Sfdebris.net

If they just walk out and leave all the kids there, yeah.

That's a good way to piss off the populace that's already largely on the teachers' side. Ask Sam Brownback how that worked out for him.

I think I have to be on the side of the teachers here. You can't have a collective bargaining if there is effectively a gun to one side's head. This just puts bigger bullets in the gun.
A no striking clause means one side can play hard ball. "We are altering the bargain. Pray we do not alter it any farther."
And the other just has to take it. You put something like this in and you will also de-incentivize people to become teachers. 'Why bother getting locked into a job that if I protest I can never do in this state again? I will just get a different job and skip the headache.'

Nealithi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:36 pmYou can't have a collective bargaining if there is effectively a gun to one side's head.

Which is exactly why many public servants are forbidden to strike. It's one thing if Ford has a factory shut down because workers strike. It's quite another if someone is breaking into your house and the police won't come because they don't think they're getting paid enough. People seem to feel like they're the ones negotiating with a gun to their head when local firefighters say "Well, guess we'll have to go on strike. Nice house you have, by the way. Be a real shame if a fire broke out tomorrow, wouldn't it?"

For this reason, essential government employees are often forbidden to strike. Whether or not that category should include teachers is open to debate.

LittleRaven wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:59 pm

Nealithi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:36 pmYou can't have a collective bargaining if there is effectively a gun to one side's head.

Which is exactly why many public servants are forbidden to strike. It's one thing if Ford has a factory shut down because workers strike. It's quite another if someone is breaking into your house and the police won't come because they don't think they're getting paid enough. People seem to feel like they're the ones negotiating with a gun to their head when local firefighters say "Well, guess we'll have to go on strike. Nice house you have, by the way. Be a real shame if a fire broke out tomorrow, wouldn't it?"

For this reason, essential government employees are often forbidden to strike. Whether or not that category should include teachers is open to debate.

Ahem.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/u ... home-burn/

That's a different, and somewhat unusual scenario, which took place in a VERY rural area operating under very different rules than what 99% of Americans deal with.

Nealithi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:36 pm I think I have to be on the side of the teachers here. You can't have a collective bargaining if there is effectively a gun to one side's head. This just puts bigger bullets in the gun.
A no striking clause means one side can play hard ball. "We are altering the bargain. Pray we do not alter it any farther."
And the other just has to take it. You put something like this in and you will also de-incentivize people to become teachers. 'Why bother getting locked into a job that if I protest I can never do in this state again? I will just get a different job and skip the headache.'

There are other ways for teachers to protest. They can do everything by the rules, they can carry signs around outside class times, they can refuse to file paperwork, etc. Taking away the striking option does take one effective form of protest away, admittedly.

LittleRaven wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:09 pm That's a different, and somewhat unusual scenario, which took place in a VERY rural area operating under very different rules than what 99% of Americans deal with.

I agree it is not striking. But it is a sorry your house is burning issue and happened twice in the same area.

Now I do not know about police or fire fighters and how their unions and contracts work and run. But I have had friends and associates in teaching and seen hardball played on both sides. Heard why tenure is such a big thing. And heard horror stories both of schools demanding money they don't need to do things outside what should be their charter. IE left over money used to buy a few houses in town. One of which they 'donated' to the school superintendent's mother. To neglect in the form of leaking rooves and insufficient and aged text books. Both of these are matters of school income and how it is budgeted. And a strike can raise public awareness particularly important if both of these scenarios are in place at the same time.

I think that an absolute rule like "no striking, ever" and "any walkout is never have this job again" reach too far into tying people's hands. Nine days seen during business hours. If teachers were limited to after work and weekends they would never be seen nor heard.

I'm really surprised by everyone's reactions in this thread.

My take, the right to strike is essential, and removing not just jobs but certification to teach amounts to denying their right to free speech and assembly.