Corporate Sponsorship in Public Schools

It's the confluence of education, private money and unions. It's totally relevant.

We're talking about corporate sponsorship of public schools. A corporation could also sponsor/endow a teaching position at a school. It actually often happens at colleges in the US.

Or a private donor could offer money to any teacher in their area who got their kids to perform an academic feat of some sort. But apparently these kinds of extra incentives run afoul of some unions, who will block them simply to keep a lid on their power.

Right, you go and make up some wild connections to justify your rant against unions which has nothing to do with the original topic of the thread.

Did you even notice you're using the subjunctive in your "examples"? Or am I allowed to post wild stuff, then make up some possible connections which might or might not happen and post that as relevant?

Please.

Or are your children taught by policemen nowadays?

Hmmh.

Considering the US performance, that might actually be true.

Can someone here offer something substantial besides this "Unions, durr!" meme? It's getting nearly as bad as the "Free market fixeth all!" dogma around here.

Jesus Christ on a stick, we get it: Unions are somewhat messed up over there. That doesn't mean that they're responsible for Ragnarök, the Second Coming, the Fall from Grace and Strawberry Ice Cream.

Jesus, dude. :bulb:

I would have liked to make the connection when I posted the article, but I was in the middle of working at home and figured the connection was at least somewhat clear.

Who knew that privately-funded educational incentive loans — paid to state employees —*were not at all relevant to a thread about corporate sponsorship of schools?

Well, you had to go and try to shoehorn your disliking of unions into it. Sorry man, but I find this "Unions, rarara!" attitude absolutely tiring.

And funding from a non-profit group via private (as in "actual human", not corporations) donations is quite a bit different from corporate funding (hence the two different terms, see?). The target audience is also different. As is the setting. As is the core of the dispute.

The only common denominator is "education" - and even that is a bit dodgy, as in on case is pimary education, in the other case it's advanced education.

I know you dislike me and all, but it's relevant. Private donations to the field of education can be controversial in ways we hadn't considered.

Yes, they could lead to things like after school enrichment activities for reasonable prices.

Or playground equipment. Or even books for the library.

Wouldn't want these things happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Jesus, dude. :bulb:

---

I used to harp how you use this in such an obviously childish manner, but I'm starting to notice how its now this huge red flag that you've given up on the debate and further posts are likely to follow your usual defensive mechanisms.
and look at that, your next post has you playing the victim in the first sentence :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I know you dislike me and all, but it's relevant. Private donations to the field of education can be controversial in ways we hadn't considered.

---

Only that those donations do not actually go towards the field of education. Quote from your article:

Quote:

---

[...]"The donors, through the police foundation, found a way to ameliorate the particularly low starting salary at the time, when it was particularly difficult to recruit and retain officers."[...]

---

And I am slightly curious, if the donations were not stopped, would the wages have been raised this much? I can imagine the police reasoning "Oh, they already get these bonuses anyway, so we don't need to raise the wages to proper levels to solve the low recruiting rate". In that case, the unions did have everybody's interest at heart, somewhat.

That's my biggest problem with private/corporate donations: the risk that the government sees it as an excuse to keep low, unsustainable funding. Which means the schools get too dependent on donations, which is not a good thing if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

And I am slightly curious, if the donations were not stopped, would the wages have been raised this much?

---

You're mixing up the timeline. The wages had already been raised that much by the time a ruling came down, and were already rising when the challenge was made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

You're mixing up the timeline. The wages had already been raised that much by the time a ruling came down, and were already rising when the challenge was made.

---

Fair enough, then it's just retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

I used to harp how you use this in such an obviously childish manner, but I'm starting to notice how its now this huge red flag that you've given up on the debate and further posts are likely to follow your usual defensive mechanisms.
and look at that, your next post has you playing the victim in the first sentence :rolleyes:

---

Actually, it just means I'm incredulous at someone's lack of understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Only that those donations do not actually go towards the field of education. Quote from your article:

---

It's instructive because the donations funded new educational opportunities. The issue at hand is private people dropping cash on specific school programs. Well, what about individual teachers or students who complete certain goals?

This is a new angle, but also a way someone could provide "corporate sponsorship" or even simple ideological advocacy within a public school system. Yet potentially increasing the pay of some teachers (or funding certain students) could easily run afoul of union agreements that dominate public education.

If Volkswagen offered high school teachers an additional 10,000 Euros a year to teach some kids extra courses about engineering using VW learning materials, do you think your teacher unions would have an objection to certain teachers getting this extra money on top of their salary outside of their contract?

That would only be possible if the government allowed it. Side jobs are subject to approval by the government.

You're just showing that you're still gung-ho on your "Unions are evil! Derp, derp!" attitude.

Here's a fun fact: For German teachers, membership in a union is actually pretty useful and, I dare say, even a requirement. But not for the reasons you'll probably think of.

Why is it so great that they are required?

And why does every extra bit of instruction and resources need to be government approved? This is education, not widget-making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Why is it so great that they are required?

And why does every extra bit of instruction and resources need to be government approved? This is education, not widget-making.

---

"Side jobs are subject to approval by the government." You seem to be unable to read.

And did I say it's great that they're required? Methinks not. Again, learn to read.

... why do side jobs need to be approved by the government...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

... why do side jobs need to be approved by the government...?

---

Because German teachers are usually members of the government. It's called "Beamte". And as such, their workpower solely belongs to the state.

All county employees have to keep a record of any forms of employment or investments that bring in additional income. I know its been used before to keep people out of certain positions within the library system.

Okay so if the government boss allows the side jobs, will unions have a problem with them? Will the government-bosses be allowed to allow the side jobs if the unions DO have a problem with them? If the government is an employer then surely they have to negotiate with their employees' unions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Okay so if the government boss allows the side jobs, will unions have a problem with them? Will the government-bosses be allowed to allow the side jobs if the unions DO have a problem with them? If the government is an employer then surely they have to negotiate with their employees' unions.

---

Such an example as Dread set up simply doesn't exist. So I can't tell you how they'd react as there has been no precedent as of yet. And the way teacher's unions and the government interact is a bit different from what you know. It's more like a lobby group. Because, y'see, Beamte are not allowed to go on strike.

That's the reason why teacher's unions are actually needed over here - to create a group with a bit more political clout than that of an inidividual.

Quote:

---

[...]

the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, which filed a complaint to stop the program, argued the College Loan Reimbursement Program was not negotiated under collective bargaining and extended a benefit to a limited number of police officers and that it undermined ongoing contract negotiations at the time.

[...]

The NYPD said the program was initiated and administered by a nonprofit group using private funds and was not subject to collective bargaining. But the board—made up of city, labor and independent members—concluded that the NYPD in effect created and controlled the program and was therefore in violation of a law that requires city agencies to bargain collectively with employee unions on matters of pay and benefits.

[...]

PBA spokesman Al O'Leary conceded that the union's position on the program can appear "counterintuitive" but said any educational benefit offered by the NYPD has to be formalized by a contract and extend to all members of the force.

---

These are arguments and problems that may arise in similar situations. I think we can concede that regardless of our opinions on whether or not unions are teh suck.