Select Page

NYC Public Schools are Incompetent

The‌ ‌NYC‌ ‌public‌ ‌schools‌ ‌are‌ ‌now‌ ‌supposed‌ ‌to‌ ‌begin‌ ‌opening‌ ‌on‌ ‌September‌ ‌29,‌ ‌but‌ ‌unions‌ ‌continue‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌apprehensive‌ ‌about‌ ‌in-person‌ ‌instruction.‌ ‌De‌ ‌Blasio‌ ‌already‌ ‌delayed‌ ‌school‌ ‌opening‌ ‌twice‌ ‌this‌ ‌year‌ ‌after‌ ‌ongoing‌ ‌threats‌ ‌of‌ ‌a‌ ‌teacher‌ ‌strike,‌ ‌‌citing‌ ‌“‌concerns‌ ‌raised‌ ‌by‌ ‌our‌ ‌labor‌ ‌partners.‌”‌‌ ‌On‌ ‌the‌ ‌other‌ ‌hand‌ ‌NYC‌ ‌charter‌ ‌and‌ ‌private‌ ‌schools‌ ‌have‌ ‌a‌ ‌variety‌ ‌of‌ ‌‌re-opening‌ ‌options‌‌ ‌other‌ ‌than‌ ‌virtual:‌ ‌from‌ ‌fully‌ ‌in-person‌ ‌to‌ ‌hybrid‌ ‌to‌ ‌outdoor‌ ‌classrooms.‌ ‌The‌ ‌contrast‌ ‌in‌ ‌competency‌ ‌is‌ ‌astounding.‌ ‌ ‌

The‌ ‌schools‌ ‌have‌ ‌been‌ ‌fully‌ ‌closed‌ ‌for‌ ‌six‌ ‌months‌ ‌because‌ ‌of‌ ‌COVID,‌ ‌and‌ ‌it’s‌ ‌not‌ ‌like‌ ‌educators‌ ‌didn’t‌ ‌know‌ ‌that‌ ‌their‌ ‌singular‌ ‌task‌ ‌of‌ ‌providing‌ ‌education‌ ‌to‌ ‌children‌ ‌would‌ ‌resume‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌fall.‌ ‌Nor‌ ‌are‌ ‌NYC‌ ‌public‌ ‌schools‌ ‌the‌ ‌only‌ ‌education‌ ‌system‌ ‌to‌ ‌face‌ ‌COVID.‌ ‌Virtually‌ ‌the‌ ‌entire‌ ‌country‌ ‌has‌ ‌had‌ ‌to‌ ‌come‌ ‌up‌ ‌with‌ ‌plans‌ ‌to‌ ‌safely‌ ‌re-open‌ ‌schools,‌ ‌and‌ ‌yet‌ ‌NYC‌ ‌public‌ ‌schools‌ ‌continue‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌unprepared‌ ‌and‌ ‌incompetent.‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

De‌ ‌Blasio‌ ‌has‌ ‌proven‌ ‌incapable‌ ‌of‌ ‌negotiating‌ ‌with‌ ‌the‌ ‌unions,‌ ‌and‌ ‌in‌ ‌doing‌ ‌so,‌ ‌he‌ ‌has‌ ‌let‌ ‌down‌ ‌students‌ ‌and‌ ‌parents.‌ ‌This‌ ‌inability‌ ‌to‌ ‌effectively‌ ‌execute‌ ‌a‌ ‌plan‌ ‌to‌ ‌help‌ ‌students‌ ‌learn‌ ‌is‌ ‌perhaps‌ ‌the‌ ‌strongest‌ ‌argument‌ ‌to‌ ‌date‌ ‌as‌ ‌to‌ ‌why‌ ‌charter‌ ‌and‌ ‌private‌ ‌schools‌ ‌should‌ ‌really‌ ‌be‌ ‌the‌ ‌models‌ ‌we‌ ‌move‌ ‌towards‌ ‌in‌ ‌order‌ ‌to‌ ‌provide‌ ‌quality‌ ‌21st‌ ‌century‌ ‌learning‌ ‌to‌ ‌our‌ ‌children.‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

Unions Want Exemption From $15 Minimum Wage Hike


We have entered the Twilight Zone. Because there is virtually no other explanation of the latest crusade by labor leaders in Los Angeles. Union leaders are lobbying Los Angeles city council members to be EXEMPT from paying a $15 minimum wage in workplaces where unions exist. Tim Worstall from Forbes got it right in his opening salvo on the matter: “This is really quite glorious as a display of sheer naked chutzpah.”

The unions themselves have been some of the biggest supporters of the wage increase, not just in Los Angeles, but around the country. Now when it comes to actually paying that wage in Los Angeles, which is poised to be approved by city council, the unions want to retain their right to collective bargaining — which means paying a lower wage if they want. Here is the sheer hypocrisy:

“Rusty Hicks, who heads the county Federation of Labor and helps lead the Raise the Wage coalition, said Tuesday night that companies with workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law.

