You must log in or register to comment.

LostMyLedger t1_jacwn8x wrote

As a recent graduate, I’m glad. The school system is fucking horrible. I feel bad for anyone having to go to this system every day.


VCUBNFO t1_jad47od wrote

Why do you think unionization of principals will be better for students?


weasol12 t1_jad651n wrote

Collective action can more adequately advocate for system wide needs than one person complaining at a school board meeting.


ManBMitt t1_jadfq7k wrote

I used to live in Chicago which has an incredibly powerful teacher’s union. Teachers get paid pretty well (median salary over $80k/year in a fairly inexpensive city), but from a school quality perspective the main results were frequent long strikes that closed the schools down and staying remote-only during COVID for far longer than other school districts around the country (which obviously impacted the poorest students the most).

I have yet to see any non-biased evidence that public sector unionization results in better quality public services.


kneel_yung t1_jadiwav wrote

If there's no teachers to go on strike, because nobody wants to work for shit pay and be treated like garbage, is that a better alternative? Because that's what the current reality is

The few people I know in the teaching industry wouldn't even consider working for RPS as-is.


redditrva456 t1_jadlwep wrote

Sounds like 2 problems.

Inadequate teachers providing lack luster education.

Underpaid roles in general in RPS system.


CadenVanV t1_jaf1oc7 wrote

When teachers have to provide all the supplies in their classrooms themselves, education quality tends to suffer. Fund the teachers and they can actually teach well


redditrva456 t1_jaf2nrp wrote

If you’re argument is the teachers have to provide all the supplies, then I think you meant to say “supply the classrooms and they can teach well”.

Align your request to your complaint.


ManBMitt t1_jadnbn7 wrote

If an employer needs to raise pay in order to attract enough qualified candidates to fill open positions, then they will do that regardless of whether a union is present. If they don’t do that, then that has more to do with the employer’s incompetence than with the employees’ bargaining power.


Realmofthehappygod t1_jadpkec wrote

Right, we need employee's bargaining power to counteract employer's incompetence.

That is the main issue.



In this case the employer is the taxpayer. Why haven't the taxpayers of Richmond city voted to raise educators' pay?


CadenVanV t1_jaf1sx5 wrote

Because the school board chooses how to allocate funds and the current one is the shittiest institution on earth. The taxpayers have no say over this


Hedgiepotamus t1_jaes9z9 wrote

Bullshit. They pass laws lowering standards and move the goalposts. Ex: Why attract and hire more subs when they can force current teachers to give up planning to watch classes? Planning we need to make lessons and grade and do IEP work and do PDs and and and. This kinda shit is rampant. They aren't incompetent. They are very intentional in not spending the money. Teacher and administrator unions are not the baddies. My union spends half our time advocating for changes that would be of benefit for students mainly. Because teachers and administration give a shit about students and we are often some of the only people catching systemic issues. So it falls on us to advocate for solutions. Your black and white understanding of how the world works is failing you spectacularly.


sirensinger17 t1_jaf3eoe wrote

Ex teacher here. No they won't. They'll just keep the bad teachers instead of hiring better ones. And then decent teachers like me leave cause we know our skills will be better appreciated and better paid elsewhere


kneel_yung t1_jaeggw1 wrote

> If an employer needs to raise pay in order to attract enough qualified candidates to fill open positions, then they will do that regardless of whether a union is present

Unless they can still turn a profit anyway, in which case they absolutely don't have to if they don't want to.


DefaultSubsAreTerrib t1_jaeb1mr wrote

>staying remote-only during COVID for far longer than other school districts around the country

I would point out that RPS did that without a principals' union


VCUBNFO t1_jad6l39 wrote

How so? The entire executive team hasn't been able to collectively get a lot of things that would make the schools better.

Unionization would make it more difficult to fire poor performers though.


LostMyLedger t1_jad7v26 wrote

The staff gets fucked over by the board all the time. Schools have way too much to deal with and there voices usually go unanswered. My government class had to spam email the board to get simple changes to be heard. Small fixes like AC being broken for weeks we had to fight to get them to even acknowledge the problem. So big issues like rats, pay cuts, teacher quitting, fighting and staff gets involved, and now school shooting prevention are hard to get them to listen. Maybe you’ve never been to a Richmond school but go to a basketball game or something and look around. There are internal problems that the news dont cover and small issues add up.


weasol12 t1_jad80fr wrote

Abbott Elementary is that you?


foureyeswithbeard t1_jadcd72 wrote

I literally had to stop watching 2 episodes in because it hit too close to home.


sirensinger17 t1_jaf3mez wrote

Schools already can't fire poorly performing teachers cause there's no one to replace them. No one's entering teaching because the pay sucks, the culture is toxic, and they're not appreciated


DrunkonKoolAid t1_jad5mnu wrote

Happier better paid staff = better education for students. Do you want to do your job when you're paid squat and have less resources annually?


Marino4K t1_jaehhxh wrote

Now if only Henrico and Chesterfield got on board.


