The Teachers Union "Would Protect a Dead Body in the Classroom"

Ronald Bailey | September 21, 2009

Failing grade Paraphrasing the old publicist's line: If you read one article on government schools this year, you must read "The Rubber Room: The battle over New York City's worst teachers" in the August 31 edition of The New Yorker by Steve Brill. (I apologize for taking so long to get to it, but New Yorker issues do tend to pile up.) Teachers charged with misconduct or incompetence are consigned to Temporary Reassignment Centers ("Rubber Rooms") where they just sit all day drawing their salaries, waiting years for their cases to come to arbitration. Brill opens with the case of teacher Brandi Sheiner:

“Before Bloomberg and Klein took over, there was no such thing as incompetence,” Brandi Scheiner [standing in the Manhattan Rubber Room]. Scheiner, who is fifty-six, talks with a raspy Queens accent. Suspended with pay from her job as an elementary-school teacher, she earns more than a hundred thousand dollars a year, and she is, she said, “entitled to every penny of it.”

Not too surprisingly, Sheiner refused to open her file for Brill.

In one horror story detailed by Brill, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) featured on its website the tale of teacher whom it claimed, "Though she believes she was the victim of an effort to move senior teachers out of the system, the due process tenure system worked in her case." It turns out that she had been found in an alcoholic stupor several times in her classroom. When Brill pointed this out to the UFT, and asked to be put in touch with the teacher, a union representative said he had tried to contact her, but couldn't find her. Brill goes on to report:

I reached Adams, and she told me that no one from the union had tried to contact her for me, and that she was “shocked” by the account of her story on the U.F.T. Web site. “My case had nothing to do with seniority,” she said. “It was about a medical issue, and I sabotaged the whole thing by relapsing.” Adams, whose case was handled by a union lawyer, said that, last year, when a U.F.T. newsletter described her as the victim of a seniority purge, she was embarrassed and demanded that the union correct it. She added, “But I never knew about this Web-site article, and certainly never authorized it. The union has its own agenda.” The next morning, Adams told me she had insisted that the union remove the article immediately; it was removed later that day. Adams, who says that she is now sober and starting a school for recovering teen-age substance abusers, asked that her real name not be used.

One telling line in the article describes the perceived goals of Randi Weingarten, the former head of the UFT:

Anthony Lombardi, the principal of P.S. 49, a mostly minority Queens elementary school, puts it more bluntly: “Randi Weingarten would protect a dead body in the classroom. That’s her job.”

If you ever doubted that the public schools are chiefly run for the benefit of teachers, this article will put those fond delusions to rest. Educating children is an incidental side effect of giving teachers jobs. Of course, not all school systems are as dysfunctional as New York's is, but the monopoly power of government schools cannot help but foster creeping incompetence and the growth self-justifying educational bureaucracies at the expense of educating students.

Of course, Reason was on the case well before The New Yorker got around to it. Take a look at the October 2006 Reason article "How to Fire an Incompetent Teacher: An illustrated guide to New York's public school bureaucracy," by John Stossel.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Mango Punch|9.21.09 @ 5:09PM|#

This was a great article, one of the best I've read in the New Yorker in awhile.

|9.21.09 @ 5:13PM|#

The Teachers Union "Would Protect a Dead Body in the Classroom"

...unless the dead body were that of an administrator.

|9.21.09 @ 5:15PM|#

Yet more evidence for the case that private schools are better in just about every aspect .

Ken|9.21.09 @ 5:20PM|#

The Los Angeles Times had a similar article this year about how hard it is to fire a bad teacher in California. I blogged it here -- along with the story of the efforts of my mother, a principal, to fire a cokehead teacher.

MNG|9.21.09 @ 5:26PM|#

Look, unions are supposed to represent their members, it's what they are supposed to do (a legal duty in fact). When they bargain they bargain for due process rights for the workers (procedures that must be gone through before a worker can be reprimanded or punished). They press for a contract to be signed by the employer that will cover that sort of thing, and then they have a duty to police that contract for their workers sake. The protections, much like protections we have for the accused, will then protect both the deserving and the undeserving. Spotlighting these kinds of cases no more undercuts that than spotlighting creeps who benefited from our rights for the accused in criminal trials undercuts those rights.

