Sleepless in Midland

Betsy DeVos to the head of the class

Democrats went all out to defeat Betsy DeVos' nomination. But DeVos prevailed, albeit with the help of an historic tie breaking vote of the Vice President.

Why were Democrats so opposed to her? All conservatives heard about it was that the teachers' union was against her. Surely there was more to the opposition than that, but no, that's all there was. Here's Thomas Sowell in Education at a Crossroads:

What may seem on the surface to be merely a matter of whether the U.S. Senate confirms or rejects the nomination of Betsy DeVos to be head of the U.S. Department of Education involves far bigger stakes.

The teachers' unions and the education establishment in general know how big those stakes are, and have mounted an all-out smear campaign to prevent her from being confirmed.

What makes Mrs. DeVos seem so threatening to the teachers' unions and their political allies?

Some of these charter schools -- especially those in the chain of the Success Academy schools and the chain of the KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) schools -- operate in low-income, minority neighborhoods in the inner-cities, and turn out graduates who can match the educational performances of students in affluent suburbs. What is even more remarkable, these charter schools are often housed in the very same buildings, in the very same ghettoes, where students in the regular public schools fail to learn even the basics in English or math.

You and I may think this is great. But, to the teachers' unions, such charter schools are a major threat to their members' jobs -- and ultimately to the unions' power or existence.

For the longest time we've heard that the unions were more interested in benefiting teachers than improving education. That they fight so hard to maintain the status quo in failing schools is pretty good evidence of that.

1:15 PM 2/7/2017

Fly the unfriendly skies -- Cathay Pacific Airways stewardess' union orders members to quit smiling

Cathay Pacific Airways tried to cut costs by granting workers a 2% raise plus a bonus equal to one month's salary. But the Flight Attendants Union wanted a 5% raise, so they ordered members to quit smiling at customers.

Yeah, that's pretty funny.  But there was to be more than just no-smiles, they also planned to "work-to-rule." That's union parlance for a work-slowdown by not doing anything more than the minimum required by the work contract. Never mind that the company was operating at a loss. Source and excerpt:

"This could include not smiling at passengers, not providing certain types of beverages - such as alcohol - or stop serving meals," he said. ... "In a nutshell it means passengers will still be able to reach their destinations except they are paying a five-star price to get a three-star service," [union secretary] Tsang said.

Via.

The surprise to most of us is that union members were doing more than the minimum anyway. But this is far away Chinese Hong Kong, so there may be some cultural differences.

As for an American application, maybe those union thugs who were beating up people in Michigan the other day can take a lesson, turn it down a few notches, and punish their political opponents by not smiling at them. They still wouldn't get their way, but they might serve their cause a little better.