are you seriously comparing brain surgeons to teachers? thats just silly.
This sort of makes me think you are not reading what I'm writing. Go back and take a look.
its absolutely pathetic that you would consider voters reducing a benefits package to teachers as "holding them hostage".
I am saying that without the power of collective bargaining, they could hold them hostage; your original assertion that I replied to was that teachers / public sector workers do not need unions. Sorry if it sounded like I meant that this particular instance means they are being held hostage.
the people don't want to.
Great. I'm saying the people are wrong in this instance, insofar as that is what they want. Do you ever see laws passed that you disagree with? Are you satisfied when people say "that is what the people want"?
who decides the relative value of their work?
No one definitely decides this, it is a collaboration between voters and lawmakers. You ask that question as if I am the only one making a judgement about the relative value of their work. Anyone who has any opinion on how much public school teachers should get paid is making a judgement about that, whether they know it or not.
they don't have to do the work.
But, as I explained several posts ago, someone will still have to teach those classes. If benefits are not good enough, higher-quality employees will leave and lower-quality ones will take their place.
the public sector will never be able to match the private sector in terms of salaries, because the public sector does not create profits. its a fools errand to even try.
The public sector creates a lot of profits, just indirectly. How much profit can a business make without police / firemen / teachers? The compensation system we have in place doesn't recognize this (and neither do you, apparently). If what you're saying is true, why don't we just pay all teachers $20,000 a year? It could save a lot of money and won't have any impact on education at all.
no, its the reason that public sector employees are generally paid less.
You've haven't presented any logic for why this should be the case.
well yes, their paychecks and benefits are mandatory deductions from their earnings.
How much of those paychecks are the result of a good education and well-enforced laws?
no subject
This sort of makes me think you are not reading what I'm writing. Go back and take a look.
its absolutely pathetic that you would consider voters reducing a benefits package to teachers as "holding them hostage".
I am saying that without the power of collective bargaining, they could hold them hostage; your original assertion that I replied to was that teachers / public sector workers do not need unions. Sorry if it sounded like I meant that this particular instance means they are being held hostage.
the people don't want to.
Great. I'm saying the people are wrong in this instance, insofar as that is what they want. Do you ever see laws passed that you disagree with? Are you satisfied when people say "that is what the people want"?
who decides the relative value of their work?
No one definitely decides this, it is a collaboration between voters and lawmakers. You ask that question as if I am the only one making a judgement about the relative value of their work. Anyone who has any opinion on how much public school teachers should get paid is making a judgement about that, whether they know it or not.
they don't have to do the work.
But, as I explained several posts ago, someone will still have to teach those classes. If benefits are not good enough, higher-quality employees will leave and lower-quality ones will take their place.
the public sector will never be able to match the private sector in terms of salaries, because the public sector does not create profits. its a fools errand to even try.
The public sector creates a lot of profits, just indirectly. How much profit can a business make without police / firemen / teachers? The compensation system we have in place doesn't recognize this (and neither do you, apparently). If what you're saying is true, why don't we just pay all teachers $20,000 a year? It could save a lot of money and won't have any impact on education at all.
no, its the reason that public sector employees are generally paid less.
You've haven't presented any logic for why this should be the case.
well yes, their paychecks and benefits are mandatory deductions from their earnings.
How much of those paychecks are the result of a good education and well-enforced laws?