Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wow, a post of yours I actually agree with!!!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.
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.
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
Maybe you're becoming less ideological...Maybe you're becoming smart......
The law is actually the National Labor Relations Act. I suggest reading it.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.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?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.
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?
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
Elaborate a little bit, please? I'm a little slow today, actually I'm a little slow everyday. But I missed your point.
Look - public unions are generally people with a significant amount of institutional knowledge and skills, and in number that make them a force to reckon with whether they have the right to legally strike or not. We see in the cops that didn't show up for work that one night in Atlanta, blue flu right? If the teachers refuse to show up, our kids will get no schooling, so what difference really does it make if there is or isn't a union? Except that a union has a lot of political power in terms of political influence and donations (money). Which leads to quid pro quo and that ain't good for the rest of us. Which lead to higher salaries/benefits and too much job security for those who shouldn't have it.
Now - the unions themselves are not the only ones at fault here. There's also the politicians who allowed themselves to be bought or swayed by union power, and the voters who do not/did not vote said politicians out of office. And BTW, IMHO education should be entirely managed at the local and state level, the federal gov't should have absolutely nothing to do with education regs/loans, and subsidies. Outside perhaps of certain research grants.
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
Elaborate a little bit, please? I'm a little slow today, actually I'm a little slow everyday. But I missed your point.
Look - public unions are generally people with a significant amount of institutional knowledge and skills, and in number that make them a force to reckon with whether they have the right to legally strike or not. We see in the cops that didn't show up for work that one night in Atlanta, blue flu right? If the teachers refuse to show up, our kids will get no schooling, so what difference really does it make if there is or isn't a union? Except that a union has a lot of political power in terms of political influence and donations (money). Which leads to quid pro quo and that ain't good for the rest of us. Which lead to higher salaries/benefits and too much job security for those who shouldn't have it.
Now - the unions themselves are not the only ones at fault here. There's also the politicians who allowed themselves to be bought or swayed by union power, and the voters who do not/did not vote said politicians out of office. And BTW, IMHO education should be entirely managed at the local and state level, the federal gov't should have absolutely nothing to do with education regs/loans, and subsidies. Outside perhaps of certain research grants.
a. The Constitution allows unions
b. Government can cancel public unions....but they won't
The entire purpose of public unions is to get their members to vote for said politicians.
Pay for votes with public money.
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
Elaborate a little bit, please? I'm a little slow today, actually I'm a little slow everyday. But I missed your point.
Look - public unions are generally people with a significant amount of institutional knowledge and skills, and in number that make them a force to reckon with whether they have the right to legally strike or not. We see in the cops that didn't show up for work that one night in Atlanta, blue flu right? If the teachers refuse to show up, our kids will get no schooling, so what difference really does it make if there is or isn't a union? Except that a union has a lot of political power in terms of political influence and donations (money). Which leads to quid pro quo and that ain't good for the rest of us. Which lead to higher salaries/benefits and too much job security for those who shouldn't have it.
Now - the unions themselves are not the only ones at fault here. There's also the politicians who allowed themselves to be bought or swayed by union power, and the voters who do not/did not vote said politicians out of office. And BTW, IMHO education should be entirely managed at the local and state level, the federal gov't should have absolutely nothing to do with education regs/loans, and subsidies. Outside perhaps of certain research grants.
a. The Constitution allows unions
b. Government can cancel public unions....but they won't
The entire purpose of public unions is to get their members to vote for said politicians.
Pay for votes with public money.
How is it public money if it comes from union dues?
That is only in NY. That is NOT common practice.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
Elaborate a little bit, please? I'm a little slow today, actually I'm a little slow everyday. But I missed your point.
Look - public unions are generally people with a significant amount of institutional knowledge and skills, and in number that make them a force to reckon with whether they have the right to legally strike or not. We see in the cops that didn't show up for work that one night in Atlanta, blue flu right? If the teachers refuse to show up, our kids will get no schooling, so what difference really does it make if there is or isn't a union? Except that a union has a lot of political power in terms of political influence and donations (money). Which leads to quid pro quo and that ain't good for the rest of us. Which lead to higher salaries/benefits and too much job security for those who shouldn't have it.
