Ya gotta love Teachers Unions

[EdWort]

From the Wall Street Journal today.

We don't need your Money!

The National Math and Science Initiative (NMSI) was started by Bill Gates, Michael Dell and other technology titans concerned about the declining performance of American students in math and science. The public-private partnership funds efforts to increase the number of students taking advanced placement courses in those subjects. But thanks to the Washington Education Association, a teachers union, the initiative's recent efforts in Washington state have been torpedoed.
Earlier this month NMSI announced that a $13.2 million grant slated for Washington state was being scrapped. Why? The contract ran afoul of the union's collective bargaining agreement. NMSI wanted to compensate teachers directly and include extra pay based on how well students performed on AP exams. But under the teacher contracts, the union is the exclusive agent for negotiating teacher pay and union officials refused to compromise. They were willing to turn away free money for their teacher members rather than abide this kind of merit pay.
State Representative Bill Fromhold, who was helping to administer the grant, told the Seattle Times, "We worked hard to try to find middle ground." But in the end, he said, "we got caught in the middle of the grant requirements and collective bargaining laws in the state of Washington that have to be followed."
Other heavily unionized states, such as Massachusetts and Connecticut, were able to reach agreements and will receive the math and science money notwithstanding similar bargaining agreements. And while the Washington union is spurning millions of dollars in grant money, it's also suing the state for the alleged inadequate funding of public schools. Hmmm. Could it be that union chiefs care more about protecting their monopoly than what students are learning?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121184546652121307.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

 

[TheJadedDog]

It's not just teachers unions, it's unions in general. The more I work with them, the more I realize the leadership is not interested in what is best for the membership.

 

[Ryan_PA]

Why policy would ever supercedes a child's education is call for top down reform of the system. To be honest, the entire protection of teachers in this society is a real point of contention with me. The reason they are in place is to teach kids, not to leverage the system to ensure personal and union longevity. Why there is not a firm, federal, merit based pay/pension system in place for the public educators in this country is a crime. As the majority of funding is provided by residential tax money, the public should have a very loud voice in the direction and administration of the school system, without union intervention.

Wow, this one fired me up.

 

[EdWort]

It's a shame we have such a system. Throwing more money at it never works. The money needs to follow the student so teachers and administrators have to compete for student dollars. They do this in Holland and their kids consistently kick our "government educated" kids butts every day. It's all about power to them and the children of America suffer every day for it. There are good schools, but for every good one there are 10 bad ones that graduate unprepared kids who must go through remedial education before they can even take college freshman level classes.

 

[ohiobrewtus]

That's just a shame if you ask me. Sounds like a good system and obviously concessions have been made elsewhere to accomodate the grant.

 

[Evan!]

It's not just teachers unions, or even just unions in general. It's socialization of education. You get gubmint involved in something, and then that government affords special labor unions more power under the law than individuals, and you have to expect idiocy like this.

 

[niquejim]

Why policy would ever supercedes a child's education is call for top down reform of the system. To be honest, the entire protection of teachers in this society is a real point of contention with me. The reason they are in place is to teach kids, not to leverage the system to ensure personal and union longevity. Why there is not a firm, federal, merit based pay/pension system in place for the public educators in this country is a crime. As the majority of funding is provided by residential tax money, the public should have a very loud voice in the direction and administration of the school system, without union intervention.

Wow, this one fired me up.

Getting the federal government involved will only hurt the situation. We (me included) expect so much from the government, but really how many things can one entity do and still be able to do them consistently, let alone well

 

[EdWort]

What does the government do well (without massive waste of tax dollars)?

 

[NateKerx]

I agree that the NMSI has reason to fear for the future of American math and science programs, though in my opinion, correction will require overcoming more formidable obstacles than a stubborn Washington teachers union. Where I live, in New York, one needn't worry that "union chiefs care more about protecting their monopoly than what students are learning". That monopoly is in the firm grip of the NY board of education, an organization bound to the federal governments no child left behind act.

The teachers I know show up every morning with the goal of educating kids, and then they arrive at school, read a memo from their administration, and are forced to scrap their curriculum in order to teach subject matter specific to the ECLAS, E-PAL, or Regents exams. What merits would be considered in this merit based pay/pension pension system Ryan? The ability to teach kids how to ace some arbitrary bull**** test? The ability to make it look progress is a reality of the modern U.S. education system?

