Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Ragorn » Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:17 pm

Those five states rank 44th, 47th, 48th, 49th, and 50th in the nation in ACT/SAT rankings.

http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/ ... rrelation/

When school systems can bully teachers, deny them health coverage, restrict their benefits, and short-change their pensions, all the good ones move to other states. You know how, when we're talking about state income taxes, you guys like to claim that high taxes will lead to businesses moving to other states? Same thing, in reverse. When workers get screwed, the good ones move out.

Guess where Wisconsin is ranked?

#2.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:01 pm

That list is from 1999. 12 years old.

Actually, here are the numbers for those states:

Virginia 12th
North Carolina 21st
Texas 33rd
Georgia 34th
South Carolina 43rd

And Wisconsin is currently ranked 18th...


Also, here's a more current article, from this year:

Two-Thirds of Wisconsin Public-School 8th Graders Can’t Read Proficiently—Despite Highest Per Pupil Spending in Midwest
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby kiryan » Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:54 pm

I was just about to post something to the exact same effect. The data is old and although its significant that the only states where unions were illegal were the bottom 5 performing schools in 1999, obviously union rights are not the only driver if it is even a driver of performance.

Also,

http://www.studentsforum.net/Liberal-Me ... t6136.html

37% of House Democrats enroll their kids in private school and vote 96% of the time against the voucher program. What was it Democrats were recently suggestiong, was it that Republicans who vote against healthcare should not take part in their employer sponsored program?

http://www.democracyforums.com/frontpage/?p=vB55040
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resu ... chool.html

2000 Census data by researchers led by Denis P. Doyle, who previously analyzed 1980 and 1990 Census data.
While just 12.2 percent of U.S. families send their children to private schools, that figure rises to 17.5 percent among urban families in general and to 21.5 percent among urban public school teachers, almost twice the national average.
The difference in the choices made by public school teachers and the general public were especially striking in America’s largest cities, where public schools are often the most troubled. For example, in the New York City area, 32.5 percent of public school teachers send their children to private schools, compared to 22.7 percent of the general public. In Chicago, 38.7 percent of public school teachers, versus 22.6 percent of the general public, send their children to private schools. In Los Angeles, private schools are chosen by 24.5 percent of public school teachers and 15.7 percent of the public.
Also noteworthy are the differences in cities where school choice programs have seen their greatest successes. In Milwaukee, for instance, home of the nation’s oldest publicly funded voucher program, 29.4 percent of public school teachers send their children to private schools, versus 23.4 percent of the general public.

==to be fair, if you were so interested in education that you became a teacher... you'd probably also be more likely to send your kids where ever they could get the best education. When you control for factors, I bet it turns out they don't send their kids to private school at a significnatly higher rate than others who can afford to and place a similar emphasis on education.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:36 am

Ragorn wrote:Those five states rank 44th, 47th, 48th, 49th, and 50th in the nation in ACT/SAT rankings.

...

Guess where Wisconsin is ranked?

#2.


Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:That list is from 1999. 12 years old.

Actually, here are the numbers for those states:

Virginia 12th
North Carolina 21st
Texas 33rd
Georgia 34th
South Carolina 43rd

And Wisconsin is currently ranked 18th...

Daaamn. *pulls up lawn chair*
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Yayaril
Sojourner
Posts: 2552
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Yayaril » Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:14 pm

Politifact.com has some good info about comparing the benefits of the Wisconsin Teachers with a private sector worker. It states that given their level of education (post graduate degrees), they actually make 5% less than a private sector worker of the same level.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:28 pm

Politifact rates Ragorn's first post false as well as the claim that Wisconisin currently ranks #2... although primarily beacause its old data and the sampling methods aren't comparative. It does leave the possibiltiy there might be a minor casual relationship between having a union and not, but not on the scale suggested... that not having a union mean you'll rank at the absolute bottom of the 50 states.

