The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed

CON falsely claims that I have not shown that collective bargaining are responsible for education inefficiency. I have shown multiple reasons why collective bargaining is inefficient. It is mathematically proven to be inefficient based on the theory of monopolies. It is also responsible for inefficiency by blocking education reform. CON states that school districts cannot raise taxes. However teacher unions finance politicians in exchange the politician raises taxes, which would allow increasing the budget. AFT has donated millions of dollars in campaign contributions. However, teacher unions do increase the size of the school budget. CON even states that the biggest expense is labor. Yet teacher unions are directly responsible for the high cost of labor since collective bargaining raises that cost. As I already showed, teachers are paid more than psychologists, and public teachers receive much higher salaries then private nonunionized teachers. CON states that removing collective bargaining rights will create bad teachers since they will get paid less. First, If a teacher cannot be fired, then the teacher will have less of a financial incentive to teach well. Second, If falling salaries create poor teachers, then the school district will increase teacher salary. No unions required. Privatized schools do better than public schools, yet pay teachers less and do not unionize teachers. CON dismisses the difference between public and private sector bargaining, but does not give an explanation why even though I showed why public sector bargaining is quite different and more dangerous to economic liberty than private sector bargaining. Rejecting an argument arbitrary is not a form of argumentation. CON states unions are responsible for many government worker regulations, yet there is no proof that either unions are responsible or that the regulations are good. OSHA safety regulation has done nothing to increase safety, and the rate of reduction in workplace fatalities has not decreased due to OSHA [1]. Mandating a 40-hour work week is also pointless. People choose work based on how much he or she is willing to work. Hence, this is why part-time jobs exists. The market works so that workers salaries and working conditions improve as capital resources and technology improves, and no unions or government intervention is needed. Henry Ford decided to pay his workers a higher salary, give them less hours of work, and created a sociological department to improve workers lives. Henry Ford did not do this out of generosity, because he wanted healthy workers and less turnovers. He was actually quite anti-union as well. CON’s only rebuttal to education being a public service is that ‘It is what it is’ and even confirms that teacher unions are responsible. What he is rebutting is wrong, since I favor school choice. School choice is what makes US universities the best in the world. CON argues against a program proven to work that the teacher union blocks. CON states that tenure and dismissal is set through the states and should be part of the debate. This is wrong. His own source shows that teacher unions play a part in tenure. “The following are some of the matters that are often the subject of this bargaining: Tenure”[2] Also: When school attendant, Michelle Rhee proposed a voluntarily two-tier track to either have teachers have tenure or give teachers the potential to earn as much as $140,00 per year, the teacher union needed to vote on the proposal. Why are they voting if they have no say? [3] Introduction: CON is using ad homeinum attacks to discredit me. He says that the status quo is not being challenged for the right reasons. I just provided arguments and reasons in this debate to explain the problem. And somehow I should be discredit since I have a financial incentive, yet somehow teachers do not have a financial incentive to keep the status quo. Really? Also CON accuses me of not being an expert and should listen to the teachers, yet what about the school attendances that try to push education reform yet fail? Isn’t the school attendant the expert in education? Why aren’t the teacher unions listening to them? What about the teacher in the video I showed that spoke out against the teacher unions? Con is trying to discredit me without providing any arguments. This is a foul debate tactic. Protection: CON states that this is a clear turn, without actually citing why it should be a turn. Does he want teachers that commit sexual misconduct, abusiveness, and do not follow the curriculum? Extend arguments that teachers do not need to be protected due to internal system that protect teachers. CON keeps on going on the fact that teachers are at the mercy of the students. This is like stating that doctors are at the mercy of their patient. Everyone realizes that a patient dying from terminal cancer is different from a patient dying from a broken arm. Everyone knows that teaching students that are not educated to begin with is difficult. I already explained that teacher performance can be evaluated by measuring the performance of students before and after the school year. CON then tries to attack my claims, stating that I’m not a teacher. So what? Does he seriously believe that somehow private teachers and lawyers attract much more bad performers then public teachers, and that’s why the teacher firing rate is so low? Give me a break. I was a high school student a few years back with good grades. There were some really bad teachers out there. Past Practice Resolution: The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removedImplementation: Create a law that removes the collective bargaining rights of teachers There, refuted. Other Legal Issues Create a law that removes collective bargaining rights of state employees. There, refuted. As explained earlier, state budgets can easily be increased through taxation obtained through coercion. The product in the public sector does not need to be demanded unlike products in the private sector. If you have a relentless private union who refuses to compromise, the company goes bankrupt. If you have a relentless public union who refuses to compromise, the government raises taxes or increases the debt. Teacher unions and other public unions pay off politicians to raise taxes or increase the debt in order to finance their budgets. Specialization CON states that it is not the job of the union to create jobs. So this argument is nonsense, since a teacher is still taking a huge risk since a job cannot be guaranteed. In fact, based on my previous analysis, unions make the risks greater. The AMA and bar association are quite different from AFT since lawyers and medical professions lose their license much more frequently then teachers, do not contribute any campaign money to politicians, and are used to improve the profession. Go on to the AMA and bar association and you’ll find published peer reviewed journals, ways to improve oneself professionally. Go on AFT and you’ll find almost none of that. CON uses the excuse for lawyers and doctors that many of them work individually. Note that many doctors work at hospitals, and many lawyers work at law firms and corporations, yet are not unionized. Also note that a teacher can work independently as a tutor. CON still not explain why teachers should be “protected” due to financial risks, but not others. Conclusion: CON fails to defend his arguments and instead uses ad homenium attacks and appeal to (false) athority arguments isntead of actually takig on my arguments. I look forward to the final round. . http://www.coyoteblog.com...[1] . http://www.enotes.com...[2] . http://teachersunionexposed.com...[3]