A CONTRACT was signed stating certain procedures must be followed before a member can be dismissed from a job. Just like Michael Ovitz didn't deserve what he was able to get out of Disney before Disney could dismiss him. But he had a contract in place, like these union workers do.

I thought you guys thought really, really well of contract rights?

|9.21.09 @ 5:30PM|#

Screw private school - what we need is more HOME SCHOOL! Even the best private schools have a tendency of sneaking SOCIALISM into the classroom if you aren't careful, and discipline can be just as bad in a private school as it is in a public school (think little Billy or Janet will be as quick to write on the walls or scream and shout when the walls are there walls and when aunt Rachel is recovering/sleeping in the next room???). Home School is the most private of all private schools - a shame they haven't extended vouchers to home schoolers - if I have to work reduced hours to school my children, it would be nice if the Govt. would take that into consideration when stealing my tax dollars and cut me some slack, or maybe even give me some moolah to help pay for machinery/books. That'll be the day though.

Warty|9.21.09 @ 5:35PM|#

I thought you guys thought really, really well of contract rights?

I think the standard disclaimer is that unions' privileged legal position undermines the morality of contracts they sign, or something like that.

|9.21.09 @ 5:38PM|#

MNG: Contracts are fine, but most school boards are dominated by people who are chiefly elected by teachers unions. How? Teachers get out the vote for those who will support contracts that make it hard to fire incompetent teachers. This is a classic case of groups (unions) pursuing concentrated benefits while imposing dispersed costs on other groups, (taxpayers). This is another instance of defective democratic governance which should be fixed by fostering markets, i.e., private schools. Let unions then freely bargain at arm's length with private school operators.

Mango Punch|9.21.09 @ 5:41PM|#

MNG,

"I thought you guys thought really, really well of contract rights?"

I don't necisarilly think well of union involvement in the government causing the signing shitty wasteful contracts... or the government protecting public schools and unions at the expense of education (i.e. charters and vouchers > current public school system)

Tricky Prickears|9.21.09 @ 5:42PM|#

Oh no, we can't have SOCIALISM in the schools. That's too much like math and science, right? I know there are just so many people who are able to teach their kids Calculus and Newton's Laws of Motion.

Regulating home schooling would be even more of a disaster than the present public school system. Unless, of course, all you figure to teach your kids is the three "R"s.

MNG|9.21.09 @ 5:44PM|#

Ron
But the voters aren't forced to keep returning those board members, and certainly teacher's unions members don't make up that substantial a portion of any electorate.

The unions can make efforts to influence school policy, even that which affects its members, much like, say, construction firms or real estate developers can work to influence local elections and subsequent policy which affect their interest.

MNG|9.21.09 @ 5:45PM|#

"Regulating home schooling would be even more of a disaster than the present public school system. Unless, of course, all you figure to teach your kids is the three "R"s."

Or that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans.

MNG|9.21.09 @ 5:51PM|#

"Contracts are fine, but most school boards are dominated by people who are chiefly elected by teachers unions. Teachers get out the vote for those who will support contracts that make it hard to fire incompetent teachers."

What % of school board election voters in NYC are public school union members? Is there any evidence for this?

I'm not being a smart ass. I have heard about studies demonstrating what a shocking amount of money real estate developers give to local boards that make zoning decisions. But I don't know any studies that would support Ron's claim above.

Tricky Prickears|9.21.09 @ 5:54PM|#

Ron,

Are you suggesting that these teacher's contracts are not made in good faith? What, like the Governor's girlfriend was the President of a State Worker's Union (John Corzine) or something?

|9.21.09 @ 5:55PM|#

I thought you guys thought really, really well of contract rights?

Sure.

These are just really, really shitty contracts because they are signed by government entities and underwritten by taxpayers, so that nobody who has any responsibility on either side of the contract has any personal stake whatsoever in the success or failure of the underlying institution.

Remember when the raison d'etre of unions was to protect downtrodden workers from rapacious capitalists? How exactly does that apply to government employees?

Wicks Cherrycoke|9.21.09 @ 5:59PM|#

Hey MNG.

I cannot speak for NY, but in NJ, tenure rights are not the subject of contract, but of statute. They are not contract rights, but the product of regulation.

One example of many: A teacher can be suspended without pay for only a brief period of time, after which the teacher must be returned to paid status regardless of the nature of the charges or the reason why her case has not yet been heard. No employer in its right mind would ever agree voluntarily to a procedure like this.