-- edited, cited the thread starter as adriorn rather than ragorn.
Last edited by kiryan on Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Ragorn » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:23 pm

Yeah, the whole study was riddled with errors and isn't scientifically useful in any possible way. At best... at BEST, it illustrates a limited correlation between union laws and scores on one particular standardized measure.

I posted it as a neat distortion of the facts, because that's what we do on this forum.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:25 pm

The unions posted it too, until they were called out on it... so its not just this forum.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:35 pm

Yayaril wrote:Politifact.com has some good info about comparing the benefits of the Wisconsin Teachers with a private sector worker. It states that given their level of education (post graduate degrees), they actually make 5% less than a private sector worker of the same level.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... fits-prop/

also cites that their benefits are more lucrative than private sector.

rates it as mostly true

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... es-earn-a/

says the claim that state employees make 8% less is false.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... nsin-teac/

rates that the statement public employees make 89k and private sector 48k... barely true.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:00 pm

Ragorn wrote:Yeah, the whole study was riddled with errors and isn't scientifically useful in any possible way. At best... at BEST, it illustrates a limited correlation between union laws and scores on one particular standardized measure.

I posted it as a neat distortion of the facts, because that's what we do on this forum.

The backpedal. Interesting strategy, but it seems unnecessary to even say anything.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:47 pm

Is it just me, or are we Conservatives using "statistical" facts to destroy a fictitious, non-scientific point? Interesting!
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:41 am

The sun shines on a dog's asshole every once in a while :) I don't expect it to last though. Just kiddin'! You do it often enough, but statistics can only go so far, and most are useless.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:12 am

Kifle wrote:but statistics can only go so far, and most are useless.


Too easily manipulated, sadly.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:37 am

Ragorn wrote:Yeah, the whole study was riddled with errors and isn't scientifically useful in any possible way. At best... at BEST, it illustrates a limited correlation between union laws and scores on one particular standardized measure.

I posted it as a neat distortion of the facts, because that's what we do on this forum.


I kind of get acting like a troll to make a point about how everyone else is acting like a troll. But you went and started this thread, so now you are the instigator. If you think this forum is useless then go away. My suspicion is that you didn't bother to look into this issue before posting, and now you are trying to save face. Either way, this thread = fail.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:58 am

Sarvis will recall I made a point once that by definition an employee cannot be overpaid or underpaid. The theory is based upon freedom of association. If you feel like you are being underpaid then you can quit and go work somewhere for more money. If your boss feels like you are overpaid, he can fire you or refuse to renew your contract. We had a big debate about it a couple of years ago.

In retrospect I need to amend my position for government workers only. There is no profit motive in the public sector. What you earn doesn't come out of your boss' pocket. The faceless 'taxpayers' are the ones footing the bill. Moreover, there are ulterior motives governing compensation for public employees. For instance, politicians, who ultimately determine public sector wages, might seek to reward the support of public unions.

Thus, I think it is possible to be overpaid as a government employee, but not underpaid (since you still retain the ability to quit and get another job). Moreover, I think it is incredibly easy to determine if public sector employees are overpaid. Just look at how much demand there is for an open position. For instance, on Long Island there are hundreds (if not thousands) of qualified applicants for teacher or police officer positions. The supply vastly exceeds the demand. Getting one of those jobs is like winning the lottery. $100k+ with amazing benefits and retirement plans.

In order to get compensation to a reasonable level, you would need to lower it to the point that you only receive a few qualified applicants for an open position. That's how it works in the private sector where there is a profit motive. When I look to hire a new paralegal I post an advertisement on craigslist with a lowball wage and see what turns up. If I don't get any qualified applicants I raise the figure a little bit. At some point I find the person I am looking for. It should basically be the same way in the public sector.

How about a reverse auction process? Applicants are first screened on the basis of qualification. Anyone who is not qualified in any way (certifications, degrees, flubs the interview, whatever) is filtered out. The remaining applicants are invited to BID on their annual compensation (with built in cost of living increases mirroring inflation). You then fill the open positions starting from the lowest bid and move up until there are no positions left.

