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.
22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,
All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.
I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.
YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES
Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics
IF
The same ban applied to corporate money.
Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.
But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.
"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."
Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?
I don't.
But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?
Do you think shareholders want their income to go down?
And if you oppose Adelson's political activity, you must also oppose George Soros'.
Please! Not every conversation need a soros' complaint.
And you see that you are part of the problem.
A guy owning 500k shares of Amazon is not going to suffer if Amazon's profit falls 0.5%.
A guy owning 5 shares isn't going to notice either.
BUT, in your greed you think you have to hold on to every dime.
But what happens when you force more and more people into poverty by squeezing each and every dime?
Go ask France, Russia, China...
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't notice that machine gun held to the head of management forcing to sign a contract against their will.Unions are like parasites eventually killing their hosts.
If union demands kill a business, how is that good for the union workers who no longer have jobs?
22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,
All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.
I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.
YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES
Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics
IF
The same ban applied to corporate money.
Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.
But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.
"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."
Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?
I don't.
But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?
Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.
The reason is simple.
Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.
As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.
When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)
Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?
I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.
Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?
Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.
22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,
All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.
I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.
YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES
Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics
IF
The same ban applied to corporate money.
Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.
But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.
"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."
Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?
I don't.
But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?
Do you think shareholders want their income to go down?
And if you oppose Adelson's political activity, you must also oppose George Soros'.
Please! Not every conversation need a soros' complaint.
And you see that you are part of the problem.
A guy owning 500k shares of Amazon is not going to suffer if Amazon's profit falls 0.5%.
A guy owning 5 shares isn't going to notice either.
BUT, in your greed you think you have to hold on to every dime.
But what happens when you force more and more people into poverty by squeezing each and every dime?
Go ask France, Russia, China...
22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,
All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.
I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.
YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES
Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics
IF
The same ban applied to corporate money.
Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.
But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.
"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."
Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?
I don't.
But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?
Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.
The reason is simple.
Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.
As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.
When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)
Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?
I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.
Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?
Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.
Unions are like parasites eventually killing their hosts.
If union demands kill a business, how is that good for the union workers who no longer have jobs?
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't notice that machine gun held to the head of management forcing to sign a contract against their will.
GEEZ
Unions don't kill companies, bad management does.
For all you pro-union people out there, let me ask you a simple question: do you believe a bad cop should be fired? You realize that too often a bad cop doesn't get fired because his union has influence over the local politicians and judges, right? Like the guy up in Minneapolis who is on trial this week, 18 or so complaints against the guy and he was still on the street wearing badge and carrying a gun. Maybe you're thinking he'd still be on the force anyway, if there wasn't a union? Please.
What about a bad teacher, somebody sexually molests a kid but the union fights like hell to keep the person in the schools. You're okay with that?
Is it okay with you if your union supports and donates to a political party or individual that you don't like? That's where your dues are going, at least in part, and that's okay?
Right to work laws aren't passed to help YOU, little man. They're passed to disempower you, and return power to your bosses, and here you are praising your "freedom". Since Reagan broke the back of the union movement, worker wages has stagnated for more than 40 years, and here you are saying how great it is you don't have unions.
But keep voting for Republicans. By the time you die, you'll have NOTHING left. They'll have take all of it and given it to their billionaire bosses.
Unions were already in Free Fall when Reagan was anointed as our President.
And of course, the RTW laws empower workers, regardless of their intent.
If the union bosses get out of line and don't deliver Value for the tribute paid them, RTW laws allow workers to vote with their pocketbook without losing their job.
22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,
No union in any state can ever force management into a contract.Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't notice that machine gun held to the head of management forcing to sign a contract against their will.Unions are like parasites eventually killing their hosts.
If union demands kill a business, how is that good for the union workers who no longer have jobs?
Well, the machine gun is sure as hell there. That's the core problem with labor law. Employers, and employees, can be forced to bend over for the union by law. That's what states are trying to counter with "right-to-work" laws.
22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,
All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.
I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.
YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES
Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics
IF
The same ban applied to corporate money.
Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.
But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.
"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."
Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?
I don't.
But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?
Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.
The reason is simple.
Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.
As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.
When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)
Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?
I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.
Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?
Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.
Union bosses don't have to worry about getting paid, they get their money strike or no strike. I don't "blame" the unions for taking what they can take at all. I'm just saying that innovative companies have no interest in turning over the store to the goombas in charge of the unions.
Sometimes the union bosses do get ways to extort employers into signing over the store. But they won't be able to with Bezos. Bezos faced down blackmailers who wanted to take him out with pics he was forwarding of his genitalia. I don't know what the La Cosa Nostra could possibly have on him.
Unions will come back some day. Workers will take it on the chin and figure out they aren't vued or liked by their employers. The pendulum will swing back. During these times do what is expected no more. The employer wants more then they will have to pay one for it.
For all you pro-union people out there, let me ask you a simple question: do you believe a bad cop should be fired? You realize that too often a bad cop doesn't get fired because his union has influence over the local politicians and judges, right? Like the guy up in Minneapolis who is on trial this week, 18 or so complaints against the guy and he was still on the street wearing badge and carrying a gun. Maybe you're thinking he'd still be on the force anyway, if there wasn't a union? Please.
What about a bad teacher, somebody sexually molests a kid but the union fights like hell to keep the person in the schools. You're okay with that?
Is it okay with you if your union supports and donates to a political party or individual that you don't like? That's where your dues are going, at least in part, and that's okay?
Why do you lie? A teacher who molests a child is put in prison. There are no unions there for inmates.
www.foxnews.com
22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,
All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.
I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.
YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES
Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics
IF
The same ban applied to corporate money.
Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.
But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.
"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."
Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?
I don't.
But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?
Do you think shareholders want their income to go down?
And if you oppose Adelson's political activity, you must also oppose George Soros'.
Please! Not every conversation need a soros' complaint.
And you see that you are part of the problem.
A guy owning 500k shares of Amazon is not going to suffer if Amazon's profit falls 0.5%.
A guy owning 5 shares isn't going to notice either.
BUT, in your greed you think you have to hold on to every dime.
But what happens when you force more and more people into poverty by squeezing each and every dime?
Go ask France, Russia, China...
This conversation didn't need an Adelson complaint, either, but there you go. You opened the can of worms, you get to eat one.
And here's a protip: If we wind up like France, Russia, or China, it'll be because of the leftist desire for complete government control over individual lives.
YOU are part of the problem. YOU refuse to see it.
22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,
All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.
I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.
YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES
Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics
IF
The same ban applied to corporate money.
Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.
But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.
"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."
Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?
I don't.
But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?
Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.
The reason is simple.
Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.
As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.
When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)
Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?
I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.
Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?
Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.
Union bosses don't have to worry about getting paid, they get their money strike or no strike. I don't "blame" the unions for taking what they can take at all. I'm just saying that innovative companies have no interest in turning over the store to the goombas in charge of the unions.
Sometimes the union bosses do get ways to extort employers into signing over the store. But they won't be able to with Bezos. Bezos faced down blackmailers who wanted to take him out with pics he was forwarding of his genitalia. I don't know what the La Cosa Nostra could possibly have on him.
And what happens to Bezo's income during a strike? does it go to zero?
Don't you fools have something beyond 30 year old Republican tag lines to go with?
Because we can go two ways.
Mine
or
The Russian/French/Chinese path.
For all you pro-union people out there, let me ask you a simple question: do you believe a bad cop should be fired? You realize that too often a bad cop doesn't get fired because his union has influence over the local politicians and judges, right? Like the guy up in Minneapolis who is on trial this week, 18 or so complaints against the guy and he was still on the street wearing badge and carrying a gun. Maybe you're thinking he'd still be on the force anyway, if there wasn't a union? Please.
What about a bad teacher, somebody sexually molests a kid but the union fights like hell to keep the person in the schools. You're okay with that?
