Is the left really against schools hiring students or is the issue Gingrich said it?

[Dragon]

The responses of all of those who have responded to Occupied demonstrates that he is right.

It's meaningless to say that you are attacking "union thugs" and not "labor." Anyone who would use the phrase "union thugs" reveals his opinion about collective bargaining, which is the sine qua non for support for labor's interests. Unions have historically demonstrated themselves to be the best way for labor to advance its interests against capital. Government can't be counted on for that purpose, as it is too easily bought off by corporate campaign contributions, and in any case empowering workers themselves is inherently a better idea than government paternalism.

Prohibition of child labor was one of the first legislative victories of the labor movement, along with the eight-hour day. That prohibition must remain in force, and to even the most seemingly-innocuous breaching of the barrier we must say not just no but HELL NO!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But you tell me, is that really the issue?

If mandatory, it is illegal to single out a particular group of persons – in this case students of low-income families – and subject them to a punitive measure because they might do something wrong. Such actions are also likely to provoke a civil suit.

If voluntary, it is the policy of most, if not all, public sector entities to not fire paid employees and replace them with volunteers; such actions are likely in violation of union contracts and consequently subject to legal action.

Whether voluntary or mandatory, there are health codes, safety policies, and other like regulations that ensure public restrooms meet sanitation standards as a condition of sound public policy. Minor children as ‘volunteers’ can not be adequately trained for such duties nor expected to executed such duties responsibly; it is impossible for a ‘head janitor’ to follow behind every child to make sure health standards are adhered to.

The popular perception of a janitor is inaccurate, it’s not just ‘pushing a mop,’ it requires training and experience with regard to the proper use of cleaning materials and techniques to ensure public health and safety.

Not to mention minor children would be exposed to dangerous chemicals and diseases.

Or is it a partisan attack against Gingrich?

No, it’s a logical and sensible rejection of an idiotic idea for the reasons noted above, among others. A democrat making a similar proposal would be just as ridiculed.

 

[The T]

The responses of all of those who have responded to Occupied demonstrates that he is right.

It's meaningless to say that you are attacking "union thugs" and not "labor." Anyone who would use the phrase "union thugs" reveals his opinion about collective bargaining, which is the sine qua non for support for labor's interests. Unions have historically demonstrated themselves to be the best way for labor to advance its interests against capital. Government can't be counted on for that purpose, as it is too easily bought off by corporate campaign contributions, and in any case empowering workers themselves is inherently a better idea than government paternalism.

Prohibition of child labor was one of the first legislative victories of the labor movement, along with the eight-hour day. That prohibition must remain in force, and to even the most seemingly-innocuous breaching of the barrier we must say not just no but HELL NO!

I knew YOU were a Commie Union-Monger/Socialist.

Even if the kids clean up thier campus as a form of punishment?

 

[Zoom]

Newt is correct. The poor have horrible work ethics and making 9 year olds work will fix this. Trust fund babies exemplify what good work ethics are all about and as long was we only make "poor" 9 year olds work, whats the problem.

 

[Dragon]

I knew YOU were a Commie Union-Monger/Socialist.

LOL two out of three ain't bad, considering the source. I'm in favor of unions and a socialist. Never denied either one. Like most unthinking right-wingers, you could do with an education as to what the word "Communist" means. Although there are points in common, it is not identical with either union supporter or socialist (nor those two with each other).

Even if the kids clean up thier campus as a form of punishment?

What the hell does that have to do with anything? It's obvious Gingrich was talking about hiring school children to replace janitors. Not acceptable.

 

[kaz]

Did you read your own comment? Even you see this as a way to get rid of unionized janitorial staff.

Read it more carefully. I said that was an argument used against me in this discussion, it was not an argument I was making, it was an argument I was disagreeing with.

So my question stands, how exactly are schools hiring students to do chores an "attack on labor?"

Already told you.

No, you just stated that it was. I asked how. You replied I said it was. I said no, I didn't and asked you again. You said you already did. Nice dancing though...

 

[kaz]

Newt is correct. The poor have horrible work ethics and making 9 year olds work will fix this. Trust fund babies exemplify what good work ethics are all about and as long was we only make "poor" 9 year olds work, whats the problem.

Where does Gingrich state he would "make" anyone work?

Where did he refer to "9 year old?"

Another liberal with nothing in their pants. Making shit up that no one said is all you've got. I ask you libbies to back up these accusations over and over and over and I get...



You made it up, that's why.

 

[kaz]

WIt's obvious Gingrich was talking about hiring school children to replace janitors. Not acceptable.

Thank you. At least you used the accurate word unlike the other liberals. He's referring to "hiring" them, not "forcing" them as your brethren keep saying. Though you should challenge them on that since they keep saying what you know is not true. I'd do that if it were my side.

But why do you say it's "not acceptable?" I'm not sure Newt meant that all janitorial work would be done by schoolers. If you had a smaller staff and replaced some of the work by offering jobs I'm not sure I see the issue. I would have to agree firing all janitors could be an issue as you probably don't want kids doing all those jobs and they would have to also be managed more closely.

