Here is a NP article, addressing another point that should be added to the 5 above.

“Indeed. Walker understands that a one-time giveback means little. The state’s financial straits — a $3.6 billion budget shortfall over the next two years — did not come out of nowhere. They came largely from a half-century power imbalance between the unions and the politicians with whom they collectively bargain.

In the private sector, the capitalist knows that when he negotiates with the union, if he gives away the store, he loses his shirt. In the public sector, the politicians who approve any deal have none of their own money at stake. On the contrary, the more favorably they dispose of union demands, the more likely they are to be the beneficiary of union largesse in the next election. It’s the perfect cozy setup.

To redress these perverse incentives that benefit both negotiating parties at the expense of the taxpayer, Walker’s bill would restrict future government-union negotiations to wages only. Excluded from negotiations would be benefits, the more easily hidden sweeteners that come due long after the politicians who negotiated them are gone. The bill would also require that unions be recertified every year and that dues be voluntary.”
Indeed. Walker understands that a one-time giveback means little. The state’s financial straits — a $3.6 billion budget shortfall over the next two years — did not come out of nowhere. They came largely from a half-century power imbalance between the unions and the politicians with whom they collectively bargain.”
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/25/charles-krauthammer-magnificent-turmoil-threatens-union-power/

It is the relationship between the politicians and the public sector unions that creates an imbalance of power that favours teachers unions and other public sector unions.

Make mine Earl Grey, bag in.

Ms. Dare, let’s please get the facts right this time.  We have had this discussion before.

#3:  Teachers are paid by the Board for time spent out of the classroom, that’s true.  What you fail to acknowledge is that the money is reimbursed to the board by the union - that’s what our union dues are for.  This is revenue neutral - it costs the boards nothing.

#2:  Really - are you seriously trying to posit that?  The boards - as every employer in the country - must make deductions and pass those on.  Are you saying that it is an imposition that the board collects income tax for the federal government?  You are also forgetting that payroll systems are computerized.  Standard deductions are input once/year - would take about 5 seconds - I’ll spot you the $1.50 or whatever it costs for that enormous expenditure of manpower.  You are also forgetting that I, too, am a taxpayer - I contribute to my own expenses.

#4 Mailings - some may.  Meetings - you forget that meetings are held outside of school hours.  Therefore, we are not paid for that time.  Furthermore, we do not need to attend.  Finally, if we do stay some additional time for the union, how does that contribute to costs?  No one is allowed to be present except union members - and I have already said that we do not get paid for that time.

#5 ? Really don’t know - could you be specific?  I have never heard of this.

#1 That’s true.  No one is forcing me to put gas in my car, or heat my home - but do I really have a choice?  Yet, I don’t hear anyone worrying about the enormous amounts of money oil companies have access to and can spend money on political contributions.  I could work in cash only, no credit card or debit - but do I really have a choice in today’s society?  I don’t hear you complaining about the banks and their billion dollars/quarter profits.

Nancy, it has been widely reported on CNN and other sources that the Wisconsin teachers have already stated they will pay for their own benefits and make wages concessions as necessary to help balance the budget.  Political commentators from both the left and the right agree that Mr. Walker’s push has nothing to do with balancing the budget.  Furthermore on Parker/Spitzer last night, one of the commentators brought up the point that Texas is a work free state - there are no unions.  Yet Texas has the second highest deficit in the US.  Also, they raised the idea that Mr. Walker inherited a budget surplus but quickly ran up a huge deficit by providing tax cuts for the wealthy (kind of like Paul Martin - Stephen Harper).

Let’s be frank - you don’t like the union because it is
part of the public sector.  However, that does not give anyone the right to trump up charges that have no basis in reality.  You don’t complain about the private sector which has even more clout than the union.  Fine - I would love to see all lobbying outlawed.  Let’s agree on that - no one, private or public would be allowed to contribute to political campaigns or make political advertising.

#5 is true, the money goes towards the union doing training and professional development, etc.  More PD courses = moving up the pay grid, is that right? 

I can send you the Min. of Finance link with the millions of dollars spent on this.