Is it okay with you if your union supports and donates to a political party or individual that you don't like? That's where your dues are going, at least in part, and that's okay?
Why do you lie? A teacher who molests a child is put in prison. There are no unions there for inmates.
Don't be ridiculous, not every teacher who molests a student goes to prison.
Academic tenure was put in place in U.S. school systems in the first half of the 20th century to protect teachers from arbitrary punishment, but in the last several decades it has morphed into something else altogether.
Typically earned after four or five years, tenure protects teachers from being fired without just cause. But when combined with the ability of teachers unions to fight tooth and nail over any accusation leveled against a protected teacher, tenure can keep bad teachers in the classroom or at least on the payroll for decades after initial charges.
Below are a dozen cases in which tenure and union muscle protected bad teachers, often at the expense of students:
Matthew Lang was a band director at O’Fallon Township High School in Illinois in 2007 when administrators learned he was having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female student. But instead of being fired, Lang was able to resign, and the relationship was kept out of his file so he could seek another teaching job.
“… we are asking that all information concerning the request for his resignation not be placed in his file,” read a letter from the teacher’s union rep to the O’Fallon school board that was originally obtained by education news site EAGnews.
The district complied and even provided a letter of recommendation that called Lang “an outstanding instructor.” Lang landed a job with Alton High School near the Mississippi River and about 15 miles north of St. Louis, Mo.He worked at the school until 2010, when he was convicted of molesting another female student and sentenced to six years in prison, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
----
Jon White was sentenced to 48 years in prison in 2008 for abusing ten students at schools in the Illinois towns of Urbana and Normal. But those victims might have been spared their ordeals if White’s past had been revealed.
He had previously worked in McLean’s school district, where he was twice suspended for viewing pornography on a school computer and for making sexually suggestive comments to a fifth-grader. Instead of being fired, the union-protected teacher was allowed to resign – with a letter of recommendation that made no mention of the incidents.
The families of students at Urbana Elementary eventually filed a lawsuit claiming that the Normal school District had misled Urbana, according to the News-Gazette of Central Illinois.
----
Stephen Wright, a tenured science teacher at Downers Grove South High School in Illinois, kept his license to teach even after being accused of faking his hours, stealing district computers, inappropriately touching female students and discussing the sexual activities of himself and his students.
Wright was issued multiple warnings and three 10-day unpaid suspensions before the district finally petitioned the Illinois State Board of Education to consider his dismissal in 2002. It took nearly a year, but Wright was fired. Yet he kept his teaching license, and went on to work in at least six other Illinois school districts and two community colleges.
----
Dina Holder, a special needs pre-kindergarten teacher in California’s Brentwood School District, kept her job despite reports that she physically abused multiple students. After pleading no contest to a misdemeanor child abuse charge in 2010, Holder was transferred to a different school within the district -- which also paid a total of $8 million to the victims in January of this year.
According to state law at the time, a misdemeanor offense is only sufficient grounds for dismissing a tenured teacher if it involves “moral turpitude.” When Loma Vista Elementary failed to submit Holder’s performance review in 2010, the school was unable to fire her, and she remained employed until 2013.
----
Mark Krockover, a tenured chemistry teacher and cheerleading coach at Maine East High School in Park Ridge, Ill., was allowed to resign and given $60,000 severance after he was accused of harassment from seven female students. The girls said he touched them inappropriately, smelling their hair, texting them excessively and even buying several of them designer jeans and bikinis.
The school made records of Krockover’s past behavior confidential and agreed to tell future employers that he resigned for personal reasons. Krockover’s teaching license was finally suspended in 2011, after the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services investigated his resignation. He is currently eligible to reapply for his license but has not done so.
He was never formally charged, according to the Daily Herald in Cook County.
----
Tenure protection kept Aryeh Eller in the New York City school district’s infamous “rubber room” for more than 10 years after he admitted repeated sexual harassment of female students at Hillcrest High School in Queens. Technically called reassignment centers, the rubber rooms warehoused teachers too dangerous for the classroom but too difficult to fire until 2010, when then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg denounced them as an "expensive abuse of tenure," and shut them down.
