Union Teachers ditch to attend anti-RTW rally

**JBMcB** · December-11-12, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitTeacher

I don't know what your wife does but it sure isn't anything compared to what my colleagues and I do.

Just as a data point, I have a family member who works with special needs kids [[like the kid who took a swing at you) who isn't a big fan of the MEA. Mainly because they are dead-set against hiring non-teacher support staff for kids with special needs, such as doctors, social workers and psychiatrists. Can't have non-union staff helping the kids who need them the most!

**jcole** · December-11-12, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

Just as a data point, I have a family member who works with special needs kids [[like the kid who took a swing at you) who isn't a big fan of the MEA. Mainly because they are dead-set against hiring non-teacher support staff for kids with special needs, such as doctors, social workers and psychiatrists. Can't have non-union staff helping the kids who need them the most!

Detroit teachers aren't MEA; they're DFT

**Scottathew** · December-11-12, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

Just as a data point, I have a family member who works with special needs kids [[like the kid who took a swing at you) who isn't a big fan of the MEA. Mainly because they are dead-set against hiring non-teacher support staff for kids with special needs, such as doctors, social workers and psychiatrists. Can't have non-union staff helping the kids who need them the most!

My wife is a special ed teacher in the MEA. She hasn't had the issues you describe. She does have a lot of support paraprofessionals who are all UAW members.

My wife did have an issue with a school district once because she was getting hurt by a special needs kid, but was told by administration not to file injury reports and wasn't allowed to address the issue of continually being injured while on the job. She went to the union for help, but they wouldn't do anything for her because she didn't have tenure yet. This was at a very "affluent" [[aka rich, white) school district.

She decided to take her talents elsewhere and now works in a lower-income, diverse school district where the parents and administrators are much more appreciative and kind.

She still gets the tar beaten out of her by some of the kids, but she has the support of administration and [[most of the time) the parents to address the behaviors.

**DetroitTeacher** · December-11-12, 10:09 PM

I am all for hiring whomever is best suited to work with our kids! We have some wonderful parapros in our building and we couldn't do our jobs without these folks. I am not pro union/anti union, pro MEA/anti MEA...I am for whatever works best for the kids. My union is crap and does little for me. I don't walk a picket line [[never have, never will). I just don't like people thinking that teachers have it easy and we laze in the sun all summer sipping mixed drinks. I also don't like people thinking that my day ends when the bell rings and I'm walking in with the kids [[yes, for some teachers that is true and they need to be fired). Or that I am overpaid for the amount of time I do work. I put in many more hours per week than the average worker and work for a much more dysfunctional employer than most people. I'm laid off at the end of each school year and need to reapply for my job [[never knowing if I will have a job in the fall). I don't get to collect unemployment over the summer, as most people think. Not too many people have to deal with such uncertainty. I also don't know if I'll be kept around if the student population isn't what was projected. I do realize that many people are losing their jobs at the drop of a hat and I do sympathize with them. Put yourself in my shoes. I deal with 50 kids 5x a day, their parents, admin, higher admin [[who have never taught a class in their lives), revolving door with CEOs, CEOs and Board folks who can't agree on a damn thing and take it out on everyone but themselves [[salary and perk-wise). I don't have a driver or district supplied vehicle, security [[we have 3 in the entire building), and my desk is an old and broken computer desk that I salvaged from the dumpster. Admin downtown have posh offices with air and heat [[I have both but never during the proper season), plenty of supplies with which to do their jobs [[without fishing into their pockets for simple things like paper), voicemail that is perpetually full [[but I'll be damned to hell if a parent can't get ahold of me). Most folks don't have to work in the conditions which I walk into each day. I just take offense when people bash teachers...teachers shouldn't be the people getting bashed.

For those that are keeping track, it's been 4 hours since my last post and I am STILL WORKING! It's almost 10:30 pm. I was at work at 6:45 am. I'll be working for at least another hour [[or until I drop). Still haven't eaten any dinner [[or my lunch). I did have a bowl of chips and about 6 cans of diet soda. Yeah, I am the epitome of health because I have unlimited time on my hands to cook a friggin healthy meal.

<I am now off of my soapbox, we can now return to our regularly scheduled thread>

Originally Posted by JBMcB

Just as a data point, I have a family member who works with special needs kids [[like the kid who took a swing at you) who isn't a big fan of the MEA. Mainly because they are dead-set against hiring non-teacher support staff for kids with special needs, such as doctors, social workers and psychiatrists. Can't have non-union staff helping the kids who need them the most!

**JBMcB** · December-11-12, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by 48091

My wife is a special ed teacher in the MEA. She hasn't had the issues you describe. She does have a lot of support paraprofessionals who are all UAW members.

It might be regional, then. She's in one of the medium-sized cities. Her main issue is that, if it doesn't fit the traditional mold of teachers teaching a classroom of students, the union seems to be against it. At the very least, the special needs programs in particular seem to be the first on the chopping block for concessions. One special needs program she was involved in was completely wiped out, including union positions, though none of the regular teachers in the school lost their jobs. The kids were put back into regular classes.

**DetroitTeacher** · December-11-12, 10:24 PM

Actually, it goes like this...DFT, MEA, AFT. All Michign teachers can be a part of the MEA [[I am not...don't want to give my money to another organization, I'd rather spend it on my students). I am part of the DFT, which in turn allows me membership into the AFT [[it's part of my DFT dues). I could care less about any of it...really. It's either be part of the DFT or opt out for the same price. Tomato/Tomatoe for me.

Originally Posted by jcole

Detroit teachers aren't MEA; they're DFT

**Hypestyles** · December-11-12, 10:26 PM

does right to work mean than new public school teachers can choose not to be in the union? just curious...

**DetroitTeacher** · December-11-12, 10:28 PM

This is against Federal Law. The district is in non-compliance [[as most are with regard to Specialized Student Services). There needs to be a continuum of services with Least Restrictive Environment being the Gen Ed class first [[with support) and work backward to a center based program. It used to be special ed folks were untouchable. Most are not HQ to be teaching what they are, which is how things went the way they did. I don't agree with it, since most Sp. Ed teachers are great and really worked well with the kids [[HQ or not). Sp. Ed is a slippery slope and districts are finding ways around being in compliance. I love our Sp. Ed staff and they are proving to be awesome resources for me and my kids when a student is struggling [[despite my having Sp. Ed certification). I can't do everything with 50+ kids in each class and 1/2 of those are Sp. Ed and struggling. Am I on a soapbox again??

Originally Posted by JBMcB

It might be regional, then. She's in one of the medium-sized cities. Her main issue is that, if it doesn't fit the traditional mold of teachers teaching a classroom of students, the union seems to be against it. At the very least, the special needs programs in particular seem to be the first on the chopping block for concessions. One special needs program she was involved in was completely wiped out, including union positions, though none of the regular teachers in the school lost their jobs. The kids were put back into regular classes.

**DetroitTeacher** · December-11-12, 10:29 PM

We have always had a choice to opt out of the union. We still have to pay opt out dues, which are the same or more than union dues. If we opt out and don't pay up, we get fired. If the law passed where union dues could no longer be taken directly from our checks and we didn't pay, we were to be fired. Either way, we have to pay up or get out.

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

does right to work mean than new public school teachers can choose not to be in the union? just curious...

**andyguard** · December-11-12, 11:50 PM

Well I made more money as a non union employee and better benefits than long time members, I got to negotiate my terms, not the terms somebody who has no clue who I am wants. You bet I don't like unions! Right now they serve to stifle efficiency and coddle poor workers. I work to take care of myself not some person who has no effect on my life. Its too bad this country has lost its individualistic spirit.

I wanted to respond to this last night, but I don't like to speak unless I'm pretty sure know what I'm talking about. My wife and I accepted teaching positions in Texas [[which is famously RTW), and we've been here for 4 years. We're fortunate to have been hired by a solid district that pays well, but I didn't have the opportunity to negotiate my salary. I went to speak with my principal this morning about exactly how salaries are determined here in Texas. She explained to me that the State of Texas legislature sets a minimum salary, and for new teachers that level is set at $27,000. Individual school boards are then allowed to supplement this pay at whatever level they see fit / can afford. The average starting salary here is $32,000 [[my district starts out significantly higher). I wanted to share all of this because it seems like some posters on this site and on other forums think that all of a sudden teachers will flock to Michigan because they'll be able to negotiate better salaries when, at least in this RTW state, that's simply not true. Teachers here have the right to accept what they state and school board offer, or remain unemployed.

**Wesley Mouch** · December-12-12, 04:31 AM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

does right to work mean than new public school teachers can choose not to be in the union? just curious...

It means you cannot be compelled to join the Union to get/keep your job. Right now, if a shop has a Union, then you must join the Union. Period. With RTW, you may join the Union. Or you may not. As you decide. It is now your civil right.

**DetroitTeacher** · December-12-12, 06:26 AM

With teachers, we always had the choice of joining the union [[at least in DPS). We have to pay fees either way. We always had the choice to opt out, being in the union was never forced.

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

It means you cannot be compelled to join the Union to get/keep your job. Right now, if a shop has a Union, then you must join the Union. Period. With RTW, you may join the Union. Or you may not. As you decide. It is now your civil right.

**Pam** · December-12-12, 06:55 AM

Still haven't eaten any dinner [[or my lunch). I did have a bowl of chips and about 6 cans of diet soda. Yeah, I am the epitome of health because I have unlimited time on my hands to cook a friggin healthy meal.

Thanks for all you do DT, but please take care of yourself. [[There are a lot of healthy or semi-healthy things you can make quickly.)

**Meddle** · December-12-12, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitTeacher

We have always had a choice to opt out of the union. We still have to pay opt out dues, which are the same or more than union dues. If we opt out and don't pay up, we get fired. If the law passed where union dues could no longer be taken directly from our checks and we didn't pay, we were to be fired. Either way, we have to pay up or get out.

aka Extortion. Or maybe blackmail depending on specifics.

**Novine** · December-12-12, 07:40 AM

That's the big lie that's been peddled by Snyder and RTW advocates. No one has ever been forced to join a union. But if you go to work at a union shop, you are required to pay for the costs of the union representing you. Snyder and company believe that you should be able to freeload and not pay for these services.

**Meddle** · December-12-12, 08:38 AM

^^ If you're not a member of organized crime [[union), they are not representing you, therefore you should not be required to pay protection money.

**Hermod** · December-12-12, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

That's the big lie that's been peddled by Snyder and RTW advocates. No one has ever been forced to join a union. But if you go to work at a union shop, you are required to pay for the costs of the union representing you. Snyder and company believe that you should be able to freeload and not pay for these services.

RTW means the freedom to choose to freeload/escape extortion [[use verb which agrees with your political leanings).

**Mikeg** · December-12-12, 09:11 AM

Yes, the RTW legislation was provocative and divisive. Then again, so was Proposition 2, in which Bob King and his Big Labor buddies unsuccessfully sought to have "Protect Our Jobs!" enshrined in our State Constitution and placed beyond the reach of the legislature.

It's clear that after seeing the spanking that Proposition 2 received at the polls, the Republican leadership in Lansing did some "nose counting", saw that they had the votes and decided to seek revenge.
_______________________

"Voting is the best revenge" - President Barack Obama, Nov. 2, 2012.

**noise** · December-12-12, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Meddle

^^ If you're not a member of organized crime [[union), they are not representing you, therefore you should not be required to pay protection money.

At what point do you grow up and realize this absurd rhetoric is detrimental to factual, realistic discussion?

**noise** · December-12-12, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Its quite possible to believe in the dignity of teaching and the value of the teachers we have, and still support RTW.

No, it's not. It's only possible to THINK you believe in the dignity of teaching and the value of the teachers we have.

"I'm not anti-teacher...I have a FRIEND who is a teacher!"

**Hermod** · December-12-12, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by noise

At what point do you grow up and realize this absurd rhetoric is detrimental to factual, realistic discussion?

After six pages of absurd rhetoric in this thread on the other side of the issue, Meddle is being "detrimental"?

**Scottathew** · December-12-12, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

That's the big lie that's been peddled by Snyder and RTW advocates. No one has ever been forced to join a union. But if you go to work at a union shop, you are required to pay for the costs of the union representing you. Snyder and company believe that you should be able to freeload and not pay for these services.

