Because their focus is increasing their salary and benefits to the point of bankrupting cities and states, because they push a radical left-wing agenda, because they rarely mention the students, because the more money they spend the poorer students do. For example, Chicago teachers union runs the city, the city has unfunded pension liabilities, totaling over $37 billion and the teachers just received a 9% raise. Grok: Chicago Public Schools students generally have low proficiency rates on standardized tests. In 2024, on the Illinois Assessment of Readiness (IAR) for grades 3–8, only 26% of CPS students were proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and 18% in Math. Agenda pushing? Four representatives of the Chicago Teachers Union visited Venezuela in July and returned with high praise for the socialist polices of President Nicolás Maduro.
Do you feel the same about police, firefighter, nurses, doctors etc. who work in public institutions? Are they bankrupting cities? Do you know any teachers?
I agree with FDR. And don't be silly, of course I know teachers, my mother for one, and my daughter-in-law for another. (Ask me what they say about today's public schools.)
Old NYT article:
“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.
Public sector unions insist on laws that serve their interests -- at the expense of the common good. The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”
People in unions are not the only ones who do honest work, and the stronger the political and economic power of the union, the higher the premium that their pay commands at the expense of everyone else. And economic power stems mainly from high levels of skill -- such as electricians, airline pilots, and nurses -- who are the very people whose skills command high pay without unionization.
Conceptually, the better alternative is the earned income tax credit, which supplements the pay of less skilled workers without pricing their services out of the job market. And also, laws such as OSHA that protect health and safety in workplaces and should be better enforced regardless of the union status of workers.
The professions you mention - electricians, airline pilots and nurses - are more highly unionized than other professions. The unions also advocate for more than salary and benefits. They also advocate for safety - in airports, hospitals and power plants. Furthermore they also advocate for broadening access to health care, building out the electric transmission system and improvement to the air traffic control responsibility. Also, apprenticeship programs sponsored by unions are import entry paths to longer-term careers.
Why don't you address the elephant in the room regarding unions, particularly government unions? According to Open Secrets all union PACs donated $14,325,958 to candidates (2023-2024).
The elephant in the room is the First Amendment. Teachers are free to assemble and organize and speak what they believe and donate to whom they want. You may not like it but that's tough.
Centrist and center-left political parties, composed of all sorts of people including me, advocate for those policies related to the health and safety of all workers and the general public. Apprenticeship is a good practice, particularly following occupational training. But again, unionization is only one way to accomplish that. Many unions have a horrible history of discrimination against people other than friends and relatives of the white male union members, which has mostly been eliminated but not entirely. Employment should be open to all people willing to work for the pay and benefits offered by employers.
Efforts to unionize workers in wholesale distribution warehouse like those operated by Amazon and among fast food workers has met with very strong push back from employers and investors. Without unionization then the wages and working conditions are more often dictated by state and local governments.
Unions have actually have the opposite effect of what you are alleging here. When union members get higher pay, it forces nonunion employers to pay their employees more, because the overall price of labor has gone up. It shrinks the labor pool of people who are willing to work for lower wages, and thus increases the demand for labor, and thus increases the price. As Unions have shrunk, the Salaries of CEOs have gone up, because the lack of Unions has lowered the price of labor, and they now keep the money for themselves.
Wages are one component of purchasing power, while costs of goods and services are the other. In most companies, the salaries of the CEOs are a small part of the cost of the product, while wages to employees (and those of suppliers) are a major part. When labor costs are artificially inflated above market levels, consumers and taxpayers pay higher prices. It's like a dog chasing its tail. If so many CEOs weren't so damned in-your-face with their conspicuous consumption, there might be less misunderstanding about their actual economic impact on the purchasing power of "ordinary" people.
I don't know, maybe it's because he's a delusional lunatic responsible for thousands of deaths because of his disparagement of vaccines, who sold his soul to Donald Trump in exchange for political power.
He would stand up in front of a crowd or rednecks and talk about civil rights and then head to the ghetto and talk about law and order. Told people what they needed to hear not what they wanted to hear. Remember though he was killed by a Palestinian because of his support for Israel. There is a segment of today's party that wouldn't like that.
Most Americans, I think, recognize patriotism when they see it, without the added political narrative of liberal v. conservative, or Democratic v. Republican.
Once we can recognize and admire patriotism for patriotism without adding our own lesser partisan spin, we can promote patriotism absent polical shackle. And once we achieve that, we have taken as a nation an important step to what the authors call "an honest teaching of American history."
That history, in turn, would recognize that a full decade before the liberals' beloved Kennedys held the reins of power, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was sending federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas to end racial segregation of public education and, an added full decade before that, General Eisenhower was leading American and allied forces against the spread of global fascism in Europe and Asia.
Given the woeful state of today's American public education, it is entirely imaginable that our youth are not learning these lessons in patriotism. The Liberal Patriot will be doing them and the goal of an honest teaching of American history a big favor by correcting that sorry record.