#2 While it is certainly more practical for these deductions to be made by the employer, Malkin’s points are valid.  It still saves the union tons of aggro from trying to collect their membership dues from you. Other professionals pay their dues to their respective associations through direct billing to the individual and not via payroll deduction. It all depends what the arrangement is at a particular firm
In the case of the teachers’ unions, and other unions, they have negotiated this into their contracts.

There are many situations when tax is paid directly and not via an employer—especially when individuals have income outside of their regular employment—such as tutoring businesses on the side or income from small rental properties for example.

#3 I think Malkin’s very subtle point is the fact that they get the time in the first place. And, yes while the union reimburses for salary, there is a cost of replacing the seconded teacher.  Who pays for that? I honestly don’t know and ask sincerely.

Fact is the public never sees the unions’ financial statements even though they it may be said make take their revenues essentially from a public source.

Wayne, my point was, “:It is the relationship between the politicians and the public sector unions that creates an imbalance of power that favours teachers unions and other public sector unions. “

Public sector in Canada will be feeling it. There is already plans to lay off 1500 (not sure if I remember it correctly) employees at the federal level, and the prosecutors in Quebec are up in arms, and the latest is that newly orthopedic surgeons, are having a tough time in getting a position anywhere in Canada. Mind you the health authorities states that there is a shortage of orthopedic surgeons, and thus the long waiting lists. Nova Scotia teachers are looking forward to layoffs. BC teachers are faced with the same thing, and the Alberta government is asking teachers for concessions in some of their benefits, or the boards are doing the asking.

In any case the unions or the associations are up in arms, for asking workers in the public sector to take concessions. There is also bits and drips of opinion articles, saying in many different ways that the public sector unions have too much power, because they can make life miserable for government and the public. Work to rule, right to strike, and other rights, that public sector unions should not have in the first place.

“#5 is true, the money goes towards the union doing training and professional development, etc.  More PD courses = moving up the pay grid, is that right?”  Yes and no Doretta.  The courses needed to move up the pay grid are provided by the teachers colleges, not the unions - and they are paid for by the individual teacher via tuition fees.  The PD that the Ministry is paying for is the stuff they want to foist upon the teachers (anti-bullying, social justice, getting rid of phonics).  You’ve made the case for the ministry infecting the union.

“There are many situations when tax is paid directly and not via an employer—especially when individuals have income outside of their regular employment—such as tutoring businesses on the side or income from small rental properties for example.”  Now you’re making the case for the self- employed.  Employers are required by law to make any and all deductions required by law (remember, I was also an employer).  Sorry, Malkin’s points are not valid.

“#3 I think Malkin’s very subtle point is the fact that they get the time in the first place. And, yes while the union reimburses for salary, there is a cost of replacing the seconded teacher.  Who pays for that? I honestly don’t know and ask sincerely.”  The union.  Also, it then becomes valid for me to ask a counter point:  When the board wishes to brain wash every math teacher and removes them from the class to attend meetings for three days to be told that in math it is not necessary to get the right answer - who pays for that?

“Fact is the public never sees the unions’ financial statements even though they it may be said make take their revenues essentially from a public source.”  Fact is no one will ever get to see the financial statements of my restaurant - and I took my money from the public too.  Like my restaurant (a private corporation), the union is not publicly traded and therefore, there is no requirement that they do so.

I know the public (both here and in the US) is looking for a scapegoat.  Fact is, like Wisconsin, it is not the public sector unions that are to blame for the current state of the economy/politics.  Again, commentators from both the right and the left agree that the current recession is due to the greed of bankers on Wall Street - not Mrs. Smith in her grade 5 classroom.  Who had the greatest clout in the US political scene - the public sector unions?  wall street bankers?  Please think about it.

Finally, again: I am all for unions staying out of politics - as long as everyone else does.

Well the tax rules have changed since you were an employer. 

If on April 30th the difference you owe Rev Can for your tax retrun v. what you paid over the year through payroll deductions is greater than $2,000, then in the next tax year you will be sent a bill to pay directly on installments for what they estimate the tax owing will be.  This applies to all taxpayers now. 

I know it seems a quibbling point. But it is to show the exception is not as rare as one might think.

