kevster

If terminations are based largely on "performance", then no - I would not expect anyone to hire that 55 year old teacher because she would have been fired for being a poor performer. This is the real world, and we cant afford to pay people who cannot do their job well. And we definitely cant afford to keep these teachers over their productive counterparts, just because they may have trouble finding teaching work. Its simple - do you job well, and you wont be the one going. People get fired and laid off everyday for various reasons. You have to think whats best for the children and education system. Not whats best for that 55 year old teacher who fell to the back of the pack at her school or district. I'm not saying seniority shouldnt play 'any' part, experience counts, but it certainly shouldnt be the seniority systems that unions are using today.

Regarding changes to the "last in, first out" policy that teacher unions use for layoffs. While seniority should be a factor, I would say it shouldnt be the 'main' factor. Having this safety net policy in place only breeds mediocracy within the ranks of older/tenured teachers. What reason do they have to improve, or do anything over absolute minimum if they know their job is safe if layoffs occur? We need to keep the best and brightest teachers - as this is one of the most important jobs right now and our public educational system is seriously lacking. We cant afford to be laying off bright young teachers. Without this safety net, I feel our entire public education system is to benefit. The worst performing teachers are the ones to go, while those who perform the best can rest assured that their job is safe, no matter how long they have been teaching. Budgets are hurting, there will be layoffs - lets make sure we are keeping the good teachers, not just complying with a seniority law that needs to go.

Looks like some teachers unions are getting the message that people want to see reform. "Responding to criticism that tenure gives even poor teachers a job for life, Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, announced a plan Thursday to overhaul how teachers are evaluated and dismissed. In her plan, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, addresses criticism of tenure. It would give tenured teachers who are rated unsatisfactory by their principals a maximum of one school year to improve. If they did not, they could be fired within 100 days." "The issue has erupted recently, with many districts anticipating layoffs because of slashed budgets. Mayors including Michael R. Bloomberg of New York and Cory A. Booker of Newark have attacked seniority laws, which require that teacher dismissals be based on length of experience rather than on competency." Looks like there are laws in place to protect "senior" members in some of the larger teacher unions. The questions they are asking now is who would be responsible for evaluations and improvement plans. The school administrators or the unions? Looks like at least some positive reform may be comming due to the recent budget issues and public-union criticism. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/education/25teacher.html

IMO he isnt telling koch everything he wants to hear. His stance in private is largely what he has displayed Q: Koch says - "Now you not talking to any of them democrate bastards are you? A: Walker - Actually I called one of them on Saturday for 45 min Q: Koch says "we are thinking about planting some trouble makers" A Walker - we thought about it but decided not to Koch - You know we have a vested interest Walker - The bottom line is its the right thing to do

Luckily for workers in some states, their representatives are looking to change the current laws in their states that say "you are required to join a union and pay dues if a simple majority choose to be in said union". They want to say 'you have a choice'. Many states offer this right now to their citizens. The current public-union rights are not set in stone, afterall this is what is currently being discussed in states right now. Your stock analogy is a great example of majority rules in a specific situation. Although equating it into an argument to prove a point against right-to-work legislation makes little sense. Also - I think it is incorrect to say that in open state shops, the minority imposes their will on the majority. How are they preventing the ones who want to join a union from joining said union? If the majority chooses to join a union, they can. No one is impossing their will on the other.

Thanks for the in detailed explaination on the starting a union, but the bottom line is that it only requires greater than 50% of employees to agree to it. The remaining are forced to join and pay money out of their wages to this organization. No one can seem to answer Hootenany's question regarding why individuals cant have the freedom to choose to join a union or not. 22 or so states offer this freedom to those employed in their state. You say an individual "had the option when the vote to join the union was held' - thats not the case when they all are forced to join even if they voted not to during the election. If the unions are truly beneficial to that particular group, then people will voluntarily join. If wages and conditions become bad, people will want to join/start these union to improve these yeah? Voluntarily.

I would hardly consider it a contract between "two private persons". It requires only a 'simple majority' vote to create a labor union. If a business has 100 labor employees, and 51 want in. That means 49 current employees do not want to be a part of the union, but would be forced to join and pay the dues. Right to Work laws grant employees the choice of deciding for themselves of joining or support a union.

While you make some valid points here - lets all remember that the debate is in regards to public employee unions. The employer is the government. The government is not a for 'profit' organization, but it IS an organization that must operate within its budget. edited for typo

Not if the only way to stop it is to prevent a vote. If your governor threatens to shoot your constituents for standing up for themselves, then preventing a vote is a very measured response. I fail to see how refusing to participate in a democratic vote is an appropriate response. That is not how a representative democracy/republic works, and if this were to become the new norm in politics - where those who seek to undermine a vote, to skip town and hold the vote hostage and demand ammendments, then I fear for the future.

Your take on his post seems rather narrow minded. Never once did he say anything about all minority firms being unqualified or lacking of experience. What he said is that we should hire the best group for the job, not being concerned about fulfilling some kind of quota based on ethnicity or location. If a particular "minority" firm brings the most to the table for the job, then great - if not, it would be unwise to seek the services of that particular firm.

Yes - I've been there once. When they first opened the Invisible Slavery exhibit, after hearing talk about it on the radio.

I think you have this reversed. The animosity is DUE to the lack of success. Which is normal. The place cant pay for itself, said it wouldnt need funding, and now is trying to ask for some. Sounds erily similar to our losing bengals team that many are showing animosity to.

HUH? 400,000 visitors. I dont think so. The center reported 108,000 visitors in the first 11 months of 2010. They certainly didnt get an addition 300,000 in December. BTW: 108,000 is more than they had in 2009.