Unions

Originally Posted By: conservative1911 Dems have been buying union support & votes since FDR.

Like I said before the union members are better organized, and more dedicated to their cause than the non union members. That means the Republicans are too cheap to band together to support their candidates with support to get them elected. The unions are only 11% nationwide, but according to some they control the country.
 
Quote:Many State workers are political hacks that are hired or appointed to a position by whatever party is in power. They work at the discretion of Governor or Judges or Legislators in positions that are not permanent State titles.

Appointed positions yes, the "regular" workers not so much. It used to be common for public employee jobs to be patronage positions, a system that bred corruption (Tammany Hall/Boss Tweed, "machines" in Chicago, Boston, Kansas City, Cleveland, NYC, Philadelphia, St. Louis, etc). That pretty much stopped with the full implementation of civil service laws in the early 20th century. Nowadays there are very few public positions that are dependant on who is in office except at the very top, cabinet Secretaries and staff, U.S. Attorneys, etc. Civil service laws/protections are just one of the reasons why public employees shouldn't be allowed to unionize. Their jobs are already protected by law.
 
Quote:Looks like like the 36% union members are smarter than the non union, unless they are forced to pay dues, they are sucking the hind teat of benefits for free. So the 64% that are non members are still raking in the benefits, Oh what a great country! .

Non union members DON'T usually "rake in the benefits". They (usually) have the same base salary, but that's it. They don't get the pension, the retirement medical, legal services etc. When layoffs happen they are often the first to go, because their bosses don't want the hassle from the union.

Do you consider it right that in some states 100% of public employees are forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment?

Do you consider it right that the union then uses those mandatory dues to support political causes the employee opposes?

Do you consider it right that the unions use general dues to lobby for policies the member disagrees with? For instance the NEA pushing for homosexual education and explicit sex, not only in our schools, but a worldwide UN program? How many teachers do you know who agree with that? Doesn't matter, their union dues are being spent to implement the policy regardless.






Quote:If it is legal, what is the beef? You can do the same, you can advertise any amount you want. A lot of other organizations do, why not you?

That's what the current debate in WI (and other states) is about. It IS legal for unions to spend general dues for political purposes if they aren't giving money directly to a candidate. The question is whether it should be legal to force people to pay union dues as a condition of employment.






Quote:Not your tax dollars, it is the people's dues that pays for the advertising. You can can claim it as tax dollars, but that is BS, it is their money to with as they see fit.

Well no, all too often it's NOT their money to do with as they see fit. It's their money for the union to do with as THEY see fit.

As outlined previously, it has been the case in the past (and may still be the present), that their money is being used illegally and often contrary to their positions, and even where the money is used legally, also often contrary to the employee's positions.

As just a for instance, the NEA spends 94% of it's political money on Democratic party candidates or issues, but only 45% of it's member teachers are Dems (according to the NEA itself).

A valid argument can be made that where they have the choice of whether to join the union or not, when they join they shouldn't complain, but WHAT ABOUT THE 28 STATES WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE?

In ALL states my money is taken by threat of force to support at least one monopoly (education) which I vehemently oppose, but in those 28 states where there is no choice it absolutely IS my tax dollars being funneled to the Dems through the unions. Neither I or the public employees have any choice.
 
Quote:too bad there is no real valid method to actually consider productivity of teachers. Teachers deal with individuals, each is unique, no test can decide how good a teacher is, a test only shows how good the student is. You needn't answer this reply about the teachers I have read quite a bit of your other verbal vomit about the teaching profession and already know the line you will try to go.

You don't really think you can throw out such absolute nonsense and then ask that it not be replied too do you?
w00t.gif


Take a hypothetical instance:

Just for grins, lets imagine that students are tested at the end of each year and rated against their peers nationally. We could call it the National Assessment of Educational Progress or something.

Lets say three 5th grade teachers at Jefferson Memorial get a new class at the beginning of each year, and those new students have taken the national assessment tests and been rated at the end of the previous 4th grade school year.

In the 5th grade year end national assessment testing for the past 5 years:

Teacher #1 has had her classes improve their average national assessment ratings by 5 percentage points or more every year.

Teacher #2 has had two classes improve marginally, two stay the essentially the same, and one class lowered its average assessment.

Teacher #3 has had every class in the last 5 years rate lower in the national assessment at the end of the year.

Which teacher deserves more pay?

