1,500 Teachers Paid to Do Union Business While Missing Class

[thereisnospoon]

How much do we pay elected officials to campaign for re-election?

They should not be paid if they are not working either.
In many states, elected office is NOT considered a full time job. For example in NC As of 2010, members of the North Carolina House of Representatives are paid $13,951/year. Per diem is $104/day set by statute. Legislators are allowed up to $559/month for expenses.North Carolina House of Representatives - Ballotpedia.
The House is in session for roughly 90 days per year. At $104 per day while in session, that's an additional $9,000 plus $559 per month for 4 months or another $2236.
So the Gne Assy of NC member gets about $25k per year.
In towns, counties and cities ,it is the same thing. Part time. This is done by design. To prevent politics from becoming a lifetime career. Sessions are short by design as well. Because elected officials spend more time "at home" , they are more likely to be held accountable to their constituents. In other words, they can't hide in the State Capitol.

 

[uscitizen]

How much do we pay elected officials to campaign for re-election?

They should not be paid if they are not working either.
In many states, elected office is NOT considered a full time job. For example in NC As of 2010, members of the North Carolina House of Representatives are paid $13,951/year. Per diem is $104/day set by statute. Legislators are allowed up to $559/month for expenses.North Carolina House of Representatives - Ballotpedia.
The House is in session for roughly 90 days per year. At $104 per day while in session, that's an additional $9,000 plus $559 per month for 4 months or another $2236.
So the Gne Assy of NC member gets about $25k per year.
In towns, counties and cities ,it is the same thing. Part time. This is done by design. To prevent politics from becoming a lifetime career. Sessions are short by design as well. Because elected officials spend more time "at home" , they are more likely to be held accountable to their constituents. In other words, they can't hide in the State Capitol.

Umm I do not think Governors jobs are part time.
And state and federal leglislators many miss votes and such because of campaining.
Who were those fools who were politicking while they were supposed to be being sworn in and thought doing it on TV was fine?
I mean AWOL on the first day on the job, they would be fired in private industry.

 

[Anachronism]

and let it be said, private sector unions are not averse to the same games, that craven mgt. lets them have. I read Crash Course by paul ingrassia in which he chronicles Detroit's rise and fall ala the auto. industry......

.....I blame the Unions and I blame mgt. in this case. The point is, just imagine for a second the nonsense that goes on in public sector unions were neither the giver or taker consider profit or where the dollars come from.........

Obviously that's ridiculous, Trajan. The problem is that in many cases neither side is willing to look to the middle ground for "political" reasons. The Union doesn't want to give up anything they've already gotten for a number of reasons and the Company doesn't want to make any concessions either.

Let's look at a couple of potentials for that same case you talked about....

1. Replacing the fuse requires working on parts of a machine that require special training to be qualified to do service on. The company doesn't want to send more than one person per shift to that training because it is time consuming and expensive.

2. The fuse requires Class 2 Rubber Gloves and other Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to replace which the company is only willing to purchase for a certain number of employees.

3. The COMPANY requires a certain amount of product to come off that line every day. So long as the stoppage is not caused or extended by malfeasance of the Union employees why shouldn't they get OT to finish the run?

Now, if this is a regular 20A fuse in a fusebox, that may be a totally different situation. However, the requirement may be in place because of the "slippery slope" issue with a lot of Union work... If they give up one thing, it becomes much easier to have something else taken away.

It's never going to be a perfect answer in the Union-Company equation. It just doesn't work that way. It's unfortunate, but it's the reality of the situation.

 

[Provocateur]

It seems to me an easy fix.

People can opt in or opt out of the union.

If they opt in, then their dues will go to cover the union duties of these teachers. There would be no loss to the taxpayer, as only one person is being paid for the teaching position at that point.

 

[Anachronism]

It seems to me an easy fix.

People can opt in or opt out of the union.

If they opt in, then their dues will go to cover the union duties of these teachers. There would be no loss to the taxpayer, as only one person is being paid for the teaching position at that point.

I can't speak for the Teacher's Union, but I know where I work there is not an option. Any particular job is either Union or Non-Union. Union positions cannot be filled by Non-Union employees. In fact, you can potentially lose your job if the Union has to discipline you and determines that you are "unfit" to be in the Union. It's not a common thing, but I know it has occured in the past. Basically what I'm saying is that not everyone has the choice of joining the Union or not. For some it's join or don't have a job.

 

[jillian]

Your argument is at best, vapid.
interjecting unrelated nonsense into a discussion only makes you look stupid.
BTW, you're really good at that.

i tend not to get overly offended when someone like you, with a double digit IQ, insults my intelligence.