Thanks for your "progressive" condescension. I majored in history at the University of Wisconsin, whose program was ranked #4 in the country at the time, and have retained a life-long interest. No, I have never worshiped the Kennedys, but your implicit arrogance is just so typical of the errant bullshit that liberals just specialize in. Not to put too fine a point on it.
Bobby Kennedy gave a very good extemporaneous eulogy to Martin Luther King after King was shot dead. That's about it. And Teddy? What a pig. Same for the rest of them.
You just said you weren’t interested in Robert Kennedy‘s history because it happened 57 years ago. If that’s your reason for not being interested in Robert Kennedy, why are you interested in anything else that happened earlier than that?
I think that neither John or Bobby Kennedy would recognize the modern Democratic Party as anything familiar. Further, the modern party would have no use for them either.
RFK's election campaign was the only one that ever got me to do anything for it.
Basic decency towards all, a promise of something better in the future, and a belief in America itself, as something good, goes a long way, towards healing this nation. I look forward to more of your treatise, and the hope that someone will pick it up, that actually accords with it, rather than uses it as a path to power.
I just went and took a look at the whole thing via the link up at the beginning of this thing.
I guess I can't complain that there is nothing to read anymore.
Thank You Ruy for making this free for all to read, too many things behind a paywall that I really wish to read. I downloaded the PDF, so to read at work where there is no wifi or net connection.
Bobby Kennedy believed in God, by the accounts I've seen, he was more than just a luke warm Christian, he truly believed and in your article you point out the Biblical stances he championed (good work ethic 'Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God'; not just welfare for welfare's sake 'if you don't work, you don't eat'; equal opportunity over equal outcomes, strong law and order, etc)
Yet, no mention of his reverence for God or just that he was a devout believer, though maybe I accidentally skipped over it. Don't you think his faith led him to these character traits? That his faith was the foundation for what appeals to you? I would think this would be something important to point out or at least acknowledge.
Ok this sounds good to me but this means totally ditching the progressives … I think many who voted for Trump would be on board
Are Dems willing to do this? Remains to be seen… but for now for me I cannot trust a party whose loudest voices are these Progessives.
Honoring the dignity of work is a key value, but it needs policy teeth behind it, which means supporting organized labor.
Yes, if only teacher unions had more power....
Why don't you like teacher unions?
Because their focus is increasing their salary and benefits to the point of bankrupting cities and states, because they push a radical left-wing agenda, because they rarely mention the students, because the more money they spend the poorer students do. For example, Chicago teachers union runs the city, the city has unfunded pension liabilities, totaling over $37 billion and the teachers just received a 9% raise. Grok: Chicago Public Schools students generally have low proficiency rates on standardized tests. In 2024, on the Illinois Assessment of Readiness (IAR) for grades 3–8, only 26% of CPS students were proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and 18% in Math. Agenda pushing? Four representatives of the Chicago Teachers Union visited Venezuela in July and returned with high praise for the socialist polices of President Nicolás Maduro.
Do you feel the same about police, firefighter, nurses, doctors etc. who work in public institutions? Are they bankrupting cities? Do you know any teachers?
I agree with FDR. And don't be silly, of course I know teachers, my mother for one, and my daughter-in-law for another. (Ask me what they say about today's public schools.)
Old NYT article:
“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.
Public sector unions insist on laws that serve their interests -- at the expense of the common good. The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”
People in unions are not the only ones who do honest work, and the stronger the political and economic power of the union, the higher the premium that their pay commands at the expense of everyone else. And economic power stems mainly from high levels of skill -- such as electricians, airline pilots, and nurses -- who are the very people whose skills command high pay without unionization.
Conceptually, the better alternative is the earned income tax credit, which supplements the pay of less skilled workers without pricing their services out of the job market. And also, laws such as OSHA that protect health and safety in workplaces and should be better enforced regardless of the union status of workers.
The professions you mention - electricians, airline pilots and nurses - are more highly unionized than other professions. The unions also advocate for more than salary and benefits. They also advocate for safety - in airports, hospitals and power plants. Furthermore they also advocate for broadening access to health care, building out the electric transmission system and improvement to the air traffic control responsibility. Also, apprenticeship programs sponsored by unions are import entry paths to longer-term careers.
Why don't you address the elephant in the room regarding unions, particularly government unions? According to Open Secrets all union PACs donated $14,325,958 to candidates (2023-2024).
$12,501,058 to Democrats
$1,664,900 to Republicans
The elephant in the room is the First Amendment. Teachers are free to assemble and organize and speak what they believe and donate to whom they want. You may not like it but that's tough.
You're not a serious person Ed because you refuse to address the issues I raised.
Who are you to judge who is serious and who is not?
Centrist and center-left political parties, composed of all sorts of people including me, advocate for those policies related to the health and safety of all workers and the general public. Apprenticeship is a good practice, particularly following occupational training. But again, unionization is only one way to accomplish that. Many unions have a horrible history of discrimination against people other than friends and relatives of the white male union members, which has mostly been eliminated but not entirely. Employment should be open to all people willing to work for the pay and benefits offered by employers.