“With a collective bargaining agreement, a business owner and the employees negotiate an agreement that works for them both. The agreement allows each party to prioritize what is important to them,” Hicks said in a statement. “This provision gives the parties the option, the freedom, to negotiate that agreement. And that is a good thing.”

You can’t make this up. Currently, businesses are not mandated to pay a $15/hour minimum wage and therefore really, truly, actually have, right now, what Mr. Union Rusty Hicks is asking for: “the option, the freedom, to negotiate” an agreement between a business owner and an employee for their wages, allowing “each party to prioritize what is important to them”. That’s what exists now. No mandated wage. Unions seem to be following the “Do as I say, not as I do” playbook.

What is really happening is that the unions want to be able to retain exclusivity on certain contracts. The exemption they are seeking is in places where unions exist in the workplace. By being exempt, this will give the unions the upper hand on contracts. If you were an employer who now will have to pay a $15/hour minimum wage, and the unions can come in and undercut that wage amount by negotiating $13/hour, which do you think an employer will pay? The $15/hour mandated wage for non unions, or the $13/hour union contract? The unions are fearful that leveling the playing field by mandating a $15/hour minimum wage for all will mean that they will lose some (or many) contract — meaning less money in the union’s pockets.

Now I’m not a fan of the proposed $15/hour minimum wage hike, ironically for some of the same reasons that the unions are pleading — a business owner and an employee ought to have the right to agree on wages without an artificial, arbitrary price floor. However, I’m even less of a fan of the idea that unions, or any other group, should be able to claim an exemption. If the city of Los Angeles is going to pass this legislation, then it should be binding for all. Either $15/hour is good for everyone, or no one. Shame on the unions for their brazen hypocrisy.

Teachers Unions and School Closings


Catching up on articles over at the WSJ, I came across this gem last month from Barbara Martinez. It describes how the teachers unions in NY are suing again to stop the closure of failing schools. This article illustrates the power of the teachers unions and the powerlessness of the taxpayers, who continue to subsidize failure and are asked to continue to shoulder the burden of educational costs. The article is reposted below.

TEACHERS UNIONS SUE TO BLOCK SCHOOL CLOSURES

The fate of tens of thousands of students was thrown into question Wednesday after the United Federation of Teachers and the NAACP sued to block the city’s plans to shut down 22 failing schools, a move that threatened to derail a major Bloomberg education initiative for a second year in a row.

The lawsuit echoes another the UFT filed last year that successfully halted the administration’s plans to close 19 schools. Two courts sided with the UFT last year. The lawsuit goes to the heart of a national philosophical divide about failing schools. In general, teachers unions believe that districts have an obligation to fix schools, while others, like Mayor Michael Bloomberg, hold that some schools are so troubled that the only choice is to shut them down and replace them with potentially better schools.

At a press conference, schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott blasted the lawsuit as “outrageous” and said the action will “hold hostage” thousands of students who are set to attend certain schools.

“Students now have to wait and wonder” whether they can attend the school they chose or were assigned to, Mr. Walcott said. “It’s unacceptable, and we’re not going to tolerate that. We’re going to fight. Right now the UFT and the NAACP are denying our students quality options.”

About 70,000 students have already been matched to city high schools, and thousands more have gone through the charter lottery process to determine their schools.

Hours earlier, Michael Mulgrew, the UFT’s president, said at a press conference that the DOE “has not learned its lesson.” He said the lawsuit is based on the DOE’s failure to satisfy an agreement it reached with the UFT to support failing schools before deciding to close them. The suit also charges that charter schools are getting better access to facilities than the traditional schools in the same buildings, which would be contrary to state law that mandates equal treatment among schools.

Those on the side of the teachers union, which includes a number of City Council members who attended the UFT press conference, community advocates and parents, said the city’s process of phasing out schools one grade at a time is disruptive to the students that are left behind. In addition, the lawsuit charges that charter schools that are placed in traditional school buildings get better access to amenities such as libraries, cafeterias and gyms.

Mr. Mulgrew said that after losing the legal fight to close schools last year, the DOE agreed to support the failing schools with more staff and other assistance, but he said that never materialized.

The DOE “is depriving students of tools and resources to achieve academically,” said Ken Cohen, regional director of the New York State Conference of the NAACP. Mr. Cohen said that at Jamaica High School, for instance, the new schools have smart boards while the students at the school being phased out have “broken blackboards.”

Mr. Walcott rejected all of the lawsuit’s allegations, saying the motivation was to protect jobs, not students. He said he was particularly disappointed in the role that the NAACP has played in the new lawsuit and last year’s, saying the group “is defending schools that are failing our children.”

Mr. Walcott cited the performance numbers of the schools on the closure list. For the elementary and middle schools, he said average English-language proficiency is 16%, compared to 42% citywide. In math, it is 19% versus 53%. The average graduation rate of the closing high schools is 49%, compared with the city’s average of 63%, the DOE said.

