The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed

He and I discussed this issue in the forums, a while back, and had some differing opinions so it should be fun to formally debate this topic and see what comes out of it. I will be representing the con position, arguing that the bargaining rights of teachers should not be removed. Opening Argument It's unfortunate that we're having this debate, not just on DDO, but on a national level, as well. Teachers are instrumental in shaping who we are as individuals, in some cases even more so than parents. We rarely stop to consider just how important they are in establishing a foundation, for the success of our nation. Everything we are, everything we will become, every success we have in life, will be at least partially attributable to the contributions of teachers. The thought of taking collective bargaining rights away, thus removing all workplace protections, seems appalling to me. If any group of people deserve to be protected, it's teachers. Throughout this debate I will attempt to show good cause for allowing teachers to keep collective bargaining rights. I will also make a number of points, in support of my position through refutation of my opponents arguments. Hopefully after this debate, you'll agree that this group of dedicated professionals that we entrust with our most prized possessions, our children, deserves to have a means of protection, in the workplace. Teachers Need Protection Few ever stop to consider the tremendous amount of liability that teachers carry on their shoulders, on a daily basis. In today's letigious society, the simple act of hugging a child, even if initiated by the child, can be misconstrued as inapropriate contact, by an angry parent. Every aspect of a teacher's life is tied to their job. Their morality, their beliefs, what they do in their private lives, both past and present, what they do on-line, can subject them to disciplinary action, under the broad term "moral turpitude". In the classroom, teachers are evaluated formally, or informally, a number of times each year. A big part of their effectiveness though, is based on how their students do on standardized testing. This part of the evaluation leaves out many important factors, not the least of which, is the quality of the students themselves. If students don't understand the importance of, or simply don't care how they do on these tests, and many don't, this can have a negative effect on administrators' view of how effective that teacher is. The simple fact is that not all kids want to learn, and try as they might, teachers can only do so much. At that point, a teacher is dependent on school administrators and parents being engaged. Teachers are willing to accept responsibility for their students, but at some point, we have to accept the fact that they are severely limited in what they can do, and stop holding them responsible. The problem is that the public, and many administrators, don't draw a line, holding the teacher wholely responsible for that student, in spite of failed parents and administrators. Unions provide fair representation for teachers in disciplinary matters, and strive to assure that the action taken against teachers is just. Later I will go into some legal issues involved in the argument over collective bargaining. In meeting his burden of proof, my opponent needs to show why these laws, dealing with the constitutional rights of individuals, should be changed. It should also become apparent to the reader that in enacting these laws, our legislatures are conceding that teachers need protection in the workplace. The very nature of their work makes them vulnerable to unfair treatment from the public, school officials, and the public agency that employs them. There are many other reasons why teachers need protection, and they will be discussed throughout this debate, things like financial issues, difficulty in firing teachers, etc. I'm intentionally leaving them out of my argument because I'm sure they'll be introduced by my opponent, so they will be addressed in refutation. Past Practice"Past practice is a labor relations term of art that is used to describe a pattern of behavior that is clear and unequivocal, longstanding, known to both parties, and accepted without protest or significant attempt to stop the behavior. If the pattern of behavior is not in conflict with law or controlling government-wide regulations, and if it involves a condition of employment of bargaining unit employees, it usually qualifies as a "past practice"". (1) As a representative of the United Steelworkers of America for nine years, I argued a number of grievances and contract issues on the grounds of past practice. It's usually easy to win a past practice case, however there are exceptions. The above description is a very good guideline for what it takes to win. The supreme court has ruled that past practice can be sufficient for setting precedence. I'm not going to post a whole lot of case law though, because bottom line is that the effectiveness of a past practice argument is dependent on whether it is, or is not, "in conflict with law or controlling government-wide regulations". If state or local laws expressly prohibit collective bargaining for teachers, past practice will likely fail as a legal challenge, even if they've had that right for 10 years, simply because it conflicts with law. However, if state or local law is ambiguous, or does not "expressly" prohibit collective bargaining, and those rights have been given to teachers for a time, then there is little reason to deny that as a legal precedent, given the supreme court's findings on past practice as precedent. From a legal standpoint, the effectiveness of a past practice argument is going to vary with each state, according to the law, as written. It DOES become an effective argument in this debate though, when you stop to consider that if it were "expressly prohibited" in state law, those rights would likely not have been given to teachers, in the first place. Other Legal IssuesPublic employees are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), federal act that gives private sector employees the right to unionize, and requires employers to bargain with unions (2). There are some states though, that have their own version of the NLRA specifically for public sector employees, that does give them those rights (3). Removing collective bargaining rights from teachers may be discriminatory. Other public employees have collective bargaining rights, firefighters, police, etc. Removing these rights from teachers, because they are public employees, while allowing them to remain for other public employees is difficult to defend as non-discriminatory. Of course this issue will vary by location, and law. Specialization and DemandsTeaching is a specialized field, in that the educational requirements have few applications in other fields. We demand that teachers be highly qualified, and highly educated. We require them to get a degree in education, but above elementary school, we require a more specialized degree. We demand that they have these things, which require student loans for most people, so we must be willing to pay for them, and allow protections for those who do what we require. I look forward to Dark's response on these issues. 1. . http://www.ilrf.net...2. . http://www.dol.gov...3. . http://www.nysdeputy.org...