On original point of the post, third party advertising is only going to get worse because of access to money.  Is this fair? Maybe yes; maybe no.  In the meantime, I expect the “Working Families” Coaltion and other third party organizations fronting for various unions will do their thing regardless.

When the union members get to decide directly how their own dues get spent maybe things will change—and they’ll only get control over their own money if they decide to whom, when, and how they pay it.

“Is this fair?”

Nancy, I understand where you are coming from, but I will use Malkin’s and Doretta’s premise to answer you.  You have referenced Governor Walker.  The public sector unions did not create the recession - Wall Street did.  The public sector unions did not create the deficit in Wisconsin - Governor Walker did.  Now, Mrs Smith (the hypothetical Grade 5 teacher) has been demanded to take less money, pay more for benefits and lose her rights.  Is this fair?  Mrs Smith has said she will take less and pay more, but wants to retain her rights - the governor has said no.  Is this fair?  His measures - even as seen by conservative commentators is nothing but punitive.

Doretta, nothing has changed in the tax laws.  Employers are only allowed to deduct tax based on the actual amount earned.  If an employee has income outside of work, the employer cannot deduct for that, and it has always been up to the employee to make up the difference.  Why are you trying so desperately to uphold Malkin’s incorrect thesis? - starting to sound dogmatic.

Furthermore, since the union finances are another problem you raised, here is a link to the OSSTF web site, you will find financial statements for the last 3 years:

http://www.osstf.on.ca/Default.aspx?DN=210fa7ac-ddb9-4e57-a86f-28c74de00fa5

Although not required, OSSTF has freely published them for you.  I assume the same to be the case for the other unions.  You cannot say the same for private corporations.

And speaking of private corporations, you are silent on those - you keep going on about public sector unions.  You want the public sector out of political campaigns, but you say nothing about the land developers, the pharmaceutical industry, automobiles, banks, tobacco industry, oil companies - every special interest group you can imagine.  You want the public sector out, all the rest in - is this fair?

I agree with you - take the public sector out, and every other special group with them - is that not fair?

The whole economy is not multinational corporations.  Small and mid-size business didn’t create the recession, nor did the self-employed or commissioned either, but they all had to deal with it, especially those with private sector unions/  They’re not all CAW/UAW.  Now it is the public sector’s turn to deal with the after-effects.  I agree, it’s not fair, but that’s the way it is.  Fact of life I’m afraid.

Yes, public sector employees pay taxes, but their salaries that are effectively recycled taxes.  Unless the private sector creates wealth and growth, public sector renumeration becomes a ponzi scheme.

Regardless of who created a recession (and I’ve now suffered through three serious ones in my over 30 years of married life), the economy takes time to adjust.  Small and medium business lay off, cut back and try to hold on until it is over. Even public sector unionized employees eventually are affected by the “trickle down” effect of a reduced tax base.  This is economics 201.  That is what is happening in Wisconsin, California, New Jersey and in Ontario as well and their respective governments are trying to hold on short of going bankrupt in some cases.

I appreciate the link to the statements.

Fact is union members have little say over how their dues are spent.  If Malkin’s “thesis” is that public teacher unions have a built-in unfair advantage is incorrect, I guess you’ll just have to show me otherwise.

Neither did the GM workers on the assembly line, but they ended taking a giant hit for GM. And probably more concessions down the road. I feel more for them, only because I know the nasty strikes of GM in the early 1960s. I was just little, but I still have memories of my father putting a lock on his lunch box, to prevent dead rats from entering into it.  But it was those old strikes in the private sector in the 50s and 60s that made labour an important voice in politics. But things have change, to where the public sector unions is the only voice being heard among the din. It is why the private union strikes are turning into long strikes, or lock-outs, or bringing in scab labour or all 3, because it does not hurt anyone, besides the workers’ families.
When public sector unions go on strike, it is notice right away, and in the media daily. So, unlike the Vale strike and there is still 35 workers on strike hoping to cobbled a contract. It is the power that the public sector unions have, and they are not afraid to use it.