Well you must not be all that insulted then. You really walked into that one ,genius.
You're still guilty of interjecting unrelated nonsense.
Look, if you intend on trying to appear condescending, at least learn some skills first.
Listen cookie, You couldn't outsmart my pinkie toe. You're way out of your league here, sweetie.

or perhaps your IQ is too low to follow the conversation. if that's the case, feel free to stop trolling my posts. you aren't smart enough to do it well.

was that condescending enough for you? i'm ok with that.

hint: you're making yourself look even more stupid than usual by saying its me who's out of *my* league, when it's pretty clear you're out of yours.

 

[uscitizen]

It seems to me an easy fix.

People can opt in or opt out of the union.

If they opt in, then their dues will go to cover the union duties of these teachers. There would be no loss to the taxpayer, as only one person is being paid for the teaching position at that point.

I can't speak for the Teacher's Union, but I know where I work there is not an option. Any particular job is either Union or Non-Union. Union positions cannot be filled by Non-Union employees. In fact, you can potentially lose your job if the Union has to discipline you and determines that you are "unfit" to be in the Union. It's not a common thing, but I know it has occured in the past. Basically what I'm saying is that not everyone has the choice of joining the Union or not. For some it's join or don't have a job.

It is not that way everywhere. I worked as a non union member in union positions for years. It is called Open Shop and is regulated by law in most states or by an agreed upon contract between the employer and the union.

 

[Provocateur]

It seems to me an easy fix.

People can opt in or opt out of the union.

If they opt in, then their dues will go to cover the union duties of these teachers. There would be no loss to the taxpayer, as only one person is being paid for the teaching position at that point.

I can't speak for the Teacher's Union, but I know where I work there is not an option. Any particular job is either Union or Non-Union. Union positions cannot be filled by Non-Union employees. In fact, you can potentially lose your job if the Union has to discipline you and determines that you are "unfit" to be in the Union. It's not a common thing, but I know it has occured in the past. Basically what I'm saying is that not everyone has the choice of joining the Union or not. For some it's join or don't have a job.

I agree, most don't have a choice. That is a big part of the concern in WI, that people actually might choose to take their $1000 dues and opt out.

I think forcing someone into a union is ridiculous. I've never belonged to a union, I'm happy to say. I would truly resent having my dues go to support Demoncrats. It would drive me crazy.


To add, that "Demoncrats" was a typo, but cracked me up so I left it.

 

[DiveCon]

It seems to me an easy fix.

People can opt in or opt out of the union.

If they opt in, then their dues will go to cover the union duties of these teachers. There would be no loss to the taxpayer, as only one person is being paid for the teaching position at that point.

I can't speak for the Teacher's Union, but I know where I work there is not an option. Any particular job is either Union or Non-Union. Union positions cannot be filled by Non-Union employees. In fact, you can potentially lose your job if the Union has to discipline you and determines that you are "unfit" to be in the Union. It's not a common thing, but I know it has occured in the past. Basically what I'm saying is that not everyone has the choice of joining the Union or not. For some it's join or don't have a job.

It is not that way everywhere. I worked as a non union member in union positions for years. It is called Open Shop and is regulated by law in most states or by an agreed upon contract between the employer and the union.

EVERY "shop" should be an open shop, including government jobs

 

[Anachronism]

It is not that way everywhere. I worked as a non union member in union positions for years. It is called Open Shop and is regulated by law in most states or by an agreed upon contract between the employer and the union.

I understand it's not that way everywhere. I have never seen or worked in such a situation, but I do know they exist.

I think forcing someone into a union is ridiculous. I've never belonged to a union, I'm happy to say. I would truly resent having my dues go to support Demoncrats. It would drive me crazy.

There can be big issues with Open Shops, depending on the particular industry. That's part of why the industry I work in doesn't have them. We're upfront that it's a Union position, take it or leave it, at the time they're offered the job.

I live in a State where there really is only one party, so my $900 a year isn't really going to make a difference.

 

[uscitizen]

I can't speak for the Teacher's Union, but I know where I work there is not an option. Any particular job is either Union or Non-Union. Union positions cannot be filled by Non-Union employees. In fact, you can potentially lose your job if the Union has to discipline you and determines that you are "unfit" to be in the Union. It's not a common thing, but I know it has occured in the past. Basically what I'm saying is that not everyone has the choice of joining the Union or not. For some it's join or don't have a job.

It is not that way everywhere. I worked as a non union member in union positions for years. It is called Open Shop and is regulated by law in most states or by an agreed upon contract between the employer and the union.