BTW, I have no pony in the race. I think government schools should be abolished completely and private schools should be free to have their own policies. I couldn't give a rip what Newt or any other DC politician thinks of the subject. I'm just arguing against the left's misrepresentation of what he said for cheap political points.

 

[kaz]

But you tell me, is that really the issue?

If mandatory, it is illegal to single out a particular group of persons – in this case students of low-income families – and subject them to a punitive measure because they might do something wrong. Such actions are also likely to provoke a civil suit.

Where did Newt say he would make it mandatory? You completely don't understand non-liberals. Every non-liberal reading it knew meant offering paid jobs. Only liberals think that policies should be mandatory. A big reason for that is that no one would do liberal policies in their own lives, including liberals, if they were not mandatory. But in no way was Newt referring to any of this.

I've also stated he's wrong. Mostly middle class kids would take the jobs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Newt is correct. The poor have horrible work ethics and making 9 year olds work will fix this. Trust fund babies exemplify what good work ethics are all about and as long was we only make "poor" 9 year olds work, whats the problem.

Where does Gingrich state he would "make" anyone work?

Where did he refer to "9 year old?"

Another liberal with nothing in their pants. Making shit up that no one said is all you've got. I ask you libbies to back up these accusations over and over and over and I get...



You made it up, that's why.

"It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid.

You say to somebody, you shouldn't go to work before you're what, 14, 16 years of age, fine...
You go out and talk to people, as I do, you go out and talk to people who are really successful in one generation. They all started their first job between nine and 14 years of age."

and...


"Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. "

Now I suppose I'll have to spend 20 posts translating that for you.
Read more: Newt: Fire the janitors, hire kids to clean schools - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com

 

[kaz]

Newt is correct. The poor have horrible work ethics and making 9 year olds work will fix this. Trust fund babies exemplify what good work ethics are all about and as long was we only make "poor" 9 year olds work, whats the problem.

Where does Gingrich state he would "make" anyone work?

Where did he refer to "9 year old?"

Another liberal with nothing in their pants. Making shit up that no one said is all you've got. I ask you libbies to back up these accusations over and over and over and I get...



You made it up, that's why.

"It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid.

You say to somebody, you shouldn't go to work before you're what, 14, 16 years of age, fine...
You go out and talk to people, as I do, you go out and talk to people who are really successful in one generation. They all started their first job between nine and 14 years of age."

and...


"Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. "

Now I suppose I'll have to spend 20 posts translating that for you.
Read more: Newt: Fire the janitors, hire kids to clean schools - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com

You've never grasped an argument much less translated it.

Note it was a response to a question not a point that he wrote and honed in a speech to declare an initiative. He said nothing about federal legislation and he never said an age other then 14. He never said 9 or 10 (as you pulled from your posterior). He also referred to "JOBS" and not mandatory anything. He also said there would be a "master janitor" and they'd offer jobs for the rest of the work. There would not be zero janitors. He didn't get into school size, I don't think he's insisting on one janitor period no matter the size and he said nothing about requiring anyone to do anything, just offering jobs. Which presumably means if they can't fill them with students they are able to hire more janitors.

And you think this supports the left and contradicts me how?

 

[JoeB131]

Did you read your own comment? Even you see this as a way to get rid of unionized janitorial staff.

Read it more carefully. I said that was an argument used against me in this discussion, it was not an argument I was making, it was an argument I was disagreeing with.

So my question stands, how exactly are schools hiring students to do chores an "attack on labor?"

Because ALL labour belongs to the Unions...and therefore government since the Democrats are owned by the Unions? These kids can't be in the union...yet.

Same problem. At the Chicago Trade Show, the union thugs beat up a vendor because he wanted to take down his own display. Why? That was their job. Forget he had waited an hour and he had a plane to catch.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I knew YOU were a Commie Union-Monger/Socialist.

Union members are neither communists nor socialists. You only exhibit your hate and ignorance. Yet again.

Even if the kids clean up thier campus as a form of punishment?

As long as the punishment is applied equally to all students regardless of background and otherwise appropriate, this is not an issue.

But that’s not what Gingrich is proposing, nor is it what the thread is about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here is Newt's plan, applied in a realistic situation.

You have a large middle school, with 6th to 9th graders, 2 custodians on the day shift, 5 cleaners on the night shift.

1. Newt eliminates all but 1 'master' janitor (a term that doesn't exist in real life so Newt is already off in fantasy land).

2. Newt replaces the other 6 'janitors' with kids aged about 11 to 15.

3. His one master janitor is supposed to now supervise 2 shifts of kids cleaning the buildings at night, roughly from 3 pm to 11 pm, because that's a typical cleaner shift, PLUS he's got kids on the day shifts doing custodial day work.

4. You've got health and safety training that is required for these people.

5. You've got labor laws probably at both the state and federal level that had to be repealed or rewritten to put these kids to work.