Wouldn't that be the best deal for the taxpayer?
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:18 am

Corth wrote:In order to get compensation to a reasonable level, you would need to lower it to the point that you only receive a few qualified applicants for an open position. That's how it works in the private sector where there is a profit motive. When I look to hire a new paralegal I post an advertisement on craigslist with a lowball wage and see what turns up. If I don't get any qualified applicants I raise the figure a little bit. At some point I find the person I am looking for. It should basically be the same way in the public sector.


I agree with the rest, for the most part, but is this seriously how you look for qualified employees? First of all, craigslist? You're a lawyer; use mosterjobs or careerbuilder :) Second, while your system will definitely get you some form of competency for the lowest cost, you probably won't get the best return on investment. It is like playing the $1 blackjack table at the Sahara. Sure, you're not spending much, but your investment (assuming the odds aren't against you) is not maximized. Your blackjack payoff doesn't really make sense until you make a $5 bet, but your return is less than if you were playing at the $5 tables. But, this doesn't directly correlate to what you're saying, but the principle you've used is not universal. More directly to your strategy, while I was in a hiring position, I wouldn't say the lowest paid person is the best choice. It could turn out that the ones taking less money for the same position are going to produce less. While the market causes the more qualified to negotiate lower salaries, it also puts them in the same position as the lower qualified or less producing. In other words, salary is no longer an accurate gauge. You can no longer discriminate accurately whether or not you are getting a qualified person willing to make less or a less qualified or less producing person that is making what the market allows. You're flipping a coin, in a sense.

Also, there's that saying that goes, "you get what you pay for". Granted, the market does give you a better probability at getting a "steal" employee, but it's not a risk I'm willing to take. I pay what my production allows. There's no sense in taking a risk where one is not necessary.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby kiryan » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:20 am

Its an interesting suggestion... it sounds a lot like staffing with the lowest common denominator or the most desperate person... so you might be getting the least skilled individual and in the other taking advantage of someone's situation... I think there is something fundamentally wrong about say offering a butcher less money than the market value for a cut of meat simply because I knew he was in a bad way. I'm not so sure I think thats a good idea, on the other hand not sure its a bad one either. It is very free markety

My problem with public unions is

1) forced payment of dues

2) the use of those dues to fund politicians who then serve the public union's interests in contract negotiotiation.

3) the ridiculous rules and contracts that are negotiated due to the #1 and #2.

This for example. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 24956.html government pays 74 cents in benefits for each dollar they pay in salary. Retire at age 50, government pays their healthcare premiums until 65. and these aren't even the craziest benefits and rules they negotiate.

4) the fact that the government is not an evil corporation with a profit motive. How can you argue that employees need protection from the government who protects private sector employees from every other employer... and unless the government starts pressing people into service, you ALWAYS have the ability to escape its oppression by finding another job.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:25 am

Kifle,

I don't necessarily take the person who is willing to work for the least amount of money. I take the qualified person who is willing to work for the least amount of money. And a lot goes into what I would consider qualified. And I don't take overqualified people either.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:26 am

kiryan wrote:Its an interesting suggestion... it sounds a lot like staffing with the lowest common denominator or the most desperate person... so you might be getting the least skilled individual and in the other taking advantage of someone's situation... I think there is something fundamentally wrong about say offering a butcher less money than the market value for a cut of meat simply because I knew he was in a bad way. I'm not so sure I think thats a good idea, on the other hand not sure its a bad one either. It is very free markety

My problem with public unions is

1) forced payment of dues

2) the use of those dues to fund politicians who then serve the public union's interests in contract negotiotiation.

3) the ridiculous rules and contracts that are negotiated due to the #1 and #2.

This for example. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 24956.html government pays 74 cents in benefits for each dollar they pay in salary. Retire at age 50, government pays their healthcare premiums until 65. and these aren't even the craziest benefits and rules they negotiate.