Now - the unions themselves are not the only ones at fault here. There's also the politicians who allowed themselves to be bought or swayed by union power, and the voters who do not/did not vote said politicians out of office. And BTW, IMHO education should be entirely managed at the local and state level, the federal gov't should have absolutely nothing to do with education regs/loans, and subsidies. Outside perhaps of certain research grants.
a. The Constitution allows unions
b. Government can cancel public unions....but they won't
The entire purpose of public unions is to get their members to vote for said politicians.
Pay for votes with public money.
How is it public money if it comes from union dues?
The local/state/or federal government administers the payments of dues, and delivery of same to the unions. Said administration is at a cost to taxpayers.
In NYC, the law, the Taylor Law, cuts off 'check off,' that sending union dues from the paychecks of teachers to the union, in case of a strike.
The always works, because the union knows that individual teachers will not voluntarily send in their dues.
That is only in NY. That is NOT common practice.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
Elaborate a little bit, please? I'm a little slow today, actually I'm a little slow everyday. But I missed your point.
Look - public unions are generally people with a significant amount of institutional knowledge and skills, and in number that make them a force to reckon with whether they have the right to legally strike or not. We see in the cops that didn't show up for work that one night in Atlanta, blue flu right? If the teachers refuse to show up, our kids will get no schooling, so what difference really does it make if there is or isn't a union? Except that a union has a lot of political power in terms of political influence and donations (money). Which leads to quid pro quo and that ain't good for the rest of us. Which lead to higher salaries/benefits and too much job security for those who shouldn't have it.
Now - the unions themselves are not the only ones at fault here. There's also the politicians who allowed themselves to be bought or swayed by union power, and the voters who do not/did not vote said politicians out of office. And BTW, IMHO education should be entirely managed at the local and state level, the federal gov't should have absolutely nothing to do with education regs/loans, and subsidies. Outside perhaps of certain research grants.
a. The Constitution allows unions
b. Government can cancel public unions....but they won't
The entire purpose of public unions is to get their members to vote for said politicians.
Pay for votes with public money.
How is it public money if it comes from union dues?
The local/state/or federal government administers the payments of dues, and delivery of same to the unions. Said administration is at a cost to taxpayers.
In NYC, the law, the Taylor Law, cuts off 'check off,' that sending union dues from the paychecks of teachers to the union, in case of a strike.
The always works, because the union knows that individual teachers will not voluntarily send in their dues.
texasscorecard.com
That is only in NY. That is NOT common practice.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
Elaborate a little bit, please? I'm a little slow today, actually I'm a little slow everyday. But I missed your point.
Look - public unions are generally people with a significant amount of institutional knowledge and skills, and in number that make them a force to reckon with whether they have the right to legally strike or not. We see in the cops that didn't show up for work that one night in Atlanta, blue flu right? If the teachers refuse to show up, our kids will get no schooling, so what difference really does it make if there is or isn't a union? Except that a union has a lot of political power in terms of political influence and donations (money). Which leads to quid pro quo and that ain't good for the rest of us. Which lead to higher salaries/benefits and too much job security for those who shouldn't have it.
Now - the unions themselves are not the only ones at fault here. There's also the politicians who allowed themselves to be bought or swayed by union power, and the voters who do not/did not vote said politicians out of office. And BTW, IMHO education should be entirely managed at the local and state level, the federal gov't should have absolutely nothing to do with education regs/loans, and subsidies. Outside perhaps of certain research grants.
a. The Constitution allows unions
b. Government can cancel public unions....but they won't
The entire purpose of public unions is to get their members to vote for said politicians.
Pay for votes with public money.
How is it public money if it comes from union dues?
The local/state/or federal government administers the payments of dues, and delivery of same to the unions. Said administration is at a cost to taxpayers.
In NYC, the law, the Taylor Law, cuts off 'check off,' that sending union dues from the paychecks of teachers to the union, in case of a strike.
The always works, because the union knows that individual teachers will not voluntarily send in their dues.
What is not a common practice.......the municipality collecting the dues out of the teacher's paycheck, before it is paid???
You're claiming that, nationwide, teachers all dutifully send in their dues???
"The checkoff system is very attractive to a union since the collection of dues can be costly and time-consuming. It prescribes the manner in which dues are paid by deductions in earnings rather than through individual checks sent directly to the union. Unions are thereby assured of the regular receipt of their dues."
Checkoff legal definition of Checkoff
"Government collection of union dues has been a hot-button issue in at least the past two legislative sessions and is bound to rear its head again, especially now that many more public employee unions have willingly transferred their members to a private dues collection method. "
Unions Reforming Their Own Dues Collection Method - Texas Scorecard
Union dues reform isn't law in Texas yet, but some unions have started implementing it themselves.
