But it's totally worth it. Maybe.

In responding to what he refers to as an Eduscuffle, Eduwonk states that he doesn't believe there will be a teacher strike in NYC because the public wouldn't support it and the teachers union understands that. I tend to agree. The threat to strike still holds some sexiness to it, though, especially if you don't have to get to the point where you argue the merits to the working men and women of the city who would be seriously inconvenienced if their 1.1 million cherubs suddenly had no school to attend. Eduwonk refers to some of the political considerations of a strike threat.

(I happen to think the UFT has had a compelling case about stifling micromanagement and strange edu-managerial priorities vis-a-vis bulletin boards, reading rugs, etc., but those kinds of things are harder to explain to the general public than bread-and-butter salary/benefit issues. All Bloomberg has to do, regardless of the merits and the fine print, is stand up and remind the city he has increased teacher pay by the 30-whatever-percent since he's been in office, and Joe Six-Pack starts wondering what in God's name is in the water down at the UFT's Lower Manhattan headquarters.)

AFT Ed and Eduwonk go back and forth on the matter. Here's some more.

I've been trying my hand at this blog thing for a few months now, deliberately altering the style, tone, and substance to see what stuff falls flat on its face and what stuff takes on a life of its own. For reasons I still don't entirely comprehend, my original post on this fell into the latter category. The original was meant to remind people (particularly in the extremely timid charter school world) that sometimes taking a stand means playing hardball, as the NEA and AFT remind us on a regular basis. But it prompted all sorts of response posts and emails (after I suggested that a strike threat was an action 'aimed at kids,' that have me wanting to address a couple of issues.)

1.) I'm still baffled by the reference to the striking nurses and the guy who had the wrong hip replaced because the (scabs/emergency fill-ins, depending on your flavor) prepped the wrong hip. I have gotten a bunch of emails on this. It seems there is some sort of simple cause-effect thing going on here, no? Either you believe:

-- Nurses go on strike: guy gets wrong hip operated on.


-- Crappy managers are unfair, causing nurses to (let's say justifiably) go on strike: guy gets wrong hip operated on.

The guy walking around with two left hips doesn't give a hoot which scenario played out. He's the patient. The two things he sees in common under both scenarios are (a) the teachers going on strike and (b) that he got screwed. Labor and management -- like little children in the backseat of a car on a long summer roadtrip -- can fight about whose fault it was, but do the semantics matter? The job action involves leverage, and the patients provide it.

When the nurses (who I have to think aren't taking this situation as lightly as either The Chalkboard or AFT Ed, who giddily declared it was 'hip' to be in the union - get it!?) decided to try to force management's hand, they opted to do so by going on strike. They can't really stick it to the man directly, so they have to stick it to him indirectly by turning their backs on the people they normally bend-over backwards, day-in and day-out to serve. That's what you do in a strike isn't it? You make an extremely tough decision to be a defiant employee (even if justified) in the short term in the hopes that it will end up helping both you (the worker) and, ultimately, the grateful recipients of your services down the line. It's called taking a stand, and it is what has made the labor movement such an important part of the history of America's middle class.

AFT Ed portrays this as management's way of publicly framing the issue, but despite the cheesy sanctimony, it is the exact same way labor (internally, at least, but certainly not in statements to the press) has to think of the issue in order for it to work. If the nurses went out on strike but still took care of their patients, the strike would be about as effective as A-Rod throwing out a runner on a routine grounder to third base the last few weeks.

On the Daily Kos site, one reader compares the striking nurses example to a nursing home where management calls all the workers together for a meeting. While they are meeting, the old geezers are left alone and one of them falls and gets injured. At least in that example, the link between management's idiotic decision and the effect is more clear. In order to fully pin the Englewood hospital blame on their managers, like Ed did, you have to assume that the nurses are too stupid to understand there are clear risks that come from their protests. (You'd have to think that the nurses, who likely consider themselves to be professionals, looked at the scenario in terms of risk and potential reward before casting their votes to support a strike.)

In the Daily Kos nursing home case, the harm is caused by bad managers who have questionable regard for their elderly residents, while in the striking nurses case, the patient-loving nurses are trying to make a larger point in their attempts to bargain a new contract that will someday, God-willing, help lots more patients. I respect that, and in this case, I sincerely do hope the nurses are treated fairly and future patients all over the Greater Englewood area will go forth with strong hips and spread the good word. But to suggest that patients aren't the losers in a hospital strike (like children and families in a teacher strike) isn't just "dishonest," it's silly. Why do you think teacher strikes are so emotionally draining for teachers?

2.) Wasn't it the AFL-CIO and labor-friendly pols like Franklin D. Roosevelt who were once the most adamantly opposed to public sector bargaining? FDR: "All government employees should recognize that collective bargaining as usually understood cannot be transplanted into public service... Actions looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it are unthinkable and intolerable." AFL-CIO Boss George Meany: "It is impossible to bargain collectively with government." I know, I know, more management flacking, but this debate on the differences between public and private sector labor unions is much more interesting than some would have you believe. (Those quotes came from Richard Kahlenberg's chapter in Collective Bargaining in Education.)

3.) There is a larger issue that is hanging over all of this stuff, and it dovetails into the controversy surrounding "card check" and NYSUT's apparent insistence (per Sheldon Silver) that all new charter schools be unionized. And it is a serious question, so I'll take care to drop any sarcasm or even any whiff of playfulness when I pose it. It involves some admittedly big ideas that impact an awful lot of people who work their asses off in public school classrooms all over the country. (And, quite frankly, it involves important ideals to which people like AFT Ed and Leo Casey have dedicated their adult lives, so I honestly am trying to tread with respect here.) But here goes:

When teachers, school boards, and the general public were first pitched the merits of collective bargaining in the 1960's and 1970's, it was supposed to be one of the grandest win-wins of all time. Teachers, who would finally be treated with much-needed respect, would be happy and comfortable, and the impact would trickle down to the students. Teachers would live happily and students would learn in the best possible environment.

So... what happened? In places like NYC that have had collective bargaining for 40 years, teachers are still pissed off. (When is the last time you heard a NYC school teacher talk about how nice it is to work in the school system?) If traditional collective bargaining is the cure-all, why do public school teachers continue to be so angry year after year after year? What am I missing? Are we focusing too much on the grand promise of old-fashioned bargaining and too little on the under-appreciated work of our teachers?

Does relying on traditional collective bargaining agreements to ensure "respect" take the heat off management to otherwise treat employees "respectfully"??? Does it force the union to constantly make sure the rank-and-filers are as miserable as humanly possible so they will exert angry pressure every time a contract comes up for renewal???

Is this the best we can do for teachers and students?? Is it possible there is a better way to do this??

Let the blogging begin. Take it away folks...