LIFO ought not have been an issue had Unions not protected bad teachers in the first place

Here in New York a battle has been raging between the Mayor of New York, Mike Bloomberg, and newly elected union fav, Gov Andrew Cuomo on what criteria should be used to lay off 6,000 teachers. Previously, the law required that the last hired, should be first to be laid off, or namely LIFO. This puts a premium on seniority employment, a standard I feel is the most fair.

But, Bloomberg wants to scuttle LIFO and get rid of bad teachers that most likely have seniority in their side. Whichever side one may take on the argument, it points to a glaring factoid.
How does a bad teacher get to keep his or her job for years upon years? This answers falls right back onto the shoulders of the teachers’ union who for years have rejected any kind of evaluation plan for teachers that would endanger the size of the pool for collecting union dues. More teachers mean more union dues to collect. That gives the union more money to spend on Democrat politicians that return the favor with bigger union contacts.

In private industry, one is allowed only so many poor evaluations before an employee gets canned. But, in the rigged game that is the public sector, it’s a song and dance to fool the public while the money keeps rolling in.