More apparent public union hyposcrisy

August 5, 2016

PEF, one of the leading state-worker unions, is constantly berating the State for contracting out work that it claims should be performed better and at lower costs by its members.  Here’s a Times Union item that reports the union representing some PEF legal workers has complained that PEF is contracting out some of their work.  Especially ironic is that the contract employees will be representing full dues-paying PEF members, while PEF’s own employees will be representing agency shop payers who have opted out of union membership, a group about which it presumably cares less.


Charter school success?

August 3, 2016

This New York Post story suggests that NYC charters have worked a miracle — closing the heretofore intractable racial achievement gap, and outperforming even affluent conventional public schools.  If this is true, why haven’t other news outlets picked up the story?  If it’s not true, in whole or in part, why hasn’t anyone refuted it?

I don’t think charters are miracle workers, and I am somewhat skeptical of reports of huge successes.  But I also think they do a lot of things better than conventional public schools (which are adapting to meet the competition), such as providing greater support and a longer school day and year.  Charter students are also more likely to come from more supportive homes, since parents need to take many affirmative actions to have their children attend charter schools.

So where does the truth lie?

 


What goes around . . .

August 3, 2016

This little item in the Albany Times Union (the longer story linked to in the item is behind the paper’s pay wall) about the burden of rising pension costs is unusual only because of the employer — NYSUT, the teachers’ union.   NYSUT’s own management is clearly aware of the burdensome costs of benefits for its own employees, and its officers appear to be willing to take a cut while they negotiate similar cuts with their employees’ union.

Of course, NYSUT’s role as bargaining representative for its members is different from its role as an employer, and it is charged by law to represent its members’ interests.  In playing that role in contract negotiations, I don’t think NYSUT would be receptive to the concept of givebacks by its members.

What I suspect I won’t see is any of the school districts asking for the kind of givebacks NYSUT appears to believe warranted with respect to its employees (and leading the way by imposing them on their own staff).  One reason for public employee unions’ great success has been the lack of aggressive counter parties representing the taxpayers in contract negotiations, though I am sure the School Boards’ Association would argue to the contrary.  There are many reasons for this: the understandable urge (especially when spending other peoples’ money) to show appreciation for the good work teachers do, the large financial and political clout of the unions, and the fact that the better the deal for teachers, the better the deal for management, who must of course, be paid more than the rank and file in the trenches. Of course, in a competitive market for teachers, salary and benefits must be competitive, but smart management would make sure they were regardless of union pressure.

Recently, a caller to one of our local public broadcasting stations expressed the dilemma of wanting to support local public education but wanting to remain in his house, which was becoming increasingly  less affordable due to rising school taxes, among other things.  The moderator pooh-poohed him with the usual response — “nothing’s too good for our kids.”

Like that caller, I see both sides, and I certainly don’t want to return to the days of exploitation of teachers.  However, I wonder who is representing this taxpayer, and how strongly.  Only when both sides have equal bargaining power can a reasonable balance of interests be struck.