That is only in NY. That is NOT common practice.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
Elaborate a little bit, please? I'm a little slow today, actually I'm a little slow everyday. But I missed your point.
Look - public unions are generally people with a significant amount of institutional knowledge and skills, and in number that make them a force to reckon with whether they have the right to legally strike or not. We see in the cops that didn't show up for work that one night in Atlanta, blue flu right? If the teachers refuse to show up, our kids will get no schooling, so what difference really does it make if there is or isn't a union? Except that a union has a lot of political power in terms of political influence and donations (money). Which leads to quid pro quo and that ain't good for the rest of us. Which lead to higher salaries/benefits and too much job security for those who shouldn't have it.
Now - the unions themselves are not the only ones at fault here. There's also the politicians who allowed themselves to be bought or swayed by union power, and the voters who do not/did not vote said politicians out of office. And BTW, IMHO education should be entirely managed at the local and state level, the federal gov't should have absolutely nothing to do with education regs/loans, and subsidies. Outside perhaps of certain research grants.
a. The Constitution allows unions
b. Government can cancel public unions....but they won't
The entire purpose of public unions is to get their members to vote for said politicians.
Pay for votes with public money.
How is it public money if it comes from union dues?
The local/state/or federal government administers the payments of dues, and delivery of same to the unions. Said administration is at a cost to taxpayers.
In NYC, the law, the Taylor Law, cuts off 'check off,' that sending union dues from the paychecks of teachers to the union, in case of a strike.
The always works, because the union knows that individual teachers will not voluntarily send in their dues.
What is not a common practice.......the municipality collecting the dues out of the teacher's paycheck, before it is paid???
You're claiming that, nationwide, teachers all dutifully send in their dues???
"The checkoff system is very attractive to a union since the collection of dues can be costly and time-consuming. It prescribes the manner in which dues are paid by deductions in earnings rather than through individual checks sent directly to the union. Unions are thereby assured of the regular receipt of their dues."
Checkoff legal definition of Checkoff
"Government collection of union dues has been a hot-button issue in at least the past two legislative sessions and is bound to rear its head again, especially now that many more public employee unions have willingly transferred their members to a private dues collection method. "
Unions Reforming Their Own Dues Collection Method - Texas Scorecard
Union dues reform isn't law in Texas yet, but some unions have started implementing it themselves.
Unions do not touch paychecks. The cost to deduct dues requires a one-time software update for each individual. You are simply exaggerating the cost.
You provided one exception. I do that all day with your limited knowledge of public education I guess polite discussion with you is a waste of time.That is only in NY. That is NOT common practice.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
Elaborate a little bit, please? I'm a little slow today, actually I'm a little slow everyday. But I missed your point.
Look - public unions are generally people with a significant amount of institutional knowledge and skills, and in number that make them a force to reckon with whether they have the right to legally strike or not. We see in the cops that didn't show up for work that one night in Atlanta, blue flu right? If the teachers refuse to show up, our kids will get no schooling, so what difference really does it make if there is or isn't a union? Except that a union has a lot of political power in terms of political influence and donations (money). Which leads to quid pro quo and that ain't good for the rest of us. Which lead to higher salaries/benefits and too much job security for those who shouldn't have it.
Now - the unions themselves are not the only ones at fault here. There's also the politicians who allowed themselves to be bought or swayed by union power, and the voters who do not/did not vote said politicians out of office. And BTW, IMHO education should be entirely managed at the local and state level, the federal gov't should have absolutely nothing to do with education regs/loans, and subsidies. Outside perhaps of certain research grants.
a. The Constitution allows unions
b. Government can cancel public unions....but they won't
The entire purpose of public unions is to get their members to vote for said politicians.
Pay for votes with public money.
How is it public money if it comes from union dues?
The local/state/or federal government administers the payments of dues, and delivery of same to the unions. Said administration is at a cost to taxpayers.
In NYC, the law, the Taylor Law, cuts off 'check off,' that sending union dues from the paychecks of teachers to the union, in case of a strike.
The always works, because the union knows that individual teachers will not voluntarily send in their dues.
What is not a common practice.......the municipality collecting the dues out of the teacher's paycheck, before it is paid???
You're claiming that, nationwide, teachers all dutifully send in their dues???
