Why are socialists so different between countries?

[Freddy]

Wow, that might work. Replace domestic teachers with foreign teachers if the foreign teachers are no good. And if the unions complain, call them xenophobic racists. The unions will be politically and ideologically neutralized.

Laugh out loud omg!!! That made me laugh so hard.

Beat them at their own game. .... I'm speechless

[-1=e^ipi]

Sorry I meant 'if the domestic teachers are no good'.

But yes, you need to beat them at their own game.

[Second-class Canadian]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26 (3) states: "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."

The Christian Democratic Party of Sweden, knowing full-well the Social Democratic Party's rhetoric concerning its respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, quoted this article repeatedly in the election campaign to establish the voucher school program.

The SDP, not wanting to look like hypocrites by opposing the UDHR, tried to find other flaws, but the CDN had all of its bases covered:

All teachers must be qualified.

Schools must accept students on a first-come-first-served basis.

Parents receive an electronic voucher for each child.

Students with disabilities receive an appropriately higher-valued voucher.

Schools cannot charge more than the value of the voucher.

Though schools could choose the language insyruction, they must teach the curriculum and students must sit the national exams in Swedish.

Etc.

In short, language rights groups backed the CDP and the SDP and teachers unions couldn't throw any hard hits at the proposal.

So yes, beat them at their own game.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Second-class Canadian

[Second-class Canadian]

Declaring teaching an essential service could work too.

[Freddy]

Declaring teaching an essential service could work too.

that could make it easier to import immigrant teachers if they strike.

[Second-class Canadian]

If declared an essential service, they would legally not be allowed to strike. That said, if teaching is not an essential service in any other country, the party proposing this could face harsh criticism so might want to leave it to another election. That said, right-to-work legislation would mean that no teacher could be forced to join or remain in a union.

To clarify, I wasn't thinking immigration but rather just a more open labour market policy. That said, a foreign national who ends up getting hired by a school could apply for citizenship like anyone else, but would naturally have an advantage in being employed obviously.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Second-class Canadian

[Second-class Canadian]

Alternatively, having a teacher-immigration policy that allows a foreign teacher to automatically obtain Canadian citizenship after five years of employment should the teacher apply for it could be a way to attract more quality teachers.

[Second-class Canadian]

that could make it easier to import immigrant teachers if they strike.

In practical terms, it's highly unlikely you could replace teachers that quickly though. Having an open teacher market would have its advantages, but would still not be a panacea.

[Freddy]

In practical terms, it's highly unlikely you could replace teachers that quickly though. Having an open teacher market would have its advantages, but would still not be a panacea.

The teachers, are only following a set of plans. Backed by the conventional wisdom of our bleeding harts that sit in the school councils.

If I were you I'd attend a school meeting, and work my way up that way.

[Second-class Canadian]

The teachers, are only following a set of plans. Backed by the conventional wisdom of our bleeding harts that sit in the school councils.

If I were you I'd attend a school meeting, and work my way up that way.

But allowing foreign nationals to work in Canada is a Federal jurisdiction.

[-1=e^ipi]

In practical terms, it's highly unlikely you could replace teachers that quickly though.

You don't need to. You just need enough to babysit kids so that parents are not disgruntled during the strike.

It's not like kids are learning much of value these days anyway with the politicization of our education system. Just give them some app to learn from on their smart phone / tablet.

[On Guard for Thee]

Or even worse, fill their heads with a bunch of repetitive boring formulas.

[-1=e^ipi]

Or even worse, fill their heads with a bunch of repetitive boring formulas.

Teaching kids actual math would be far preferable to discovery math. Yes.

[Second-class Canadian]

And some positions considered very conservative here might be considered accepted by all parties there.

[August1991]

Canadian labour-socialists sometimes point to social-democracy or even social-corporatism in Sweden and other countries as proof of how socialism can work. Yet the contrast between them is significant.

As an example, the federal NDP (and many leftish Canadian posters to various forums) oppose Bill C-51 and yet the Swedish government collects/stores information about every Swedish citizen to the point where a census is unnecessary. Or maybe I should say that Swedes voluntarily provide this information to their government.

Or how about electricity/gasoline prices? Norway and Sweden have natural resources and yet Norwegians/Swedes voluntarily pay world prices as domestic consumers. Why? Would Albertans pay $2.50 for a litre of gasoline? Would Quebecers pay 16 cents for a kWh of electricity?

Or how about living arrangements? Would Canadians accept to live in homes the size of Swedes and Norwegians - on average, about half the size of what Canadians have now?

Finally, would Canadians accept to live as Lutherans? IMHO, there is more to life than GDP/per capita.