ManBMitt t1_jadek1c wrote

There’s very little evidence (I.e. non-biased scientific studies) showing that unionization has a positive impact on job performance, and there’s quite a bit of evidence that unionization has a negative impact on job performance. Though admittedly, most of the studies that are out there focus on the private sector rather than the public sector.

There is lots of evidence however that unions increase pay and improve working conditions.

So if your concern is that school principals are underpaid and have poor working conditions, then unionization is likely to help that - but only at the expense of an already-tight RPS budget.

If your concern is that RPS principals aren’t doing as good a job as they should be, then unionization is likely a step in the wrong direction.


VCUBNFO t1_jad6cpi wrote

Why don't we just pay them more rather than unionize them?

Unionization generally creates a lot of red tape for removing people for poor performance.


kneel_yung t1_jadjadq wrote

> Why don't we just pay them more rather than unionize them?

Well, why don't we?

edit: *crickets*


RVAVandal t1_jad6v6p wrote

Sounds like you're getting your info about Unions from Fox news and the Capitalist class.


plummbob t1_jadbgv3 wrote

> and the Capitalist class.


what exactly is that


chairmanbrando t1_jadd7ih wrote

It's only the very thing that has been holding this country back for decades with stagnant wages while productivity and corporation profits continue to rise.


plummbob t1_jadetov wrote

>stagnant wages


doesn't look flat to me


Besides, absent land rents, capital share of net income isn't even that great


class conflict is a nice theory if you need to a distant other to blame when you have actual market power from economic classes

but for locally caused problems -low public amenities, poor schools, underperforming infrastructure, high housing costs, pockets of intractable crime are all entirely RVA's locally sourced problems...and is it really the uber-rich causing the poor performance the these things?



take this bonkers of a story. kinda hard to blame jeff bezo's for unsafe streets when its the residents themselves that turned out to protest improving them


gravy_boot t1_jadj2dy wrote

> doesn’t look flat to me

Is this data normalized to the cost of living, or anything else?


plummbob t1_jadk2rl wrote

whenever you see the word real in something like real income or real wages in a dataset like this, it means its adjusted for inflation.


VCUBNFO t1_jad7um3 wrote

Sounds like you're getting your info about unions from unions.


Charles_Britt t1_jad909q wrote

And everyone knows the primary source is always the least accurate information


VCUBNFO t1_jad97u5 wrote

The groups that would hire union groups vs non-union groups generally prefer non-union groups to have better performance.

Primary source, as you say.


OrtizDupri t1_jadavs5 wrote

> The groups that would hire union groups vs non-union groups generally prefer non-union groups to have better performance.

  • citation needed

Charles_Britt t1_jadc7bt wrote

From the US Department of Labor

>Labor unions improve wages and working conditions for all workers, whether they are union members or not. Unions help reduce wage gaps for women workers and workers of color. Union members have better job safety protections and better paid leave than non-union workers, and are more secure exercising their rights in the workplace.

Seems like unions do some cool shit.


kneel_yung t1_jadjo36 wrote

Union workers do better work because they're more experienced. Non-union tend to be younger


CadenVanV t1_jaf20a5 wrote

Unionization also creates a lot of red tape for removing people in general. So now employers can’t call whatever they want to “poor performance” and firing employees for their shoe color is a little less viable


BureauOfBureaucrats t1_jadbax4 wrote

They’re not going to get paid more without a union to represent them and fight for it.


kickingpplisfun t1_jaergk1 wrote

You definitely haven't actually been involved with a union if you think that, except maybe a police union. Employees need other protections than just pay, and employers rarely give out substantial raises without collective bargaining, and are also empowered to create unsafe working conditions and discriminatory environments without someone to tell them to piss off.


Prestigious_Laugh300 t1_jadljwc wrote

"If we can't expel/suspend problem students, we all quit" type of thing


dovetc t1_jadolo7 wrote

Well that perspective might make sense. There was a story here a week or two ago that something like 90% or more of cases for expulsion were overruled by the school board. If principals, who are on the ground dealing with these problems are having their judgements overruled in nearly all cases, maybe it's best if they have a bit more leverage in such matters.


localheroism t1_jae5e56 wrote

I think this is pretty much the key issue tbh, principals and teachers who are the ones actually doing the job are having to deal with school boards and administration who are usually incompetent, overreaching, and, especially lately, polarized beyond the point of actually being helpful. I think the more directly that teachers can effect change in their schools the better, so hopefully principals being given more of a voice will help with that


GMUcovidta t1_jadrlyq wrote

Why shouldn't they be allowed to expel and suspend students?


Prestigious_Laugh300 t1_jadstza wrote

Presently the cocksuckers on the school board don't let them


GMUcovidta t1_jadto4w wrote

Lol I read your comment as they shouldn't be allowed to - I agree it would help other kids learn if you can remove the children that are perpetually problematic


VCUBNFO t1_jaf4m3r wrote

Because suspensions often disproportionately impact specific demographics, so there is a big push to mitigate that disparity by suspending less.


popsrcr t1_jadbu3q wrote

I'm all for the school employees getting better pay, etc, but that's about the only real change this will cause.


Remerez t1_jaddm4r wrote

Have some faith. This is in the right direction. Higher pay helps retain teachers and attract more teacher.


