Why Do We Need to Guarantee Poor Teachers (Employees) Lifetime Jobs?

Lost in all the union lobbying for ever higher compensation for public service jobs, is why we should be guaranteeing any "public service" jobs at all? Serving the public is not an entitlement -- so that those who don't serve the public (well), but only their own self-interests (at the expense of the rest of the citizens), should be released at will -- to go on to pursue those interests in the greater free market.

Nobody is forced to take a government (public sector) job, with the possible exception of a military draft during wartime. So this "sacrifice" they often speak of to serve the public (which they now make a claim against), is not one at all, but having it both ways, is really a another legendary deception by the poor stable of underpaid freelance writers who are willing to say anything somebody pays them to say -- no matter how misleading, because that's what makes them "professionals," and if they serve their clients loyally, can expect ever increasing opportunities for such "promotions" (work).

The proper measure of "comparable worth," are all the factors that go into the compensation for what one does -- and doesn't have to do. All pay being equal, most college graduates would prefer not to be the janitor, but the teacher, and a few, to even be the principle instead of a classroom teacher -- because they are better suited for some positions/work than others, and not that they had to "sacrifice" being the school janitor, to teach the 3rd graders. So all these bogus arguments about "sacrifice" as being something they should be compensated for, including being the Chief Executive Officer of some leading technology company, have no basis in any reality -- and that is the reason they're teaching the 3rd grade, as the fulfillment of what they do best -- and if that doesn't prove to be true, they shouldn't be guaranteed a lifetime job doing so, and beyond that, receiving a generous pension for no longer having to go through the motions of doing something useful.

The fact of the matter is that the fair compensation for any public service job should be -- the median income for all its citizens, even regardless of occupation -- because government work doesn't require cutting edge research, development and marketing (promotion), but requires the median competency in their respective fields, of the existing options available -- provided by the free market.

Of course that is not what a lot of union workers like to think about themselves -- that in their minds they are the best in their field if they hadn't opted for the security of government work -- and that is why there is the free market to prove that fact -- and not that seniority at hanging on to the same job, is sufficient qualifications to create the next level of human actualizations and possibilities.

That is not government work, and that is not what they teach in the schools -- which in the best of schools, is what the teacher discovered themselves, and not just what some teacher told them to teach, because that was the new consensus of what everybody else had to teach (know).

That is the reason we don't pay the average the top 5%, nor the bottom 5% either -- which the creative individual, is far more likely to be -- because only a rare few will make it to the top in that way. But no society can guarantee that everybody who wishes to get to the top, should be compensated the same as those at the top -- because there just isn't enough unlimited free money to go around.