Tag Archives: unions

The UAW’s minimally-effective strike.

Leave a reply

The aim of a strike, generally, is the same as the aim of war: it is to win concessions fast. To do this, one must strike to the utmost extent, as Von Clausewitz points out. The target company must come to understand that they need the workers, and that they need a quick settlement. In the case of the current united auto worker strike, the UAW asked for 40% and concessions, but only struck at a few plants. The resulting strike lasted 6 weeks, with Ford settling for a 25% raise over 4.5 years, to April 2028. Viewed on an average, that’s a 5.6% raise per year, assuming the Ford workers accept the deal.

I’m not sure how the UAW boss chose which plants to strike AGAINST. They were mostly low-profit ones at first. Workers at other plants kept on working and received a full salary. The suffering was borne some 45,000 UAW workers (1/4 of the UAW autoworkers) who left the job for strike pay, $500/week. This is a tiny fraction of the 4.36 million auto workers in the US. Auto production was reduced by 80,000 vehicles, we’re told, again a small fraction of several million vehicles typically made in the US in a year.

The strike does not seem to have affected vehicle sales or profits, as best I can tell. The remaining plants ran at higher capacity, and some production was made up by imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. Inventories today are at 60 days, the industry target. In a sense, the major lessons of the strike are that the auto companies don’t need so many workers, and that the UAW can direct suffering to whichever workers they wish.

The gasoline-powered F-150, left, is the most popular vehicle in the US. The Tesla Cybertruck, right, is an EV challenger of a sort that will soon be mandated. EVs require fewer workers and manufacture is non-union.

Ford’s settlement sounds good, but if viewed as a 5.6% raise per year, it barely covers inflation. Inflation is 3.6% now and was 8% last year. Ford retained the right to shed workers and close plants as the economy slows or production shifts. That’s a minimal gain for a 4.5 year commitment.

Battery plants may be covered or not; we’ve not been told. Production is expected to shift to battery vehicles, and these require fewer workers per car. President Biden has mandated a shift as part of his plan to stop global warming (a plan that I find misguided). He’s provided financial incentives for EV owners too, under the “inflation reduction act,” an effort to cause consumers to buy cars they would not otherwise. Largesse of this type is problematic, and highly inflationary, at least in the short term (the next few years). It is supposed to help out down the road, but workers pay their bills in the short term, the here and now.

Despite Biden’s financial incentives to buy electric, most consumers prefer to buy gasoline. The gasoline F150 is the most popular vehicle in America, selling over 600,000 per year. Trump claims that US workers would be better off if we stopped pushing EVs. Less incentives means less inflation, more internal combustion cars, and more union jobs he says. Biden has recently funded a Chinese battery plant, non-union in Michigan, suggesting that Trump is on to something. The strike has produced a raise, but its main contribution, it seems was to punish those UAW workers that the union boss didn’t like.

Robert Buxbaum, October 29, 2023. As I write, Stellantis has offered a tentative deal, but GM is still holding out, and we’ve yet to see if the workers ratify any of these deals.

Right to work is a right.

Leave a reply

In 26 states you can work in a unionized industry without joining a union. You can even cross a union strike line if you like. It’s called “right to work.” Michigan allowed it up till last month, but no longer. Immediately following the Democrats’ taking majority of the MI legislature, they voted to make non-union membership illegal. The claim was that those who do not want to be represented by the state-acknowledged union is misguided, or worse.

The argument for making union membership mandatory is presented in the poster at right. It notes that states that banned right to work are richer, with workers getting higher pay and benefits. These include California, New York, NJ, Washington, Alaska,.. See the map below. Although these states, on average have higher yearly wages, they also have higher taxes, higher costs of living, and more high-tech jobs. The cause and effect implied by this poster is erroneous, I think: The claim is that if you are forced to join a union you will be paid more with more benefits. I strongly suspect that the reality is that these states have high wages and high benefits and a lot of people working in safe fields, programming for example. They then force workers to work for one union so they’ll be easier managed, not because they want a strong opposition.

