Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
They should have none. They should subject to the same at will firing I am.
Nobody deserves "job protection." The notion a person should have that makes a mockery of the "Capitalism" we pretend to observe.
|
Don't be a moron. They don't get job protections because some legislator somewhere thought they "should" have it. They get it because their union negotiates a contract -- you know, like they do in "Capitalism" -- and bargains for it. Those job rules are the product of a market, not an affront to it.
eta: And I can think of good reasons why public-school teachers are more likely to ask and receive these protections than others in the workforce. For one, it's hard to supervise and evaluate teachers. If their students do poorly, is it the students, their parents, the curriculum, the teacher, etc? It's much harder to assess their output than it is with other jobs. For two, they're being supervised by public-school administrators, who are not necessarily the pilot lights with the brightest flames. So it seems pretty clear to me that public-school teachers are going to be particularly likely to forego salary increases for job protections, and correspondingly it seems pretty obvious that school boards, relative to other employers, are going to be relatively happy to extend those protections as opposed to paying more money.