EVERY "shop" should be an open shop, including government jobs

Ohh I agree and have said in more than one of there union threads that all we need is an open shop law prohibiting cvlosed shops to make uniions compete for union membership and clean up their act some.

the most insidious union is not officially a uniion but still controls their pay and work environment themselves with seniority benefits and all.
The US congress.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How much do we pay elected officials to campaign for re-election?

They should not be paid if they are not working either.
In many states, elected office is NOT considered a full time job. For example in NC As of 2010, members of the North Carolina House of Representatives are paid $13,951/year. Per diem is $104/day set by statute. Legislators are allowed up to $559/month for expenses.North Carolina House of Representatives - Ballotpedia.
The House is in session for roughly 90 days per year. At $104 per day while in session, that's an additional $9,000 plus $559 per month for 4 months or another $2236.
So the Gne Assy of NC member gets about $25k per year.
In towns, counties and cities ,it is the same thing. Part time. This is done by design. To prevent politics from becoming a lifetime career. Sessions are short by design as well. Because elected officials spend more time "at home" , they are more likely to be held accountable to their constituents. In other words, they can't hide in the State Capitol.

Umm I do not think Governors jobs are part time.
And state and federal leglislators many miss votes and such because of campaining.
Who were those fools who were politicking while they were supposed to be being sworn in and thought doing it on TV was fine?
I mean AWOL on the first day on the job, they would be fired in private industry.

Did I state anything our even mention the office of Governor? Pay attention!
I just got through stating that politicians who are not working SHOULD NOT be paid.
As a matter of fact, here in NC they are not paid unless the General Assembly is in session.
Jesus Christ......Have you the slightest ability to read an comprehend BEFORE your knee jerks upward slamming your chin..
Pay attention for fuck's sake.

 

[WillowTree]

i tend not to get overly offended when someone like you, with a double digit IQ, insults my intelligence.

Well you must not be all that insulted then. You really walked into that one ,genius.
You're still guilty of interjecting unrelated nonsense.
Look, if you intend on trying to appear condescending, at least learn some skills first.
Listen cookie, You couldn't outsmart my pinkie toe. You're way out of your league here, sweetie.

or perhaps your IQ is too low to follow the conversation. if that's the case, feel free to stop trolling my posts. you aren't smart enough to do it well.

was that condescending enough for you? i'm ok with that.

hint: you're making yourself look even more stupid than usual by saying its me who's out of *my* league, when it's pretty clear you're out of yours.

should we prostate ourselves afore thee? will you feel special then?

 

[Foxfyre]

Not having worked in your business, I don't have any serious problem with short term negotiations etc. so long as the employer is not required to pay overtime or take a loss because of union activities that could have been handled outside of business hours.

There is never any OT involved. Trust me, NONE OF US on either side want to be there. It is about the least enjoyable part of my job, to be honest with you.

BUT......at some point the union is going to have to get back to the business of dealing with unethical and unfair employer relations, which is why workers originally unionized, rather than sticking it to the employer for as much as it can get regardless of whether that is good for the business or not.

The vast majority of my Union Business on company time is initiated by the Company, rather than the Union. For example.... Last Tuesday I spent about two hours emailing, talking, on the phone and meeting with our Union Local VP and three different supervisors about an issue related to what work members of our group were supposed to be doing while on OT. This was initiated because the supervisors had forced two Union employees to do work that is not part of our responsibility while in on OT over the prior weekend. Likewise, last Friday I spent about 30-45 minutes running the appropriate list to fill the company's request for two individuals to work OT that evening.

THAT is the sort of stuff that makes up most of my "Union Business" that gets done on Company time. Not exactly "sticking it to the man" type stuff there, now is it?



Actually most of what we're involved in these days (at least at my company) is trying to get the Company to live up to the contractual obligations that they have already agreed to in writing.

Until that situation is turned around, I think unions will continue to be a factor for fewer and fewer workers until they are stripped of their power entirely. Public sector employees--those supported by the taxpayer--are the last mega group to undergo serious soul searching and overhaul.

Interestingly enough we have more and more groups in the company I work for that are trying to Unionize. Mostly because it has become exceptionally apparent that the company has no interest in the well-being of its employees and cares only about its profit margin.

Non union shops in private industry will continue to kick butt and whittle away at the profits of the union shops unless the unions wise up. The taxpayer can bail out General Motors and Chrysler only so many times.

And the taxpayer can be asked to make up the difference in growing state and federal deficits only so long before they turn en masse against the public sector unions and say enough.