Teachers can get new jobs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics considers job prospects to be "good to excellent", and employment of teachers is expected to grow 12% in the next 10 years. Good teachers can get more money if they want to, there are always school systems willing to offer more the right candidate more. What teachers can't get, what this country's education desperately needs them to be able to get, is adequate funding for ALL subjects, including math, including science, including art and music and phys ed, and they need this funding from their state and federal government. They need to be allowed out from under the ax hanging above their schools, the funding systems that only respect test scores, the funding cuts that only hurt kids trying to learn. Most importantly,they need the freedom and flexibility to work with their students in a individual and specialized way, in a way that actually gives these kids a shot at the future they're being promised.

 

[niquejim]

What does the government do well (without massive waste of tax dollars)?

Come on, they are VERY efficient at wasting tax dollars!

 

[srm775]

To be honest, the entire protection of teachers in this society is a real point of contention with me. The reason they are in place is to teach kids, not to leverage the system to ensure personal and union longevity.

Would you want to be a teacher if you had no sort of protection. Nearly all teachers didn't get into the occupation because they wanted to "strike it rich." It's a fairly underpayed (on avg.), unrewarding and sometimes dangerous occupation, so the protection from collective bargaining they receive from the union is one of the few things they have. Really, this case isn't about the teachers union, it's more about the laws enacted by the Washington State legislature (elected by the people) that's stopping this from happening.

Why there is not a firm, federal, merit based pay/pension system in place for the public educators in this country is a crime.

They tried this in the Chicago educational system ... it was and still is a monumental failure. Doesn't work.

As the majority of funding is provided by residential tax money, the public should have a very loud voice in the direction and administration of the school system, without union intervention.

If this were to happen ... you would very quickly see the "pool" of teachers graduating each year dry up. There is already a large gap in the number of teacher and the number needed, to place even greater demands on that sector would greatly discourage recent grads and college students from going into the field.

 

[TwoHeadsBrewing]

Someone PLEASE enlighten me on the subject of unions...because at this point in time I really don't understand them. I know that when unions were formed working conditions were horrible, children were allowed to work, etc. This was at a time when there were no child labor laws, OSHA, federal minimum wage, discrimination rules, or anything of the sort. I understand that at this time, unions were a great thing that provided workers with the security and safety they deserve.

However, now we have laws in place at the state and federal level to prevent abuses like this from going on. Minimum wage is dictated, discrimination on the basis of age, gender, and religion is prohibited, safe working conditions are enforced. What exactly do unions do for workers anymore, besides drive up the cost of labor and cause businesses to become uncompetitive in the global marketplace? In my opinion, unions are no longer necessary as the government has finally stepped in to mandate certain labor laws that ensure fair compensation, safety, and general proper treatment of their workers.

 

[srm775]

Someone PLEASE enlighten me on the subject of unions...because at this point in time I really don't understand them. I know that when unions were formed working conditions were horrible, children were allowed to work, etc. This was at a time when there were no child labor laws, OSHA, federal minimum wage, discrimination rules, or anything of the sort. I understand that at this time, unions were a great thing that provided workers with the security and safety they deserve.

Most Unions are fairly obsolete these days. One specific union I can think of is the pilots union for the major airlines. The pay demands they placed greatly damaged an already struggling industry. Not only their demands, but when they were granted their pay demands, other unions such as the mechanics and flight attendants unions used that as a bargaining chip against the airlines. I'm certainly not defending the management of airlines (who for years have mismanaged the companies), but the pilots unions is counter to a free-market.

However, some unions, such as teachers unions, police and firemen unions, that are paid with public funds and provide a public service are necessary. These are unions that operate in a "public good" industry, where the demands of a free-market aren't a factor.

 

[Ryan_PA]

Would you want to be a teacher if you had no sort of protection. Nearly all teachers didn't get into the occupation because they wanted to "strike it rich." It's a fairly underpayed (on avg.), unrewarding and sometimes dangerous occupation, so the protection from collective bargaining they receive from the union is one of the few things they have. Really, this case isn't about the teachers union, it's more about the laws enacted by the Washington State legislature (elected by the people) that's stopping this from happening.

That is one of the biggest fallacies circulating about teachers. They are more than fairly paid. most professionals are not protected. In most every profession in the country if you under perform, or if are deemed ineffective, your out by way of lay off or firing. Tell me, how is it that they are underpaid if they are getting better than average salaries from day one with 2-3 months of vacation time. I know the arguments that they need the time, blah blah blah. It is crap. Everyone needs the time, but the rest of us cope.