From another blog, “What explains this power of public sector unions? The answer is that public sector workers produce services that are free to the public and that face no competition from the private sector. At the same time, politicians face direct and grave consequences if strikes inconvenience the public while the consequences of covering higher labour costs through increased taxes are relatively minor, especially in a world of economic growth and automatically rising tax revenues.”
http://hgrubel.blogspot.com/2010/05/public-sector-unions-and-fiscal.html

Why isn’t someone paying for tuition for upgrading teachers?  One would think, a primary teacher might want to take a course or two on reading, learning systematic phonetic reading. I am talking about something that the teachers’ colleges do not offer. Or the science or math teacher, taking a highly technical course on robotics, for the robotics club or class. Or the gym teacher, taking a course on synchronized swimming to teach it to his or her students?  I do not really think, that PD days really can cover all the areas that a full course over the summer can, and how effective are the PD days for transferring anything that has been learn to the students, compared to a full course taken over the summer time?  I was just wondering, because I think teachers would take advantage of courses that are paid for, and would be a boost for the school that the teacher is in.

“Yes, public sector employees pay taxes, but their salaries that are effectively recycled taxes.  Unless the private sector creates wealth and growth, public sector renumeration becomes a ponzi scheme. “

In today’s news, and chatter and even on the open-line shows today, the topic is being talk about.

Ponzi scheme: “A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

I really would not describe the public sector as a ponzi scheme, I would describe it as a monopoly, where services and the resources are tightly control, in order to pay for the higher wages that are being commanded by the public sector compared to the private sector. No competition, and an eternal forever pot of tax monies to draw from.

Here is one small example of the millions on the net, and in this case about public education. “Why not? Would you keep going back to a restaurant that served you a bad meal? Or a barber that gave you a bad haircut? What if the government assigned you to “your” grocery store. The store wouldn’t have to compete for your business, and it would soon sell spoiled milk or stock only high profit items. Real estate agencies would sell houses advertising “neighborhood with a good grocery store.” That’s insane, and yet that’s what America does with public schools.” 
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338

That is what Canada does too, the excellent schools are usually in the high rent district, and the resources and services become lesser as one goes down to middle-class and than the low income schools.

Monopoly is define as: “All industries have costs associated with entering them. Often, a large portion of these costs is required for investment. Larger industries, like utilities, require enormous initial investment. This barrier to entry reduces the number of possible entrants into the industry regardless of the earning of the corporations within. Natural monopolies arise where the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, has an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual or potential competitors; this tends to be the case in industries where fixed costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market - examples include water services and electricity. It is very expensive to build transmission networks (water/gas pipelines, electricity and telephone lines), therefore it is unlikely that a potential competitor would be willing to make the capital investment needed to even enter the monopolist’s market.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

And here is a Canadian link: “Maybe this should not be a surprise. Education departments have one curious feature that would be tolerated in few other sectors. In the business of delivering education paid for by public funds, they have a monopoly. If any private firm dominated an activity as exclusively as education departments dominate public education, the commissioner of competition would order it to open up to competitors. (For example, Canada’s Commissioner of Competition acted against a cartel of chocolate makers for colluding over chocolate prices earlier this year). Just as customers of private monopolies are powerless because they cannot take their business elsewhere, students in the public education system are at the mercy of the all-powerful provider.

The way forward is more parental control. Only when students and parents have more control over how their share of public education funding is spent will the needs of all students be met inside the public system. Many in the system are hostile to greater parental control but, in the end, becoming more responsive and inclusive will be essential to the system’s survival.”

Read more: Lack of competition threatens public education system’s survival | Troy Media Corporation http://www.troymedia.com/2009/05/21/lack-of-competition-threatens-public-education-systems-survival/#ixzz1F1bpKNRn

I still maintain that the public sector cannot be compared to the private sector, because most folks cannot take their business else where if they are unhappy with the services rendered. In public education, they do have an unfair advantage including the unions, they have a captured market that for most people have to used, and the power to control who can take their business elsewhere.

Teachers’ unions have become a big gorilla and they can do whatever they please; it is legal.

Historically unions have been useful; when work conditions were dreadful and salaries were barely adequate to survive they were a mechanism to balance the employer’s power. Low-skilled, semi-skilled workers easily replaceable had no other way to get and protect a minimally decent standard of living.

