Outlaw teacher strikes
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, Feb. 28, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
Outlaw teacher strikes
My wife and I have nine children, all graduates of the public school system and successful college graduates, several with advanced degrees. I am a retired CPA and chief financial officer and served as a school director (Franklin Regional) for 16 years. My greatest concern is the ability, under the law, of teachers to strike in connection with failed negotiations. This gives teachers unions, in essence, greater power than school boards, the only ones given legal and responsible authority for the public school system.
Is that fair or even reasonable?
Teachers unions may strike and withhold their services for a period of time, holding the education of children hostage, and the school districts have no recourse. Who is in charge, or rather, who would like to take charge?
I am aware that this is Pennsylvania, with its strong tradition of unions! But the Legislature has allowed this travesty to take place, and it is past time that this unbalanced relationship stop.
Change the law to prohibit such strikes, and restrict negotiations to salaries and health and pension benefits to fulfill the requirements as defined by school boards.
The same approach should also apply to police, firefighters and other public-service groups.
If a school board and teachers union cannot reach a negotiated agreement, after a reasonable period of time, the issues should be submitted to an established independent arbitrator for binding arbitration.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett’s choice
- ‘We the people’ are veterans
- Islam & women
- Invest in pre-K
- Slots & property taxes
- Medicaid’s future
- Conspicuous by absence
- Not reviled abroad