If this were to happen ... you would very quickly see the "pool" of teachers graduating each year dry up.

Proving my point as to why most people get into teaching. For personal reasons, not for the advancement of the children.

It is utter garbage to try to argue the merits of this system. I sit in an office of 80% "contracted" workers. This represents 50% of our labor force, the other 50% are of the same "contract" only oversees (thank you NAFTA). Something is broken in the system. We have less people competing for the high end jobs both domestically and internationally. Stroll though any physics, engineering or science department at any major US university and take a nationality poll, the results will only further my point. It comes down to people, process, or both. I think to fix the process, you need to really look at the caliber of people we put in place. I get really frustrated at the rate we import goods and services, and export core business knowledge and foundational skills needed for our daily business operations. We are literally pissing money away, and the comments above only further this thinking. We need to change things, and it is too late for this generation, it needs to start now for future generations, or else we even lose more of our grip on the world economy.

(and off the soapbox I go)

 

[TheJadedDog]

There are several major problems with public education in the US. For one funding is based on property taxes, this means schools in expensive neighborhoods have more funding than those in poorer neighborhoods; as time goes by the inequity gets worse and worse. Another issue is the lack of qualified teachers, especially in the math and science fields. Things like focusing on standardized testing, unfunded government curriculum mandates, and a concerted effort on the part of some officials to destroy and then privatize public education are additional problems.

There are ways to solve the problem like returning to basic, fundamental academics (no more jewelry-making classes), providing vocational training for those who want it, requiring all teachers to be certified in the subjects they teach, and distributing funding equitably. Too bad the politicians and special interests won't go for any of those.

 

[EdWort]

There are several major problems with public education in the US. For one funding is based on property taxes, this means schools in expensive neighborhoods have more funding than those in poorer neighborhoods

Not in Texas. People choose to live in an expensive neighborhood BECAUSE of the schools. My dad worked two jobs and my mom worked so his 6 kids could go to one of the best public high schools in Ohio. They sacrificed for our education.

Here in Texas over half of my school property taxes are seized by the Texas government and dispersed as they see fit. It's called the Robin Hood method of funding schools and it is broken.

Let the money follow the student and you'll see marked improvement.

Here's more info

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/stossel/story?id=1500338

 

[Ryan_PA]

...requiring all teachers to be certified in the subjects they teach...

As well as continued re-certification. They should have to keep up with the industry, not just their own developed course plans.

 

[kornkob]

While I appreciate the sentiment behind 'make the schools compete' I would be concerned that this would create more educational disparity in our country than we already have unless coupled with a requirement that a school cannot refuse entrance to a student based on past performance or expected future performance. Otherwise the people who need the most help with their education will have the fewest options, eventually leaving them to go to the most desperate (read: failing) schools who can't afford to say 'no'--- which probably also means they have fewer resources to devote to schooling.

I'd also worry about teaching becoming too much like some other careers, where constant movement from job to job is the norm (in order to maximize earnings). After all, good teachers will remember a whole family of students and their circumstances, which aids them in being better teachers for those students.


Personally, the biggest issue I have with public schools is that their funding is tied to property values (at least here and I believe in many other places). The more the surrounding community is worth the more money the school gets. This ensures that if a neighborhood starts to go downhill, the kids who live there will get a crappier education. And that just sounds stupid to me. If anything, kids of broke ass parents need more education, not less.

 

[srm775]

That is one of the biggest fallacies circulating about teachers. They are more than fairly paid. most professionals are not protected. In most every profession in the country if you under perform, or if are deemed ineffective, your out by way of lay off or firing. Tell me, how is it that they are underpaid if they are getting better than average salaries from day one with 2-3 months of vacation time. I know the arguments that they need the time, blah blah blah. It is crap. Everyone needs the time, but the rest of us cope.

Better than average salaries compared to what? Accountants? Lawyers? Engineers? Sales Managers? Nurses? IT professionals?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, primary education teachers (since that's what we're talking about), earn significantly less than most other occupations which require a secondary education. Teachers averaged between $47,750 and $50,630. Nurses, $62,480. Accountants and auditors, $63,180. Nearly all engineering positions ... $70,460 - $94,270. IT professionals (including actuaries)... $61,100 - $95,420.