“These figures are not something to brag about,” Mr. Walcott said. “They should be with us,” he said, referring to the union.

Write to Barbara Martinez at Barbara.Martinez@wsj.com

 

Unions and Polls


An interesting piece coming out of the NYTimes today regarding public sentiment on the activity in Wisconsin.

Majority in Poll Back Employees In Public Unions

As labor battles erupt in state capitals around the nation, a majority of Americans say they oppose efforts to weaken the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions and are also against cutting the pay or benefits of public workers to reduce state budget deficits, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Labor unions are not exactly popular, though: A third of those surveyed viewed them favorably, a quarter viewed them unfavorably, and the rest said they were either undecided or had not heard enough about them. But the nationwide poll found that embattled public employee unions have the support of most Americans — and most independents — as they fight the efforts of newly elected Republican governors in Wisconsin and Ohio to weaken their bargaining powers, and the attempts of governors from both parties to cut their pay or benefits.

Americans oppose weakening the bargaining rights of public employee unions by a margin of nearly two to one: 60 percent to 33 percent. While a slim majority of Republicans favored taking away some bargaining rights, they were outnumbered by large majorities of Democrats and independents who said they opposed weakening them.

Those surveyed said they opposed, 56 percent to 37 percent, cutting the pay or benefits of public employees to reduce deficits, breaking down along similar party lines. A majority of respondents who have no union members living in their households opposed both cuts in pay or benefits and taking away the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

Governors in both parties have been making the case that public workers are either overpaid or have overly generous health and pension benefits. But 61 percent of those polled — including just over half of Republicans — said they thought the salaries and benefits of most public employees were either “about right” or “too low” for the work they do.

When it came to one of the most debated, and expensive, benefits that many government workers enjoy but private sector workers do not — the ability to retire early, and begin collecting pension checks — Americans were closely divided. Forty-nine percent said police officers and firefighters should be able to retire and begin receiving pension checks even if they are in their 40s or 50s; 44 percent said they should have to be older. There was a similar divide on whether teachers should be able to retire and draw pensions before they are 65.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Feb. 24-27 with 984 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all adults. Of those surveyed, 20 percent said there was a union member in their household, and 25 percent said there was a public employee in their household.

Tax increases were not as unpopular among those surveyed as they are among many governors, who have vowed to avoid them. Asked how they would choose to reduce their state’s deficits, those polled preferred tax increases over benefit cuts for state workers by nearly two to one. Given a list of options to reduce the deficit, 40 percent said they would increase taxes, 22 percent chose decreasing the benefits of public employees, 20 percent said they would cut financing for roads and 3 percent said they would cut financing for education.

The most contentious issue to emerge in the recent labor battles has been the question of collective bargaining rights. A proposal by Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin to weaken them sent Democratic state lawmakers out of state to prevent a vote, flooded the Capitol in Madison with thousands of protesters and sparked a national discussion about unions.

The poll found that an overwhelming 71 percent of Democrats opposed weakening collective bargaining rights. But there was also strong opposition from independents: 62 percent of them said they opposed taking bargaining rights away from public employee unions.

Phil Merritt, 67, a retired property manager from Crossville, Tenn., who identifies himself as an independent, explained in a follow-up interview why he opposed weakening bargaining rights for public workers. “I just feel they do a job that needs to be done, and in our country today if you work hard, then you should be able to have a home, be able to save for retirement and you should be able to send your kids to college,” he said. “Most public employees have to struggle to do those things, and generally both spouses must work.”

The one group that favors weakening those rights, by a slim majority, was Republicans. Warren Lemma, 56, an electrical contractor from Longview, Tex., said states did not have the money to pay for many benefits that state workers enjoy.

“Retirement benefits should not be taken away from those about to retire, but the system should be changed for the people starting to teach just now,” said Mr. Lemma, a Republican. “And the only way the system will change is to do something about unions and their control, and the only way to do that is to take away collective bargaining.”

The poll found that 45 percent of those surveyed said they believed that governors and state lawmakers who are trying to reduce the pay or benefits of public workers were doing so to reduce budget deficits, while 41 percent said they thought they were doing so to weaken unions’ power.

Although cutting the pay or benefits of public workers was opposed by people in all income groups, it had the most support from people earning over $100,000 a year. In that income group, 45 percent said they favored cutting pay or benefits, while 49 percent opposed it. In every other income group, a majority opposed cutting pay or benefits: Among those making between $15,000 and $30,000, for instance, 35 percent said they favored cutting pay or benefits, while 60 percent opposed it.

Labor unions, including private sector labor unions, are seen as less influential now than they were three decades ago. The poll found that 37 percent of those surveyed believe that labor unions have “too much influence” on American life and politics, while 48 percent said they had the “right amount” or “too little” influence. In a 1981 poll, by contrast — soon after President Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers — 60 percent of those surveyed said unions had “too much influence.” Of course, union membership has declined since then.