HouseArbitrators don't give a shit. An arbitrator's job is to hear both sides of the argument and make the fairest decision, which then both parties are bound by law to follow. If either party is not content all they can do is appeal the decision.
Ok, 1) how is the arbitrator to be selected? 2) how is his decision to be enforced? Our IA bill provides the monopoly of decision on courts.
If they do so illegally they will face criminal penalties. This goes without saying.
That is useless. If the teachers start a general strike, which they are bound to sooner or later if they have no bargaining power, with wide support (most people will be uncomfortable if the state forces teachers into low income brackets), criminal penalties will be useless.
DanHow the hells is it undemocratic? What's more democratic then an individual personally voting on what to teach their kid by doing it themselves?
You just want to crank out state indoctrination, which is kinda a piss-poor philosophy for a supposed commie.
Children are property of the nation, not a few individuals, and are to be educated in accordance to what the nations needs them to become. Allowing the tyranny of a few individuals over a child is not democratic.
As for the rest, I already proposed what is acceptable:
- evidence of incompetence must be provided by the watchdog committee (union delegates included)
- if proven incompetent, to be put on probation:
-Teachers with 2 years of tenure will be given one month probation.
-Teachers with 5 years of tenure will be given two months probation.
-Teachers with 10 years of tenure will be given 6 months probation
-Teachers with over 15 years of tenure will be given a years probation
- if failed probation, to be terminated
I have to problem firing incompetent teachers.
Are leftists really this disconnected from reality? Unions defend any moron who pays his dues, no matter how incompetent.
I am aware, and that is their purpose. That's why they will have to ensure, togther with other interst groups, that any lay-off is justified.
That's exactly the point of education. To get the best as well taught as possible so they can drive the nation's research, policy, and industry, and to get the others taught enough so that they can be productive citizens.
No, that is the point of higher education.
The point of intermediate education is to provide future workers with general and basic skills for existence in modern society, as well as give them equal chances of accessing higher education, not increase the chances for a few and the expense of the rest. Segregation will stunt development, as it will prohibit intellectual stimulation for the majority by keeping them in a self-sustaining, self-fulfilling mediocrity.
ThunderhawkIn much of the West at least, Teacher's unions now act for the betterment and empowerment of the union and then the benefits of the teacher. The well being of the children and the educational system is usually only paid lip service.
That is fair enough, although I suspect not entirely accurate.
stfu
