Clearing The Misunderstanding

[PoliticalChic]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

 

[Pete7469]

Liberals are the kind of people who would murder and climb over the corpses of half the population in order to rule over the other half. These are sick sociopath MF's.

 

[task0778]

Teacher unions are much like police unions and every other public union - they fight like hell to keep bad employees who should be fired on the job. Yeah sure, teachers don't kill kids, but they do rape them. Although you wonder how many young lives were forever damaged or even destroyed by a predatory teacher. And it ain't just sexual misconduct, it's the inadequate learning that somebody's kids aren't getting because the teacher doesn't give a fuck.

 

[Dick Foster]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

Well the real question that we should be asking is whether or not any union of public employees should be allowed to exist? Given the fact that they are paid by taxpayers and administered by elected politicians that teachers can vote for or not, then how is it that they should have a union at all? Unions were created to give workers a voice in private free enterprise organizations where profits could override concerns as to worker health and safety, not public, fully tax supported endeavors where health and safety simply aren't concerns. Since when did greed overcome health and safety concerns in reverse?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

Very well expressed, repeating what I have stated in numerous posts when people blame teachers' unions for their student's poor performance.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

Well the real question that we should be asking is whether or not any union of public employees should be allowed to exist? Given the fact that they are paid by taxpayers and administered by elected politicians that teachers can vote for or not, then how is it that they should have a union at all? Unions were created to give workers a voice in private free enterprise organizations where profits could override concerns as to worker health and safety, not public, fully tax supported endeavors where health and safety simply aren't concerns. Since when did greed overcome health and safety concerns in reverse?

Health and safety are not concerns in public school? Just how stupid are you? As you have been told any ties, most teachers' unions are barred from striking by law. Collective bargaining in these school districts usually comes down to "Please, sir, may I have some more" and being told, "You'll take what I give you and be happy about it!" That is why teacher compensation and benefits are much lower in states that do not allow strikes.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Teacher unions are much like police unions and every other public union - they fight like hell to keep bad employees who should be fired on the job. Yeah sure, teachers don't kill kids, but they do rape them. Although you wonder how many young lives were forever damaged or even destroyed by a predatory teacher. And it ain't just sexual misconduct, it's the inadequate learning that somebody's kids aren't getting because the teacher doesn't give a fuck.

The unions provide for due process. Would you like it if I walked into where you work and fired you because I didn't like you?

My teaching contract was not renewed at several districts simply because they could hire younger, pretty female teachers right out of college and not have to pay be my earned salary based on experience. Unions could not do a dan thing about that because I was not tenured. I was also let go right as I would have gained tenure.

 

[Dick Foster]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

Well the real question that we should be asking is whether or not any union of public employees should be allowed to exist? Given the fact that they are paid by taxpayers and administered by elected politicians that teachers can vote for or not, then how is it that they should have a union at all? Unions were created to give workers a voice in private free enterprise organizations where profits could override concerns as to worker health and safety, not public, fully tax supported endeavors where health and safety simply aren't concerns. Since when did greed overcome health and safety concerns in reverse?

Health and safety are not concerns in public school? Just how stupid are you? As you have been told any ties, most teachers' unions are barred from striking by law. Collective bargaining in these school districts usually comes down to "Please, sir, may I have some more" and being told, "You'll take what I give you and be happy about it!" That is why teacher compensation and benefits are much lower in states that do not allow strikes.

Apparently not as stupid as you, stupid. I know you're a life long tax tit sucking useless leetch so you may as well shut the fuck up because to me you're already less than nothing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Teacher unions are much like police unions and every other public union - they fight like hell to keep bad employees who should be fired on the job. Yeah sure, teachers don't kill kids, but they do rape them. Although you wonder how many young lives were forever damaged or even destroyed by a predatory teacher. And it ain't just sexual misconduct, it's the inadequate learning that somebody's kids aren't getting because the teacher doesn't give a fuck.

Kind of a broad brush there, tasky....


The OP simply explained that unions are there to advance the wishes, and needs, of their members.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

Well the real question that we should be asking is whether or not any union of public employees should be allowed to exist? Given the fact that they are paid by taxpayers and administered by elected politicians that teachers can vote for or not, then how is it that they should have a union at all? Unions were created to give workers a voice in private free enterprise organizations where profits could override concerns as to worker health and safety, not public, fully tax supported endeavors where health and safety simply aren't concerns. Since when did greed overcome health and safety concerns in reverse?

The Constitution allows 'em.

"Since when did greed overcome health and safety concerns in reverse?"

What does that have to do with the reason unions exist?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

Well the real question that we should be asking is whether or not any union of public employees should be allowed to exist? Given the fact that they are paid by taxpayers and administered by elected politicians that teachers can vote for or not, then how is it that they should have a union at all? Unions were created to give workers a voice in private free enterprise organizations where profits could override concerns as to worker health and safety, not public, fully tax supported endeavors where health and safety simply aren't concerns. Since when did greed overcome health and safety concerns in reverse?