Are the teachers working in such circumstances today? As professionals do they still need this protection?

I find it very funny that with the exception of people working for the government the only unions that are powerful today are protecting low-skilled and semi-skilled jobs. What other professionals that do not work for the government are unionized?

It is what it is and by being so out of whack with the reality of what salaries and benefits other working people of similar or better qualifications have these unions will contribute to their own destruction sooner or later.
Did anybody believe 3 years ago that the auto workers’ wages and benefits would ever change?

Outside the education field salaries of over 70,000 are not that common. Jobs that pay that much usually require overtime on a regular basis and - of course - good performance.
I’m not saying that everything is perfectly measured, I’m just saying that in the next recession the most likely people to get laid off are the ones that don’t deliver value for their salaries and that the more expensive you are the more value you need to deliver.
Of course the process is far from perfect, it is open to subjectivity and unfairness but the bottom line is that everybody knows that due to the economy there will always be periodical layoffs and that people - especially more expensive people - are scrutinized and let go at that time if they haven’t delivered.

And one other thing, paper qualifications, courses while helpful to get an interview and perhaps to get hired don’t matter that much in the long term if your daily work is not of decent quality.

Teachers should get a grip on reality.
One profession I’m familiar with that is paid similar to teachers is project managers for medium to big projects that have at least 5 years experience and have project management certification.
We are talking 1 to 2 year long projects with 15-30 professional people working full time on the project.

” If Malkin’s “thesis” is that public teacher unions have a built-in unfair advantage is incorrect, I guess you’ll just have to show me otherwise.”  Nice sidestep. Doretta, you’re at good at it as Dean Little.  You still haven’t answered my question - are you against all lobbying, or just public sector unions?

I’m not against lobbying. That’s not Malkin’s point at all.

Doretta,

Here is Malkin’s post:, “Of course, Mr. W is right about the democracy part, but he is not taking into consideration the disproportionate amount of power wielded by the teachers’ unions.”  and “Taking all of these subsidies into account, the annual revenues of the Ontario teachers’ unions are realistically equivalent to well over two hundred million dollars. Against this, the amount of money and power individual citizens can wield pales into insignificance.”

What was she implying the union’s power over the government is supposed to be? Did she think we were spending that money on tea? 

I see you guys are not interested in debating the facts.  If you were, then these last two articles would never have been posted - we’ve already discussed this before.  Your ‘facts’ have been refuted before, yet here you present these ‘facts’ again.

I find it very uncomfortable defending a union that did nothing to defend me - but I am very concerned about the truth.  What has gone on in these posts is what I can only describe as propaganda.  If you do not wish to honestly debate the facts, and merely wish to fabricate lies, then, like TDSBNW, I must also depart.  I get enough propaganda from the union, the board and the ministry, I don’t need it here too.

Sorry, I’m not getting why are we discussing the unions.
As much as I think that the unions are doing a lot more harm that good in our society at this point in time and as much as it makes me very angry how the unions secure disproportionate benefits that we have to pay for, I don’t see how discussing unions is going to change what students learn in school.

If it is not the unions who decide what teaching methods and what curriculum are used in schools and how the schools are organized then why are we focusing on them?

Personally I’m more concerned about the condition in the teacher’s employment contract that, if I understood correctly, forbids them to discuss or comment the MOE’s curriculum and guidelines.

Where I’m coming from is that most parents expect a school to do what schools have done historically: teach their children the basics, and if the child is capable and motivated, then more than the basics.
Because of that expectation, they don’t look too closely at things as long as their child doesn’t get in trouble.
A lot of them assume that if he, the parent, does not get called to school, if the report card says mostly good things about his child then everything is ok, his child is learning well and his child behavior is appropriate.
Little does the parent know that both learning well and appropriate behavior mean something completely different today from let’s say 40 or 50 years ago or from his home country!
Then, if the parent has an inkling that things are not quite what he expected and goes to talk to the teacher, the teacher give them the party line how the “progressive” methods are the best possible.

The problem as I see it is that this condition of employment forces the teachers to add to the credibility of the MOE approach, whether or not they think MOE is right or not.