Efforts to unionize workers in wholesale distribution warehouse like those operated by Amazon and among fast food workers has met with very strong push back from employers and investors. Without unionization then the wages and working conditions are more often dictated by state and local governments.
Unions have actually have the opposite effect of what you are alleging here. When union members get higher pay, it forces nonunion employers to pay their employees more, because the overall price of labor has gone up. It shrinks the labor pool of people who are willing to work for lower wages, and thus increases the demand for labor, and thus increases the price. As Unions have shrunk, the Salaries of CEOs have gone up, because the lack of Unions has lowered the price of labor, and they now keep the money for themselves.
Wages are one component of purchasing power, while costs of goods and services are the other. In most companies, the salaries of the CEOs are a small part of the cost of the product, while wages to employees (and those of suppliers) are a major part. When labor costs are artificially inflated above market levels, consumers and taxpayers pay higher prices. It's like a dog chasing its tail. If so many CEOs weren't so damned in-your-face with their conspicuous consumption, there might be less misunderstanding about their actual economic impact on the purchasing power of "ordinary" people.
Private sector, not public sector.
Why did Ruy feel the need to disparage RFK Jr in the second paragraph?
I don't know, maybe it's because he's a delusional lunatic responsible for thousands of deaths because of his disparagement of vaccines, who sold his soul to Donald Trump in exchange for political power.
OMB. To be fair, RFK2 does have some odd beliefs but he has it right about chronic disease.
He would stand up in front of a crowd or rednecks and talk about civil rights and then head to the ghetto and talk about law and order. Told people what they needed to hear not what they wanted to hear. Remember though he was killed by a Palestinian because of his support for Israel. There is a segment of today's party that wouldn't like that.
Most Americans, I think, recognize patriotism when they see it, without the added political narrative of liberal v. conservative, or Democratic v. Republican.
Once we can recognize and admire patriotism for patriotism without adding our own lesser partisan spin, we can promote patriotism absent polical shackle. And once we achieve that, we have taken as a nation an important step to what the authors call "an honest teaching of American history."
That history, in turn, would recognize that a full decade before the liberals' beloved Kennedys held the reins of power, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was sending federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas to end racial segregation of public education and, an added full decade before that, General Eisenhower was leading American and allied forces against the spread of global fascism in Europe and Asia.
Given the woeful state of today's American public education, it is entirely imaginable that our youth are not learning these lessons in patriotism. The Liberal Patriot will be doing them and the goal of an honest teaching of American history a big favor by correcting that sorry record.
Robert Kennedy was killed 57 years ago. He's about as relevant as a dial telephone.
Harsh, but true!
You're not a big fan of history, are you.
Thanks for your "progressive" condescension. I majored in history at the University of Wisconsin, whose program was ranked #4 in the country at the time, and have retained a life-long interest. No, I have never worshiped the Kennedys, but your implicit arrogance is just so typical of the errant bullshit that liberals just specialize in. Not to put too fine a point on it.
Bobby Kennedy gave a very good extemporaneous eulogy to Martin Luther King after King was shot dead. That's about it. And Teddy? What a pig. Same for the rest of them.
So did you only study history that was less than 57 years old?
Are you always this stupid, or just now?
You just said you weren’t interested in Robert Kennedy‘s history because it happened 57 years ago. If that’s your reason for not being interested in Robert Kennedy, why are you interested in anything else that happened earlier than that?
Same question: Always this stupid, are you?
I think that neither John or Bobby Kennedy would recognize the modern Democratic Party as anything familiar. Further, the modern party would have no use for them either.
RFK's election campaign was the only one that ever got me to do anything for it.
Basic decency towards all, a promise of something better in the future, and a belief in America itself, as something good, goes a long way, towards healing this nation. I look forward to more of your treatise, and the hope that someone will pick it up, that actually accords with it, rather than uses it as a path to power.
"Bobby" would say or do anything to get elected --- his inconcistencies were legendary !
I just went and took a look at the whole thing via the link up at the beginning of this thing.
I guess I can't complain that there is nothing to read anymore.
Thank You Ruy for making this free for all to read, too many things behind a paywall that I really wish to read. I downloaded the PDF, so to read at work where there is no wifi or net connection.
You scared me for a minute. I thought you were talking about RFK2
Bobby Kennedy believed in God, by the accounts I've seen, he was more than just a luke warm Christian, he truly believed and in your article you point out the Biblical stances he championed (good work ethic 'Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God'; not just welfare for welfare's sake 'if you don't work, you don't eat'; equal opportunity over equal outcomes, strong law and order, etc)
Yet, no mention of his reverence for God or just that he was a devout believer, though maybe I accidentally skipped over it. Don't you think his faith led him to these character traits? That his faith was the foundation for what appeals to you? I would think this would be something important to point out or at least acknowledge.