Health and safety are not concerns in public school? Just how stupid are you? As you have been told any ties, most teachers' unions are barred from striking by law. Collective bargaining in these school districts usually comes down to "Please, sir, may I have some more" and being told, "You'll take what I give you and be happy about it!" That is why teacher compensation and benefits are much lower in states that do not allow strikes.

Apparently not as stupid as you, stupid. I know you're a life long tax tit sucking useless leetch so you may as well shut the fuck up because to me you're already less than nothing.

You could not respond to my post except with more ignorant insults. Who is the moron here? It is not me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

Very well expressed, repeating what I have stated in numerous posts when people blame teachers' unions for their student's poor performance.

Those are two different issues.

Unions have a mission. It has nothing to do with the education of students.

 

[Dick Foster]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

Well the real question that we should be asking is whether or not any union of public employees should be allowed to exist? Given the fact that they are paid by taxpayers and administered by elected politicians that teachers can vote for or not, then how is it that they should have a union at all? Unions were created to give workers a voice in private free enterprise organizations where profits could override concerns as to worker health and safety, not public, fully tax supported endeavors where health and safety simply aren't concerns. Since when did greed overcome health and safety concerns in reverse?

The Constitution allows 'em.

"Since when did greed overcome health and safety concerns in reverse?"

What does that have to do with the reason unions exist?

Funny I just don't read that into the constitution. I suppose if you try and twist words enough like political asshats do you can try to twist the constitution into anything. Its helpful to know that the founders didn't even know what a fucking union was because at that time none existed. Therefore your point is pure unadulterated bullshit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

Well the real question that we should be asking is whether or not any union of public employees should be allowed to exist? Given the fact that they are paid by taxpayers and administered by elected politicians that teachers can vote for or not, then how is it that they should have a union at all? Unions were created to give workers a voice in private free enterprise organizations where profits could override concerns as to worker health and safety, not public, fully tax supported endeavors where health and safety simply aren't concerns. Since when did greed overcome health and safety concerns in reverse?

The Constitution allows 'em.

"Since when did greed overcome health and safety concerns in reverse?"

What does that have to do with the reason unions exist?

Funny I just don't read that into the constitution. I suppose if you try and twist words enough like political asshats do you can try to twist the constitution into anything. Its helpful to know that the founders didn't even know what a fucking union was because at that time none existed. Therefore your point is pure unadulterated bullshit.

I don't use profanity, but I read English very well.....and the Constitution is written in English.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Government employees should not be allowed to have unions. They weren't for 200+ years.

 

[PoliticalChic]

io
Government employees should not be allowed to have unions. They weren't for 200+ years.

Whether they should or not does not fall under "allowed."

The language of the Constitution is clear: the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's exactly what unions do.



Now....whether public unions or any unions, are in the best interests of the nation, that's a political question, rather than a legal one.....meaning, legislatures can carve out an exception, and the courts can determine if it fits the Constitutions clear language, or if an amendment is called for.


But.....if you understand the nature of politicians, you know it will never happen.


I'll provide a post as to how Franklin Roosevelt got the Supreme Court to anoint the unions as untouchable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wannabe-dictator Franklin Roosevelt wanted to weld workers into his coalition.
He pressured the Court to allow the federal government to insert unions in states.
Not across state line......within states, where they should have had no power.

On April 12, 1937, the United States ceased to be a republic of limited constitutional government. The Supreme Court upheld the Wagner Labor Relations Act. No longer would the enumerated powers of the Constitution apply....now we would be a European model welfare state, in which the national legislature has power to regulate industry, agriculture, and virtually all the activities of the citizens. The coda came when the court upheld the Social Security Act on May 24, 1937, and, then, the compulsory marketing quotas of the new AAA, on April 17, 1936.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 68-69

[Wagner..., a New Deal-era senator, had authored 1935’s Wagner Act requiring collective bargaining in the private sector With Friends Like These]




To see the abject cowardice of the Justices, note that in invalidating the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936, less than a year before Roosevelt attempted to pack the court, Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that federal laws restricting local labor relations provisions were unconstitutional, that "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."

He went on to say "Otherwise in view of the multitude of indirect effects Congress in its discretion could assume control of virtually all of the activities of the people to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the Constitution." And..."... it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision." p. 70.




[And in a concurring opinion holding (298 U. S. 238) the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 in conflict with the Constitution, this was said by Chief Justice Hughes:
"If the people desire to give Congress the power to regulate industries within the State, and the relation of employers and employees in those industries, they are at liberty to declare their will in the appropriate manner; but it is not for the Court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."

Bare Foots World - Life is better with us

www.barefootsworld.net

]

Sadly, eleven months later, Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.


America ended under Roosevelt.