Eller, who receives annual, union-negotiated pay raises, now makes $85,000 per year and works in a district office away from children. He’s earned nearly $1 million in salary since being yanked from the classroom, and still has a job, according to The New York Post.
Another New York teacher, Queens math instructor Francisco Olivares, still earned his annual salary of nearly $95,000 after allegedly impregnating and marrying a 16-year-old student and sexually molesting two other students during his 32-year career.
It wasn’t because the district didn’t try to fire Olivares.
“The department twice tried to terminate this teacher, and both times, an arbitrator decided to keep him on the payroll,” New York Department of Education spokeswoman Ann Forte told the New York Post, adding that tenured teachers can be fired only if an arbitrator approves.
----
In Los Angeles, special education teacher Matthew Kim was finally fired in 2009, some seven years after co-workers and students complained of repeated acts of sexual harassment. He might still be drawing a paycheck if a state judge hadn’t stepped in, blasting a pro-union, three-member state commission that oversees teacher dismissals for its “profound contempt for, and disrespect of, the judgments and orders of the courts of this state.”
Superior Court Judge David Yaffe ruled that the state commission ignored evidence that Kim, who was born with cerebral palsy, was sexually harassing co-workers and students and said the commission was changing “the facts of the case to support its prior decision instead of changing its prior decision to one that is supported by the facts of the case,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
Kim earned his $68,000 annual salary throughout the process.
The beleaguered Newark, N.J., school district has had scores of incidents in recent years where teachers misbehaved and got nothing more than a slap on the wrist thanks to their union membership and the protections afforded by tenure.
One teacher, whose name was redacted from official documents, was alleged to have done numerous horrific acts to her students, including spraying a second-grader with mace, slapping other students and placing a stapler over a kid’s lips and threatening to seal them. She was allowed to stay on the job and collect her salary for six months before the school could get rid of her.
An elementary teacher in Newark who swore at, threatened and punched a 10-year-old girl in front of her classmates got nine months’ pay plus vacation and sick time in exchange for quitting.
Dirty dozen: 12 bad teachers protected by tenure and unions
Academic tenure was put in place in U.S. school systems in the first half of the 20th century to protect teachers from arbitrary punishment, but in the last several decades, it has morphed into something else altogether.
Don't tell me there aren't any bad teachers out there molesting kids, that is bullshit. And often times the teachers unions keep them on the job instead of going to prison were they belong.
22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,
All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.
I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.
YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES
Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics
IF
The same ban applied to corporate money.
Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.
But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.
"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."
Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?
I don't.
But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?
Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.
The reason is simple.
Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.
As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.
When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)
Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?
I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.
Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?
Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.
Union bosses don't have to worry about getting paid, they get their money strike or no strike. I don't "blame" the unions for taking what they can take at all. I'm just saying that innovative companies have no interest in turning over the store to the goombas in charge of the unions.
Sometimes the union bosses do get ways to extort employers into signing over the store. But they won't be able to with Bezos. Bezos faced down blackmailers who wanted to take him out with pics he was forwarding of his genitalia. I don't know what the La Cosa Nostra could possibly have on him.
And what happens to Bezo's income during a strike? does it go to zero?
Don't you fools have something beyond 30 year old Republican tag lines to go with?
Because we can go two ways.
Mine
or
The Russian/French/Chinese path.
If Big Labor would call a strike against Amazon, my guess is that Bezos would keep the doors open and most of the employees would go to work as per usual. And If the strike lasted more than a few weeks, Bezos would hire replacement workers.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe that RWDSU would be able to shut down Amazon during a strike.
22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,
For all you pro-union people out there, let me ask you a simple question: do you believe a bad cop should be fired? You realize that too often a bad cop doesn't get fired because his union has influence over the local politicians and judges, right? Like the guy up in Minneapolis who is on trial this week, 18 or so complaints against the guy and he was still on the street wearing badge and carrying a gun. Maybe you're thinking he'd still be on the force anyway, if there wasn't a union? Please.
What about a bad teacher, somebody sexually molests a kid but the union fights like hell to keep the person in the schools. You're okay with that?
Is it okay with you if your union supports and donates to a political party or individual that you don't like? That's where your dues are going, at least in part, and that's okay?
Why do you lie? A teacher who molests a child is put in prison. There are no unions there for inmates.
Don't be ridiculous, not every teacher who molests a student goes to prison.
Academic tenure was put in place in U.S. school systems in the first half of the 20th century to protect teachers from arbitrary punishment, but in the last several decades it has morphed into something else altogether.
Typically earned after four or five years, tenure protects teachers from being fired without just cause. But when combined with the ability of teachers unions to fight tooth and nail over any accusation leveled against a protected teacher, tenure can keep bad teachers in the classroom or at least on the payroll for decades after initial charges.
Below are a dozen cases in which tenure and union muscle protected bad teachers, often at the expense of students:
Matthew Lang was a band director at O’Fallon Township High School in Illinois in 2007 when administrators learned he was having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female student. But instead of being fired, Lang was able to resign, and the relationship was kept out of his file so he could seek another teaching job.
“… we are asking that all information concerning the request for his resignation not be placed in his file,” read a letter from the teacher’s union rep to the O’Fallon school board that was originally obtained by education news site EAGnews.
The district complied and even provided a letter of recommendation that called Lang “an outstanding instructor.” Lang landed a job with Alton High School near the Mississippi River and about 15 miles north of St. Louis, Mo.He worked at the school until 2010, when he was convicted of molesting another female student and sentenced to six years in prison, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
----
Jon White was sentenced to 48 years in prison in 2008 for abusing ten students at schools in the Illinois towns of Urbana and Normal. But those victims might have been spared their ordeals if White’s past had been revealed.
He had previously worked in McLean’s school district, where he was twice suspended for viewing pornography on a school computer and for making sexually suggestive comments to a fifth-grader. Instead of being fired, the union-protected teacher was allowed to resign – with a letter of recommendation that made no mention of the incidents.
The families of students at Urbana Elementary eventually filed a lawsuit claiming that the Normal school District had misled Urbana, according to the News-Gazette of Central Illinois.
----
Stephen Wright, a tenured science teacher at Downers Grove South High School in Illinois, kept his license to teach even after being accused of faking his hours, stealing district computers, inappropriately touching female students and discussing the sexual activities of himself and his students.
Wright was issued multiple warnings and three 10-day unpaid suspensions before the district finally petitioned the Illinois State Board of Education to consider his dismissal in 2002. It took nearly a year, but Wright was fired. Yet he kept his teaching license, and went on to work in at least six other Illinois school districts and two community colleges.
----
Dina Holder, a special needs pre-kindergarten teacher in California’s Brentwood School District, kept her job despite reports that she physically abused multiple students. After pleading no contest to a misdemeanor child abuse charge in 2010, Holder was transferred to a different school within the district -- which also paid a total of $8 million to the victims in January of this year.
According to state law at the time, a misdemeanor offense is only sufficient grounds for dismissing a tenured teacher if it involves “moral turpitude.” When Loma Vista Elementary failed to submit Holder’s performance review in 2010, the school was unable to fire her, and she remained employed until 2013.
----
Mark Krockover, a tenured chemistry teacher and cheerleading coach at Maine East High School in Park Ridge, Ill., was allowed to resign and given $60,000 severance after he was accused of harassment from seven female students. The girls said he touched them inappropriately, smelling their hair, texting them excessively and even buying several of them designer jeans and bikinis.
The school made records of Krockover’s past behavior confidential and agreed to tell future employers that he resigned for personal reasons. Krockover’s teaching license was finally suspended in 2011, after the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services investigated his resignation. He is currently eligible to reapply for his license but has not done so.
He was never formally charged, according to the Daily Herald in Cook County.