I work in a regulated private industry. No government money but lots of government oversight. Mostly at the State level, but some at the Federal level as well. There's no way the Unions are going away in this line of business.

I'm sure from your pew, the way you see it is the way it is. In no way do I think that you are not honorable and ethical from your perspective.

From the pew where I sit, however, I see big business and their unions doing everything in their power to make it more and more difficult for small business to compete with them. So big business and the unions are hand in hand with big government to make sure the unions have more and more power and are protected every way possible.

But sooner or later the law of supply and demand catches up with everybody. And when the unions have negotiated unsustainable contracts with politicians who know they won't likely be around when the sh*t hits the fan in those contracts, sooner or later somebody will have to deal with it because there won't be any money to pay what was negotiated in the contracts. That is the situation in Wisconsin.

And in the OP for this thread, I am pretty sure that is fast approaching to be the situation in New York. Municipalities or the state being forced to furnish union labor unrelated to their contractual duties at tax payer expense may not be a huge part of the problem, but it sure reveals what we are up against.

 

[Foxfyre]

Addendum to previous post:

Yes, workers will prefer a job that pays $10/hour or so more than their regular wages and yes, workers will prefer to have the wages and benefits enjoyed by the unionized employees in an organization. As long as the organization is paying it, why not jump on the gravy train.

But the only sane policy is to pay what the freight will stand while not going into deficits that will have to be paid by others on down the road. So the fact that those outside the union want in is human nature. Not necessarily the most effective or efficient way to run the organization but as long as somebody is passing out candy, it is human nature to hold out your hand for a piece of it.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Public Unions always screw the Taxpayers. They've been raping em for many years. Unions should not be allowed in Government. Period,end of story.

 

[Foxfyre]

Public Unions always screw the Taxpayers. They've been raping em for many years. Unions should not be allowed in Government. Period,end of story.

I have no problem with public unions. Like I said, it simply isn't practical to sit down with every one of hundreds of employees to negotiate raises and bonuses, etc. so a union can be really useful to help negotiate base salaries etc. for various levels of employees. But the negotiated wages must be guidelines only and the leadership must have ability to adjust as situations warrant.

But public unions should not be able to use collective bargaining that once decided the employer cannot change or alter or adjust.

When there is an economic downturn and less money coming into the treasury, the mayor or governor or President needs to be able to say that bonuses or raises can't be paid until the economic climate improves and the budget is back into balance or whatever. Supervisors need to be able to move employees around, adjust schedules and duties as necessary for efficient and effective operation.

Union contracts established through collective bargaining allow for none of that. And, when there is collective bargaining, it is far too easy for a politician to arrange quid pro quo with the union figuring the chickens won't come home to roost re anything conceded to the union until he or she is long out of office.

 

[Trajan]

and let it be said, private sector unions are not averse to the same games, that craven mgt. lets them have. I read Crash Course by paul ingrassia in which he chronicles Detroit's rise and fall ala the auto. industry......

.....I blame the Unions and I blame mgt. in this case. The point is, just imagine for a second the nonsense that goes on in public sector unions were neither the giver or taker consider profit or where the dollars come from.........

Obviously that's ridiculous, Trajan. The problem is that in many cases neither side is willing to look to the middle ground for "political" reasons. The Union doesn't want to give up anything they've already gotten for a number of reasons and the Company doesn't want to make any concessions either.

Let's look at a couple of potentials for that same case you talked about....

1. Replacing the fuse requires working on parts of a machine that require special training to be qualified to do service on. The company doesn't want to send more than one person per shift to that training because it is time consuming and expensive.

2. The fuse requires Class 2 Rubber Gloves and other Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to replace which the company is only willing to purchase for a certain number of employees.

3. The COMPANY requires a certain amount of product to come off that line every day. So long as the stoppage is not caused or extended by malfeasance of the Union employees why shouldn't they get OT to finish the run?

Now, if this is a regular 20A fuse in a fusebox, that may be a totally different situation. However, the requirement may be in place because of the "slippery slope" issue with a lot of Union work... If they give up one thing, it becomes much easier to have something else taken away.

It's never going to be a perfect answer in the Union-Company equation. It just doesn't work that way. It's unfortunate, but it's the reality of the situation.

I'll take no. 3 alex....

because when they, say GM wanted more frames punched out per day, and they noticed that the workers were making the present quota in 5 hours and 'making work' for the remaining 3, when GM asked for more frames per shift, the union said, nope, they would need to be paid OT, or add another line shift.

don't mistake me, I blame them all, mgt for caving and the unions for their avarice, for allowing this a to happen bas we have seen what the adversarial atmosphere does in spades and those are just the simpler examples.