Another thing, even if you could guarantee higher wages by forced union membership, and you could avoid the high taxes and high cost of living that you find in NY and California, no person should be forced to accept representation by a group that they don’t get to choose, or who supports social goals that the worker doesn’t support. I don’t believe this is fair, or moral, but that’s how it is. It’s the law in most every state with a Democrat as governor and where Democrats control the legislature.

Right to work as of last month, before Michigan forced unionism.

Union membership had been declining in Michigan for years, but it took a particular nose dive in 2016 when the unions spent heavily for Clinton while blue collar workers supported Trump. It was 14% or workers before the law changed. Workers claimed that their unions were working against them, and complained about how their dues were spent. It also came out that some of the Michigan union bosses had stolen money from their funds to build fancy private houses — using non-union labor to do it. When the union bosses tried to show their muscle by calling strikes, the strikes accomplished little, or went on for months. The results were two-tier salaries, layoffs, and business failures. The working for the local newspapers teamsters struck, and one newspaper collapsed. The other chose non-union drivers. The teamsters are still on strike, 10 years later. I’d think a worker should be able to leave a union like this.

I’m a fan of unions, but think the worker should be able to choose. I’m a particular fan of craft unions that work to improve the quality of their work along with the quality of their workers lives. This helps everyone. I suspect that unions should not be able to support political parties too. See my thoughts on unions, here.

Michigan has a particularly strong history of crooked union bosses. When Jimmy Hoffa challenged the Teamster bosses over how the retirement fund was spent, he vanished. The union’s bosses seem to have had him killed. The last place where he was seen alive is an Andiamo Restaurant near my home. He was picked up by someone he knew, perhaps his nephew. No one’s talking and his remains were never found. In Michigan you used to be able to choose your union just as you chose your political club and your own lawyer, or you could choose none at all. Nowadays, the law says otherwise. Maybe you don’t like this law. Maybe you don’t like the union boss or how he’s spending. Maybe you’d like to visit with Jimmy Hoffa.

Robert Buxbaum May 19, 2023. Aside from everything else, you have a right to have a state that isn’t high-wage, high-tax, even if you could prove people were happier in such states. Freedom is a good, in and of itself.

Skilled labor isn’t cheap; cheap labor isn’t skilled

2 Replies

Popular emblem for hard hats in the USA. The original quote is attributed to Sailor Jack, a famous tattoo artist.

Popular emblem for hard hats in the USA. The original quote is attributed to Sailor Jack, a famous tattoo artist.

The title for this post is a popular emblem on US hard-hats and was the motto of a famous, WWII era tattoo artist. It’s also at the heart of a divide between the skilled trade unions and the labor movement. Skilled laborers expect to be paid more than unskilled, while the labor movement tends to push for uniform pay, with distinctions based only on seniority or courses taken. Managers and customers prefer skilled work to not, and usually don’t mind paying the skilled worker more. It’s understand that, if the skilled workers are not rewarded, they’ll go elsewhere or quit. Management too tends to understand that the skilled laborer is effectively a manager, often more responsible for success than the manager himself/herself. In this environment, a skilled trade union is an advantage as they tend to keep out the incompetent, the addict, and the gold-brick, if only to raise the stature of the rest. They can also help by taking some burden of complaints. In the late 1800s, it was not uncommon for an owner to push for a trade union, like the Knights of Labor, or the AFL, but usually just for skilled trades for the reasons above.

An unskilled labor union, like the CIO is a different animal. The unskilled laborer would like the salary and respect of the skilled laborer without having to develop the hard-to-replace skills. Management objects to this, as do the skilled workers. A major problem with unions, as best I can tell, is a socialist bent that combines the skilled and unskilled worker to the disadvantage of the skilled trades.

Not all unionists harbor fondness for welfare or socialism.

Also popular. Few workers harbor a fondness for welfare or socialism. Mostly they want to keep their earnings.

Labor union management generally prefer a high minimum wage — and often favor high taxes too as a way of curing societal ills. This causes friction, both in wage-negotiation and in political party support. Skilled workers tend to want to be paid more than unskilled, and generally want to keep the majority of their earnings. As a result, skilled laborers tend to vote Republican. Unskilled workers tend to vote for Democrats. Generally, there are more unskilled workers than skilled, and the union management tends to favor Democrats. Many union leaders have gone further — to international socialism. They push for high welfare payments with no work requirement, and for aid the foreign socialist poor. The hard-hats themselves tend to be less than pleased with these socialist pushes.