What is more, the cases are tried in front of the State Department of Education which, like many (if not most) government agencies, are captives of the very people they are supposed to be regulating. Especially when, as now, the Democrats are in charge.

Most school boards would be overjoyed if they had the opportunity to negotiate an alternative to the current tenure system, but they cannnot because it is prescribed by regulation.

And we guys think really, really poorly of regulation.

MNG|9.21.09 @ 6:03PM|#

RC Dean
You should read about how, say, police officers were treated at the turn of the last century, treatment that goaded many of them to unionize and strike...Any employer, government or not, can be crazy arbitrary assholes. And the government was in a way worse; when the police unions struck, much like the railroad employees unions, the government would make the military man their positions (wtf would be the analogy to THAT in the private sector?).

victor morris|9.21.09 @ 6:04PM|#

I has an educator for 45 years. Public and Private School Teacher and Principal; University Professor(FULL), Academic Dean and President. Mostly we did a good job with our students; but failures are becoming more calamitous. Teacher Unions were once necessary, but now need restructuring, badly.

Give me 3 months and 100 teachers and we'll produce a workable model of an education system at all levels in the US. The model isn't that difficult!

MN|9.21.09 @ 6:05PM|#

Wicks
Do you think it would be a terrible world if every employee could not be fired without some kind of process like a hearing (put aside how they got that right, pretend they all somehow got it bargaining at arms length)?

If you had the pull wouldn't you ask for that in your current contract?

Wicks Cherrycoke|9.21.09 @ 6:09PM|#

"But the voters aren't forced to keep returning those board members, and certainly teacher's unions members don't make up that substantial a portion of any electorate."

Come on...what percentage of the electorate turns out for school board elections? We know that less than 10% vote in municipal elections, and that the majority of those who vote in municipal elections are municipal employees and their families. Do you think it is any different in school board elections?

And the single largest source of school board candidates in New Jersey are teachers. They cannot run for election in their own district, but are free to run in the districts in which they live provided they do not work there. So the teachers in the next town over are deciding what salaries your teachers will receive -- which, of course, they will use to rachet similar increases from the town in which they work.

Finally...board members are part-time, unpaid volunteers who must rely on the information provided to them by school administrators...virtually all of whom are members of the NJEA, and who usually receive the same salary increases as the teachers. So what kind of "advice" do you think they give?

It's like every other bureaucracy...the bureaucrats have figured out how to maximize their own benefits and protections at the expense of the public they are supposed to be serving.

Tricky Prickears|9.21.09 @ 6:09PM|#

Wicks Cherrycoke,

Sure, I live in NJ also. South NJ. The problem with NJ is the diversity of school districts. On one hand you have Haddonfield and Morristown, on the other, you have Camden and Newark. People in Haddonfield don't mind paying double the property taxes of neighboring Haddon Twp. or Haddon Heights, because the school system is so much better. But people in Camden and Newark don't have that option. The school district shouldn't necessarily reflect the tax base. And the state regs attempt (and I use that word loosely) to even the playing field.

dfd|9.21.09 @ 6:09PM|#

Remember when the raison d'etre of unions was to protect downtrodden workers from rapacious capitalists? How exactly does that apply to government employees?

Apparently teachers need to be protected from the very government that liberals (and therefore most teachers) believe is so necessary for protecting the downtrodden in every other aspect of life. Really makes no sense

If the teachers themselves don't trust the government to be sufficiently benign, competent and capable of protecting their own rather narrow interests, how can they be so supportive of attempts to broaden government's role as caretaker to the masses?

dfd|9.21.09 @ 6:15PM|#

Any employer, government or not, can be crazy arbitrary assholes

But a private employer sufficiently crazy can be run out of business by competitors and/or drained of a talented workforce by less-crazy competitors. Not so a government employer with an essential monopoly on a segment of the economy.

Beyond that, recognizing that even the benevolent elected government and its bureaucratic henchmen can be crazy and arbitrary assholes ought to give pause to those most willing to turn over to it a greater role in all aspects of the economy (or life in general fro that matter). At least with private crazy arbitrariness you have a chance to avoid it by going elsewhere.

MNG|9.21.09 @ 6:17PM|#

"We know that less than 10% vote in municipal elections, and that the majority of those who vote in municipal elections are municipal employees and their families."

