Unions Scared

[james&olya 1,121]

  On 9/6/2012 at 4:36 AM, epsonderby said:

There isn't such a thing as a good corporation, nor did I say there was. I at least respect corporations, on the whole, for not hiding the fact that they are in it for the money.

And so why is it wrong for unions to also be in it for the money for their members (and themselves of course). Why is it not equally OK for them to want middle-class incomes as it is for the CEO's to want extravagant incomes by screwing over their employees?

[epsonderby 85]

Because unions normally self-abuse; their actions normally prevent companies from becoming more efficient, more competitive, and more profitable.

How many airlines have had issues due to unions? how many car manufacturing companies have had issues? I think it's perfectly acceptable people for people to want middle-class incomes if they do the work to deserve it and aren't living in some union-mandated 'bubble' where they are safe and protected from being judged on how well they do their job.

Judge someone on their performance, ability and motivation. Not on how long they've been there, or whether they've paid their dues. Some teachers work to get tenure and then give up as they are pretty much safe from being judged. That's wrong, isn't it?

Edited September 6, 2012 by epsonderby

[SaharaSunset 165]

What's sad is that so many people regurgitate the lines they have been fed by people that are anti-union...and often its grossly exaggerated and even fictional. I hardly want to acknowledge ridiculous generalizations like: "only a portion of teachers care about students." Seriously? What planet do you live on? Give me actual stats? Give me facts to prove this accusation? Its a classic "conspericy theory" type statement. An unfounded opinion, thrown out there like some sort of fact based statement - when in reality its about as accurate as saying "Bigfoot DOES exist." Its comical really.

And saying things like saying "teachers unions don't negotiate, don't promote continuing instructor education etc...bogus...and zero factual basis. Its little more than fear mongering and blaming.

I find it fascinating that people actually buy into the idea that unions are bad. Bad for who? The top 1%? Now I'm not saying there is no corruption. Show me ANY organization (exempting a select few religious organizations) that aren't plagued by some variation of corruption? I can't think of one. Why? Because greed and corruption is a sad reality of human nature. But it is not the dominate tendency of humans. We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Replace the supposedly corrupt leaders - but don't do away with unions.

Just imagine for a moment if all companies had unions. Perhaps then, the true fat cats in the top 1%, might actually have to more evenly distribute the wealth of their companies - the horror! Then perhaps more people would be a financial position to be self sufficiant and resort less to government assisstance. Imagine what that would save "taxpayers." What a different world we would be in. But the business moguls want people to buy into the idea that unions are evil and the root of all economic troubles. BOGUS! Unions offer support and security. Much like families should do. And we all know the true good that comes from support and unity. So imagine if Americans banded together like unions and demands that oil companies stop profiting from outrageous gas prices? Wow - what couldn't we do in we unified as citizens instead scrambling the blame someone for the fact they our lives aren't as stable and successful as wed like them to be. Unions are not to blame.

Now imagine what would happen if teachers didn't have unions. Great - the "taxpayers" win. Okay, so now teachers have no benefits, salaries plummet, and teachers jobs are on the line based on something that has so many possible variables (home life, intelligence level, what they had or didn't have for breakfast...) its almost impossible to measure - standardized test scores. Hooray. And the now the "taxpayers" win what? Better teachers? In a hostile unstable job environment? Really? And now, some corrupt businessman steps in to "save" education. Do you really and truly think that THEY have the best interest of children? The only perfect scenario is one where perfect parents homeschool their perfect children and raise them up in wealth and goodness. It's just not reality.

So rather than blaming a group of people that as a whole, are in the business of helping kids. And again - if nothing else proves it, remember, the starting salary of a teacher is lower than many jobs that require no formal education - and teachers must have a bachelors degree and in many states a masters degree as well. Degrees that should put them in the same bracket as lawyers and accounts and so on.... But they start with a salary so low that many maintain a second job to survive. Do you honestly think "Most" of these people are doing it because its such a cushy, profitable "unionized" job? Get real!

[SaharaSunset 165]

  On 9/6/2012 at 4:45 AM, epsonderby said:

Judge someone on their performance, ability and motivation. Not on how long they've been there, or whether they've paid their dues. Some teachers work to get tenure and then give up as they are pretty much safe from being judged. That's wrong, isn't it?