----
Tenure protection kept Aryeh Eller in the New York City school district’s infamous “rubber room” for more than 10 years after he admitted repeated sexual harassment of female students at Hillcrest High School in Queens. Technically called reassignment centers, the rubber rooms warehoused teachers too dangerous for the classroom but too difficult to fire until 2010, when then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg denounced them as an "expensive abuse of tenure," and shut them down.
Eller, who receives annual, union-negotiated pay raises, now makes $85,000 per year and works in a district office away from children. He’s earned nearly $1 million in salary since being yanked from the classroom, and still has a job, according to The New York Post.
Another New York teacher, Queens math instructor Francisco Olivares, still earned his annual salary of nearly $95,000 after allegedly impregnating and marrying a 16-year-old student and sexually molesting two other students during his 32-year career.
It wasn’t because the district didn’t try to fire Olivares.
“The department twice tried to terminate this teacher, and both times, an arbitrator decided to keep him on the payroll,” New York Department of Education spokeswoman Ann Forte told the New York Post, adding that tenured teachers can be fired only if an arbitrator approves.
----
In Los Angeles, special education teacher Matthew Kim was finally fired in 2009, some seven years after co-workers and students complained of repeated acts of sexual harassment. He might still be drawing a paycheck if a state judge hadn’t stepped in, blasting a pro-union, three-member state commission that oversees teacher dismissals for its “profound contempt for, and disrespect of, the judgments and orders of the courts of this state.”
Superior Court Judge David Yaffe ruled that the state commission ignored evidence that Kim, who was born with cerebral palsy, was sexually harassing co-workers and students and said the commission was changing “the facts of the case to support its prior decision instead of changing its prior decision to one that is supported by the facts of the case,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
Kim earned his $68,000 annual salary throughout the process.
The beleaguered Newark, N.J., school district has had scores of incidents in recent years where teachers misbehaved and got nothing more than a slap on the wrist thanks to their union membership and the protections afforded by tenure.
One teacher, whose name was redacted from official documents, was alleged to have done numerous horrific acts to her students, including spraying a second-grader with mace, slapping other students and placing a stapler over a kid’s lips and threatening to seal them. She was allowed to stay on the job and collect her salary for six months before the school could get rid of her.
An elementary teacher in Newark who swore at, threatened and punched a 10-year-old girl in front of her classmates got nine months’ pay plus vacation and sick time in exchange for quitting.
Dirty dozen: 12 bad teachers protected by tenure and unions
Academic tenure was put in place in U.S. school systems in the first half of the 20th century to protect teachers from arbitrary punishment, but in the last several decades, it has morphed into something else altogether.
Don't tell me there aren't any bad teachers out there molesting kids, that is bullshit. And often times the teachers unions keep them on the job instead of going to prison were they belong.
That's a problem with the courts, not the unions.
For all you pro-union people out there, let me ask you a simple question: do you believe a bad cop should be fired? You realize that too often a bad cop doesn't get fired because his union has influence over the local politicians and judges, right? Like the guy up in Minneapolis who is on trial this week, 18 or so complaints against the guy and he was still on the street wearing badge and carrying a gun. Maybe you're thinking he'd still be on the force anyway, if there wasn't a union? Please.
What about a bad teacher, somebody sexually molests a kid but the union fights like hell to keep the person in the schools. You're okay with that?
Is it okay with you if your union supports and donates to a political party or individual that you don't like? That's where your dues are going, at least in part, and that's okay?
Why do you lie? A teacher who molests a child is put in prison. There are no unions there for inmates.
Don't be ridiculous, not every teacher who molests a student goes to prison.
Academic tenure was put in place in U.S. school systems in the first half of the 20th century to protect teachers from arbitrary punishment, but in the last several decades it has morphed into something else altogether.
Typically earned after four or five years, tenure protects teachers from being fired without just cause. But when combined with the ability of teachers unions to fight tooth and nail over any accusation leveled against a protected teacher, tenure can keep bad teachers in the classroom or at least on the payroll for decades after initial charges.