If you want more information about salaries check here

Proving my point as to why most people get into teaching. For personal reasons, not for the advancement of the children.

This is a rediculous notion. First, regardless of personal motives ... we all work for one primary reason, to make money. To think that all teachers should be completely selfless is rather selfish on your part.

People won't be motivated to pursue, even if they have the best of intentions, a career as a teacher if they can't support themselves or family. That's it, plain and simple.

It is utter garbage to try to argue the merits of this system. I sit in an office of 80% "contracted" workers. This represents 50% of our labor force, the other 50% are of the same "contract" only oversees (thank you NAFTA). Something is broken in the system. We have less people competing for the high end jobs both domestically and internationally. Stroll though any physics, engineering or science department at any major US university and take a nationality poll, the results will only further my point. It comes down to people, process, or both. I think to fix the process, you need to really look at the caliber of people we put in place. I get really frustrated at the rate we import goods and services, and export core business knowledge and foundational skills needed for our daily business operations. We are literally pissing money away, and the comments above only further this thinking. We need to change things, and it is too late for this generation, it needs to start now for future generations, or else we even lose more of our grip on the world economy.

(and off the soapbox I go)

Huh? What does that have anything to do with teachers or teacher unions? Your anger at outsourcing of jobs is related to anything at hand ... how?

 

[TwoHeadsBrewing]

Huh? What does that have anything to do with teachers or teacher unions? Your anger at outsourcing of jobs is related to anything at hand ... how?

I think I get his point...the lack of a free market system in a teaching career naturally results in poor teaching performance. Poor teaching performance leads to less competent graduates, and causes businesses to look elsewhere for qualified canidates. If we were able to reward teachers for good performance, and teaching skill...rather than just the amount of years they teach or what grade it is they teach, I think we'd get better graduates.

 

[NateKerx]

We have less people competing for the high end jobs both domestically and internationally. Stroll though any physics, engineering or science department at any major US university and take a nationality poll, the results will only further my point.

why most people get into teaching. For personal reasons, not for the advancement of the children.

In my view, the relationship between these two points is undeniable. American students are graduating with degrees in medieval literature, eastern European history, psychology, degrees with which entry level positions are very competitive and very low paying. As far as masters degrees go, a master in education is relatively easy to obtain, and may be paid for by a fellowship or similar commitment/reimbursement program.

I'm confident that not everyone at your place of work is 100% passionate about their field, or that no one there has ever had very different career aspirations. People often take teaching jobs because they lack the qualifications or advanced degrees to secure more ideal employment. This is true for a large percentage of the workforce, it is not a teacher specific problem.

 

[Ryan_PA]

Better than average salaries compared to what? Accountants? Lawyers? Engineers? Sales Managers? Nurses? IT professionals?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, primary education teachers (since that's what we're talking about), earn significantly less than most other occupations which require a secondary education. Teachers averaged between $47,750 and $50,630. Nurses, $62,480. Accountants and auditors, $63,180. Nearly all engineering positions ... $70,460 - $94,270. IT professionals (including actuaries)... $61,100 - $95,420.

If you want more information about salaries check here

Your not quite going apples to apples. Turn that 9.5 month a year position into a 12 month position, as all of the comparison jobs you listed are, and teachers make $57,697 - $61,177. Not to mention there is additional schooling required for most of the positions you listed. This is why that argument is garbage.

Not everyone works to make money.

I am assuming this argument strikes too close to home for you.

Personally I work for money, and my wife works in the schools for non-verbal institutionalized developmentally challenged kids. She makes far under your quoted numbers, but she does it because she loves these kids and wants them to have a slightly better life. Again, not everyone works for money.

I could debate this one to the end, however, I will now bow out as this has gone far off topic.

 

[Germey]

I think I get his point...the lack of a free market system in a teaching career naturally results in poor teaching performance. Poor teaching performance leads to less competent graduates, and causes businesses to look elsewhere for qualified canidates. If we were able to reward teachers for good performance, and teaching skill...rather than just the amount of years they teach or what grade it is they teach, I think we'd get better graduates.