FYI - despite what the fear mongers would have you believe - teachers ARE evaluated yearly. And even with tenure (which actually has been taken away in many states) there is still a system in place to fire them if they have indeed "given up." But again - that statement is nothing more than "hearsay" - stories told like tales of of the wild west - exaggerated for dramatic effect.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You can put lipstick on a pig, and it is still a pig. Teachers usually live in the community where they work, and chances are you know several of them, if not personally, you encounter them in your day to day activities. Who better to ask about how things are at your community schools? You may be shocked at their honesty.

[Harsh_77 718]

  On 9/6/2012 at 3:28 AM, Pooky said:

The unions have no interest in the education of children. Only a portion of the teachers themselves do.

The union's focus is to keep every teacher, no matter how competent, in a job, so that the union can extort dues from them to further the political agenda of the union leaders.

Oh, and while the teachers are surviving on their meagre salaries, have a guess how much the union leaders make, and what kind of a pay raise they got this year.

Its a double edge sword teachers dont want to give up union too.

Coz when city or state trys to enfore regulation on them as one has to perform or get fired they all get behind the curtain of union.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

  On 9/6/2012 at 2:34 AM, The Patriot said:

What part of California is 312 area code?

I guess only someone from California can explain it?

At least be honest, you have already made up your mind, with or without information, and have no interest in listening to them. It's OK, just say so. It is not necessary to understand anything to vote for it or against it. Obama is proof.

Unions should be scared...they are fairly useless and need to be forced on people. If I worked for a business tha had to forced on people I would be scared also. If unions want real power they will push for a law making membership voluntary asd then offer benefits to members, just like a real business. Then they will be like AARP or the NRA and NO ONE messes with them, not even Obama after multiple massacres.

Voluntary memebrship would increase their political power and legitimacy.

  On 9/6/2012 at 3:26 PM, Harsh_77 said:

Its a double edge sword teachers dont want to give up union too.

Coz when city or state trys to enfore regulation on them as one has to perform or get fired they all get behind the curtain of union.

Teachers should perform or get fired

[Darnell 8,479]

The Patriot -

Sorry about the phone calls.

We had extra capacity in the Mumbai call center for 48 hours, and took in an extra subcontract without reading the training materials first.

[Harsh_77 718]

  On 9/6/2012 at 9:04 PM, Darnell said:

The Patriot -

Sorry about the phone calls.

We had extra capacity in the Mumbai call center for 48 hours, and took in an extra subcontract without reading the training materials first.

shhssssssshhhhhh!!!!

U dont have to giveaway all the secrets

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I thought this was a capitalist country? Is it not acceptable to accept bids from a variety of locations and/or providers to obtain the lowest cost? Or must all these calls come from within California? That doesn't sound very free market to me.

[SaharaSunset 165]

So we do away with unions. Okay. Now what? Is education really going to get better because now it's supposedly easier to fire "bad" teachers? Are quality educators going to be attracted to a field where the pay is a pittance, they have no benefits and their job is on the line if they happen to cross the wrong parent. That sounds fine and nice - but lets be honest, while teachers do have some impact on the life of a child, there are some serious factors that they cannot control. Does it really seem logical to place the entire burden of a child's success on a handful of people who spend sometimes less than an hour a day with the child? Do teachers really have the power to be THE defining factor in the future educational success of a child?

The elephant in the room, that people seem to scared to talk about is PARENTS! and what's NOT happening at home! We are far too "PC" to address the reality that home life actually has the greatest impact of the success of a child. Far greater than any teacher will ever come close to reaching.

How can a teacher be expected to teach a child to read if there are not devoted parents at home spending hours reading to, and encouraging the child to "practice." Why are expensive private schools and prestigeous "charter schools" so successful, and yet inner city schools have low test scores? Look at the demographics. Inner city schools are dominated by families in poverty, with broken homes, and in many cases, difficult home life and living conditions. These kids are in survival mode, trying just to live through each day...and education simply is not high on their own, or their parents list of priorities. Can we really say that inner city schools have low test scores simply because they happen to have all the "bad" teachers? And the private school demographics: wealthy, educated families that place a premium on their childs educational success. These demographics include parents that have the money and/or the internal drive to seek out "good schools" to help their already internally motivated children be more successful. Do people honestly think that private schools magically have all the vastly superior educators?

We are leaving out THE ultimate defining factor in every child's life - their parents. When a child succeeds in education, proud parents are quick to bask in the glory of their own good parenting, and rightfully so. So why then when a child fails in education, does the entire blame fall on "teachers" -people who in reality impact a minute portion of their life.