Do you know that? Sorry, I'm going to need some proof before I buy that public school employees make up some huge chunk of the admittedly small (10%) of the electorate that turns out. Ditto for your municipal claim.

"And the single largest source of school board candidates in New Jersey are teachers"

That seems logical to me, like electing deputies as sheriffs...

dfd
You don't understand liberalism very well I would say. Liberals don't love government for the sake of government. Look at the ACLU, it's a constant thorn in the side of the government. Liberals want to empower individuals at the expense of institutions which can hold them down, but they differ with libertarians in that they worry about non-governmental institutions, like the community, family, church, business, etc., restricting autonomy too. And they are willing to use government to fight that. Perhaps that is a stupid strategy, but that's what we are aiming for at least.

MNG|9.21.09 @ 6:20PM|#

"But a private employer sufficiently crazy can be run out of business by competitors and/or drained of a talented workforce by less-crazy competitors."

Dude, you have obviously not worked for many people. As long as they make up for their defencies in other areas they can thrive for a long, long time.

Where I grew up with we had this employer, owner of a hamburger/breakfast joint, who was a crazy asshole and a racist (he refused to even have Aunt Jemima or Mrs. Butterworth syrup available because they had black persons on them). But he was located in a spot that was convenient and he made hell of good omelets. Could he have made more money if he were less of a racist asshole? Probably so, but he made money as it was and that was good enough for him. His values and nuttiness were worth a littl something to him, just like someone might pay more for that fancy carpeting at their workplace though its cost might outwiegh its benefits.

Tricky Prickears|9.21.09 @ 6:24PM|#

Not so a government employer with an essential monopoly on a segment of the economy.

At least with private crazy arbitrariness you have a chance to avoid it by going elsewhere.

At least with government, there's always the possibility of voting out the assholes. Which is better? Voting for A or B, or patronizing X or Y? Problem is, we aren't really given a choice on either front.

|9.21.09 @ 6:25PM|#

I'm all for publicly funded K-12 education for all.

I'm just against government provided education.

Let's face it, if the public schools spending X/student offered a voucher for privately provided education equal to X for each child age 5-18, a few upper class suburban school distrcts would stay in business and the rest would be empty.

And NY schools, bad as they may be, are hardly the worst in the nation. Trust this Detroit resident on that,

dfd|9.21.09 @ 6:26PM|#

Liberals want to empower individuals at the expense of institutions which can hold them down

I just don't see any way the liberal agenda can be said to empower individuals. If anything it empowers certain preferred groups at the expense either of other less preferred groups, or, more likely, society in general. Typically its done through the concentration of benefits for some group paid for through diffuse costs spread across everyone else. Now whether that's what many liberal true-believers want is debatable, but liberalism as practiced in government is not about empowering individuals.

Tricky Prickears|9.21.09 @ 6:28PM|#

The City of Philadelphia, with all of its budget shortfalls and corruption, now has a privatized school system. A private company operates all of the city's schools, including the charter schools. It seems to be working well, except for a few incidents of "hand in the cookie jar".

dfd|9.21.09 @ 6:29PM|#

Dude, you have obviously not worked for many people. As long as they make up for their defencies in other areas they can thrive for a long, long time.

That may be but again, you can choose to go somewhere else when it's a private entity. Also you cannot seriously claim that in the long run private entities are not much more vulnerable to competition than the government.

Libertarians are not claiming that market competition is perfect, just that it's better than the alternative.

|9.21.09 @ 6:30PM|#

Look, unions are supposed to represent their members, it's what they are supposed to do (a legal duty in fact).

That is why public employees should not be allowed to unionize. It's not as if they are getting exploited by evil capilist robber barons. They are paid by elected officials that allegedly represent the views of their constituents. No exploitation is possible so there is no need for a union.

JB|9.21.09 @ 6:31PM|#

Ah, unions: protecting incompetence for the past 50 years.

Look for the union label and avoid the product, service, employee, or public school student.

Tricky Prickears|9.21.09 @ 6:32PM|#

J sub D

I think you fall into the same trap, though. State government is going to want to regulate the curriculum and make sure everyone is getting a proper education. And, if government is footing the bill, they are going to want some say on the treatment of employees and teachers.

dfd|9.21.09 @ 6:33PM|#

At least with government, there's always the possibility of voting out the assholes. Which is better? Voting for A or B, or patronizing X or Y? Problem is, we aren't really given a choice on either front.

