My mom was a negotiator for the teacher's union for about a decade. She was a para-professional, working with disabled students, for about 20 years. You should try talking with the people you are making claims about. I bet they're very different from what you think.

>>Professional bureaucrats.

>My mom was a negotiator for the teacher's union for about a decade. She was a para-professional, working with disabled students, for about 20 years.

Nothing you said really contradicts the parent post's claim that the people working in unions are "Professional bureaucrats". If your mom was working with disabled students for 20 years, then switched to being a bureaucrat for the next 10 years, she's still arguably a "Professional bureaucrat".

That's not how it worked. The union role took a few hours a month, in addition to her para job. A handful of meetings, usually in evenings after a normal workday. It would never have been considered her primary job, more like a task within her job at the school.

I suspect your Mom is an extra-ordinary super-hero sort, and more power to her. However, here in the Western USA, urban public schools are a disaster -- the bigger the district, the bigger the disaster -- and the union is not innocent in continuing that. no easy answers

100 percent agreed there are no easy answers. I was arguing against the pointless emotional rhetorical garbage like "professional bureaucrats" and "holding children hostage". No, not everything is perfect, but the solution to that is to find and address real problems, not scream stupid insults until everything falls apart.

> They hold our childrens’ futures hostage and get paid out by politicians buying votes, who pass the bill to the next generation.

Are you confusing the school board with the teachers union? One sets curriculum, class size, and budget. The later really only influences salary, benefits, and working hours.

States where teacher's unions are allowed to collectively bargain have better teacher pay, less teacher shortages, and better average outcomes. To me this sounds like a lot of privilege from someone that doesn't understand how bad schools can get in areas with very little funding or oversight.

Not to mention that most state/local teachers unions are branches of the NEA/AFT, two of the largest unions in the country. Also, two of the largest political contributors, to strictly left-leaning politicians. Neither are shy about admitting that they support Democrat policies exclusively.

To be fair have you seen republican policies towards teachers and education in general. Of course nobody would ever intentionally pick that for themselves and their profession.