Comment by morpheuskafka | Hacker News Reader

Comment by morpheuskafka | Hacker News Reader

I generally support teacher labor movements. However, I think it's important to consider the effects that even the smallest disruption. For example, last year in NC the teacher's groups organized a "Rally for Respect." What they did to bypass strike laws was they encouraged every teacher in the state to request unpaid personal day, which is normally rubberstamped by the principal as you only have a couple. When half the school wants leave, that would be when you stop signing them. But instead, to avoid that conflict, nearly all major districts cancelled school entirely, treating everyone taking leave as a foregone conclusion.

So, one extra teacher workday, barely even worth noting, right? Well, it just so happens that the day selected was the day of the AP Lang exam that year. By the time they saw fit to announce the non-strike, all of the exams had already been ordered and students and teachers had been planning for the normal date. Thanks to the non-strike, the state had to pay $45/exam to get late exams, and it could have caused some students to miss the exam if they had to take a conflicting exam late for a legitimate reason. Oddly enough, College Board wouldn't have charged if it were a real strike.

The whole point of strikes is that they are disruptive.

But when government workers strike, they don't disrupt the legislatures that set their pay, they disrupt the everyday citizens who might have even been sympathetic to their cause.

Yes they do -- These strikes have been incredibly effective. If ordinary citizens are not sympathetic to the teachers but sympathetic to the legislators, they have a distorted view of the situation, probably from right-wing, anti-union media.

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. Of course strikes are disruptive to the general public; that’s one of the reason people strike. Ordinary citizens who have their lives disrupted will turn to their elected officials to end the disruption. There will always be people who turn unsympathetic when workers withhold their labor. The long-term benefit is worth it.

As an ordinary citizen affected by, I support privatization where possible and at-will employment regimes for public servants where not. Public servants are privileged and should not have the right to strike.

So if public servants are forbidden from striking and their employer (govt) starts abusing them, what would be their recourse? Voting might be insufficient if size of the workforce is too small to matter.

In general, strike is a tool labor has against capital. Just because capital happens to be provided by taxpayers, how does that warrant a special case handling?

They can always quit. But nobody quits from guaranteed for-life employment with generous pensions, lots of paid leave and limited workload.

Public school teachers don’t have any of those benefits, at least in the US. Their pay and pension are anything but generous, they have little paid leave (where I live, maternity or paternity leave uses up paid sick days too), and they work long hours, with the expectation that they are available to answer emails practically every day.

This is pretty much why there are very few public school computer science teachers who do a decent job, since the ones who can legitimately write code can get a much better job at a private company.

They have little paid leave because they have summers and other holidays off, and as for answering emails - welcome to having a job in America.

When you factor that they only work 2/3 of the year, the value of their pension and healthcare teachers actually make a considerable amount of money.

That being said I’m not sure what the right amount is - I put a great deal of value on education - then again the best private institutions probably pay less than public ones at the k-12 level

Same can be said about private sector workers. Then why have separate rules for public vs private?

They can vote their bosses out and they usually have statutory civil servant protections as well.

When government employee unions negotiate with their employers, they negotiate with a political actors who, if they act right, get support from the union for their next re-election.

The incentives encourage political actors to bend to the unions will to receive donations or endorsements in their next election.

Typically this is called a conflict-of-interest.

What do you mean specifically by "should not have the right to strike"? As in, they should have their right to free association limited? They should be forced to work under penalty of jail time?

You're right, to some degree, public sector employees have stronger labor protections than private sector employees. However, we disagree in that I think these protections are a good thing, and I support nationalization where possible and private sector unions where not. Everyone should have the right to strike.

It causes more parents to say "screw it" and put their kids in private schools. And now those parents have a lot less reason to support public school funding.

People rich enough to put their kids in private school are a tiny minority. It doesn't matter what they think. This is a working class movement for working class people.

No, they aren't. The average private school tuition is about $10k a year [1]. Ones affiliated with religious institutions like Catholic schools often offer subsidized tuition for lower income people. It's within reach for a sizable portion of the middle class. In many states, private school tuition is tax deductible.

Granted, cheaper private schools are more common in the less affluent areas (namely, the South) where it's essentially taken for granted that the moderately well off and above send their kids to private schools. If you're from a wealthy coastal city with public schools good enough that the wealthy are comfortable sending their kids there, then it's understandable why some may associate private schools as being more exclusive to the upper class.

1. https://www.privateschoolreview.com/tuition-stats/private-sc...

Median household income in the US is $65k. $10k/year/ child is not affordable for most households.