Not true. I can choose to patronize or work for any number of private entities in many areas of the economy and I alone can make that decision. I alone cannot decide to vote out A or B. Instead I am bound by the shear force (nearly might-makes-right) of numbers or other people who would impose their personal choices on me. There is no comparison between voting for A or B and making a personal choice to interact with another private entity. To claim they are on the same level is just cannot be taken seriously.

zoltan|9.21.09 @ 6:44PM|#

That is why public employees should not be allowed to unionize. It's not as if they are getting exploited by evil capilist robber barons.

It's interesting what kind of things unions have the power to do to state or city government. In Austin, the the Firefighters' Union voted against a contract with a pay raise. The voted against it because the contract would allow the city to hire anyone without much regard to standard testing (this is called "civil law" or something...someone help me out, please). In order to protect the quality of their department, they used the union to vote down the diversity-mongers at City Hall.

Tricky Prickears|9.21.09 @ 6:44PM|#

dfd

Sure it is. What if your choice on private entity is limited to two companies? Wal-Mart or Target. Home Depot or Lowes. Walgreens or Rite Aide. Those "choices" we once had are all disappearing. And then reason they are disappearing is because we only get to vote for A or B, no C, D, or E. Coincidence? When choice for private entity truly reaches X or Y and X or Y only, I'd rather have the ability to vote for A or B. But, lets's see if we can stop it from getting to that point.

But to apply it to schools.

|9.21.09 @ 6:45PM|#

Tricky Prickears|9.21.09 @ 6:46PM|#

zoltan

Amazing.

Tricky Prickears|9.21.09 @ 6:59PM|#

The government contracts out numerous services. Goverments that are fiscally prudent contract out everything possible. And I really don't care if a family wishes to use their voucher at a madrassa, the Ayn Rand School for tots, or a respected private prep academy

I really don't care which school, as long as it is providing a basic education and meets certain minimum requirements. And you know the state governments are going to care. If not, why bother.

And don't bend over backwards for me...or forwards.

And I don't think it has failed the poor. Camden and Newark have the highest dropout rates in the country. That's a failure on the part of the individual and the family. So, not only do we fund the schools, we fund GED classes. Or we get stuck giving food stamps and section 8 housing. If people don't want an education, and are unemployable, what do we do?

zoltan|9.21.09 @ 7:01PM|#

And surprise, they were called racists.

|9.21.09 @ 7:32PM|#

MN: "Do you think it would be a terrible world if every employee could not be fired without some kind of process like a hearing"

Yes, that would be a terrible thing. Every barrier to the ability of a business to fire people at will is a burden in a great number of ways. Even well-run businesses are sick with people who *should* be fired.

|9.21.09 @ 7:55PM|#

MNG | September 21, 2009, 5:45pm | #
"Regulating home schooling would be even more of a disaster than the present public school system. Unless, of course, all you figure to teach your kids is the three "R"s."

Or that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans.

Yeah, you, I, and the rest of us here are smarter than that. But, if the parents involved properly taught the three "R's" along with Jesus rode dinosaurs nonsense, who the fuck are you to care?

zoltan|9.21.09 @ 7:59PM|#

I'd rather work with people who know what they're doing (and secretly believe stupid shit like children riding a dinosaur in the saddle) than some work-ethic-less college kid who barely uses their brain in Biology 101.

Hugh Akston|9.21.09 @ 8:03PM|#

Liberals want to empower individuals at the expense of institutions which can hold them down

Uh, MNG, weren't you complaining upthread about making assertions without supporting evidence?

lol|9.21.09 @ 8:15PM|#

Que chief d-bag MNG to defend d-baggery, as long as it's (D)-baggery.

|9.21.09 @ 8:19PM|#

Look, unions are supposed to represent their members, it's what they are supposed to do

Totally.

It is their responsibility, and this Ms. Weingarten should protect a dead body in the classroom. That's fine. There are plenty of parts of society where we have determined that the way to handle a situation is to put in two biased, opposed advocates (the legal system, obviously, springs to mind).

