The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed

I thank Dark for his argument, and will now attempt to chip away at his opening."I will use the moral framework of utilitarianism."I would argue that utilitarianism is self-contradictory, and immoral. It purports to protect the well being of society but, in practice, it forces the morality of some to govern all. Society includes all of us, but who benefits from allowing my opponent's morals and values to rule our country?? Only my opponent, and those with a similar ideology benefit. To allow a few to decide what is best for all, based on their own values, while ignoring the values of others seems immoral. How can this be what's "best for society"??I would be remiss if I didn't admit that utilitarianism, to a degree, is the basis of our legal system, but there's another principle at play, within that system, that was much more prevalent on the minds of our founding fathers. My opponent has the right to protest the status quo and push for change, because of that principle. It's because of that principle that I argue that teachers should keep their right to unionize, and have collective bargaining. That principle was the guiding ideology, as the framers of our constitution hashed out the final language. That principle is "Individual Rights". The rights of an individual, in a free society, to make decisions for themselves is the very reason that our founding fathers knowingly, and intentionally, tried to limit the power and size, of the government(1). Our constitution tries to protect individuals from the "tyranny of the majority", but if not kept in check, that tyranny is exactly what utilitarianism brings to the table.Another problem with the use of utilitarianism is the fact that my opponent wants to use it as grounds for fighting against unions, in general, but his ideology demands an "all or none" approach. It doesn't leave enough flexibility to come to some common ground, a way in which many of the ends he seeks can be realized, while still respecting the rights of workers to make their own decisions. It simply assumes that there can be no middle ground, and refuses to allow it. That is the problem with the ideological hard-liners on both the left, and right. This "my way or the highway" approach to governing should be rejected by all of us because it is usually ineffective, polarizing, and unnecessarily unfair to it's victims. There IS a sensible middle ground on this union issue, and when there IS a middle ground, utilitarianism need not be invoked. That is what's best for society. My opponent concedes that teachers will be harmed, but claims that collective bargaining has little value for teachers, and removing it is "best for society". My wife is an English/Literature teacher, she has two Master's degrees and a Bachelor's in Adult Ed. She has taught at every level, including a prison education program. Over her 23 year career, she has worked both union and non-union jobs. Although non-union now, she realizes the importance of collective bargaining rights, and the positives those rights have for ALL teachers, not just union. Unions strive to raise the standard of living for workers, and in doing so they also indirectly effect non-union workers in a positive way. The fear that their employees will unionize inspires employers to make changes that are beneficial to the employees, who are the backbone of their organization. This raises the standard of living, and brings dignity and financial stability to employees, who are otherwise at the mercy of their employers. Those on the far right, who I usually side with, seek to remove this positive force. That puts employees back at the mercy of employers. If the employer wants a new yacht, what's to stop him from simply cutting pay, increasing his profit margin, thereby justifying a huge raise or bonus for himself?? Removing unions, and bargaining rights, effectively lowers the standard of living for both union, and non-union employees. How is that best for society??A big part of my opponent's argument is based on him wanting education to be privatized, instead he is "coerced" into having to pay taxes to help pay for education. That seems selfish to me. People were coerced into paying taxes for his education, but now it's time to return the favor and he doesn't like it. That illustrates the nature of humans to be greedy, and that's the reason that teachers don't want such a vital service, education, turned over into the hands of corporations who's main goal is financial benefit. Teachers unions aren't the only ones not wanting that. My opponent has a right to fight for that change, if he wishes, but is it fair for him to take away the rights of others who oppose him, so that his ends become easier to attain?? I say no, but that's exactly what my opponent advocates. Do we need education reform?? Do we need to make the system more financially efficient?? Absolutely, on both counts, but a common sense way of accomplishing that can be found without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That answer begins with identifying the real problems rather than using the teachers as pawns for political gain. Those on the anti-union side have created a witch hunt against "bad teachers". What about the nearly four million other teachers, who serve the public well as educators for our kids?? They watch the coverage of bad teachers, and are more ashamed than the rest of us, yet they go to school the next day and work hard, focusing on what they got into education for, the kids. The problem with my opponents' argument against tenure, in this debate, is that tenure and dismissal proceedings are a matter of state law, not the subject of collective bargaining. Lawmakers made firing teachers, and the process, intentionally slow and cumbersome to discourage firings for personal and political reasons. The union's only role in tenure, is that it's required by law to represent it's members during the process. Perhaps the "rubber room" video should be shown to my opponents state lawmakers instead of being used to prejudice the public against unions. Here is a quote from the page linked below(2)."Each state provides laws governing education agencies, hiring and termination of teachers, tenure of teachers, and similar laws.Subjectivity and cronyism are reasons that unions oppose the merit pay system. Another reason is, as I mentioned in my opening, teachers are at the mercy of the quality of their students. They can, and do, reach many difficult kids, but they are not miracle workers. I ask you, how would you feel if your pay was decided by how well your co-workers did??On the pay issue, perhaps my opponent needs to speak to teachers, instead of John Stossel. You can't figure an hour-by-hour comparison unless you factor in ALL the hours that teachers put in. He bases his figures on the school day, but doesn't factor in all the hours at home and weekends, grading papers, preparing lesson plans, private tutoring, on the phone with parents trying to find a way to reach a difficult student, spending 800-1000 dollars out-of-pocket for supplies for kids that can't afford them, etc. They usually spend 1-2 weeks after the school year in meetings, packing their rooms, etc., then 1-2 weeks before the start of the year in meetings, and unpacking, prep, etc. This is one of the problems with people who know so little being given such a big voice over people who are actually trained, and have years of experience doing. They don't show the public the whole story, just their own spin.I contest the other parts of his argument, but am out of space so I'll deal with them in round 3.1. http://www.usconstitution.net...2. http://www.enotes.com...