I do not disagree that there may be corruption in union leaders, just like is the case with some of our political leaders... or any one in power for that matter. Nor do I deny that there are some "bad" teachers. But, ridiculous generalizations about all teachers being "bad" really gives the position of "teacher" more power and influence than parents. And would anyone argue that teachers should have the same or greater power in the life of a child as their parents? NO WAY!

We all know that parents are the ones who really determine if their child will succeed or not. If a child fails - then the parents failed. Simple as that. And we can keep blaming teachers and unions and aliens and the economy and anything else we can get our hand on. But at the end of the day - if a child has loving, attentive, motivated parents, and crappy horrible, heartless teachers...that child will still succeed. End of story.

Edited September 7, 2012 by SaharaSunset

[Darnell 8,479]

unions for teachers have always been a 'strange beast' .

so, with that in mind...

what was the question?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

  On 9/7/2012 at 8:55 AM, Darnell said:

what was the question?

California Proposition 32 in a nutshell:

  Quote

Should employees have a portion of their mandatory payroll deductions used to advocate policies they don't support?

Question applies both to corporations and unions. Since most public employee unions function primarily as issue advocacy groups, that could mean they would be severely restricted in their ability to use funds seized from government payrolls to lobby against the interests of the taxpayers that fund that payroll.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

  Quote

As Thomas Jefferson said, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”

[lostinblue 1,989]

  On 9/7/2012 at 12:43 AM, SaharaSunset said:

So we do away with unions. Okay. Now what? Is education really going to get better because now it's supposedly easier to fire "bad" teachers? Are quality educators going to be attracted to a field where the pay is a pittance, they have no benefits and their job is on the line if they happen to cross the wrong parent. That sounds fine and nice - but lets be honest, while teachers do have some impact on the life of a child, there are some serious factors that they cannot control. Does it really seem logical to place the entire burden of a child's success on a handful of people who spend sometimes less than an hour a day with the child? Do teachers really have the power to be THE defining factor in the future educational success of a child?

The elephant in the room, that people seem to scared to talk about is PARENTS! and what's NOT happening at home! We are far too "PC" to address the reality that home life actually has the greatest impact of the success of a child. Far greater than any teacher will ever come close to reaching.

How can a teacher be expected to teach a child to read if there are not devoted parents at home spending hours reading to, and encouraging the child to "practice." Why are expensive private schools and prestigeous "charter schools" so successful, and yet inner city schools have low test scores? Look at the demographics. Inner city schools are dominated by families in poverty, with broken homes, and in many cases, difficult home life and living conditions. These kids are in survival mode, trying just to live through each day...and education simply is not high on their own, or their parents list of priorities. Can we really say that inner city schools have low test scores simply because they happen to have all the "bad" teachers? And the private school demographics: wealthy, educated families that place a premium on their childs educational success. These demographics include parents that have the money and/or the internal drive to seek out "good schools" to help their already internally motivated children be more successful. Do people honestly think that private schools magically have all the vastly superior educators?

We are leaving out THE ultimate defining factor in every child's life - their parents. When a child succeeds in education, proud parents are quick to bask in the glory of their own good parenting, and rightfully so. So why then when a child fails in education, does the entire blame fall on "teachers" -people who in reality impact a minute portion of their life.

I do not disagree that there may be corruption in union leaders, just like is the case with some of our political leaders... or any one in power for that matter. Nor do I deny that there are some "bad" teachers. But, ridiculous generalizations about all teachers being "bad" really gives the position of "teacher" more power and influence than parents. And would anyone argue that teachers should have the same or greater power in the life of a child as their parents? NO WAY!

We all know that parents are the ones who really determine if their child will succeed or not. If a child fails - then the parents failed. Simple as that. And we can keep blaming teachers and unions and aliens and the economy and anything else we can get our hand on. But at the end of the day - if a child has loving, attentive, motivated parents, and crappy horrible, heartless teachers...that child will still succeed. End of story.

A friend of mine taught inner city students. Most students did not know where they would sleep one night to the next.

Never met their father..mother is on drugs or has a drugged out boyfriend. Kids stay with aunt or a grandmother. This is what Johnsons "Great Society has caused. A breakup of the family structure.Children having children all that mess. More kenyan dependents voters in the wings.Average student spends what a thousand hours a year texting and video games. Look at the asians students who come here and their parents work two jobs and cannot hardly speak english. Their children are doctors and such. They hold their childrens feet to the fire when learning is concerned. A breakdown of the family structure is whats involved with many of the inner city children.