Exactly. The solution is to pay teacher less, so that the only people who are attracted to the profession are people who value access to children as compensation.
That's what teacher's unions do: advocate for teachers. If you read the article, the issue is that the administration (which is not part of union) was covering it up to keep the district from looking bad.
Sure they advocate for teachers, but should they continue to advocate for a teacher who they know is a pedo? You have to know that the union was aware of the guys problem.
You have to know that the union was aware of the guys problem.
(Citation needed). Teachers don't get tenure if they are constantly changing districts, not all districts are unionized, and the administration (which we know had prior knowledge of his kiddy-diddling) has the responsibility of firing people.
Additionally, people in the United States accused of a crime are considered innocent until proven guilty, and knowing that in addition to the false rape accusations teachers face (all it takes is one accusation to end a career), should the union NOT support an alleged pedophile teacher just because a student made an unsubstantiated claim?
You have to know that the union was aware of the guys problem.
How could they be? Unions don't have access to criminal records or disciplinary reports from previous workplaces. Once again, this is the responsibility of an administration trying to save face, and unions are just a leftist boogyman that's easy to lay blame on.
If you can't objectively look at the teachers union
Objectively, teachers unions are supposed to advocate for the well-being of teachers, including those accused of crimes who have not been charged with a crime. The article does not say the union protected him, and it likely did not because teachers who are new to the district do not immediately get union protection, and not all districts have a union.
thru anything but Rose colored glasses then this conversation is useless.
Rose colored glasses
I don't think you understand what this term means.
this conversation is useless.
You're blaming the unions when:
The administration (who is not part of the union and often actively works against the union) was the entity that knew about the rape and was covering up the rape
The union does not make hiring or firing decisions
The union does not have access to criminal records or accusations
Some districts do not have unions, and unions do not provide full protection to teachers new to the district
The administration knew about the molestings and had the responsibility to remove the dangerous predator from the school
Although maybe I am incorrect. Feel free to explain to me what role this Union had in letting this teacher rape children.
I have no point so I will just autistically screech.
I win. Teachers unions have nothing to do with retaining pedophiles, admins don't want to pay for qualified professionals and it's cheaper to hire pedophiles instead of attracting talent who don't see access to children as the equivalent of monetary compensation.
Because it is. It's a lot easier to convince a pedophile to work for 25k a year and no benefits than a qualified professional, because pedophiles see access to children as compensation for their efforts. At ANY point feel free to attack my actual arguments instead of jerking yourself off over the burning straw-man you have created from unions.
Okay, so you have no point to actually make. I win. I will now block you so I no longer get notifications from your autistic screeching.
And just so we understand: I win, I will not read your follow-up autistic screech, and I know you will respond to this because you are a tiny dicked little bitch-fag autist who needs to get the last word in.
view the rest of the comments →
Sharipie ago
The union takes care of their own
BigDaddy69 ago
Exactly. The solution is to pay teacher less, so that the only people who are attracted to the profession are people who value access to children as compensation.
Sharipie ago
Wow, that sounds like it came straight from the teachers union. Put a little of your own thinking into it and get back to me. Until then, goodbye.
BigDaddy69 ago
That's what teacher's unions do: advocate for teachers. If you read the article, the issue is that the administration (which is not part of union) was covering it up to keep the district from looking bad.
Sharipie ago
Sure they advocate for teachers, but should they continue to advocate for a teacher who they know is a pedo? You have to know that the union was aware of the guys problem.
BigDaddy69 ago
(Citation needed). Teachers don't get tenure if they are constantly changing districts, not all districts are unionized, and the administration (which we know had prior knowledge of his kiddy-diddling) has the responsibility of firing people.
Additionally, people in the United States accused of a crime are considered innocent until proven guilty, and knowing that in addition to the false rape accusations teachers face (all it takes is one accusation to end a career), should the union NOT support an alleged pedophile teacher just because a student made an unsubstantiated claim?
How could they be? Unions don't have access to criminal records or disciplinary reports from previous workplaces. Once again, this is the responsibility of an administration trying to save face, and unions are just a leftist boogyman that's easy to lay blame on.
Sharipie ago
If you can't objectively look at the teachers union thru anything but Rose colored glasses then this conversation is useless.
BigDaddy69 ago
Objectively, teachers unions are supposed to advocate for the well-being of teachers, including those accused of crimes who have not been charged with a crime. The article does not say the union protected him, and it likely did not because teachers who are new to the district do not immediately get union protection, and not all districts have a union.
I don't think you understand what this term means.
You're blaming the unions when:
The administration (who is not part of the union and often actively works against the union) was the entity that knew about the rape and was covering up the rape
The union does not make hiring or firing decisions
The union does not have access to criminal records or accusations
Some districts do not have unions, and unions do not provide full protection to teachers new to the district
The administration knew about the molestings and had the responsibility to remove the dangerous predator from the school
Although maybe I am incorrect. Feel free to explain to me what role this Union had in letting this teacher rape children.
Shillaxe ago
Your name BigDADDY69 says it all.
BigDaddy69 ago
I win. Teachers unions have nothing to do with retaining pedophiles, admins don't want to pay for qualified professionals and it's cheaper to hire pedophiles instead of attracting talent who don't see access to children as the equivalent of monetary compensation.
Shillaxe ago
"...and it's cheaper to hire pedophiles" These are your words "BigDaddy69"
BigDaddy69 ago
Because it is. It's a lot easier to convince a pedophile to work for 25k a year and no benefits than a qualified professional, because pedophiles see access to children as compensation for their efforts. At ANY point feel free to attack my actual arguments instead of jerking yourself off over the burning straw-man you have created from unions.
Shillaxe ago
No one that goes by BigDaddy69 should be allowed near children
BigDaddy69 ago
Okay, so you have no point to actually make. I win. I will now block you so I no longer get notifications from your autistic screeching.
And just so we understand: I win, I will not read your follow-up autistic screech, and I know you will respond to this because you are a tiny dicked little bitch-fag autist who needs to get the last word in.
Shillaxe ago
Sounds like I struck a nerve.