
Sure, there are superstar public workers – but if it weren’t for unions limiting the disparity of remuneration, they too might be the beneficiaries of their inborn and honed talents. Look, every time the suggestion has been made to pay superstar teachers MORE than others, the unions have shot it down all over the country. LA, DC, NYC, Chicago – it’s been offered and rudely disparaged. So, blame the unions for keeping some teachers down below what they could be earning.
My FB friend Scott decided to pitch in, adding intangibles to the mix. Fair enough; there are intangibles associated with every job that have value to the person taking that position. However, the argument was simply concerning insufficient pay; in that, empirical evidence says the debater is wrong as there are sufficient people who ARE willing to take public service jobs at current levels of pay. If there were not, the pay would have to be higher. Or the intangibles, as he wisely point out, higher as well.
Well, of course, then the argument migrated to the unions’ favorite argument – if there were no unions, we’d be in a race to the wage bottom – their belief that the free market demands that AND thus, quality would suffer – in this case, education and the quality of teachers. My response was that if the person is unqualified, then the hiring officer should be held responsible to keep the unqualified from obtaining the position at any price (or worst case, for very long). Our educational system DOES need excellence (as opposed to just "qualified"), but the system has now been in place for 50 odd years is no longer working – and showing no signs of improving on its own – the metrics (such as we have) just are not showing any. Overall, quality is empirically lacking (why else would have NCLB ever made it into law?).
It also is the case that the education system manipulates the entrance door to keep the system as is. One person pointed out that he’d love to teach knowing that because of his work experience, he knows more than most teachers in that subject area but refuses to spend the time / money to get a teaching certificate. I agree; having been in the computer industry for 30 years; I think I know a tad more than many teachers in this subject area. I also teach those technical subjects and not just "do". Yet, I would not be able to teach in the school system as well.
And then my statement, which I will always hold to and which drives the Edu-Industrial complex absolutely ballistic:
It ISN’T that each child deserves a public education – they deserve a publicly FUNDED education
There is nothing inherently special about a government educational monopoly for K-12; the secondary marketplace, with a mix of both private & public institutions show that the private marketplace can do as good or even better job.
Further, earning a degree is NOT just a gaining of knowledge; it is also a tool for economic gain. People willing trade the educational loan costs for future economic value. I have nothing but sorrow for that girl that went to Princeton simply to be a daycare teacher – her parents & advisor should hang their heads in shame for putting her in the position of paying back 6 figure amounts on the pay of the average daycare teacher. Simply put, massive stupidity.
If parents are given back control (and I do mean give back) of how their kids are educated and let them direct how and where that publicly funded education money goes (yes, I’m talking vouchers and choice), some may choose to stay with the public system. Some may choose a private school. That is not punishing teachers. In fact, that would allow teachers to become their own entrepreneurs and earn a better living than simply working in the public system.
Options means choice; choice is a measurement of Freedom – more choices allowed means a greater degree of Freedom. In this case, economic and educational Freedom. However, the current educational system prefers the current governmental monopoly on the system because it allows the unions to directly affect election results – providing what is a positive feedback loop for the teacher unions and certain politicians but a negative to taxpayers and their children.
