The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed

Thanks to Darkkermit for his argument. I’m now going to pick up where I left off in refutation. My opponent speaks of increasing efficiency in education by removing collective bargaining. He hasn’t shown though, that bargaining itself, is responsible for the inefficiencies. I’ve seen no fix so far that warrants an intrusion on the rights of teachers to make choices about their representation. Finances are a consideration, but school districts are NOT able to raise taxes. They can ask for an increase in the budget, but are unlikely to see any change, other than negative, when times are bad. A union can not “raise the price of it’s labor”, it can only ask for that raise in negotiations. One of the biggest expenses in any industry is labor costs. That will not change by removing bargaining. Common sense dictates that making a profession less financially secure, and denying rights based on public sentiment will dissuade people from joining the profession. This will lead to having to keep bad teachers, not because of the union, but out of necessity. We’re going to get what we pay for. My opponent talks about differences between public and private sector bargaining, and percentage of union workers. Those things are largely irrelevant to the resolution. It should be noted that the decrease in private sector union members coincides with the loss of middle-class manufacturing jobs, and also an increase in worker protection mandated by law. Many things workers enjoy today, OSHA safety regulations, 40-hour work week, overtime pay, vacations, FMLA and military leave, etc., can be attributed to the struggles of unions. Those benefits aren’t only given to union workers though, thus my contention that unions affect ALL workers in a good way. Unions act as a check and balance system, the only options are to keep them, or depend on increased governmental regulation. Below is an excerpt from a very interesting, and relevant article that all should read.(4) "Legislated labor protections are sometimes considered alternatives to collective bargaining in the workplace, but the fact of the matter is that a top-down strategy of legislating protections may not be influential unless there is also an effective voice and intermediary for workers at the workplace—unions. In all of the research surveyed, no institutional factor appears as capable as unions of acting in workers' interests (Weil 2003). Labor legislation and unionization are best thought of as complements, not substitutes."He argues against education being a public service, but it is what it is. He is free to fight for change, but in the meantime, his disagreement with the system does not warrant punishing teachers. They have a right to fight against that change, just as he does to fight for it. Teacher strikes are becoming a thing of the past. Many states are passing no-strike laws. Though pro-union, I agree with this trend, and so do many teachers(1). I do not defend teacher's strikes, and refer back to my argument about finding a middle ground and not allowing the hard-liners, on either side, to be in complete control. There is a middle ground, and many states are finding it, where strikes are concerned. My opponent keeps alluding to difficulty in firing teachers. I've shown that tenure and dismissal is set by the states, not the collective bargaining process, and should not be part of this debate. These videos and articles do nothing but attempt to prejudice the reader, and distract from the issues. They are highly prejudicial, and should not be given weight in the decision. They are evidence of the highly political nature of my opponents position.Introduction Sorry that my opponent resents my statement. Perhaps if the status quo were being challenged for the right reasons, and teachers weren’t scapegoats for the anti-union movement, I might be more receptive to his cause. With due respect, having a financial stake in something does not make us experts in what the real problems are in that system. Teachers are there everyday, in the classroom, they know what the problems are, they are the experts, not us. If my opponent valued teachers, as he claimed, he would respect that fact. He would also respect their ability to know what they need, and allow them to make choices for themselves, rather than protest against them under the guise of protecting them. The only “hijacking” being done, is that of their individual rights and freedom of association. Protection My opponent’s argument seems to me to be a clear impact turn. First he argues that it’s too hard to fire a teacher, but here he has presented evidence as to why it SHOULD be hard. This argument shows why it is not in the best interest of education, or the public, to fire teachers except in clearly egregious cases. Also, I restate that tenure is usually a matter of law, not bargaining. What if the bottom 6-10% of teachers are those in the most difficult schools, with the most difficult students?? Does that mean that they should be fired just to make room for unproven college grads?? Of course not, that’s absurd and unless they can be shown to be deserving of termination, my opponent’s above argument is why it’s in no one’s best interest. My opponent has yet to address the issue of teachers being at the mercy of the quality of students.I’ll say again that teachers are the only ones who know what protections they need. For someone who isn’t a teacher to claim to know what workplace issues they face, and need help with is absurd. Unions provide many protections for the rights of teachers, not just disciplinary issues. Past Practice There is no pre-set framework that I must abide by in this debate. My opponent is free to make whatever arguments he wishes, as am I. We could not do justice to a debate on this subject if we did not consider legal issues. Past practice means that if an employer gives a right to workers, and it is clearly understood by both parties, they cannot just arbitrarily remove that right without due process. Creating a mob mentality and attacking the rights of a group without due process is immoral. As I said this is a case-by-case issue, applicable in some, not so in others, depending on laws in that state. When laws are passed banning the right, then we have a different discussion. Until then legal issues must be considered. Other Legal Issues My opponent seems to be injecting his morals here, but what makes his morals the authority that all should be bound by?? He doesn't like unions, that's fine, he has the right not to join one. Yet he's in favor of taking away another's right to decide for themself. Why is that the correct moral position?? I maintain that if one group of public employees has a right, it is discriminatory to remove the right from another group. The strike issue has been addressed. The same checks exist in the public sector. ALL employees are bound by budgets, whether they're public or private sector.Specialization It is not the job of unions to create jobs, to use that as an argument them is misleading. Doctors and lawyers usually work for themselves, under their own license. There are many organizations that represent the interests of these professions. The AMA (2), APA, the Bar Association (3), to name a few. Are they politically active?? Yes. Do doctors and lawyers have a right to have a voice in our political system, where it affects their profession?? Yes, and so do teachers. “Society should not bare the risks of an individul's choice”- Society demands specialized degrees for this service to the public, those who comply should be rewarded, not penalized and raked over the coals just because there are a few bad teachers.1. http://www.nysdeputy.org...2. http://www.ama-assn.org...?3. http://www.americanbar.org...4. http://www.epi.org...