 

[task0778]

Teacher unions are much like police unions and every other public union - they fight like hell to keep bad employees who should be fired on the job. Yeah sure, teachers don't kill kids, but they do rape them. Although you wonder how many young lives were forever damaged or even destroyed by a predatory teacher. And it ain't just sexual misconduct, it's the inadequate learning that somebody's kids aren't getting because the teacher doesn't give a fuck.

Kind of a broad brush there, tasky....


The OP simply explained that unions are there to advance the wishes, and needs, of their members.

True. BUT, sometimes public unions advance the wishes and needs of their members beyond what is beneficial for the rest of us, specifically our school children. In some places there are situations where it is hard as hell to get rid of a bad teacher, just like it is to fire a bad cop. But too many times it doesn't happen and sooner or later the next victimization occurs. Why? Because the public union had too much sway over the decisions made in the case. Which doesn't mean in every case we have to fire somebody, it has to be for a righteous and verified reason based on more than he said she said. We shouldn't fire somebody based on an accusation, BUT when one accusation becomes 10 then it becomes a little bit different. Why were all 10 accusations dismissed? Were the prior accusations allowed into the deliberation? In some places, the union contract says no they aren't. And in some places prior accusations are deleted from a person's file after 6 months or whatever. Not cool.

Rock: " The unions provide for due process. Would you like it if I walked into where you work and fired you because I didn't like you? "

No, I wouldn't like it. Your situation is I think not uncommon, people are let go for fiscal reasons rather that a lack of merit. But there has to be a distinction between someone fired for cause and somebody fired without just cause. Or in your case not retained. But given a choice between the 2 situations, I'd rather not have a public union that can keep bad employees. You say the union couldn't do anything cuz you weren't tenured; maybe that's the fault of the union cuz the contract didn't give them the option to fight for an untenured teacher.

Rock: " most teachers' unions are barred from striking by law "

You sure about that? It sure seems like it's the other way around, but the ones that can strike sure do make a lot of noise about it. Teacher strikes are legal in 12 states and not covered in statutes or case law in three. That said, teachers do strike in states where it’s illegal - in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, it’s illegal for public school teachers to strike. But, teachers in these states went on strike anyway, and most of them got the pay raises they wanted. They could have all gotten fired, or even put in jail. But they had an advantage: strength in numbers. It's kinda hard to replace thousands of teachers.

Sounds like teachers in 47 states are not barred from striking.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Teacher unions are much like police unions and every other public union - they fight like hell to keep bad employees who should be fired on the job. Yeah sure, teachers don't kill kids, but they do rape them. Although you wonder how many young lives were forever damaged or even destroyed by a predatory teacher. And it ain't just sexual misconduct, it's the inadequate learning that somebody's kids aren't getting because the teacher doesn't give a fuck.

Kind of a broad brush there, tasky....


The OP simply explained that unions are there to advance the wishes, and needs, of their members.

True. BUT, sometimes public unions advance the wishes and needs of their members beyond what is beneficial for the rest of us, specifically our school children. In some places there are situations where it is hard as hell to get rid of a bad teacher, just like it is to fire a bad cop. But too many times it doesn't happen and sooner or later the next victimization occurs. Why? Because the public union had too much sway over the decisions made in the case. Which doesn't mean in every case we have to fire somebody, it has to be for a righteous and verified reason based on more than he said she said. We shouldn't fire somebody based on an accusation, BUT when one accusation becomes 10 then it becomes a little bit different. Why were all 10 accusations dismissed? Were the prior accusations allowed into the deliberation? In some places, the union contract says no they aren't. And in some places prior accusations are deleted from a person's file after 6 months or whatever. Not cool.

Rock: " The unions provide for due process. Would you like it if I walked into where you work and fired you because I didn't like you? "

No, I wouldn't like it. Your situation is I think not uncommon, people are let go for fiscal reasons rather that a lack of merit. But there has to be a distinction between someone fired for cause and somebody fired without just cause. Or in your case not retained. But given a choice between the 2 situations, I'd rather not have a public union that can keep bad employees. You say the union couldn't do anything cuz you weren't tenured; maybe that's the fault of the union cuz the contract didn't give them the option to fight for an untenured teacher.

Rock: " most teachers' unions are barred from striking by law "

You sure about that? It sure seems like it's the other way around, but the ones that can strike sure do make a lot of noise about it. Teacher strikes are legal in 12 states and not covered in statutes or case law in three. That said, teachers do strike in states where it’s illegal - in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, it’s illegal for public school teachers to strike. But, teachers in these states went on strike anyway, and most of them got the pay raises they wanted. They could have all gotten fired, or even put in jail. But they had an advantage: strength in numbers. It's kinda hard to replace thousands of teachers.

Sounds like teachers in 47 states are not barred from striking.

Post #16

 

[alang1216]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

Wow, a post of yours I actually agree with!!!

Unions must be viewed in their context. Certainly businesses are not concerned with their employees or their customers except how their bottom line is affected by each. Unions arose in reaction to the excesses of big business. They are hardly perfect but they do play an essential role.