During the hippie-60’s and 70’s the union split turned violent. It was not uncommon for unionized police and construction workers to hurl insults and bricks on the anti-war leftists and non-working students and welfare farmers. Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa, supported Nixon, Vietnam, and the idea that his truckers should keep their high wages at the expense of unskilled. Rival teamster boss, Frank Fitzsimmons pushed for socialist unity with the non-working of the world, a split that broke the union and cost Hoffa his life in 1975. Eventually the split became moot. The war ended, US factories closed and jobs moved overseas, and even the unskilled labor and poor lost.

Skilled workers are, essentially managers, and like to be treated that way.

Skilled workers are, essentially managers, and like to be treated that way.

The Americans with Disability Act is another part of the union split. The act was designed to protect the sick, pregnant and older worker, but has come to protect the lazy, nasty, and slipshod, as well as the drug addict and thief. Any worker who’s censored for these unfortunate behaviors can claim a disability. If the claim is upheld the law requires that the company provide for them. The legal status of the union demands that the union support the worker in his or her claim of disability. In this, the union becomes obligated to the worker, and not to the employer, customer, or craft — something else that skilled workers tend to object to. Skilled workers do not like having their neighbors show them high-priced, badly made products from their assembly line. Citing the ADA doesn’t help, nor does it help to know that their union dues support Democrats, welfare, and legislation that takes money from the pocket of any one who takes pride in good work. We’ll have to hope this split in the union pans out better than in 1860.

Robert Buxbaum, June 5, 2016. I’m running for water commissioner. I’d like to see my skilled sewer workers rewarded for their work and skill. Currently experienced workers get only $18/hour and that’s too little for their expertise. If they took off, they’d be irreplaceable, and the city would likely fall to typhus or the plague.

What happened to Jack Kelly of Newsies

27 Replies

As my daughters are fans of the Disney play and movie, “Newsies,” and as I’ve taken interest in the early 20th century, they’ve asked me to find out what happened to Jack Kelly, the main character of the play/movie. If you’ve never seen it, Newsies is a musical about the New York newsboy strike of 1899. According to the play/ movie, as soon as the strike ends (the newsboys win), the strike leader, “cowboy” Jack Kelly goes off with Theodore Roosevelt, presumably headed to Santa Fé, New Mexico to become a real cowboy. But a simple search did not reveal what actually happened to the real Jack Kelly; here’s what I found. Noosies NYT

Without looking, I told my daughters that, if Jack Kelly had gone to Santa Fé in 1899, he would have found something very interesting: a cowboy school for young men. As it happened one of Roosevelt’s rough riders from the battle of San Juan Hill, retired to Santa Fé and set up a cowboy school for boys in the mountains above the town. He built a very outdoorsy operation in an area called “Los Alamos”. It ran until 1942 when the location was taken over to become “Site Y” of the Manhattan Project. This is where J. Robert Oppenheimer and co designed and built the first Atom Bombs. That Jack would have gone there would make for a nice, tidy story, but the truth appears to have been more messy, and more interesting. Jack got involved with William Hearst and George M. Cohan, the Titanic, a famous murder, and eventually with the fall of Tammany Hall. Here’s a picture.

Jack Sullivan

Jack Sullivan, head Newsie. He isn’t ugly, but isn’t Christian Bale either.

First, there was an actual newsboy strike in 1899; it was about raising the price the newsboys paid per paper, but the problem was that the price had been raised earlier, for the Spanish-American War, and not decreased after the war ended. The newsboys did win, and there was a leader named Jack, but according to the papers, the name of the leader was “Jack Sullivan”, not Jack Kelly or Francis Sullivan. The New York Tribune, July 22, 1899, lists Jack Sullivan as the leader of the strike Arbitration Committee and a leader of “the first group of newsboys to declare and demand their rights.” There are other leaders too: Louis “Kid Blink” Baletti, and David “Dave/ Yaller” Simmons. “Kid Blink” (he wore an eye patch and appears in the movie) got an award from the newsboys for making the best speech. I’ll guess that the Dave “the mouth” character is based on David “Yaller” Simmons, but it is not clear that he had any close relationship with Sullivan.

As for the movie showing Jack leaving with T. Roosevelt. it might have suited Roosevelt, but the real Jack appears to have stayed in New York, and appears to have taken a job as a bodyguard for William Randolph Hearst, one of the newspaper moguls who’d raised his rates and precipitated the strike. But it doesn’t end there. In 1904, Jack Sullivan, “the Boss Noosie” has gotten a charter for a Newsies Club to be set-up on 4th street in lower New York (the Bowery). A New York Times article (at left) includes an interview with Jack that fans should find pleasing, if only for his grammar. He uses the word, “papes” instead of papers or newspapers. I suspect this is a put-on affect for benefit of Times-readers, but who knows? It is sometimes the height of wisdom to appear stupid.

By 1909, Jack has lost control of his newsboy’s club. He appears to have used the club to teach boxing (how crude) and on at least one occasion used club assets to post bail for women accused of “loitering,” a jail-able offense in corrupt, Tammany-era New York. The club closed 2 years later. And then Jack gets married (November 27, 1910), and it appears that Jack’s real name was not Sullivan at all, but Reich. He marries Sarah Siegel at the Ohav Tzedek synagogue as “Jacob Reich”. The name Jacob Reich appears on his marriage license, on his death certificate, and on various court records, though he still appears as Jack Sullivan in other activities. Jack/ Jacob appears to have chosen the Irish-sounding name “Sullivan” as an homage to the leader of the Tammany (Democratic) machine, “Big Tim” Sullivan, shown in the photo below.

Turn of the century Tammany boss, "Big Tim" Sullivan, shown at right.

Turn of the century Tammany boss, “Big Tim” Sullivan, shown at right.

By March, 1912, Jack appears again in the news, this time suing two film companies for use of his story and likeness without payment to him. It’s a film called “the Gangsters.” It would be interesting to see if a copy still exists.

A month later, April 15, 1912, The unsinkable Titanic goes down, and six days after that, April 21, 1912, Jack is selling papers at a charity baseball game to benefit the survivors. The game takes place on a Sunday, normally prohibited by New York blue laws, between The New York Giants and The New York Yankees (the Yankees are still called the Highlanders in those days, but are already wearing pinstripes). In the picture below, Jack is under the red arrow with lots of “papes” under his arm, just behind famous song-writer, playwright, George M. Cohan. Both are dressed as newsies. George M. Cohan, known for the WWI song “Over there”, had four plays on Broadway at the time. He is one of the very few successful New Yorkers to have avoided major attachment to the crooked, New York political machine.

Jack Sullivan with George M Cohan, April 1912 selling a special newspaper to help survivors of the Titanic.

Jack Sullivan (arrow) with George M Cohan, April 1912 selling a special newspaper to help survivors of the Titanic.

New York Refuge

The New York house of refuge

And now Jack Kelly / Sullivan/ Reich enters history as a tragic bystander. When he got married, Jack borrowed $1000, from a Jewish gambler and gambling hall owner, Herman (Beansy) Rosenthal. Rosenthal was a good friend of his, and of “Big Tim” Sullivan, but he (and Sullivan) had enemies. Among them, the crooked police Lieutenant, Charles Becker, who headed the city vice squad and delighted in shaking down the gamblers, pimps, etc for protection money. Becker wanted Rosenthal dead, in part to keep him from going to the newspapers with stories of police corruption.

By 1912, “Big Tim” lost control of the Tammany organization and was put in seclusion under Tammany guard. Within a year he’d be dead. Someone (Becker?) then hired four hit men to kill Rosenthal (1:30 AM, July 16, 1912 in front of The Metropole Hotel). It’s an event recounted in “The Great Gatsby.” Several beat-policemen were there to see the shooting, but every one looked away. Not one shot back or took the license of the car. In fact, the police did nothing to catch the murderers except to lock up the only honest witness to keep him from testifying. Before the shooting, Becker took Jack Sullivan out for an evening at Madison Square Garden; he then dropped Jack at the Metropole just before the 1:30 shooting. Becker and the police then blamed Jack and four others for the murder based on testimony that they had concocted. In the end, Jack was acquitted, but not the other four, or Becker. All five went to the electric chair; all five protested their innocence.

Becker was the first US police lieutenant to be put to death for murder. It seems unlikely that he was innocent, but was he a murderer, or just an accomplice. As for the other four, perhaps they were guilty, perhaps not; it’s hard to tell from Tammany-era records. The judge was crooked; Police chief Devery was at least as crooked as Becker in terms of shaking down hoodlums. And Devery had as much motive as Becker to want Rosenthal dead. The witnesses were lying from a script they’d been given — that’s what justice was like in those days. Within a year of the murder, Big Tim was dead and Charles Francis Murphy had gained firm control of Tammany Hall. The police spent the next decade in criminal activities while trying to pin something on Jack, now a cigar store owner. He was busted for gambling and related offenses, but nothing much came of it. Jack cleared his name from the charge of murder only in 1936, two years before his death — three years after Fiorello La Guardia was elected mayor. Republican/ Fusion candidate, La Guardia ran against Tammany and did much to end their police corruption.

As for The Refuge, The New York House of Refuge is a real place. It sat on Randal’s Island between Manhattan, The Bronx, and Queens. The Island is now famous as the center of The Triborough Bridge. There is now a park where The Refuge was. Was The Refuge run honestly? If it was, it would have been virtually the only public institutions to run that way. Tammany was corrupt to the core.

Robert E. Buxbaum, October 25, 2015. Much of the information here comes from a tumbler exchange called, “newsies historical research.” I organized it and added some background about Baseball, Tammany, etc. If you like Newsies, or the era, I can recommend the novel (and movie), The Great Gatsby, or Fiorello!, a musical version of La Guardia’s unlikely rise to power. Hearst is treated somewhat positively in Newsies, but less-so as “Citizen Kane.” If someone’s seen, or has a link to “The Gangsters” please tell me.

When is loyalty a good thing? pt. 1

2 Replies

Loyalty to a person or institution is generally presented as a good thing — a sign of good character. Disloyalty, by contrast, is considered one of the basest of character traits — the sign of a dastard, a poltroon. But I’d like to make the case that the loyalty that leaders demand (the most common loyalty situation) isn’t real loyalty, but stupidity or worse, toadyship disguised as loyalty. I’d further like to suggest that this attachment hurts the leaders as much as the followers in most situations — well, nearly as much. That is, a sane leader is better off where there is a viable alternative to his product, leadership, or service — a loyal opposition party, as it were.

If you give loyalty for free don't expect it in return.

If you give loyalty above your self interest, don’t expect it in return. If you don’t value yourself, no one else will.

But first, what is Loyalty? If I believe a teacher because he makes sense, or serve a boss because he pays me well, this is not loyalty, but common self-interest. Similarly, if I eat at a restaurant or buy a product regularly, it isn’t loyalty if the quality is particularly good and the prices particularly reasonable. Loyalty is when you eat at a place despite the quality being bad, or the prices high; or follow a leader who pays poorly and provides only danger and hardship. Or who’s crooked and damaging to your sense of self.

If you give a company or group loyalty for free, they are likely to take it and you for granted; if you don't value yourself, no one else will.

If you give a company or person loyal service, they are likely to take it and you for granted; Matt Johnson, 2010.

In general, there are only two reasons why any person would follow a leader like this. One is an attachment to the leader’s vision of the horrible future if you do not. Tales of grisly torture from a distant enemy are good to keep the underlings in their place. An even better reason is attachment to a brilliant future if you do suffer in the present. Tales of the glorious messianic future where you and those you love benefit from the current struggle and sacrifice. It doesn’t have to be a godly messiah; communism presents a messianic vision without a god, but it’s glorious, and the sun always shines. Generally speaking leaders who ask for loyalty ask from both perspectives: a horrible enemy at the gates, and a glorious future if you follow.

There may be a rational basis to fear a grisly enemy, or to suffer and follow in hopes of a glorious future, but if you find you are being asked to follow a single individual or a group that’s controlled by one individual, it’s worthwhile worrying that the leader may not be loyalty to you. Ask yourself: does the leader share real power and information? Does the leader make you feel worthless for the heck of it? If you have a leader like that, it might be worth considering: if the messianic vision ever does materialize (unlikely) the leader may forget to reward your part. History has quite a few examples of this.

Loyalty to country includes the imperative to try to improve the leadership.

Loyalty to country requires one try to improve the leadership. Leadership rarely agrees.

Where real loyalty shows up as a sign of a fine personality, is in marriage where both parties share power, money, and information. Or in loyalty to a country where you (or your child) has a real, rational chance of being leader. If you really trust the significant other (a good marriage) or where there is reason to think one’s home and family will benefit from one’s personal sacrifice, one might rationally give up ones comfort and life following to protect one’s significant others. Even so, the real loyalty is not to the leader, but rather to an organization that one believes will protect one’s children and community. A leads who asks you to kill innocents (Al Qaeda, Stalin, HItler, Jonestown), or who amuses himself by your suffering, e.g. (Stalin) probably has lost the connection between your loyalty and the goal. (Cue the song– we don’t get fooled again).

An honest military leader will have a soldier council or protective group above him to keep him (and others) from over-reaching. There will also be a time limit on the loyalty commitment and an explicit understanding that service does not include suicide, genocide, immolation, or personal embarrassment for the amusement of others. There is an also understanding that the follower’s life and well-being will not be sacrificed in vain, and that no one will be expected to accept suicide rather than capture. On the other hand, a soldier who runs away from all danger and thus endangers his fellows or mission should expect punishment or courts-marshal.

Church groups don't often look favorably on oversight

Church groups don’t often look favorably on oversight

Many groups don’t tolerate oversight of this type, and these groups should be viewed with suspicion. Church groups for example, are often led by those would like you to believe that suspicion of them is suspicion of God, it isn’t — it’s suspicion of a person. An honest leader gives the option of going to the police or the union representative, or the newspaper if necessary. Without redress, the worker/soldier/churchman may come to suffer needlessly or come to commit atrocities because of the power of the organization or the personal charisma of the leader. Any organization with a messianic vision of the future is dangerous; all the more so if there is no half-way point, no real sharing of power in the way to get there, and no real oversight for the grand-high pooh-bah (or whatever the grand leader’s title). Let the follower beware.

A Parable: The Donkey and the Brigands, by I don’t know who (I can’t find a source, but know this isn’t my own creation).

There once was a farmer who had a donkey — a talking donkey, as is the way with these parables. At one point, as they were traveling through the woods, they heard the approach of brigands (thieves). “Move quickly,” the farmer said to the donkey, otherwise we’ll be captured.” “Will the brigands treat me any worse than you do?” asked the donkey. “No,” said the farmer, about the same.” “Will they feed me any less than you do, or beat me any more?” “No,” said the farmer, about the same, I’d guess.” Will they load me any heavier, or make me go on longer journeys?” No, said the farmer, about the same, I’d guess.” “When I’m too old to work, will they keep me in my old age, or will they kill me, as you likely will for animal feed and for my bones and skin?” “Probably they’ll do as I would,” said the farmer. “In that case,” said the donkey, “I’ll go at my pace and what will be with the capture will be.” The moral: loyal service has to be a two-way street.

In part 2 of this essay, I’ll explain why even the leader doesn’t benefit from your complete loyalty.

Robert Buxbaum, October 20, 2014. I run my own business, and sometimes think about it, and life.

Detroit Teachers are not paid too much

6 Replies

Detroit is bankrupt financially, but not because the public education teachers have negotiated rich contracts. If anything Detroit teachers are paid too little given the hardship of their work. The education problem in Detroit, I think, is with the quality of education, and of life. Parents leave Detroit, if they can afford it; students who can’t leave the city avoid the Detroit system by transferring to private schools, by commuting to schools in the suburbs, or by staying home. Fewer than half of Detroit students are in the Detroit public schools.