[Evening Star]

I never denied that. They also have co-determination laws granting workers representation on boards of directors. My point was though (and your post actually reinforces mine) that they are very different at a very fundamental level. So why doesn't the NDP propose co-determination laws?

Isn't this pretty comparable?: "New Democrats believe in: ... n) Creating industrial sector councils involving representatives of industry, workers, and governments; o) Facilitating worker participation within companies to develop more democratic, transparent, and efficient workplaces." [source: p. 2 of the NDP's current policy book )

[Second-class Canadian]

Isn't this pretty comparable?: "New Democrats believe in: ... n) Creating industrial sector councils involving representatives of industry, workers, and governments; o) Facilitating worker participation within companies to develop more democratic, transparent, and efficient workplaces." [source: p. 2 of the NDP's current policy book )

I stand somewhat corrected on that point, but not totally. It sounds like the NDP is trying to do it through union membership. Sweden has right to work legislation prohibiting employers from requiring a worker to join a union. Therefore they needed a system allowing all workers to vote independently of their union so as to ensure all workers are represented and not just union members.

[Evening Star]

Really? I'd want to see more about what 'right-to-work' legislation means in Sweden. The country has close to 70% union participation, more than double Canada's. (I linked the stat earlier.) That suggests that, whatever it is, it is something quite different from American 'right to work'.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Evening Star

[Second-class Canadian]

Really? I'd want to see more about what 'right-to-work' legislation means in Sweden. The country has close to 70% union participation, more than double Canada's. (I linked the stat earlier.) That suggests that, whatever it is, it is something quite different from American 'right to work'.

It just means that an employer is legally prohibited from making union membership a condition for employment.

But yes, somehow in spite of this legislation, unions are strong in Sweden. Then again, whereas many unions in Canada tend to be more labour-socialist, those in Sweden are usually more social-corporatist or Christian corporatist, so far more ideologically moderate.

A perfect example, when the CDP had proposed school vouchers, the teachers union questioned many aspects of it but no more. In Canada, unions would be fighting in the streets.

[Evening Star]

OK, I read about it and the system IS very different. Although they technically don't have the 'closed shop'/'union shop' as far as employment is concerned, unemployment insurance benefits (and perhaps other benefits too?) are administered by the union rather than by the government, meaning that you won't get those benefits unless you are a union member. As a result, yes, the vast majority of workers do 'choose' to join the unions. This is not at all comparable to RTW legislation in the US.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

Giving unions control over some major social benefits, as opposed to governments or employers, is huge: this gives unions a whole dimension of power that they do not have on this continent. Do you advocate this for Canada? It seems disingenuous to say "they have RTW legislation in Sweden but the NDP won't even consider this" without including this tidbit of information.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Evening Star

[Second-class Canadian]

OK, I read about it and the system IS very different. Although they technically don't have the 'closed shop'/'union shop' as far as employment is concerned, unemployment insurance (and perhaps other benefits too?) are administered by the union rather than by the government, meaning that you won't get those benefits unless you are a union member. As a result, yes, the vast majority of workers do 'choose' to join the unions. This is not at all comparable to RTW legislation in the US.

I actually like that idea as it takes even more control out of the hands of the government

[Evening Star]

And, yes, this is probably also why they don't need minimum wage laws: when unions have this kind of power and are able to bargain collectively on behalf of the majority of workers, the government does not need to set a minimum wage for unprotected workers. (Even un-unionized workers who work in unionized workplaces get the wages that the union bargains for.)

Edited July 6, 2015 by Evening Star

[Second-class Canadian]

Again, it further illustrates that Swedish social democrats have really thought social democracy (or should I more accurately say social corporatism) through to ensure that it functions alongside the free market and not opposed to it, the two being intrinsically combined.

[Evening Star]

What do you think the federal NDP's chance of winning would be if they campaigned on turning EI over to the unions, greatly increasing the size of the public sector, jacking up income taxes, bringing the HST closer to 25%, moving towards two-tier health care (but expanding drug coverage), and leaving NATO? Would you vote for them? Electable parties in stable and prosperous democracies tend to advocate for gradual and incremental changes from the status quo.

Scandinavian governments are also able to do certain things because they have small populations, are more culturally homogeneous than Canada, and are somewhat isolated, geographically and linguistically. If we had a 25% sales tax, it is likely that people would just start shopping across the border much more often, for example.

By the way, Sweden's educational performance, as measured on international tests, has clearly declined in the time period since school vouchers and privatization were introduced. Their contemporary educational system is referred to by writers of differing ideological stripes as a cautionary tale. Some blame these market-driven reforms, some don't, but, either way, it is not necessarily a model to refer to.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Evening Star