I am not in a union. Nor am I in a career field that would ever need to unionize. I have seriously considered becoming a teacher at some point in my life, but until then I stand on the outside. My parents come from opposite perspectives. As a nurse in a large city hospital, my mother has been a union member for over 30 years. My father spent much of his life in management for the MBTA, regularly frustrated by the perceived cushy jobs and protections of his unionized employees.
In my life (which is really still in the upswing, so I can't claim to have it all figured out) my opinion has swayed both ways. I have been frustrated by teacher unions preventing needed changes to this country's educational system and I have been frustrated by management cabals that focus entirely on their profit margins instead of the employees that keep them in business.
There was recently an article in the New York Times that talked about the union policy of laying off the most recently hired teachers first. Due to financial mismanagement, up to 8,500 teachers will soon be laid off in New York City Schools. The idea of 8,500 of the freshest minds with the longest teaching careers ahead of them losing jobs, while so many average teachers are protected, upsets me. I think I have said it before, but I am entirely unimpressed with the education I received from K-12 in public schools, as well as, the four years I spent at a very expensive private college. I was rarely inspired. I had far more average to awful teachers than excellent ones. So it seems quite unfair that seniority would be the sole determination of whether a teacher gets laid off and even worse that it is used to prevent the replacement of truly ineffective teachers. I think job performance should matter. A lot.
With all that said, I believe that seniority is something earned and something that should be rewarded. The people most likely to disagree with that statement, of course, are employers. I think there are several industries in which seniority is a particularly important career benefit. I mean this specifically for occupations that don't have a set career ladder to climb (assistant -> junior associate -> senior partner -> CEO). In jobs like that, your salary increases with your rank. In other fields, such as teaching or nursing, you are not receiving regular promotions, only raises.
Of all those who go into the field of education as a teacher, 90% will retire as a teacher. Of all those who are hired as young nurses, 90% will retire as nurses. Relatively few people start in these positions with the intention of moving into educational or healthcare administration and this is a good thing. We need more teachers and nurses than we need principals and nurse managers. What this kind of career creates is a group of people who are all doing essentially the same job but are receiving vastly different salaries based on their years of service. (Yes, many people get the requisite raise without doing the work to earn it, but that is a different problem and a different post.)
My problem with a system that does not allow for seniority benefits for those whom have dedicated their lives to a job is that when management needs to make staff cuts, it's most effective to cut those making the most money. Fire one senior teacher and you save the same amount of money as firing two junior teachers. Financially it makes sense, but basic social justice says people shouldn't have to worry about losing their jobs for making money that they have fairly earned.
Although my expectations are low, I hope that the teacher's union in NYC can negotiate to remove the "rubber rooms" and ridiculous policies that create these situations and find a way to combine seniority benefits with performance benefits so that students and upstanding employees will be served first.
In my life (which is really still in the upswing, so I can't claim to have it all figured out) my opinion has swayed both ways. I have been frustrated by teacher unions preventing needed changes to this country's educational system and I have been frustrated by management cabals that focus entirely on their profit margins instead of the employees that keep them in business.
There was recently an article in the New York Times that talked about the union policy of laying off the most recently hired teachers first. Due to financial mismanagement, up to 8,500 teachers will soon be laid off in New York City Schools. The idea of 8,500 of the freshest minds with the longest teaching careers ahead of them losing jobs, while so many average teachers are protected, upsets me. I think I have said it before, but I am entirely unimpressed with the education I received from K-12 in public schools, as well as, the four years I spent at a very expensive private college. I was rarely inspired. I had far more average to awful teachers than excellent ones. So it seems quite unfair that seniority would be the sole determination of whether a teacher gets laid off and even worse that it is used to prevent the replacement of truly ineffective teachers. I think job performance should matter. A lot.
With all that said, I believe that seniority is something earned and something that should be rewarded. The people most likely to disagree with that statement, of course, are employers. I think there are several industries in which seniority is a particularly important career benefit. I mean this specifically for occupations that don't have a set career ladder to climb (assistant -> junior associate -> senior partner -> CEO). In jobs like that, your salary increases with your rank. In other fields, such as teaching or nursing, you are not receiving regular promotions, only raises.
Of all those who go into the field of education as a teacher, 90% will retire as a teacher. Of all those who are hired as young nurses, 90% will retire as nurses. Relatively few people start in these positions with the intention of moving into educational or healthcare administration and this is a good thing. We need more teachers and nurses than we need principals and nurse managers. What this kind of career creates is a group of people who are all doing essentially the same job but are receiving vastly different salaries based on their years of service. (Yes, many people get the requisite raise without doing the work to earn it, but that is a different problem and a different post.)
My problem with a system that does not allow for seniority benefits for those whom have dedicated their lives to a job is that when management needs to make staff cuts, it's most effective to cut those making the most money. Fire one senior teacher and you save the same amount of money as firing two junior teachers. Financially it makes sense, but basic social justice says people shouldn't have to worry about losing their jobs for making money that they have fairly earned.
Although my expectations are low, I hope that the teacher's union in NYC can negotiate to remove the "rubber rooms" and ridiculous policies that create these situations and find a way to combine seniority benefits with performance benefits so that students and upstanding employees will be served first.
No comments:
Post a Comment