Below are a dozen cases in which tenure and union muscle protected bad teachers, often at the expense of students:
Matthew Lang was a band director at O’Fallon Township High School in Illinois in 2007 when administrators learned he was having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female student. But instead of being fired, Lang was able to resign, and the relationship was kept out of his file so he could seek another teaching job.
“… we are asking that all information concerning the request for his resignation not be placed in his file,” read a letter from the teacher’s union rep to the O’Fallon school board that was originally obtained by education news site EAGnews.
The district complied and even provided a letter of recommendation that called Lang “an outstanding instructor.” Lang landed a job with Alton High School near the Mississippi River and about 15 miles north of St. Louis, Mo.He worked at the school until 2010, when he was convicted of molesting another female student and sentenced to six years in prison, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
----
Jon White was sentenced to 48 years in prison in 2008 for abusing ten students at schools in the Illinois towns of Urbana and Normal. But those victims might have been spared their ordeals if White’s past had been revealed.
He had previously worked in McLean’s school district, where he was twice suspended for viewing pornography on a school computer and for making sexually suggestive comments to a fifth-grader. Instead of being fired, the union-protected teacher was allowed to resign – with a letter of recommendation that made no mention of the incidents.
The families of students at Urbana Elementary eventually filed a lawsuit claiming that the Normal school District had misled Urbana, according to the News-Gazette of Central Illinois.
----
Stephen Wright, a tenured science teacher at Downers Grove South High School in Illinois, kept his license to teach even after being accused of faking his hours, stealing district computers, inappropriately touching female students and discussing the sexual activities of himself and his students.
Wright was issued multiple warnings and three 10-day unpaid suspensions before the district finally petitioned the Illinois State Board of Education to consider his dismissal in 2002. It took nearly a year, but Wright was fired. Yet he kept his teaching license, and went on to work in at least six other Illinois school districts and two community colleges.
----
Dina Holder, a special needs pre-kindergarten teacher in California’s Brentwood School District, kept her job despite reports that she physically abused multiple students. After pleading no contest to a misdemeanor child abuse charge in 2010, Holder was transferred to a different school within the district -- which also paid a total of $8 million to the victims in January of this year.
According to state law at the time, a misdemeanor offense is only sufficient grounds for dismissing a tenured teacher if it involves “moral turpitude.” When Loma Vista Elementary failed to submit Holder’s performance review in 2010, the school was unable to fire her, and she remained employed until 2013.
----
Mark Krockover, a tenured chemistry teacher and cheerleading coach at Maine East High School in Park Ridge, Ill., was allowed to resign and given $60,000 severance after he was accused of harassment from seven female students. The girls said he touched them inappropriately, smelling their hair, texting them excessively and even buying several of them designer jeans and bikinis.
The school made records of Krockover’s past behavior confidential and agreed to tell future employers that he resigned for personal reasons. Krockover’s teaching license was finally suspended in 2011, after the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services investigated his resignation. He is currently eligible to reapply for his license but has not done so.
He was never formally charged, according to the Daily Herald in Cook County.
----
Tenure protection kept Aryeh Eller in the New York City school district’s infamous “rubber room” for more than 10 years after he admitted repeated sexual harassment of female students at Hillcrest High School in Queens. Technically called reassignment centers, the rubber rooms warehoused teachers too dangerous for the classroom but too difficult to fire until 2010, when then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg denounced them as an "expensive abuse of tenure," and shut them down.
Eller, who receives annual, union-negotiated pay raises, now makes $85,000 per year and works in a district office away from children. He’s earned nearly $1 million in salary since being yanked from the classroom, and still has a job, according to The New York Post.
Another New York teacher, Queens math instructor Francisco Olivares, still earned his annual salary of nearly $95,000 after allegedly impregnating and marrying a 16-year-old student and sexually molesting two other students during his 32-year career.
It wasn’t because the district didn’t try to fire Olivares.