If you had to lay teachers off, which teacher would you lay off, given the choice?

More importantly, which teacher would you want teaching YOUR kid next year?

"no test can decide how good a teacher is, a test only shows how good the student is."?

BULLFLAP!

Teachers could be easily assessed with readily available data. They AREN'T, largely because of union pressure. Yes there ARE variables, and the testing would not be perfect, but it would be a heck of a lot better than the current "last in/first out" union rules.
 
Quote:pensions are a State budget problem which unions have nothing to do with. Example: NJ Governor Christie Whitman (R)lowered NJ Income Tax 30% as promised. During her 8 years the economy was great and the 7-9.5% state workers were paying into the pensions were not being matched by the State since all NJ pension funds were overfunded.

Do you even have a pension?

Most folks have at best a 401k. My 401k was matched 6% by my employer. That is, if I funded it to the maximum allowed, (22% of my wages IIRC) they would match 6%. It most certainly IS a union problem AND a state budget problem.

It wouldn't be a budget problem if the state was "matching" 6% like a normal employer instead of paying 90-100%.






Quote:The unions are only 11% nationwide, but according to some they control the country.

Maybe not for much longer. It may just be time to pay the piper.
 
Since you provide no facts, I will provide background for the students of the 3 teachers.

Teacher number 1, all the students come from upper income involved parents, none are bilingual. The only problem this teacher might have is a spoiled little brat.

Teacher number 2, the students are partially bilingual, the parents are lower middle class and partially involved in their child's education.

Teacher number 3, the students are special education with both learning and discipline problems, all are from single parent homes with no parental involvement in school. The students have problems that are from autistic to oppositional defiant to medically fragile.

Now that you have an idea of the student population of the three classes, your verbal vomit has turned to BULL FLAP.

I am not am teacher, nor am I a union member, Texas is not a pro union state, I just refuse to wear blinders.
 
My wife is a special education teacher. How would you assess her teaching ability year to year? I can guarantee no two classes will ever be the same. Is no child left behind a good thing or bad thing? I don't really like government involvement in schools, it just sounds like a lot of people think it's a good thing. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.


 
Originally Posted By: Irish_80My wife is a special education teacher. How would you assess her teaching ability year to year? I can guarantee no two classes will ever be the same. Is no child left behind a good thing or bad thing? I don't really like government involvement in schools, it just sounds like a lot of people think it's a good thing. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.




Anyone in Special Ed deserves a special place in Heaven. Through my volunteer work after I retired I found the Special Ed teachers and staff were the most dedicated people in the world. Too bad there are so many ignorant people that do not understand what really goes on in the schools, but they are "experts". What is really shocking is that even within the school systems there are teachers and especially administrators that do not understand what Special Ed staff goes through on a daily basis.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcher

What is really shocking is that even within the school systems there are teachers and especially administrators that do not understand what Special Ed staff goes through on a daily basis.

There is no doubt about that. My wife is lucky to work at a school that the staff and administration works together pretty well, but they still don't fully understand.
 
"It wouldn't be a budget problem if the state was "matching" 6% like a normal employer instead of paying 90-100%"

Ok what you are saying is the teachers should pay into their own penisions?

Ok if thats what you are stating, then they would still be paying it in with tax money. And then the state would turn around and match 6% of that with what?????? MORE TAX MONEY!!!!!!!

So your logic has no rhyme or reason. It is still all tax money you would just like to see it wrote up a different way or what????

People are quick to spit things out without using their brains!!!!!!!
 
Originally Posted By: redeyeddawgWe now know that Dogcatcher's real name is Michael Moore .

Brilliant, when you have only have ignorance and arrogance you take a tangent ride. Actually I am just a retired (11 years) redneck in West Texas that knows little about what I am talking about, which is a lot more than you do.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherOriginally Posted By: redeyeddawgWe now know that Dogcatcher's real name is Michael Moore .

Brilliant, when you have only have ignorance and arrogance you take a tangent ride. Actually I am just a retired (11 years) redneck in West Texas that knows little about what I am talking about, which is a lot more than you do.

My, my, my, seems a nerve was struck huh? Finally you have managed to make a statement with which I whole-heartedly concur. I agree you know little about what you're talking about and we know even less about what you're talking about.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherOriginally Posted By: redeyeddawgWe now know that Dogcatcher's real name is Michael Moore .