"The checkoff system is very attractive to a union since the collection of dues can be costly and time-consuming. It prescribes the manner in which dues are paid by deductions in earnings rather than through individual checks sent directly to the union. Unions are thereby assured of the regular receipt of their dues."
Checkoff legal definition of Checkoff
"Government collection of union dues has been a hot-button issue in at least the past two legislative sessions and is bound to rear its head again, especially now that many more public employee unions have willingly transferred their members to a private dues collection method. "
Unions Reforming Their Own Dues Collection Method - Texas Scorecard
Union dues reform isn't law in Texas yet, but some unions have started implementing it themselves.
Unions do not touch paychecks. The cost to deduct dues requires a one-time software update for each individual. You are simply exaggerating the cost.
Just admit that you're wrong.
By now you should be well practiced at that.
I provided links, while you simply reminded all that you are our best source of greenhouse gases.
Please don't bother authoring another version of "is not, isssssss noootttttt!!!".......just wander off into the oblivion you so richly deserve.
You provided one exception. I do that all day with your limited knowledge of public education I guess polite discussion with you is a waste of time.That is only in NY. That is NOT common practice.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
Elaborate a little bit, please? I'm a little slow today, actually I'm a little slow everyday. But I missed your point.
Look - public unions are generally people with a significant amount of institutional knowledge and skills, and in number that make them a force to reckon with whether they have the right to legally strike or not. We see in the cops that didn't show up for work that one night in Atlanta, blue flu right? If the teachers refuse to show up, our kids will get no schooling, so what difference really does it make if there is or isn't a union? Except that a union has a lot of political power in terms of political influence and donations (money). Which leads to quid pro quo and that ain't good for the rest of us. Which lead to higher salaries/benefits and too much job security for those who shouldn't have it.
Now - the unions themselves are not the only ones at fault here. There's also the politicians who allowed themselves to be bought or swayed by union power, and the voters who do not/did not vote said politicians out of office. And BTW, IMHO education should be entirely managed at the local and state level, the federal gov't should have absolutely nothing to do with education regs/loans, and subsidies. Outside perhaps of certain research grants.
a. The Constitution allows unions
b. Government can cancel public unions....but they won't
The entire purpose of public unions is to get their members to vote for said politicians.
Pay for votes with public money.
How is it public money if it comes from union dues?
The local/state/or federal government administers the payments of dues, and delivery of same to the unions. Said administration is at a cost to taxpayers.
In NYC, the law, the Taylor Law, cuts off 'check off,' that sending union dues from the paychecks of teachers to the union, in case of a strike.
The always works, because the union knows that individual teachers will not voluntarily send in their dues.
What is not a common practice.......the municipality collecting the dues out of the teacher's paycheck, before it is paid???
You're claiming that, nationwide, teachers all dutifully send in their dues???
"The checkoff system is very attractive to a union since the collection of dues can be costly and time-consuming. It prescribes the manner in which dues are paid by deductions in earnings rather than through individual checks sent directly to the union. Unions are thereby assured of the regular receipt of their dues."
Checkoff legal definition of Checkoff
"Government collection of union dues has been a hot-button issue in at least the past two legislative sessions and is bound to rear its head again, especially now that many more public employee unions have willingly transferred their members to a private dues collection method. "
Unions Reforming Their Own Dues Collection Method - Texas Scorecard
Union dues reform isn't law in Texas yet, but some unions have started implementing it themselves.
Unions do not touch paychecks. The cost to deduct dues requires a one-time software update for each individual. You are simply exaggerating the cost.
Just admit that you're wrong.
By now you should be well practiced at that.
I provided links, while you simply reminded all that you are our best source of greenhouse gases.
Please don't bother authoring another version of "is not, isssssss noootttttt!!!".......just wander off into the oblivion you so richly deserve.
Without unions today's worker is even farther behind than they are now. Some would like to see all workers go backwards while the management goes upward. Teach our kids and do it for free while we laugh all the way to the bank. Ain't it great?
Our teachers here have been extraordinary and in my eyes underpaid. I served on our school board for 16 years and the union was great to negotiate with. When our lowlife governor cut funds the townspeople unanimously passed 4 tax increases to keep things going with no cuts. Both sides won.
All 3 of my kids graduated and were well prepared for college. They are all doing very well. Insults are not necessary. Painting all unions as bad is also short sighted the highest paid teacher here is 58 grand which in today's america is a pittance. Like next to nothing. Not even middle class really.
