[neetle]

The premise of your argument seems to be that the public school system is flawed, and that you shouldn't have to pay into it, especially if the teachers aren't working.

This implies a lack of care for social responsibility and a lack of respect for the people that are actually having to take the risk.

While I appreciate the point of view that it isn't quite fair, I'd point out that a) teachers should have a right to health and safety in the workplace, b) social mobility would be obliterated if you could opt out of funding public schools, and c) you're likely arguing this from an office where you're at much lower risk.

It's not a great position to be in, sure. But arguing that we're not being kind in our position when yours seems to be "but they're wasting my money" seems to be borderline misanthropic.

[civilized]

I think blindly trusting powerful teacher's unions to define "safe working conditions" when they get paid either way is textbook social irresponsibility. It's "ruinous empathy", the sort of thing that makes you feel kind and good while actually doing harm. It hurts kids, especially the most vulnerable and disadvantaged inner-city students where these unions are most dominant.

COVID is no more dangerous than the flu for vaccinated people, and has been for many months now. But some teacher's unions are still demanding closures, as documented in the article.

I phrased it in terms of my own checkbook because IMO that makes the principle involved most transparent (moral hazard against payors), but personally my schools are fine. The biggest impacts of no choice are on the most disadvantaged.

[willcipriano]

Do we pay everyone who would prefer to work from home or just teachers? If just teachers why are they special?

[neetle]

The fact that you took "teachers should have a right to health and safety in the workplace" as "WFH only or not" is either naive or disingenuous. This isn't a binary, and I'm surprised that someone would assume as such.