Not exact matches
In a city
where unions are
powerful political forces to begin with, Seabrook derived unusual clout from his position at the intersection of multiple lines of influence.
We can sort of look at the European
Union as a model
where you have all these very
powerful nations that have realized that war and militarism just made absolutely no sense anymore; and so they have created this set of treaties that acknowledge their inter-independence [interdependence] and make the possibility of, you know, a repeat of World War I or II extremely unlikely.
In jurisdictions
where unions are
powerful, therefore, many public officials have incentives to submit to
union demands even if they know the result will be higher costs and inefficiencies.
There's plenty of conventional wisdom, to be sure, mostly along the lines of, «
unions are most
powerful where every teacher must belong to them and every district must bargain with them and least consequential in «right - to - work» states.»
And if so, is this a national problem or something largely confined to states
where unions are especially
powerful or tenure systems are poorly designed?
Those who argue that collective bargaining for teachers is stacked, even undemocratic, say that, unlike in the private sector,
where management and labor go head - to - head with clearly distinct interests, in the case of teachers,
powerful unions are actively involved in electing school board members, essentially helping to pick the management team.
Teachers are literate and they vote so they are a
powerful political force especially
where teacher
unions are strong.
Now it is true that a
union can be decertified by its members, but it is an onerous process that is doomed to fail, especially in big cities
where the
unions are
powerful.