Submitted by CrassostreaVirginica t3_11ea3x6 in rva
VCUBNFO t1_jad47od wrote
Reply to comment by LostMyLedger in Richmond Public Schools principals unionize by CrassostreaVirginica
Why do you think unionization of principals will be better for students?
weasol12 t1_jad651n wrote
Collective action can more adequately advocate for system wide needs than one person complaining at a school board meeting.
ManBMitt t1_jadfq7k wrote
I used to live in Chicago which has an incredibly powerful teacher’s union. Teachers get paid pretty well (median salary over $80k/year in a fairly inexpensive city), but from a school quality perspective the main results were frequent long strikes that closed the schools down and staying remote-only during COVID for far longer than other school districts around the country (which obviously impacted the poorest students the most).
I have yet to see any non-biased evidence that public sector unionization results in better quality public services.
kneel_yung t1_jadiwav wrote
If there's no teachers to go on strike, because nobody wants to work for shit pay and be treated like garbage, is that a better alternative? Because that's what the current reality is
The few people I know in the teaching industry wouldn't even consider working for RPS as-is.
redditrva456 t1_jadlwep wrote
Sounds like 2 problems.
Inadequate teachers providing lack luster education.
Underpaid roles in general in RPS system.
CadenVanV t1_jaf1oc7 wrote
When teachers have to provide all the supplies in their classrooms themselves, education quality tends to suffer. Fund the teachers and they can actually teach well
redditrva456 t1_jaf2nrp wrote
If you’re argument is the teachers have to provide all the supplies, then I think you meant to say “supply the classrooms and they can teach well”.
Align your request to your complaint.
ManBMitt t1_jadnbn7 wrote
If an employer needs to raise pay in order to attract enough qualified candidates to fill open positions, then they will do that regardless of whether a union is present. If they don’t do that, then that has more to do with the employer’s incompetence than with the employees’ bargaining power.
Realmofthehappygod t1_jadpkec wrote
Right, we need employee's bargaining power to counteract employer's incompetence.
That is the main issue.
STREAMOFCONSCIOUSN3S t1_jaei1if wrote
In this case the employer is the taxpayer. Why haven't the taxpayers of Richmond city voted to raise educators' pay?
kneel_yung t1_jaeot9r wrote
The school board would be the employer.
CadenVanV t1_jaf1sx5 wrote
Because the school board chooses how to allocate funds and the current one is the shittiest institution on earth. The taxpayers have no say over this
Hedgiepotamus t1_jaes9z9 wrote
Bullshit. They pass laws lowering standards and move the goalposts. Ex: Why attract and hire more subs when they can force current teachers to give up planning to watch classes? Planning we need to make lessons and grade and do IEP work and do PDs and and and. This kinda shit is rampant. They aren't incompetent. They are very intentional in not spending the money. Teacher and administrator unions are not the baddies. My union spends half our time advocating for changes that would be of benefit for students mainly. Because teachers and administration give a shit about students and we are often some of the only people catching systemic issues. So it falls on us to advocate for solutions. Your black and white understanding of how the world works is failing you spectacularly.
sirensinger17 t1_jaf3eoe wrote
Ex teacher here. No they won't. They'll just keep the bad teachers instead of hiring better ones. And then decent teachers like me leave cause we know our skills will be better appreciated and better paid elsewhere
kneel_yung t1_jaeggw1 wrote
> If an employer needs to raise pay in order to attract enough qualified candidates to fill open positions, then they will do that regardless of whether a union is present
Unless they can still turn a profit anyway, in which case they absolutely don't have to if they don't want to.
DefaultSubsAreTerrib t1_jaeb1mr wrote
>staying remote-only during COVID for far longer than other school districts around the country
I would point out that RPS did that without a principals' union
GMUcovidta t1_jadrgha wrote
It works the same way in Pennsylvania
VCUBNFO t1_jad6l39 wrote
How so? The entire executive team hasn't been able to collectively get a lot of things that would make the schools better.
Unionization would make it more difficult to fire poor performers though.
LostMyLedger t1_jad7v26 wrote
The staff gets fucked over by the board all the time. Schools have way too much to deal with and there voices usually go unanswered. My government class had to spam email the board to get simple changes to be heard. Small fixes like AC being broken for weeks we had to fight to get them to even acknowledge the problem. So big issues like rats, pay cuts, teacher quitting, fighting and staff gets involved, and now school shooting prevention are hard to get them to listen. Maybe you’ve never been to a Richmond school but go to a basketball game or something and look around. There are internal problems that the news dont cover and small issues add up.
weasol12 t1_jad80fr wrote
Abbott Elementary is that you?
foureyeswithbeard t1_jadcd72 wrote
I literally had to stop watching 2 episodes in because it hit too close to home.
sirensinger17 t1_jaf3mez wrote
Schools already can't fire poorly performing teachers cause there's no one to replace them. No one's entering teaching because the pay sucks, the culture is toxic, and they're not appreciated
DrunkonKoolAid t1_jad5mnu wrote
Happier better paid staff = better education for students. Do you want to do your job when you're paid squat and have less resources annually?
Marino4K t1_jaehhxh wrote
Now if only Henrico and Chesterfield got on board.
ManBMitt t1_jadek1c wrote
There’s very little evidence (I.e. non-biased scientific studies) showing that unionization has a positive impact on job performance, and there’s quite a bit of evidence that unionization has a negative impact on job performance. Though admittedly, most of the studies that are out there focus on the private sector rather than the public sector.
There is lots of evidence however that unions increase pay and improve working conditions.
So if your concern is that school principals are underpaid and have poor working conditions, then unionization is likely to help that - but only at the expense of an already-tight RPS budget.
If your concern is that RPS principals aren’t doing as good a job as they should be, then unionization is likely a step in the wrong direction.
VCUBNFO t1_jad6cpi wrote
Why don't we just pay them more rather than unionize them?
Unionization generally creates a lot of red tape for removing people for poor performance.
kneel_yung t1_jadjadq wrote
> Why don't we just pay them more rather than unionize them?
Well, why don't we?
edit: *crickets*
kickingpplisfun t1_jaeritf wrote
Gee, it's almost as if collective bargaining works.
RVAVandal t1_jad6v6p wrote
Sounds like you're getting your info about Unions from Fox news and the Capitalist class.
plummbob t1_jadbgv3 wrote
> and the Capitalist class.
​
what exactly is that
chairmanbrando t1_jadd7ih wrote
It's only the very thing that has been holding this country back for decades with stagnant wages while productivity and corporation profits continue to rise.
[deleted] t1_jaedlhu wrote
[deleted]
plummbob t1_jadetov wrote
>stagnant wages
​
​
Besides, absent land rents, capital share of net income isn't even that great
​
class conflict is a nice theory if you need to a distant other to blame when you have actual market power from economic classes
but for locally caused problems -low public amenities, poor schools, underperforming infrastructure, high housing costs, pockets of intractable crime are all entirely RVA's locally sourced problems...and is it really the uber-rich causing the poor performance the these things?
​
​
take this bonkers of a story. kinda hard to blame jeff bezo's for unsafe streets when its the residents themselves that turned out to protest improving them
gravy_boot t1_jadj2dy wrote
> doesn’t look flat to me
Is this data normalized to the cost of living, or anything else?
plummbob t1_jadk2rl wrote
whenever you see the word real in something like real income or real wages in a dataset like this, it means its adjusted for inflation.
gravy_boot t1_jaekpay wrote
Here's another image. It doesn't say real on it, but it is.
[deleted] t1_jaeddpr wrote
[deleted]
VCUBNFO t1_jad7um3 wrote
Sounds like you're getting your info about unions from unions.
Charles_Britt t1_jad909q wrote
And everyone knows the primary source is always the least accurate information
VCUBNFO t1_jad97u5 wrote
The groups that would hire union groups vs non-union groups generally prefer non-union groups to have better performance.
Primary source, as you say.
OrtizDupri t1_jadavs5 wrote
> The groups that would hire union groups vs non-union groups generally prefer non-union groups to have better performance.
- citation needed
Charles_Britt t1_jadc7bt wrote
From the US Department of Labor
>Labor unions improve wages and working conditions for all workers, whether they are union members or not. Unions help reduce wage gaps for women workers and workers of color. Union members have better job safety protections and better paid leave than non-union workers, and are more secure exercising their rights in the workplace.
Seems like unions do some cool shit.
kneel_yung t1_jadjo36 wrote
Union workers do better work because they're more experienced. Non-union tend to be younger
CadenVanV t1_jaf20a5 wrote
Unionization also creates a lot of red tape for removing people in general. So now employers can’t call whatever they want to “poor performance” and firing employees for their shoe color is a little less viable
[deleted] t1_jaf3rjx wrote
[deleted]
BureauOfBureaucrats t1_jadbax4 wrote
They’re not going to get paid more without a union to represent them and fight for it.
kickingpplisfun t1_jaergk1 wrote
You definitely haven't actually been involved with a union if you think that, except maybe a police union. Employees need other protections than just pay, and employers rarely give out substantial raises without collective bargaining, and are also empowered to create unsafe working conditions and discriminatory environments without someone to tell them to piss off.
Prestigious_Laugh300 t1_jadljwc wrote
"If we can't expel/suspend problem students, we all quit" type of thing
dovetc t1_jadolo7 wrote
Well that perspective might make sense. There was a story here a week or two ago that something like 90% or more of cases for expulsion were overruled by the school board. If principals, who are on the ground dealing with these problems are having their judgements overruled in nearly all cases, maybe it's best if they have a bit more leverage in such matters.
localheroism t1_jae5e56 wrote
I think this is pretty much the key issue tbh, principals and teachers who are the ones actually doing the job are having to deal with school boards and administration who are usually incompetent, overreaching, and, especially lately, polarized beyond the point of actually being helpful. I think the more directly that teachers can effect change in their schools the better, so hopefully principals being given more of a voice will help with that
GMUcovidta t1_jadrlyq wrote
Why shouldn't they be allowed to expel and suspend students?
Prestigious_Laugh300 t1_jadstza wrote
Presently the cocksuckers on the school board don't let them
GMUcovidta t1_jadto4w wrote
Lol I read your comment as they shouldn't be allowed to - I agree it would help other kids learn if you can remove the children that are perpetually problematic
VCUBNFO t1_jaf4m3r wrote
Because suspensions often disproportionately impact specific demographics, so there is a big push to mitigate that disparity by suspending less.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments