Usually, it is considered "good news" when such jobs are announced by an employer in one of our communities. These types of jobs are important for the economic vitality of all communities. However, Kyle Olson and his Education Action Group's agenda oppose such jobs by tauting the virtues of privatization.
By encouraging community employers, such as school districts, to privatize the jobs they provide in the community, he is advocating for diminished quality in those jobs, plain and simple.
Instead of working for a school district as a custodian for 30 years and receiving a pension from the state, Mr. Olson seems to prefer these jobs have no pension and be managed by money-grabbing for-profit companies that take from the workers to line their corporate pockets. In most cases, this results in lesser paying jobs in our communities, usually without benefits and pensions, and a reduced standard of living within that population of workers.
How is this good for Michigan? Why doesn't Olson and the EAG advocate for a lesser standard of living for everyone? We sure hope it isn't the whole "school employees are public employees" argument. If this is the case, they why not just advocate for pensionless jobs and reduced quality of living for everyone who is paid with tax dollars? Clearly, his beef is with only one segment of public employees and it is because they have a union.
School employees' skill sets, levels of responsibility, and knowledge requirements for their jobs working with Michigan's children deserve the compensation, benefits and pensions they receive. But the only thing Kyle seems to support is driving these specific community jobs to some place "below their current standard."
Is this the type of future jobs you want in your community from one of its most important employers?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A place for the TRUTH about the Education Action Group and Kyle Olson