The average salary for a public school teacher in Detroit is (2013) $51,000 per year. That’s 3% less than the national average and $3,020/year less than the Michigan average. While some Detroit teachers are paid over $100,000 per year, a factoid that angers some on the right, that’s a minority of teachers, only those with advanced degrees and many years of seniority. For every one of these, the Detroit system has several assistant teachers, substitute teachers, and early childhood teachers earning $20,000 to $25,000/ year. That’s an awfully low salary given their education and the danger and difficulty of their work. It’s less than janitors are paid on an annual basis (janitors work more hours generally). This is a city with 25 times the murder rate in the rest of the state. If anything, good teachers deserve a higher salary.

Detroit public schools provide among the worst math education in the US. In 2009, showing the lowest math proficiency scores ever recorded in the 21-year history of the national math proficiency test. Attendance and graduation are low too: Friday attendance averages 71.2%, and is never as high as 80% on any day. The high-school graduation rate in Detroit is only 29.4%. Interested parents have responded by shifting their children out of the Detroit system at the rate of 8000/year. Currently, less than half of school age children go to Detroit public schools (51,070 last year); 50,076 go to charter schools, some 9,500 go to schools in the suburbs, and 8,783, those in the 5% in worst-performing schools, are now educated by the state reform district.

Outside a state run reform district school, The state has taken over the 5% worst performing schools.

The state of Michigan has taken over the 5% worst performing schools in Detroit through their “Reform District” system. They provide supplies and emphasize job-skills.

Poor attendance and the departure of interested students makes it hard for any teacher to handle a class. Teachers must try to teach responsibility to kids who don’t show up, in a high crime setting, with only a crooked city council to look up to. This is a city council that oversaw decades of “pay for play,” where you had to bribe the elected officials to bid on projects. Even among officials who don’t directly steal, there is a pattern of giving themselves and their families fancy cars or gambling trips to Canada using taxpayers dollars. The mayor awarded Cadillac Escaldes to his family and friends, and had a 22-man team of police to protect him. On this environment, a teacher has to be a real hero to achieve even modest results.

Student departure means there a surfeit of teachers and schools, but it is hard to see what to do. You’d like to reassign teachers who are on the payroll, but doing little, and fire the worst teachers. Sorry to say, it’s hard to fire anyone, and it’s hard to figure out which are the bad teachers; just because your class can’t read doesn’t mean you are a bad teacher. Recently a teacher of the year was fired because the evaluation formula gave her a low rating.

Making changes involves upending union seniority rules. Further, there is an Americans with Disability Act that protects older teachers, along with the lazy, the thief, and the drug addict — assuming they claim disability by frailty, poor upbringing or mental disease. To speed change along, I would like to see the elected education board replaced by an appointed board with the power to act quickly and the responsibility to deliver quality education within the current budget. Unlike the present system, there must be oversight to keep them from using the money on themselves.

She state could take over more schools into the reform school district, or they could remove entire school districts from Detroit incorporation and make them Michigan townships. A Michigan township has more flexibility in how they run schools, police, and other services. They can run as many schools as they want, and can contract with their neighbors or independent suppliers for the rest. A city has to provide schools for everyone who’s not opted out. Detroit’s population density already matches that of rural areas; rural management might benefit some communities.

I would like to see the curriculum modified to be more financially relevant. Detroit schools could reinstate classes in shop and trade-skills. In effect that’s what’s done at Detroit’s magnet schools, e.g. the Cass Academy and the Edison Academy. It’s also the heart of several charter schools in the state-run reform district. Shop class teaches math, an important basis of science, and responsibility. If your project looks worse than your neighbor’s, you can only blame yourself, not the system. And if you take home your work, there is that reward for doing a good job. As a very last thought, I’d like to see teachers paid more than janitors; this means that the current wage structure has to change. If nothing else, a change would show that there is a monetary value in education.

Robert Buxbaum, August 16, 2013; I live outside Detroit, in one of the school districts that students go to when they flee the city.