Yes, we would, but we have yet to come up with a way that really measures what the teachers do, rather than what the students do. My wife is a teacher (masters in Special Education - she specializes in kids with social and emotional disturbances aka "the bad kids'). Her First year was in an inner city school and she dealt with absentee parents, gang violence, union protection of her gang-banger assistant, and students attacking her. She made some noble progress and reached several of her students. By any system of merit based pay that I've seen, she would end up making much less than the teachers teaching the rich kids with tutors, computers at home, and educated parents. She probably would continue to do it, as that is her passion, but I won't say it's "fair".
On the subject of pay, I am very likely going to go become a Science teacher in the next 3 to 5 years. Doing so will be a 40-50% reduction in income to me. I want to do it for other rewards.
No union is perfect, (as is no system or government or individual) but the teachers unions primarily make decisions in the interest of the best long term education for all kids. It's unfortunate that they couldn't find a way to make the Gates' funding work, but the resistance to merit based pay is well founded.

 

[Germey]

One more thing, I always laugh when people start proposing the specific whats and hows of how teachers should do their job. I think turnabout should be fair play though. Lets start with Microsoft product designers!:cross:

Please, don't anyone take me too seriously on that. There is enough seriousness here already

 

[srm775]

Your not quite going apples to apples. Turn that 9.5 month a year position into a 12 month position, as all of the comparison jobs you listed are, and teachers make $57,697 - $61,177.

The position is what the position is ... regardless of whether they work 9 months a year or 12. They earn what they earn and that's it. By further extrapolating the numbers would be to imply that the teachers themselves have an option to extend the school year to full-year around.

Besides, look at the national averages for starting salaries of teachers. Less than one-year - 33,378, up to 4 years - $35,491, 5-9 years - $41,076. Compare that to the starting salaries of those occupations already listed.

Besides that, use some common sense ... how many "rich" teachers do you know? How many teachers do you know that are driving around in BMW or Lexus and flashing big bank rolls? How many teachers do you know that are in the upper income bracket? How many college students and grads do you know that are getting into teaching to "get paid?"

Not to mention there is additional schooling required for most of the positions you listed. This is why that argument is garbage.

To become a teacher requires the same schooling as it takes to become an accountant, IT professional, nurse, etc. So no, it's not really "garbage"

Not everyone works to make money.

No, but 99% of the working population would cite that their primary reason for working is to provide for themselves and their family.

I am assuming this argument strikes too close to home for you.

You would be assuming incorrectly. I know exactly one teacher and not very well, nor am I connected with the teaching field in any way. Remember what happens when you assume?

Personally I work for money, and my wife works in the schools for non-verbal institutionalized developmentally challenged kids. She makes far under your quoted numbers, but she does it because she loves these kids and wants them to have a slightly better life. Again, not everyone works for money.

Great, then you should be the first to realize that she should be paid more for all of her hard work. Which is the duty of the teachers union in collective bargaining. Without it and left the public, there would be very little funding, but increased demand on an already stressed system.

 

[david_42]

When I lived in California, there was constant whining about teacher's pay. But, for some reason, teachers as a group had the highest level of home ownership in the most expensive counties in the country, even though their pay was so very, very low.

 

[Germey]

When I lived in California, there was constant whining about teacher's pay. But, for some reason, teachers as a group had the highest level of home ownership in the most expensive counties in the country, even though their pay was so very, very low.

I'm sorry, but I have to call you out on that statement. I have and continue to live in CA and I don't see any more or less "whining" on the subject as anywhere else. Without numbers I have a hard time believing that "teachers" were more able to afford homes in an area than any any other group. I have never seen any statistics that track homeownership by profession.
Aside from all that, the construct of your argument is disingenuous. It's akin to spreading hearsay like "I hear they all eat puppies on the weekend!"
What are you specifically saying?

Did they benefit from special programs to own houses?
Were they getting more money that is not reflected in the publicly available salary info?
Did a large % of teachers marry rich spouses?
Did teachers in the regions all buy before prices spiked and caused a large turnover in the private sector?
What is it?

 

[srm775]

I'm sorry, but I have to call you out on that statement. I have and continue to live in CA and I don't see any more or less "whining" on the subject as anywhere else. Without numbers I have a hard time believing that "teachers" were more able to afford homes in an area than any any other group. I have never seen any statistics that track homeownership by profession.
Aside from all that, the construct of your argument is disingenuous. It's akin to spreading hearsay like "I hear they all eat puppies on the weekend!"
What are you specifically saying?