4) the fact that the government is not an evil corporation with a profit motive. How can you argue that employees need protection from the government who protects private sector employees from every other employer... and unless the government starts pressing people into service, you ALWAYS have the ability to escape its oppression by finding another job.


I agree with 1 and 3, but until you ban all forms of lobbying, unions should have just as much right. It would be an uneven playing field if pfizer was lobbying to gain corporate profit through lower taxes and less strict regulation while unions had no voice. By inclusion, if you allow one, you necessarily have to allow the other. If you don't like union lobbying, you should really be against lobbying in general -- otherwise, your system is insulting and hypocritical.

Honestly, you lost me on 4.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:26 am

Corth wrote:Kifle,

I don't necessarily take the person who is willing to work for the least amount of money. I take the qualified person who is willing to work for the least amount of money. And a lot goes into what I would consider qualified. And I don't take overqualified people either.


That sucks.. I was going to apply for a position :(
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:33 am

Kiryan,

There is of course lowest common denominator factor there - but keep in mind that only individuals that are considered qualified are invited to bid. I would imagine that you could have some very stringent requirements for qualification. As far as taking advantage of someone - I think that's absurd. These people aren't being compelled to do anything. If someone WANTS a job, and is willing to take less money, then to me it seems like a win/win. Employee gets the job, taxpayer gets to save money.

The issue with my proposal is that it is an ad-hoc compensation scheme. You will have people doing the same job and yet earning different amounts of money. That is basically unheard of in the public sector where compensation levels are very formalized and rigid. It's difficult enough to get public workers to accept merit based pay which is something that most of us feel makes a hell of a lot of sense. Forcing them to compete against each other on wages for scarce jobs will not go over well. Politically it's not feasible - but to me it seems like the fairest way to protect the taxpayer's interests.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby kiryan » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:49 am

Kifle, my problem with #2 is because of #1. I don't have a problem with union's contributing politically if the contributions are strictly voluntary. and I don't mean voluntary because you accepted a union job. I mean voluntarily you give them your money to use in political manners separate from any payment for general union administration and participation.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:54 am

kiryan wrote:Kifle, my problem with #2 is because of #1. I don't have a problem with union's contributing politically if the contributions are strictly voluntary. and I don't mean voluntary because you accepted a union job. I mean voluntarily you give them your money to use in political manners separate from any payment for general union administration and participation.


Ahh, got it. I could see your issue there. But, like Corth always emphasizes, they didn't have to take the job. You must assume they take the job and understand that their union dues go towards whatever the union sees fit. Of course, they always reserve the right to protest. In the end, though, the lobbying is more profitable for them in the long run and is in their best interests for the union to use their money for lobbying rather than buying gold plated crappers :)
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:57 am

Kifle wrote:
kiryan wrote:Kifle, my problem with #2 is because of #1. I don't have a problem with union's contributing politically if the contributions are strictly voluntary. and I don't mean voluntary because you accepted a union job. I mean voluntarily you give them your money to use in political manners separate from any payment for general union administration and participation.


Ahh, got it. I could see your issue there. But, like Corth always emphasizes, they didn't have to take the job. You must assume they take the job and understand that their union dues go towards whatever the union sees fit. Of course, they always reserve the right to protest. In the end, though, the lobbying is more profitable for them in the long run and is in their best interests for the union to use their money for lobbying rather than buying gold plated crappers :)

And what right does the Union have to decide which jobs people can accept without being forced into their memberships?
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:58 am

Kifle,

Public unions negotiate with politicians. You don't think it is a conflict of interest to allow them to make campaign contributions to them? It's basically bribery. I have no issue with private sector unions being politically active, but if you are going to have public unions then they should be prohibited from making campaign contributions. Or rather, the politicians should be prohibited from the unethical practice of taking contributions from groups whom they will be tasked to negotiate against.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:25 am

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle wrote:
kiryan wrote:Kifle, my problem with #2 is because of #1. I don't have a problem with union's contributing politically if the contributions are strictly voluntary. and I don't mean voluntary because you accepted a union job. I mean voluntarily you give them your money to use in political manners separate from any payment for general union administration and participation.