Brilliant, when you have only have ignorance and arrogance you take a tangent ride. Actually I am just a retired (11 years) redneck in West Texas that knows little about what I am talking about, which is a lot more than you do.

Read the linked article and you'll see he espouses the same crap as you do.
 
Wow, another line of brilliance, did you miss out on reading comprehension in school or were you a special student, and passed on the "No child left behind" program?

Back on subject, tell me again how the union members of America, approximately 11% of the population manage to control the other 89%.
 
That doesn't explain how the 11% controls the other 89%. It just tells us the states are in deep sticks with the pension plans.

Now, how does the 11% have so much power, that you are so scared of them?
 
I really am not anti-union. My family has worked in the mining industry for 3 generations and during my grandfather’s era unions were instrumental in creating a safe work environment as well as creating jobs that paid well. I think during that era unions were very necessary. I just don't like what they have become. They have forced many industries to make the decision to move overseas. People will tell you it is all about corporate greed but it is also about making an adequate shareholder profit. If you think corporations are making too much money you should be taking every penny you can and investing in them. I didn't like the fact that when I worked in industry I couldn't give someone a raise that deserved it or get rid of people who didn't want to work. There are always people who will work harder and do a better job than others and they should be compensated for their hard work. They aren’t in a union job. I guess today’s unions just exemplify to me what is wrong with America today and that is that mediocracy should be rewarded.

drscott
 
Quote:Since you provide no facts, I will provide background for the students of the 3 teachers.

Teacher number 1, all the students come from upper income involved parents, none are bilingual. The only problem this teacher might have is a spoiled little brat.

Teacher number 2, the students are partially bilingual, the parents are lower middle class and partially involved in their child's education.

Teacher number 3, the students are special education with both learning and discipline problems, all are from single parent homes with no parental involvement in school. The students have problems that are from autistic to oppositional defiant to medically fragile.

Now that you have an idea of the student population of the three classes, your verbal vomit has turned to BULL FLAP.

I am not am teacher, nor am I a union member, Texas is not a pro union state, I just refuse to wear blinders.

I'll provide you with a little more verbal vomit to help you with your mental diarrhea problem, since it's obvious from your post above that you are totally ignorant of statistical analysis methodologies.

You see, it doesn't matter what sort of student the teacher gets, you are looking at an improvement of their previous datum point, and any statistical analysis controls for confounding variables. If you had bothered to go to the NAEP link I gave, you would have seen that in fact they do exactly that.

Take your worse case as an example. Say those student's assessment average against their peers nationally was at the bottom 20th percentile. If at the end of the year they tested at the 25th percentile, they would still be terrible students compared nationally, but they would have shown improvement. With multiple years of similar results, it would be pretty safe to assess the teacher as being pretty good.






Quote:Back on subject, tell me again how the union members of America, approximately 11% of the population manage to control the other 89%.

Nobody but you has said anything about 11% controlling 89%, but you keep bringing up the same fallacy even when it's been answered repeatedly.

It's not the 11% nationally, and it's only partially the 36% of public employees in unions. IT'S THE 100% OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO ARE REQUIRED TO PAY UNION DUES IN THE 28 STATES THAT ARE NOT "RIGHT TO WORK" STATES.







 
Quote:My wife is a special education teacher. How would you assess her teaching ability year to year? I can guarantee no two classes will ever be the same. Is no child left behind a good thing or bad thing? I don't really like government involvement in schools, it just sounds like a lot of people think it's a good thing. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

She would be assessed in the same way. It doesn't matter statistically that no two classes will ever be the same, you are using the historical data of that class across succeeding school years. One class may be at the 5th percentile when she "inherits" them, another at the 10th, another at the 7th, etc. If she consistently manages to have them show improvement when she is done with them, she's a good teacher.

An assessment doesn't depend in any way on the teacher's students winding up at the top of the scholastic ratings, only on whether they have shown improvement over their previous ratings.

In fact, the most difficult class ratings to judge a teacher by would be the class of geniuses. The closer you get to "perfection", the more difficult it is to show any improvement (which would be a confounding variable that would be controlled for).

That "controlling for confounding variables" is just one of the methodologies used, and it would probably result in a "excellent teacher" rating requiring say a (non controlled) 5 percentage point jump for average classes, and maybe a 1 percentage point improvement at either end of the spectrum.
 
Back
Top