Did they benefit from special programs to own houses?
Were they getting more money that is not reflected in the publicly available salary info?
Did a large % of teachers marry rich spouses?
Did teachers in the regions all buy before prices spiked and caused a large turnover in the private sector?
What is it?

The one teacher I know, my brothers MIL, is a retired teacher and lives in a very nice section of Pasadena. While their house isn't exactly "perfect" it is worth a very lot of money ... and it's only because they bought the house in the very early 70's WAAAYYY before the price hike. I would venture to say that if the op did know a large percentage of teachers owning nice homes in So. Cal., it was due to early purchases and longevity of living in the home.

 

[Brewmasters Warehouse]

My wife is a teacher she could easily get another job that pays considerably more than what she currently makes. This proves that teachers are under paid and teachers choose the profession for reasons other than money alone.

I believe that the education system is broken simply because education is not a priority for everyone involved. The child and the parents being the ones that have the most control over thier education experiences. If the parents and/or the child want a good education there is nothing stopping them. Instead I hear stories of parents making excuses over why there child did this or that and it is not fair to punish them for this and that.

If you are a parent and have done this I understand why you try to protect your child, but you are not helping them in any way. There is a good education that is obtainable for just about everyone that wants to get a good education.

 

[ucrider]

You know what John Stossel says about the public school systems.... "What is more stupid than a monopoly? A unionized monopoly."

 

[TheJadedDog]

The position is what the position is ... regardless of whether they work 9 months a year or 12. They earn what they earn and that's it. By further extrapolating the numbers would be to imply that the teachers themselves have an option to extend the school year to full-year around.

Let me preface by saying that I agree with you 100% on teacher pay; however, since they only work 9.5 months for the money they are paid they do work at a higher hourly rate. In addition, teachers are able to work summer jobs (as many do) increase their total annual compensation. Finally, when you add in the pension and retirement benefits, it's not a half bad way to make a living.

 

[david_42]

"

... according to newly released census data:

� At the peak of the boom, in 2000, 87 percent of teachers who worked in Santa Clara County lived here. An additional 9 percent lived in nearby Santa Cruz, Alameda and San Mateo counties. Less than 2 percent commuted in from Contra Costa County or the Central Valley.

� Contrary to popular belief, about two-thirds of the teachers who lived and worked in Santa Clara County owned homes here, compared with 51 percent of the overall workforce age 21 and older living in the county and 61 percent of those with at least a bachelor's degree.

� Teachers also owned homes at a higher rate than many other professions, including software engineers, network administrators and accountants.

"

Santa Clara county is in the heart of Silicon Valley in the San Fransisco bay area.

 

[mr x]

Most Unions are fairly obsolete these days.

Really...? Remember this *********:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/us/24murray.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

There's a thousand more out there like him, and it isn't the government who will fight them, that's for sure. It's war out there, and while you and I might not agree on every action taken by each and every union, I know who I'm siding with.

 

[EdWort]

True, but the NEA is the biggest and most powerful union in the world and they have monopoly on our children's education. Because of them, it is very difficult to get rid of incompetent teachers whose salaries come from our tax dollars.

 

[mr x]

It can be a problem, but I don't think it's the biggest issue, it's just the easiest one for people to accept. The biggest problem I see in poor student performance is a lack of discipline in school and more importantly at home. Multi-tasking/over driven/three job families have left many children neglected. I personally don't think corporate interference is the answer. And nothing is stopping these guys from donating the money to schools anyway - so why do they need to have some control over salaries? Seems like there is an alternate agenda to me.

 

[srm775]

Let me preface by saying that I agree with you 100% on teacher pay; however, since they only work 9.5 months for the money they are paid they do work at a higher hourly rate. In addition, teachers are able to work summer jobs (as many do) increase their total annual compensation. Finally, when you add in the pension and retirement benefits, it's not a half bad way to make a living.

Yeah, I understand that they might have a higher hourly rate, but that doesn't negate the fact that they're still getting $38,000 per year, because they don't have the option to make the school year all-year long and make more money.

Pension & retirement benefits don't really factor in because most professions and companies offer comparable retirement benefits.

Really...? Remember this *********:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/us/24murray.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

There's a thousand more out there like him, and it isn't the government who will fight them, that's for sure. It's war out there, and while you and I might not agree on every action taken by each and every union, I know who I'm siding with.

Yep. But I said most, not all. There are some unions that are necessary (perhaps the miner's union is one), but there are many that aren't.