Ahh, got it. I could see your issue there. But, like Corth always emphasizes, they didn't have to take the job. You must assume they take the job and understand that their union dues go towards whatever the union sees fit. Of course, they always reserve the right to protest. In the end, though, the lobbying is more profitable for them in the long run and is in their best interests for the union to use their money for lobbying rather than buying gold plated crappers :)

And what right does the Union have to decide which jobs people can accept without being forced into their memberships?


I didn't say I agreed with it, and I don't think that it is right that unions bar employment without membership. But, for the time being, until union laws are changed, you don't have to work at a company that has a union. I see that as being the same as not wanting to work for a company because they don't have health insurance. You do not have the right, in this country, to a job with health insurance. On the same token, you do not have the right to a job without union interaction. Again, not saying I agree with union practices, but it is what it is until it changes.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:29 am

Corth wrote:Kifle,

Public unions negotiate with politicians. You don't think it is a conflict of interest to allow them to make campaign contributions to them? It's basically bribery. I have no issue with private sector unions being politically active, but if you are going to have public unions then they should be prohibited from making campaign contributions. Or rather, the politicians should be prohibited from the unethical practice of taking contributions from groups whom they will be tasked to negotiate against.


I was just making a statement of unions in general. I forgot the discussion was about teachers unions specifically and didn't really read the "public" portion in Kiryan's post. I'm going to chalk it up to being tired and bored. Also, just an observation, but do you revert to outdated grammar rules after midnight or something, like Cinderella? Two spaces after a period. I'm forced to lower your grade for that, sir.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:39 am

That's how they taught me to do it in middle school! Yesterday was my birthday so I'm now 36 years old. Thanks for rubbing in the fact that I'm outdated. :)
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:40 am

Corth wrote:That's how they taught me to do it in middle school! Yesterday was my birthday so I'm now 36 years old. Thanks for rubbing in the fact that I'm outdated. :)

I demand Corth 2.0.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:42 am

Kifle wrote:I didn't say I agreed with it, and I don't think that it is right that unions bar employment without membership. But, for the time being, until union laws are changed, you don't have to work at a company that has a union. I see that as being the same as not wanting to work for a company because they don't have health insurance. You do not have the right, in this country, to a job with health insurance. On the same token, you do not have the right to a job without union interaction. Again, not saying I agree with union practices, but it is what it is until it changes.

In many areas, you would find getting employment without mandatory union membership to be exceedingly difficult. It really is something that is abusive in a lot of places to the people. An unreasonable burden that actually threatens the freedom of the people...

But I guess those cities you could probably count on two hands.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:47 am

Corth wrote:That's how they taught me to do it in middle school! Yesterday was my birthday so I'm now 36 years old. Thanks for rubbing in the fact that I'm outdated. :)


Well, happy birthday. And don't worry, we're all very close in age around here, sadly.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:50 am

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle wrote:I didn't say I agreed with it, and I don't think that it is right that unions bar employment without membership. But, for the time being, until union laws are changed, you don't have to work at a company that has a union. I see that as being the same as not wanting to work for a company because they don't have health insurance. You do not have the right, in this country, to a job with health insurance. On the same token, you do not have the right to a job without union interaction. Again, not saying I agree with union practices, but it is what it is until it changes.

In many areas, you would find getting employment without mandatory union membership to be exceedingly difficult. It really is something that is abusive in a lot of places to the people. An unreasonable burden that actually threatens the freedom of the people...

But I guess those cities you could probably count on two hands.


Eh, unions have always been something I ignore but dislike. It hasn't touched my life outside the ridiculous benefits GM workers around here get. Showing up to work drunk gets you a two week vacation :) Which is why I wouldn't be against joining one. Like many laws, until it is changed, I don't see a need to get too upset or involved with the issue.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby kiryan » Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:12 pm

... it touches your life every day in your taxes (assuming you work).
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:25 pm

kiryan wrote:... it touches your life every day in your taxes (assuming you work).