It wouldn't be as big of a deal if those fees we're used for legal representation and collectively bargaining only.

However, that's not the case. The bulk of union dues go to supporting political candidates, that you may or may not support.

My wife, who is in the MEA, to my knowledge isn't a straight-ticket democrat. Although we don't always discuss politics, I know on several occasions she's voted for folks that SHE was paying money to run ads against.

Pretty silly stuff.

For those of you saying that we already had choice to join a union or not, then you shouldn't be concerned at all. In your mind there's no change between yesterday and today!

JVB · December-12-12, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

That's the big lie that's been peddled by Snyder and RTW advocates. No one has ever been forced to join a union. But if you go to work at a union shop, you are required to pay for the costs of the union representing you. Snyder and company believe that you should be able to freeload and not pay for these services.

I keep seeing that posted on this forum, and I can only assume that people that post this have never worked in a union shop. And that's OK, but if you're going to post about something so passionately, at least know what you're talking about.

A union shop by definition is a shop in which you have a set number of days [[normally 30, 60 or 90 days) to join the union or you are terminated.

Let me repeat that - if you do not join the union you are FIRED. No exceptions. Join the union, or find another job. You DO NOT have the option of paying an equal amount and not being in the union - that is something different from a union shop.

There were two bills passed yesterday, one pertained to public sector unions, and one pertained to private sector unions. They were two separate bills because they are very different things with different rules.

I don't have any experience with public sector unions so I can only base that off of things I've read. Based on how the teacher[[s) that have posted here have described the teachers unions it is an agency shop, NOT a union shop. In an agency shop, you are NOT required to join the union, but you do have to pay an equal amount of dues since your contract and rights are negotiated by them. A long as you can opt out of having your money used for political purposes, that is relatively fair. But that is not a union shop.

A union shop [[for instance, a UAW plant), does not operate that way. The UAW is a private sector union, so different rules apply. If you work in a UAW plant you are working in a union shop, and that means you DO NOT have the ability to opt of the union. If you do, you are terminated immediately. Anybody that doubts this or doesn't understand it should talk to someone in the UAW, or look it up for yourself.

**webband1** · December-12-12, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by 48091

The way we did things 10 years ago wasn't sustainable. Unions have made a lot of concessions, but we're still very far from market priced wages that would help struggling industries and governments.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for "struggling industries" that pay CEOs 400x the average worker. Unions have taken plenty of haircuts. When will the top?

**Hermod** · December-12-12, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by JVB

I keep seeing that posted on this forum, and I can only assume that people that post this have never worked in a union shop. And that's OK, but if you're going to post about something so passionately, at least know what you're talking about.

A union shop by definition is a shop in which you have a set number of days [[normally 30, 60 or 90 days) to join the union or you are terminated.

Let me repeat that - if you do not join the union you are FIRED. No exceptions. Join the union, or find another job. You DO NOT have the option of paying an equal amount and not being in the union - that is something different from a union shop.

There were two bills passed yesterday, one pertained to public sector unions, and one pertained to private sector unions. They were two separate bills because they are very different things with different rules.

I don't have any experience with public sector unions so I can only base that off of things I've read. Based on how the teacher[[s) that have posted here have described the teachers unions it is an agency shop, NOT a union shop. In an agency shop, you are NOT required to join the union, but you do have to pay an equal amount of dues since your contract and rights are negotiated by them. A long as you can opt out of having your money used for political purposes, that is relatively fair. But that is not a union shop.

A union shop [[for instance, a UAW plant), does not operate that way. The UAW is a private sector union, so different rules apply. If you work in a UAW plant you are working in a union shop, and that means you DO NOT have the ability to opt of the union. If you do, you are terminated immediately. Anybody that doubts this or doesn't understand it should talk to someone in the UAW, or look it up for yourself.

And in an open shop you can opt out of the union and avoid paying anything. The federal government is an open shop. Your office may have voted to be recognized by the union, but joining that union, joining a different union, or not joining any union is strictly up to the individual who can make that choice without repercussions.