6. You've got a union to decertify or terminate the school's relationship with.

7. You've got to get all of this approved by school board.

8. And, you have to educate your new crew of child cleaners, because afterall, that is primarily what they are there for.

9. ...and everything I've left out...

Now, Newt fans, all of you who think Newt is the brains of the Right, the intellectual thinker of the GOP...

...let's see your program laid out to make all of this work.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where does Gingrich state he would "make" anyone work?

Where did he refer to "9 year old?"

Another liberal with nothing in their pants. Making shit up that no one said is all you've got. I ask you libbies to back up these accusations over and over and over and I get...



You made it up, that's why.

"It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid.

You say to somebody, you shouldn't go to work before you're what, 14, 16 years of age, fine...
You go out and talk to people, as I do, you go out and talk to people who are really successful in one generation. They all started their first job between nine and 14 years of age."

and...


"Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. "

Now I suppose I'll have to spend 20 posts translating that for you.
Read more: Newt: Fire the janitors, hire kids to clean schools - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com

You've never grasped an argument much less translated it.

Note it was a response to a question not a point that he wrote and honed in a speech to declare an initiative. He said nothing about federal legislation and he never said an age other then 14. He never said 9 or 10 (as you pulled from your posterior). He also referred to "JOBS" and not mandatory anything. He also said there would be a "master janitor" and they'd offer jobs for the rest of the work. There would not be zero janitors. He didn't get into school size, I don't think he's insisting on one janitor period no matter the size and he said nothing about requiring anyone to do anything, just offering jobs. Which presumably means if they can't fill them with students they are able to hire more janitors.

And you think this supports the left and contradicts me how?

So when he says 9 in the above quote, that's not an age other than 14? Are you a fucking retard?

 

[JoeB131]

I knew YOU were a Commie Union-Monger/Socialist.

Union members are neither communists nor socialists. You only exhibit your hate and ignorance. Yet again.

Even if the kids clean up thier campus as a form of punishment?

As long as the punishment is applied equally to all students regardless of background and otherwise appropriate, this is not an issue.

But that’s not what Gingrich is proposing, nor is it what the thread is about.

He's proposing it as a positive motivator instead of a negative motivator.

Wow. What a concept.

You work, you get money. You get a sense of pride in being part of something.

You know, I find it amusing that we the schools have no problem working kids to the school's benefit. Another poster used the fine example of making kids sell candy, but what about team sports, which is a form of work that the schools profit on.

Sports teams bring in revenues, and some schools put sports above academics. And in some cases, these kids have no real chance to get into college, but the schools are happy to make money off their atheletic abilities.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Someone once said:

"Gingrich is the Stupid Man's idea of what a Smart Man sounds like."

...boy, does that nail it!!

 

[JoeB131]

"It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid.

You say to somebody, you shouldn't go to work before you're what, 14, 16 years of age, fine...
You go out and talk to people, as I do, you go out and talk to people who are really successful in one generation. They all started their first job between nine and 14 years of age."

and...


"Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. "

Now I suppose I'll have to spend 20 posts translating that for you.
Read more: Newt: Fire the janitors, hire kids to clean schools - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com

You've never grasped an argument much less translated it.

Note it was a response to a question not a point that he wrote and honed in a speech to declare an initiative. He said nothing about federal legislation and he never said an age other then 14. He never said 9 or 10 (as you pulled from your posterior). He also referred to "JOBS" and not mandatory anything. He also said there would be a "master janitor" and they'd offer jobs for the rest of the work. There would not be zero janitors. He didn't get into school size, I don't think he's insisting on one janitor period no matter the size and he said nothing about requiring anyone to do anything, just offering jobs. Which presumably means if they can't fill them with students they are able to hire more janitors.

And you think this supports the left and contradicts me how?

So when he says 9 in the above quote, that's not an age other than 14? Are you a fucking retard?

His only reference to a nine year old was that some successful people got their first jobs at 9.... So you are being disingenous to imply that there's going to be some kind of work camp for 9 years olds.

 

[kaz]

So when he says 9 in the above quote, that's not an age other than 14? Are you a fucking retard?

Newt said we shouldn't be restricted to only kids working when they are 14 or 16 (depends on the State), so it's logical for Zoom to say he's going to "only make 'poor' 9 year olds work." And that it doesn't make sense that offering jobs is going to "make" anyone work or that I don't see it's "only 9 year olds" who will work makes "me" retarded? Hmm....

 

[The T]

Read it more carefully. I said that was an argument used against me in this discussion, it was not an argument I was making, it was an argument I was disagreeing with.

So my question stands, how exactly are schools hiring students to do chores an "attack on labor?"

Because ALL labour belongs to the Unions...and therefore government since the Democrats are owned by the Unions? These kids can't be in the union...yet.

Same problem. At the Chicago Trade Show, the union thugs beat up a vendor because he wanted to take down his own display. Why? That was their job. Forget he had waited an hour and he had a plane to catch.

I'd like to see a link to that story...in the meantime based upon past behaviour? Not suprising not knowing the incident took place is the first response off the cuff...