You also mention religious schools. Why should a person have to indoctrinated in a religion to receive a good education?

> Median household income in the US is $65k. $10k/year/ child is not affordable for most households.

Er, no? Assuming it's tax deductible most families can probably make some lifestyle changes to free up $10k. Sure it might inhibit other goals, like building up saving or consumer spending. But it's a sacrifice that many people can make if they have a strong incentive to do so (like if the local public school is crap). And this is ignoring any sort of subsidy or assistance.

> You also mention religious schools. Why should a person have to indoctrinated in a religion to receive a good education?

I mentioned them in context cheaper private school education. Not to mention, the fact that you immediately leapt from "religious school" to "indoctrination" indicates that you seem to be approaching this with your conclusions decided a priori and are looking to justify them rather than participate in good faith.

> lifestyle changes to free up $10k.

Seriously? Do you have a family? Raising kids is really expensive, even without sending them off to public school. After rent, food, clothing, medical care, and transportation, there is not much left.

As for your comments about religious school, I am basing my comments on real the real world experience of having gone to a religious school for 7-years. All of these schools require some type of education about the school’s founding religion. At a minimum, we are talking about a regular class. Many schools require their students to adhere to the standards of the religion during the course of the school day. Please explain to me how this is not indoctrination?

If an extra $10k out of an overall family income of $65k is impossible then I'd say that this family isn't managing money well. Were they not putting anything into savings before? Did they have no savings? Again, it'd be a significant sacrifice to afford private school - I've said so since the beginning - but it is possible for a lot more than just "a tiny minority" (your original words).

> All of these schools require some type of education about the school’s founding religion. At a minimum, we are talking about a regular class. Many schools require their students to adhere to the standards of the religion during the course of the school day.

And from this, you jump to "indoctrination". I and other family members have been to religious schools as well. One of my sister's closest friends was Jewish, and went to Catholic without any type of issue. And both my sister and I are about as atheistic as you can get. If merely teaching a class about the founding religion counts as indoctrination then this is a very, very permissive definition of indoctrination you're using.

Advocacy of a specific religion should not be part of a citizen's formal education. Private religious schools receive public funding and public accreditation, and they should not, nor should any other private school, for that matter.

I'm not sure why you're mentioning public funds, seeing as it was never brought up. Regardless, public funds can only be used for secular education: https://www.pewforum.org/2009/05/14/shifting-boundaries5/. Public funds can be spent on religious schools provided that the funds go to secular education within those schools.

The above commenter immediately claimed that private religious schools are "indoctrination" - despite the previous comment only mentioning religious schools in passing (since they're generally less expensive than secular religious schools). That kind of intense blanket leap to a serious allegation is not indicative of reasonable view on the subject, regardless of one's opinions on public funds going towards religious schools.

About 22-23% of school age children in Seattle, WA go to private schools.

Are you validating my point? Less than 1/4th of all children in one of the wealthiest metropolitan areas in the country.

10% of students nation-wide attend private K-12 schools [1]. This is not "a tiny minority".

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=55

This is pedantic. 10% is proportionally a very small number. I'm far more invested in the interests and priorities of 90% of people than of 10% of people.

In Seattle about half of school age white kids go to private schools. Half of the largest demographic.

Also, I don't believe that you are more invested in the 90% over the 10% unless the 10% is a group you disfavor -- such as parents who refuse to condemn their children to bad public schools if they can help it.

I condemn the rich who want to isolate their kids instead of working on a public school system accessible to all, yes.

It's oddly transparent to limit your stats to white people.

When corporate workers strike, they don’t disrupt the board members and major shareholders that set their pay, they disrupt the everyday customer who might have even been sympathetic to their cause.

They do tend to disrupt profits, which in turn does disrupt the board. Since board members tend to be large shareholders or representatives of large shareholders, they would personally feel the effects of their net worth decreasing.

Strikes by government workers disrupt taxes and affect elections. What’s the difference, really?

Private unions are fine. Government unions are problematic because the interests of taxpayers and the government officials that negotiate with the unions are not in alignment.

Government office holders benefit greatly if they take care of the government unions in terms of campaign donations, endorsements, rallies, and so on. Taxpayers not so much.

Why else do government union employees get outsized retirement benefits that have caused disabling debts to local governments?

That is what happens when the taxpayers' negotiator personally benefits from keeping the government unions happy happy.

I don’t see that the union is a particularly important part of what you describe. The same things could happen without a union. The misaligned incentives are the same either way.

Yeah the few things they have gotten here and there have been pretty unimpressive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com