The Tolerator wrote:I didn't say that unions have always been evil. You're correct on the points about the typical job. My point is that unions have outlived their usefulness.
So you were for unions in the bad old days, but are against them now. Why the flip-flop? What has fundamentally changed in the relationship between management and labor that negates the need for unions?
The Tolerator wrote:Consider teacher's unions. They represent people who basically work part-time and have everyone convinced they are underpaid.
Prior to teachers' unions, teachers had to individually negotiate their salary (with few, if any, bennies). Even after unions were certified, teacher salaries were extremely low. I made less than 10K a year in my first couple years teaching in Madison (the mid to late 70s). Until the Milwaukee Brewers started claiming unemployment compensation during the off season, teachers also were eligible for u.c. The law was amended after the word got out that professional athletes were collecting.
The term moonlighting came about because so many teachers had to take a second job in the evening (by the light of the moon) to make ends meet.
You might call teachers part-time, but during the summer they are required to take expensive college courses in order to keep their certification. Check out what grad credits at UW go for. Physicians keep their license for life without such a requirement, but if teachers don't return to the classroom, they would soon lose their jobs.
I don't know what you do for a living (but would like to find out), although I guarantee that if you switch places with a teacher for a day, the teacher would be able to muddle through, while you would leave screaming by noon.
Btw, Tolerator, what exactly do you tolerate?