“The department twice tried to terminate this teacher, and both times, an arbitrator decided to keep him on the payroll,” New York Department of Education spokeswoman Ann Forte told the New York Post, adding that tenured teachers can be fired only if an arbitrator approves.
----
In Los Angeles, special education teacher Matthew Kim was finally fired in 2009, some seven years after co-workers and students complained of repeated acts of sexual harassment. He might still be drawing a paycheck if a state judge hadn’t stepped in, blasting a pro-union, three-member state commission that oversees teacher dismissals for its “profound contempt for, and disrespect of, the judgments and orders of the courts of this state.”
Superior Court Judge David Yaffe ruled that the state commission ignored evidence that Kim, who was born with cerebral palsy, was sexually harassing co-workers and students and said the commission was changing “the facts of the case to support its prior decision instead of changing its prior decision to one that is supported by the facts of the case,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
Kim earned his $68,000 annual salary throughout the process.
The beleaguered Newark, N.J., school district has had scores of incidents in recent years where teachers misbehaved and got nothing more than a slap on the wrist thanks to their union membership and the protections afforded by tenure.
One teacher, whose name was redacted from official documents, was alleged to have done numerous horrific acts to her students, including spraying a second-grader with mace, slapping other students and placing a stapler over a kid’s lips and threatening to seal them. She was allowed to stay on the job and collect her salary for six months before the school could get rid of her.
An elementary teacher in Newark who swore at, threatened and punched a 10-year-old girl in front of her classmates got nine months’ pay plus vacation and sick time in exchange for quitting.
Dirty dozen: 12 bad teachers protected by tenure and unions
Academic tenure was put in place in U.S. school systems in the first half of the 20th century to protect teachers from arbitrary punishment, but in the last several decades, it has morphed into something else altogether.
Don't tell me there aren't any bad teachers out there molesting kids, that is bullshit. And often times the teachers unions keep them on the job instead of going to prison were they belong.
That's a problem with the courts, not the unions.
BULLSHIT! It's both; teachers unions are among the largest donors of campaign money to politicians and that includes DAs and judges. And the local and state politicians who write and enforce the laws that everyone should follow, but not everyone pays the penalty for their failure to do so, especially if they belong to a public union. As the above examples show, public unions protect bad teachers, cops, and other public union employees to the extent that it takes years and gobs of money to get rid of them and that ain't right. If you really think those bad apples wouldn't have been fired and imprisoned if they were not protected by their union then you are sorely mistaken. And that is one big reason why public unions shouldn't even exist in the 1st place.
What utter horseshit. He imposed tariffs, and Dims like you went wild.Trump didn't impose tariffs. He tried to start a trade war.All you dumbasses attacked Trump for imposing tariffs.1992 I bought into Pirot's "sucking jobs" dogma but then over the next few years I saw NAFTA as a good thing then since 06-07 back to sucking. What NAFTA does is allow employers use the threat of moving jobs to force employees to accept less compensation.Don't blame me. Progressives are the only political segment that never supported any of that outsourcing shit. Are you old enough to remember when "protectionism" was the dirtiest word in conservative economic policy? Why are you blaming the only people who fought the "free market" dogma that made protecting jobs a virtual sin?There was never any good reason to make American workers directly compete with Chinese slave labor. Western countries are supposed to have higher environmental and labor standards and a higher standard of living. Don't blame the middle class reward for a life of labor that used to make America great. Upward mobility requires a national investment that American companies didn't want to make anymore.Half of the reason our industrial base ended up in China is that republicans really desperately wanted to break the political power of Labor. Was it worth it?
Bullshit. China has no climate enforcement, no minimum wage, no unions, no liability while the US seeks to tax the shit out of businesses of all sizes. Prove me wrong.
The first part of your argument is the most socialist I’ve ever heard. Don’t insult US Middle Class by trying to pretend you care about “upward mobility”. Socialists despise upward mobility. Why and how in God’s name are you rewarding China for child labor while holding Western Countries accountable for environmental and labor standards. Seriously?
Hey! A Dado can learn!
Even in trumplandia there's a difference.