The majority of people find comfort in holding the majority opinion. If the government tells them that the current schooling is good, if the teachers tells them its good, if parents around them tell them “well, that’s what everybody does; it works for my son, why do you think your son is different?” the average parent would go with the flow and hope for the best because that’s what everybody is doing.
After a few years of such institutional and peer pressure even parents that are not happy with the education their children receive give up and resign themselves because their hands are tied.

If we can somehow lift the veil of this institutional and parent peer pressure before the parents give up - usually around grade 4-5 from what I learn from the parents I talk to - I think we would see that there is a demand for “traditional” education.

“The problem as I see it is that this condition of employment forces the teachers to add to the credibility of the MOE approach, whether or not they think MOE is right or not.

The majority of people find comfort in holding the majority opinion. If the government tells them that the current schooling is good, if the teachers tells them its good, if parents around them tell them “well, that’s what everybody does; it works for my son, why do you think your son is different?” the average parent would go with the flow and hope for the best because that’s what everybody is doing.
After a few years of such institutional and peer pressure even parents that are not happy with the education their children receive give up and resign themselves because their hands are tied.”

And then the school officials scratched their heads, why students are not engaged in their studies. Or their behaviour. From what I have read and observed,  parental support is lost at the beginning of the high school years because of the institutional and peer pressure that Europe has suggested. But as well as the teachers contracts that forbids criticism of government policies in education. Unions are the vehicle that is being used to enforce the mandates of the education ministries, and in turn it prevents parents from openly criticizing education policies of the school, in fear of making a situation for their child worse.

It is win-win for teachers’ unions - a small price to be paid for increase salaries and the other perks that goes with the job.

I am beginning to lose my respect for this site. The Society for Quality Education is anything but ’ A Society for Quality Education’  it is becoming a capitalist agenda to privatize education.

Europe,

Thank you, finally the voice of reason.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the moderators of this site.  The latest blog? A right wing ‘rant’ (by their own admission).

Let’s see - ““The first seven minutes tell the story” - wrong, the title “The Right Scoop” tells the story.  The story is also told by the other contributors:  Bill O’Reilly, Anne Coulter and Glenn Beck - the bastions of the Tea Party.  Really Malkin, you’ve outdone yourself.

Anne Coulter, did she not tell a UWO student to go fly on her magic carpet if she didn’t like the US immigration rules?  Oh yeah, here’s a quote from the Toronto Sun:

“Fatima Al-Dhaher, a political science student from London, rose and spoke about comments Coulter made after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The firebrand Republican had suggested Muslim countries be invaded, their leaders killed and all Muslims converted to Christianity. She later suggested Muslims denied air travel take “flying carpets” instead.”

It’s not just the fact that you have abandoned your mission of promoting quality education to become a Tea Party mouthpiece, but it is also the people you have attracted.

Adieu

I am transcribing the following points on behalf of Doug Little who, as a former Ontario teachers’ union official, should know.

1.  Closed shop granted by Tory Premier Drew in 1945. Closed shop standard union business across democratic world.

2.  Boards collect dues. So not a favour, all negotiated.

3.  Unions pay the replacement costs of teachers.

4.  Meetings, mailings, etc. all negotiated with democratic governments, no favours.

5.  The union meeting usually follows the staff meeting, but principal and VP must leave. All negotiated, no favours.

The money (government grants for professional development courses) was easily negotiated between the province and the feds. The federations are not just unions; they are professional organizations as well. The province wanted to run courses through the unions.

The high school teachers’ union sold off its jet five years ago.

The following two points are made on my own behalf.

I have long appreciated Mr. Wainscotting’s contributions and hope he continues to post. I take my hat off to a teacher who not only acknowledges some of the serious shortcomings in Ontario public education but is also willing to speak out about them publicly.

I am not in favour of abrogating the rights of the Ontario teachers’ unions to carry out political activities. I am simply pointing out a) that their power is disproportionate and b) their disproportionate power is not only hindering education improvement but also injuring the province’s economic prosperity (because of both poorly-educated citizens and mounting debt and unfunded liabilities). I do favour measures that would reduce the disproportionate power of the teachers’ unions (and unions in general).

But does the teachers’ union head staff, fly first class or the economy class?  Do they try to reduce costs at their headquarters?  Are the professional courses effective to produce the goals and aims of the reason why the courses exist. in the first place?  Some of the answers to the above questions can be answered at the OSSTF site, and here is the link for a newsletter called Update. Apparently they are reducing costs somewhat, to prepare for battle in the next election.  They are seriously worried about the possible shift of voters from Liberals to the Conservatives.
http://update.dgtlpub.com/2011/2011-02-14/home.php

At the end of the update, there is something of interest in the ads/classifies. The nice discounts offered to union members, and the ads asking teachers to become tutors, in privately run businesses. The subtle put downs on the national chain tutoring companies, and tutors who do not hold a teacher’s certificate are quite evident.

http://www.inspiringtutors.ca/For-Parents

http://www.findatutor.ca/find/tutor/1/0/0/39

And yet, getting extra help in the basics of reading, writing, and numeracy is a difficult task within the public education system.

Yes, public service unions have a perfect right to lobby government but in doing so they are walking a very thin line with respect to the public trust.  FDR’s opinion on public service unions hits the right note with me.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/worth-recalling-fdr-was-no-fan-public-employee-unions

(the linked article within the above-referenced link is a very interesting read with respect to public service unions in the US)

In any event . . .

* I know of no other lobbyists who have the ability to cripple the economy of an entire province through job action like we witnessed over Bill 160, which, frankly, was hardly draconian since it greatly benefited both separate and rural schools.

* I know of no other lobbyists who have the ability to use children as shields to deflect, often very valid, criticism of escalating costs associated with demands on either public policy or public money.

* I know of no other lobbyists who are in the position of heavily influencing the selection of their employer(s) and then calling subsequent negotiation of almost every condition of employment, “bargaining”.

You’ve already got your cake - monopoly, collective bargaining with an entity that has taxing and public debt as an income/benefit safety net, a broad sphere of influence through direct contact with children and their parents, union costs borne by the public* - yet, having it isn’t satisfying enough, you still want to eat it.

*I don’t care if it costs 5 cents/employee (and as I’ve done payroll, that figure is highly debatable).  Unlike the other deductions you mention, these transactions have no overall *public* benefit, therefore the union should be collecting their own dues. Would you feel it perfectly reasonable if an organization like CFIB (Canadian Federation of Independent Business), for example, *negotiated* that Revenue Canada collect and pass on membership dues as part and parcel of the source deductions obligations of its members? 

Schools (at least in my area) aren’t free for use by other organizations. Like these organizations (some of which are actually charitable), unions conducting union business should be required to pay for their own meeting halls.

Aside from that you have made some factual errors:

Wisconsin Teachers’ Unions have reluctantly agreed to pay part of their pension and benefit costs.  They have not agreed to pay for all of their benefits.  The various school districts will still bear the lion’s share of these costs, now and in the future (which is by far the biggest problem).  One of the issues that is not well known but is behind some of Walker’s desire to limit bargaining to wages is that, as collective bargaining stands, the selection of the insurance carrier is a bargaining matter. The Wisconsin Teachers’ Union happens to be affiliated with such an entity - WEA Trust.

http://www.publicschoolspending.com/www.publicschoolspending.com/spending-analyses/wea-trust-report/

More information regarding Wisconsin teachers wages and benefits:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164290717724956.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion#articleTabs=article

I believe there are other assertions you have made with respect to the Wisconsin situation but it would likely not be all that constructive to debate as neither of us live there.  I do however think you need to do a bit more research on the state of Wisconsin’s finances.  It is just not that simple. 

Texas is not a ‘no work’ state -  for which I’m sure some, at least, are eternally grateful.  It is a ‘right to work’ state which means that nobody can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.  There are unions in Texas, yes, even Teachers’ Unions.  What public service unions do not have is the right to strike and they do not have a ‘collective’ bargaining mechanism.  However, they are still consulted by school boards and that input is influential.

Employers can most certainly deduct more income taxes than required by law from an employee.  The employee can ask the employer to do so on their TD1 form and the employer is required to comply.