But that equally means that people like, say, the Democratic Party shouldn't embrace the unions to the point of lewdness. If the purpose of Unions is to protect their members, right or wrong, without equivocation or shame, even to the detriment of everyone else -- which is a perfectly reasonable role for unions to have -- then a political party endeavors to keep the welfare of the population as a whole in mind should regard each union as extremely suspect.

(Similarly, Republicans should keep corporations at bay -- and, in fact, it's a typical (and very often correct) Democratic argument that the Republicans are too close to corporations).

huangzhixian2|9.21.09 @ 9:19PM|#

Our commitment, customer is God.

=====FREE SHIPPING FREE====== http://www.icfshop.com

All the products are free shipping, and the the price is

enticement , and also can accept the paypal payment.we can

ship within 24 hours after your payment.

accept the paypal

free shipping

competitive price

any size available

our price:coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32coogi DG edhardy

gucci t-shirts $15CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes

$35jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33EDhardy gucci ny New

Era cap $15coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16.our price:

(Bikini)coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32.coogi DG edhardy

gucci t-shirts $15.CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes

$35.jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33.EDhardy gucci ny New

Era cap $15.coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16

=====FREE SHIPPING FREE===== http://www.icfshop.com

I wish you a happy shopping and happy every day!

Jonas|9.21.09 @ 9:46PM|#

I feel like everyone's looking at trees and missing the forest here. It's not just a question of teachers' unions. I can't say that I would have such a problem with public school teachers having unions if it weren't for the fact that the public schools then turn around and try to monopolize the education system.

Let's encourage some privatization of the education system through school vouchers and/or education tax credits, and then if the whole teachers' union thing still works out without unionized schools hemorrhaging student, great.

It's not so much unions themselves that are the problem, but they're symptomatic of the larger problem of the public education system seeking to centralize and monopolize education to the detriment of students.

|9.21.09 @ 9:49PM|#

I am a faggot.

Michael Ejercito|9.21.09 @ 10:08PM|#

I think the standard disclaimer is that unions' privileged legal position undermines the morality of contracts they sign, or something like that.

What privileged legal position do unions have that other incorporated entities do not have?

If the teachers themselves don't trust the government to be sufficiently benign, competent and capable of protecting their own rather narrow interests, how can they be so supportive of attempts to broaden government's role as caretaker to the masses?

It is not their ox being gored.

Elemenope|9.21.09 @ 10:41PM|#

What is this crap about school monopolies? Was there a vast die-off of private academies while I was asleep?

Paul|9.22.09 @ 12:49AM|#

but New Yorker issues do tend to pile up

It's that... that sprawling New Yorker shit!

Luke Johnson|9.22.09 @ 2:11AM|#

You're right after a fashion, LMNOP. But I'd bet there'd be less grumblings of monopoly if you weren't taxed to pay for public schools whether you put your kids through private school or not.

|9.22.09 @ 3:29AM|#

What is this crap about school monopolies? Was there a vast die-off of private academies while I was asleep?

Ever tried to start a private school? Apparently not, or you'd realize that your private school has to obey planning and zoning regulations the public school doesn't. Those regulations can make it difficult or impossible to build a private school at a sensible price. Often there is no suitable parcel anywhere in the city, and you must ask for a zoning change or special-use permit. The same kind of people who sit on school boards sit on zoning boards. They don't take kindly to the competition. I guarantee those academies you refer to could not be built today.

MNG|9.22.09 @ 7:51AM|#

"I just don't see any way the liberal agenda can be said to empower individuals. If anything it empowers certain preferred groups at the expense either of other less preferred groups, or, more likely, society in general."

Well, assuming your point, which I don't think I agree with, as is pointed out here regularly, groups are just collections of individuals. And the groups that are less prefered are, in theory, those that can afford it or will not be as burdened by it and the preferred group tends to be one whose autonomy will be greatly threatened without assistance. That's the idea anyway.

"Libertarians are not claiming that market competition is perfect, just that it's better than the alternative."

I think I can agree with that.

"Every barrier to the ability of a business to fire people at will is a burden in a great number of ways."

Not so much for the employees I should think...

"What is this crap about school monopolies? Was there a vast die-off of private academies while I was asleep?"

Well, LMNOP, I think were I a libertarian I would point to the big subsidy the public school gets in competing with the private. And what a subsidy, it's compelled from the person who chose the private school as well!

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements