The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed

I will not debunk some of my opponents claims. Introduction I resent that my opponent stated that it is ‘unfortunate’ that we are having this debate both here on a national level. This statement is outrageous. Should the status quo not be challenged, especial If the status quo is harming America’s economic performance, and damaging America’s schools? Also, this debate is not about whether education and teachers are important. Of course I realize the value of teachers and education. This is the common ground that we both agree on. However, it is because I favor them that I am opposed to teacher unions. Education and the future of America should not be hijacked by special interests aimed at helping adults rather than students. To state that anti-union is anti-teacher is like saying being in favor of antitrust law is anti-business. Protecting Teachers My opponent first claims that teachers need protection. This is a false claim. Here’s why a school board would be unwilling to fire a teacher haphazardly: First, the process of searching and finding a teacher is a lengthy and expense process. To find a teacher one has to look over many applications, set up interviews, and pay for advertising the job. Once the teacher is hired, one has to pay for teacher orientation, and file paper work for the new employee. Second off, it’s risky business to fire a teacher that is competent and replace him or her with a teacher that has the potential to be incompetent. In the hiring process, even If one thoroughly looks over credentials, there is still a great possibility that the applicant is incompetent. So as long as the teacher has a decent level of competency, it is much better for the school to keep the teacher then to fire the teacher and risk a new teacher. Third, If a school or school district is known to have a high turnover rate, then it’s unlikely that competent teachers will apply there. Therefore a school district is unlikely to do this. Employees in the private sector do not need to be protected, in which 93.1% of employees in the private sector are not part of unions. Even in the public sector, 63.8% of employees are not unionized. However, it should be noted that If incompetent teachers are not fired, then it means that recent college graduates and those seeking a teacher position that are component are unable to do so. The problem is that teachers are protected too much. It is nearly impossible to fire a teacher once he or she receives tenure. In New York City, a “rubber room” was creates specifically designed to pay bad teachers to do nothing. Literally, teachers that got in trouble for sexual misconduct, unwilling to follow the curriculum, or abusiveness were just sent to a building to do what they wanted with pay and benefits[1]. Teachers receive more job security than any other occupation. There is no reason for this. Protecting bad teachers simply hurt the schools. Students do not learn what they need to. Often times, teachers need to review material that should have been learned previous years, but an incompetent teacher simply did not teach the material. This drags everyone down. Education is too important for bad teachers to recieve protection. According to this video, If just the bottom 6-10 percent of all teachers were eliminated, then American education would be at the level of Finland, a nation with top education. (watch 1:08 onward). Past Practices If I am correct, my opponent’s main argument here is that teachers have the right to collective bargaining because it is not specifically prohibited in state and local law. This argument fails for many reasons. For one, this debate framework is based on moral principles not legal principals. I specially stated that I was using an Unitarianism framework. This is a basic appeal to authority argument, using the law as a legit authority. It would equivalent to if this was the year 1940 in Nazi, Germany for me to argue that one should not hide Jews from the government because it is against the law. Second, this argument easily fails once a law is introduced to bar teachers from collective right bargaining. Other Legal Issues I will repeat my argument that I stated earlier. Legal issues should not be a major consideration since laws can be changed, and are not a moral authority. My opponent states that teachers should receive collective bargaining rights since other public employees like firefighters, police, etc. also maintain the right. Just because other public employees engage in collective bargaining does not make it morally right. This is analogous stating that a murderer should not be locked in jail since other murders get away with it scot free. I am against collective bargaining in the public sector. I would remove the collective bargaining rights of firefighters and other public employees, however this debate is specifically about teachers. In terms of the argument that the NLRA does not cover public employees, there are also many checks that exist in the private sector that reduce the power of unions while these checks do not exist in the public sector. It should also be noted that many public employees can not engage in specific collective bargaining tactics. For example, police officers are not allowed to go on strike. So it is not unreasonable to remove teacher’s rights to collective bargaining. Specialization and Demands My opponent states that since teachers invest in a college education to obtain a teaching degree, that he or she should be protected. I will explain the problem with this. There is no reason to suspect that teacher unions increase teacher employment. If you protect bad teachers you can’t let potentially good teachers enter the market. So this argument actually works in my favor, since college graduates spend many years studying the field and get into debt, only to find that they can’t get a job because there are no vacancies. It’s also another point in my favor that teacher unions increase the salary and benefts of teachers, creating a surplus of teacher applicants and increasing the number of those who will invest in a teaching degree but will not be able to find a teaching career. Many other jobs that require more specialization are less protected. For example, Doctors and Lawyers have to spend much more years and tuition to practice in the field. However, neither doctors nor lawyers are unionized. One out of every 57 doctor will lose their medical license and one out of 97 lawyers will lose their license to practice law. Remember, this is losing their license to practice, not just getting fired, the latter a far less severe punishment. For teachers, 1 in every 1000 teacher is fired after tenure for performance based reasons [2]. However, the question is: should people be protected from the financial risks they make? No. Society should not bare the risks of an individul's choice. An entrepreneur that decides to start a new business must bear the risks as well. Consumers should not be forced to buy the product and the business should not be protected. If new technology automates jobs, then there’s no reason these jobs should be protected. Once one gets into the mindset that jobs must be protected in order to save them from mal-investments, economic growth, consumer choice and efficiency cannot be maintained. Jobs will always exist through this creative destructive process; they will just be reallocated to different fields. Even If a college graduate is unable to find a teacher career, a college degree is versatile and many people enter careers outside of their specialization. Conclusion: I have refuted the legal claims and protectionism claims my opponent has made. I look forward to my opponents response to my arguments. . http://tinyurl.com...[1] . http://www.youtube.com...[2] . http://tinyurl.com...[3]