Wisconsin senators may have fled the state.

[bosk1]

Oversight would be better than nothing, but:
1.  There is already a VERY high level of oversight, and it isn't working.  In fact, I would argue the "oversight" is compounding the problem--especially in light of the fact that the NLRB ends up always being stacked along partisan lines reflecting whichever party is in the White House.  
2.  To me, oversight isn't the issue, since unions are largely irrelevant in this day and age.
3.  Making government bigger rarely produced solutions--or at least not without the expense of creating other equal or greater problems.

[William Wallace]

Indeed.  If American unions die, it's all over.

What's all over?

[El Barto]

Oversight would be better than nothing, but:
1.  There is already a VERY high level of oversight, and it isn't working.  In fact, I would argue the "oversight" is compounding the problem--especially in light of the fact that the NLRB ends up always being stacked along partison lines reflecting whichever party is in the White House. 
2.  To me, oversight isn't the issue, since unions are largely irrelevant in this day and age.
3.  Making government bigger rarely produced solutions--or at least not without the expense of creating other equal or greater problems.

Yes and no.  I agree with you about those stinking assholes in the NLRB.  My experience with them left a pretty sour taste in my mouth.  However, I think the key words in SD's post was "from within."  The employees need to be the ones to reign in the union.  The problem there is that once the union is inside, there's very little reason to want to change it.  They may be greedy and crooked thieves,  but when the effect of their thievery [ostensibly] benefits the workers, the type of character to pursue disbanding them is usually highly lacking.   

[bosk1]

I also don't think the employees have the power to clean things up, unless they collectively act to fight against the very action that is supposed to be designed as THE structure for them to act collectively.  As a practical matter, I don't see how the members can actually do anything, even if they did have the incentive (which, I agree with you, most probably do not).

[Cool Chris]

I can only speak for my wife, but she’d admit to ignorance as to much of what her union does. She gets the email blasts the union offices send out, but doesn’t read them. The union fights for more days for training, planning, and other non-student days that questionably benefits students in any way. I doubt the union ever fought for longer/more school days in order to better educate our children

They do some good, yes, but is that to say that without them the entire state educational system would crumble? Other states’ teachers don’t have collective bargaining rights. Who knows, even better, more qualified teachers could prosper otherwise. The union makes it so you pretty much have to be caught smoking a joint, with a heroin needle in your arm, downloading some kiddie p0rn, while the entire jr high cheerleading squad takes turns giving you a hummer in the cafeteria before they can even consider firing you.

I know she’d prefer not to pay her ~$75 in monthly union dues, but is willing to accept that her good wages and benefits are due in large part to the union, so it’s a wash there. But I know if all the teachers in the district wanted to speak out against their union’s practices, they wouldn’t know the first place to start.

On topic, this WI fight is getting to the point where it is hard to take sides. Like EB said,

They both exist only to promote themselves, and not the people they claim to represent. 

I appreciate the legislature trying to address their budget crisis, and the union for trying to protect the interest of their members. But FFS idiots, work together to solve a problem. I still don’t appreciate legislatures not fulfilling their duties. What the GOP party did may have been crap, but it wasn’t illegal. They shouldn’t have a job to come back to.

Seems pretty childish, like saying "I don't want a vote to take place!" because they know the bill will likely pass, easily.

That isn’t like what they are saying, that is what they are saying.

[bosk1]

Teachers' unions are an interesting point of discussion.  In many ways, they are the poster children for waste and abuse and are perhaps THE worst unions out there.  But on the other hand, when teachers get into difficult situations (e.g. where a teach is wrongfully accused of harassment and his/her job is indirectly threatened because of it), the teachers' unions do a good job of standing up for them and giving them voice in protecting themselves that they otherwise wouldn't have.  I have REALLY mixed feelings about them.

[El Barto]

That's an interesting point.  I was going to address the union's obsolescence by attacking management, but yours is a better argument. There are often extremal forces that create a whole lot of bullshit.  In plenty of instances,  management would prefer not to fight on behalf of it's employees.  I guess it's good that the union will. 

[Cool Chris]

Long before we met my wife had some sort of problems with the principle during her first year of teaching. Of course I only get her side of the story, but she makes it sound fairly unprofessional at best, and ugly, at worst. She said she would have been lost without the union speaking on her behalf. Halfway through the year she left the school, with pay, and began the next year at a new school.

End result, the district paid her 4-5 months all while she wasn’t working, and still employs the principle she had problems with. So obviously this speaks to bigger issues that are going on within education, but whatever.

The union fought for her, which is their job, and for which she is thankful. But I think somewhere along the line, the actual people they should be fighting for, the children, are getting lost in everything.

Overall, unions helped get people out of dangerous, often deadly, working conditions, gave workers fair pay and benefits we still enjoy today, and save us from the EVIL CORPORATIONS. I work for a large corporation, and feel I am treated fairly by them. And don’t feel my job or many other occupations need union representation nowadays.

[William Wallace]

Teachers' unions are an interesting point of discussion.  In many ways, they are the poster children for waste and abuse and are perhaps THE worst unions out there.  But on the other hand, when teachers get into difficult situations (e.g. where a teach is wrongfully accused of harassment and his/her job is indirectly threatened because of it), the teachers' unions do a good job of standing up for them and giving them voice in protecting themselves that they otherwise wouldn't have.  I have REALLY mixed feelings about them.

It's their political influence that I find troublesome, and the same goes for other public employee unions.

[contest_sanity]

Teachers' unions are an interesting point of discussion.  In many ways, they are the poster children for waste and abuse and are perhaps THE worst unions out there.  But on the other hand, when teachers get into difficult situations (e.g. where a teach is wrongfully accused of harassment and his/her job is indirectly threatened because of it), the teachers' unions do a good job of standing up for them and giving them voice in protecting themselves that they otherwise wouldn't have.  I have REALLY mixed feelings about them.

I speak as someone who is entering the teaching profession in GA, one of the few states without teacher collective bargaining rights.  I don't know how unions work in other professions but Bosk is right about wrongfully accused teachers basically having no recourse but the Union.  Were such rights eliminated, how would individual teachers stand up for themselves? 

Also, I find it interesting that in 1 post the most extreme straw man is set up:

The union makes it so you pretty much have to be caught smoking a joint, with a heroin needle in your arm, downloading some kiddie p0rn, while the entire jr high cheerleading squad takes turns giving you a hummer in the cafeteria before they can even consider firing you.

but then a personal anecdote says:

Long before we met my wife had some sort of problems with the principle during her first year of teaching. Of course I only get her side of the story, but she makes it sound fairly unprofessional at best, and ugly, at worst. She said she would have been lost without the union speaking on her behalf. Halfway through the year she left the school, with pay, and began the next year at a new school.

End result, the district paid her 4-5 months all while she wasn’t working, and still employs the principle she had problems with. So obviously this speaks to bigger issues that are going on within education, but whatever.

The union fought for her, which is their job, and for which she is thankful.

I just think that's interesting. 

Anyway, I am sure unions do protect terrible, even criminal, teachers, and of course that is contemptible.  But again, without unions, where would wrongfully accused teachers turn for any real backing?  I don't know the answer.

Lastly, let me share this bit of interesting data:

    Only five states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal.

    Those states and their ACT/SAT rankings are as follows:

    South Carolina – 50th

    North Carolina – 49th

    Georgia – 48th

    Texas – 47th

    Virginia – 44th

    If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.

    (In Wisconsin, the new governor, Scott Walker, is trying to wipe out teachers’ collective bargaining rights.)

    –From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog

https://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/02/22/no-strong-teacher-unions-lower-satact-scores-any-correlation/?cxntfid=blogs_get_schooled_blog

Is there a significant causal correlation?  Who knows, but it is interesting!

[emindead]

If you want empirical evidence on how Unions fuck up your company, own one.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

If you want empirical evidence on how Unions fuck up your company, own one.

...Implying that Unions fuck up companies? I really don't understand. Being part of a Union is a helpful resource as far as I know. What the hell is so bad about them?

[Super Dude]

https://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/

[William Wallace]

https://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/

The comments on that article are rather illuminating. Also, he doesn't refute the fact that the pensions represent a tremendous liability that the states can't cover. He's right to argue that the employees themselves aren't to blame, but that doesn't change the fact that everybody is broke.

[yorost]

What's you point?  The unions and their members have agreed to taking the pay cut to deal with it.  The compromises offered have been to only change permanent loss of collective bargaining rights into a two year stay of those rights.

The pensions aren't really a tremendous liability if they're handled well, but they haven't been.  Now the side that made the mess is using it as a ploy to screw over the ones that were, if anything, victims.

[Super Dude]

And the drama continues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKXFawuh4Rs&feature=player_embedded