I don’t really understand your question/point with respect to who pays for training requirements of your school board (employer), but I think that is fairly obvious, we all do. 

From what I can see, in looking at contracts, teacher leaves while on union-business could not be called revenue neutral.  The reimbursement to the board by the union is limited to the cost of the involved teacher(s) at their daily rate of pay.  This would not include administrative costs with respect to hiring replacements or pro rata benefit costs.  You may have different information.  Frankly, as a taxpayer, I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

Let the people that don’t agree leave.  Seriously is that a threat? I love this blog!  When i was dealing with education issues and I stumbled onto this blog it was my saving grace.  That’s why people come here, to have a voice.  I’m a stay at home mom with 2 kids in the public education system.  I volunteer at the the school and I observe.  My oldest is in grade 6 and I had my first run in with a progressive teacher this year.  He not only didn’t learn anything he regressed because there wasn’t even a quick grade 5 review after summer.

I’d like to think that all of us concerned parents had a part in his removal but i think it was more his blogging against the establishment.  Whatever though he’s gone and in his place is a great teacher.  My son came home and told me “I’m gonna be late tomorrow because Mrs. X said she would be here to help us with fractions so i’m gonna stay late”.  I’m sorry it was music to my ears.  I am so thankful that i have a principal that listened to my concerns and that my son hasn’t lost an entire year and he has the other half to catch up on his basic skills.  I was seriously considering pulling him and home schooling him.  I cannot even believe that in one generation it’s gone so downhill.  I absolutely believe in traditional education and I’m shocked at what it’s become.

I also have to say i know so many good teachers (i’m related to a few) and all the good ones I know are not the least bit concerned about merit pay, the bad ones i know are terrified of it.  Gee I wonder why?!  Look at all those great teachers in charter schools without union protection, every time I see them interviewed they’re full of enthusiasm and they truly love their job.  I would have no problem if we cut out the middle man and all great teachers make 100K+ because they deserve it and they should be rewarded.

The bottom line is there has to be accountability.  My son’s prev. teacher (the one that was replaced) was there just before the bell rang in the and was putting on his coat to leave as the bell rang.  He had plenty of time to blog and twitter about the cause….what with no lesson plans or grading.  He didn’t believe in grades or tests, it was all about learning to learn and google time.  How about you teach basic skills in the day time and I teach google time in the evening, I’d much prefer that.  It’s ridiculous!

I think you do a great job and I absolutely value this site for getting the facts.  Thanks for that!

I’m not one to comment often even though i visit your site daily.  Mostly because i find most comments absolutely reflect my view and are so well written (Nancy).  Keep up the good fight, I love this site. 

Ps. thanks for the stairway to math, it’s been a lifesaver this year!

Several months late in coming to the discussion, but unions touch a nerve with me.

I wonder how many people who would make great teachers didn’t go into the field because of the limitations placed on them by unions?  I’m originally from the States and entered university with the intent of getting my teaching degree.  Within 2 weeks I was fleeing the program.  The politics involved made me sick to my stomach.  It didn’t seem educating children was the focus at all.  I was about social programming, joining the NEA and influencing government for individual benefits. 

I briefly considered going back to school for the year it would take to get my certificate when I moved to Ontario, then I remembered the muzzle of the unions.

I have come to realize I am much more effective in helping children and advancing their needs as a parent then I ever could have been as a teacher.  My daughter’s teachers have told me they are not allowed to dialogue with me via e-mail because of the unions.  Principals cannot ask teachers to meet with parents when the parents get off work because the unions forbid it.  I have watched teachers lose the light in their eyes because they cannot voice an opinion and stand up for the very children they chose to dedicate their lives to.  I get phone calls that “never happened” asking me to advocate for change.  My heart goes out to these teachers who have had the tape placed over their mouths by the boards and unions they serve.

Unions have had their time and place, but I strongly feel they have overstepped their boundaries and many times, usefulness.

It’s never too late Chandica.  We hope you enjoy our blog and continue to comment!

If you keep reading forward, you will find subsequent postings about unions that I think will interest you. This may be a bit of understatement….