Zav72777 t1_jadglid wrote

yeah idk why this guys getting downvoted, that would be HUGE, good teachers do amazing work and set the next generation up for success, but yes, I'd like more change, but, this is still huge and will help a lot of people


Remerez t1_jadl62f wrote

Some people would rather their pessimism come true to feel right and in control. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. The fact they are unionizing means they know what they are doing.

Also, Richmond is a very anti-union area. I can't tell you how many people I have met here believe unions are good for nothing and take your money. I see a union like a bulletproof vest. Even a shitty vest is better than nothing.


popsrcr t1_jadmxto wrote

This doesn't have anything to do with teachers, from what I see. Its back office staff. I do not question one bit that they deserve higher pay, I just think that's all this accomplishes. If teachers get more pay, I'm for that as well.


dphoenix1 t1_jadpd89 wrote

RPS teachers already voted for unionization in 2021, this just adds administrative employees as well.


Remerez t1_jadsynu wrote

I'm not sure why you are so against people getting paid more. It seems like you are getting all ruffled up over a possibility, not whats happening.


popsrcr t1_jadtiwl wrote

Where did I say I was against people getting paid more?

" I do not question one bit that they deserve higher pay, I just think that's all this accomplishes. If teachers get more pay, I'm for that as well. "


Remerez t1_jadv6xm wrote

You are concern trolling and implying that this whole step towards progress is going to be only used for monetary gain. Your whole argument is that these people only want more money, and they will do nothing else. You see them in bad faith based on personal beliefs and not those people's actions.

Having pessimistic viewpoints on future events is a type of delusion. it's best to either be optimistic or say I don't know. Because the more negative beliefs of the future we hold the more it will affect our outlook on the world and our actions.


popsrcr t1_jadw1l1 wrote

Please spare me your armchair psychiatry. I have no reason to wish folks ill. But the fact remains that the only tangible result is more pay for these folks. I mean, how is the cafe lady getting paid more going to affect education? Again, I'm POSITIVE they deserve it, but little johnny still can't add two and two.

Teachers? Hell yeah, they get the brunt of this.

Better benefits and pay are good for all.


Remerez t1_jadwv8y wrote

Oh you're anti-union, I get it now.

You know you can stop being an armchair judge and actually look into the stuff yourself. people who get paid more have higher job satisfaction and higher job satisfaction means they will volunteer their time more and systems will run more smoothly because of less animosity. higher pay means better teachers, and better teachers mean little johnny gets a better education.

Do you get it now?


popsrcr t1_jady5bz wrote

Better teachers has NOTHING to do with this topic lol. IT was about back office. And I'm still good with them getting realistic pay. Everyone should, but its kind of relative.

And yeah, I love my job and am paid well. I volunteer .... wait...sometimes.

I'm not even arguing with you!

and, pretty sure you've prejudged me while having no clue. But its all good, we all do it.


kneel_yung t1_jaepmu3 wrote

> Better teachers has NOTHING to do with this topic lol. IT was about back office.

Better admin == happier teachers. Idk if you've ever had a real job, but sometimes you end up with a bad boss whom you hate and it sucks to go to work and deal with them.

I left my last job for that reason and now I have a job with a cool boss who has my back and doesn't throw me under the bus at every opportunity. So yeah, better admin == better teachers.


Remerez t1_jae3a47 wrote

It does, though. More pay means better support and more incentive to be a teacher knowing that the staff will more supportive. You really want this to fail don't you?


kneel_yung t1_jaeptnd wrote

I get the impression that this a very young person or perhaps somebody who has been their own boss for a long time. cause anyone who's worked an actual job knows how much of an impact your boss has on your job satisfaction. Anyone who doesn't get that is usually a) a NEET, or b) a problem employee


localheroism t1_jadcxns wrote

At first I thought this was weird but tbh I think principals are often at the mercy of the board/administration in a similar way to teachers. Given the incredible amount of polarization in admin in recent years I think this makes sense


PetersburgMutualAid t1_jaei1ec wrote

Congratulations to them! Hopefully, teachers' and principals' unions work cordially together.


ttd_76 t1_jae0fko wrote

This is going to be a big headache for us over the next few years. I'm in favor of all the city employees being able to unionize, I'm just saying one big reason they need a union is because they get shitty pay and the city administration is a hot mess.

So for the employees to get treated properly, we will have to raise taxes and a lot of city council, mayor, school board, etc. will need to go and there will have to be some considerable restructuring.

It's good in that this has needed to happen for some time, and hopefully things improve. But the transition is going to be messy as hell.



Why don't the voters of RVA just vote in better leadership such that a union isn't needed? 🤔🤔🤔


spiirel t1_jaf1ogh wrote

Vote in better leadership AND have a union! Win-win!


CadenVanV t1_jaf2neh wrote

A union is good to have no matter who’s in charge


sirensinger17 t1_jaf435i wrote

Unions will never not be needed and good leadership will recognize that.


popsrcr t1_jaeqt4w wrote

Doesn’t seem Richmond wants better leadership, based on who wins elections.