People outside of the top 10% of income earners really don't pay all that much in taxes though.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:33 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
kiryan wrote:... it touches your life every day in your taxes (assuming you work).

People outside of the top 10% of income earners really don't pay all that much in taxes though.


I paid almost 26K in taxes last year -- that's a lot. And that's just federal. Not including sales tax, gas tax, etc.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:07 pm

Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
kiryan wrote:... it touches your life every day in your taxes (assuming you work).

People outside of the top 10% of income earners really don't pay all that much in taxes though.


I paid almost 26K in taxes last year -- that's a lot. And that's just federal. Not including sales tax, gas tax, etc.

Get a tax shelter.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:03 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
kiryan wrote:... it touches your life every day in your taxes (assuming you work).

People outside of the top 10% of income earners really don't pay all that much in taxes though.


I paid almost 26K in taxes last year -- that's a lot. And that's just federal. Not including sales tax, gas tax, etc.

Get a tax shelter.


Yes, I'm going to be doing some crazy stuff with taxes this year. I'm more than likely going to convert into an scorp this year and do some other crazy accounting things. But, I'm just saying, that if you make anything above "able to get by", you're probably paying a relatively high amount of tax (extimated at 40-50% I read).
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:30 pm

Compared to how much the Federal government is spending per household, it may sound strange, but 26k isn't really that much...
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Teachers' Unions - Illegal in Five States

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:46 pm

HIJACKING THIS THREAD

Idaho passes law restricting union bargaining. Republican governor expected to sign it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110309/pl_ ... tes_unions

Good article on the Wisconsin issue... specifically examines why unions are in for it over the next couple years at least. Obviously partisian and some parts are even probably exaggerated or dispuatable at the least... however, it is believable and thats what the unions are up against. A believable, injustice hoisted on the backs of a private sector that is in a demoralizing economic downturn.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50870.html

The voters are fed up. A Rasmussen poll finds that Wisconsin Senate Democrats’ decision to flee the state to block voting on the budget adjustment bill nets a whopping 25 percent approval among 1,000 likely voters, while 67 percent disapprove.

== most polls seem to indicate voters are with the unions / democrats... I haven't examined them closely, but I suspect these polls are flawed and are being used to make a point they don't cover in the poll... but I could be wrong.

Special interest unions are supporting politicians in their efforts to prevent democracy from working. What we see in Wisconsin now is not a “democracy” movement but an “anti-democracy” movement.

== they're talking about the democrats leaving the state. I don't know that I agree this is anti-democratic... its about as anti democratic as a filibuster is.

Fairness and Reason: Study after study shows that both basic compensation and benefits for public employee union members exceed salary and benefits in the private sector.

They do so on the backs of all taxpayers, in the form of ever-increasing spending.

== Some comparisons put the public sector at a pay disadvantage... but the reality is the people in your neighborhood know which ones are public employees... see their houses and boats, RVs and new cars... and know who is getting paid more.

That is unfair. It also is unsustainable if we want our municipalities, states and federal governments to survive.

== sustainable remember when that word was used relentlessly by the left?

Common Sense: Should we be able to hire and fire teachers based on their performance in the marketplace? Of course we should. But public employee contracts say no. Should we be able to compensate teachers who perform better more than teachers who don’t? Of course we should. But teachers’ contracts, negotiated collectively by their unions, uniformly say no.

When states face tough times, should they be able to make decisions about teacher layoffs based on merit rather than seniority? Of course. But one-sided contracts ­­— negotiated by teachers unions, which have the politicians who negotiate for the government in their back pockets — say no. Common sense tells us all that teachers, and other public employees, should be hired, evaluated, promoted, disciplined or fired based on their performance. Just like everyone else in society.

Common sense tells us that when public employee unions give millions of dollars to elect politicians, who are often responsible for negotiating their contracts, that system is inherently corrupt and broken.

== very hard to develop any kind of narrative

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests