« previous   misc   next »

What union busting is really all about


By marcus   Follow   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 7:45am PST   4,998 views   88 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)  

Obviously.

Because you know,...labor,..the typical worker,.. has way too strong of a voice in today's political landscape.

As much as Republicans detest unions as economic actors, they hate them far more as political actors, organizing significant minorities of voters as discrete voting blocs aligned with the Democrats.
This is the best way to understand the Republican party’s sudden attack on unions in Michigan. Last year, the Michigan director of Americans for Prosperity, the right-wing activist group, explained, “We fight these battles on taxes and regulation but really what we would like to see is to take the unions out at the knees so they don’t have the resources to fight these battles.” Republicans understand full well that Michigan leans Democratic, and the GOP has total power at the moment, so its best use of that power is to crush one of the largest bastions of support for the opposing party.

"In Michigan, the Republican Will to Power"

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/michigan-the-republican-will-to-power.html

« First     « Previous     Comments 49-88 of 88     Last »

Meccos   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:20pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 49

Peter P says

Well, other groups tilt the playing field using other ways though. So unions are not the *only* distortions.

Peter I agree. However we are specifically talking about groups who force people into their unions and then take their money without any permission. ONly unions do that...

Vicente   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:21pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 50

Meccos says

Who else is currently allowed to force people to join their union and then take a percentage of their pay without even asking????

Ah, but those people could go work in non-union positions right? By the "vote with feet" power usually expounded as the ONLY thing a worker needs . There are many more non-union jobs than union ones. Because CLEARLY giant corporations that combine powers with trade and lobbying groups to further their collective interests are COMPLETELY different than workers organizing.

Meccos   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:21pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 51

I love how idiots like vincente will say crap like this:
Vicente says

Meccos says

Do those trade groups and lobbying groups take money from people without giving them a choice???

Yes.

BUt then have nothing to back up his claims

Meccos   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:23pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 52

Vicente says

Meccos says

Who else is currently allowed to force people to join their union and then take a percentage of their pay without even asking????

Ah, but those people could go work in non-union positions right? By the "vote with feet" power usually expounded as the ONLY thing a worker needs . There are many more non-union jobs than union ones.

So basically if you are not willing to join the union, you cant work. RIGHT?

Vincente, im still waiting to list other groups who pull this kind of crap...

Vicente   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:24pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Comment 53

Meccos says

BUt then have nothing to back up his claims

I don't like to spoon feed.

Vicente   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:25pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 54

Meccos says

So basically if you are not willing to join the union, you cant work. RIGHT?

Not at all. WRONG!

Meccos   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:26pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 55

Vicente says

Meccos says

BUt then have nothing to back up his claims

I don't like to spoon feed.

Spoon feed? or I just called out your bullshit and you have nothing to say.

Meccos   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:26pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 56

Vicente says

Meccos says

So basically if you are not willing to join the union, you cant work. RIGHT?

Not at all. WRONG!

Well you basically said Vicente says

Ah, but those people could go work in non-union positions right?

Vicente   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:29pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 57

Amazon has this great book.

http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Comprehension-Grades-The-Series/dp/0742417697/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356161157&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=reading+comprehennsion

-hth

Meccos   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:29pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 58

Vicente says

Amazon has this great book.

Title is "3rd grade Reading Comprehension Success".

-hth

So you are left to personal insult when you have nothing left to say... Figures.. typical

Meccos   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:30pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 59

Meccos says

Vicente says

Meccos says

Do those trade groups and lobbying groups take money from people without giving them a choice???

Yes.

Really? can you tell me who?

Let me know when you ever find an example...

Vicente   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:30pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 60

Meccos says

So you are left to personal insult when you have nothing left to say... Figures.. typical

Just trying to be helpful.

Evidently you find it incomprehensible that someone could find a non-union job while even a shred of unions exist. Startling!

Meccos   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:31pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 61

Vicente says

Meccos says

So you are left to personal insult when you have nothing left to say... Figures.. typical

Just trying to be helpful.

Evidently you find it incomprehensible that someone could find a non-union job while unions exist. Startling!

So why should someone be forced into a different job because they do not agree with union philosophy?

Meccos   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:32pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 62

still waiting on the example btw

Vicente   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:34pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 63

Meccos says

So why should someone be forced into a different job because they do not agree with union philosophy?

Forced? Workers can ALWAYS vote with their feet and find better jobs and wages. That's the American way, don't ever question it. Why would a non-union person even WANT to work somewhere that had union labor? It would probably be like some Soviet gulag with torture during lunchtime and required attendance at a Satanic ritual or something.

Meccos   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:37pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 64

Vicente says

Forced? Workers can ALWAYS vote with their feet and find better jobs and wages. That's the American way, don't ever question it. Why would a non-union person even WANT to work somewhere that had union labor? It would probably be like some Soviet gulag with torture during lunchtime and required attendance at a Satanic ritual or something.

So non-union members can vote with their feet and find a different jobs... BUT union members will keep their jobs and strike and buy politicians until they get what they want. NICE.

Meccos   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:38pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 65

Meccos says

Vicente says

Forced? Workers can ALWAYS vote with their feet and find better jobs and wages. That's the American way, don't ever question it. Why would a non-union person even WANT to work somewhere that had union labor? It would probably be like some Soviet gulag with torture during lunchtime and required attendance at a Satanic ritual or something.

So non-union members can vote with their feet and find a different jobs... BUT union members will keep their jobs and strike and buy politicians until they get what they want. NICE.

Also stop changing the subject... tell me who else besides unions force people to join their union and take money without permission... You said there were... now tell me who.

Vicente   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:39pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 66

Meccos says

Also stop changing the subject

You first

Meccos   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:41pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 67

Vicente says

Meccos says

Also stop changing the subject

You first

its clear you have nothing left to say... thank you for helping me to make my point. nite

Vicente   Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 3:49pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 68

Meccos says

nite

Nite nite Shrek!

marcus   Sat, 22 Dec 2012, 2:09am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Comment 69

Meccos says

Your reasoning is a rather pitiful excuse to protect all teachers at any cost.

You have no clue what you're talking about and are suffering from an overdose of talk radio cool aid.

Teachers can be fired and are, but they have a contract, and firing them is not immediate. It's easy to look at stories where a teacher is taken out of the class room, but not fired quickly, and say "see !"

There is a process for being evaluated and gaining tenure. Maybe that process should be more rigorous. But once that process is met, sure, a teacher can't be fired for looking at an incompetent administrator the wrong way.

That's right, what if an administrator is incompetent and on a reign of terror, destroying careers of good teachers. Is that possible ? Yes. Teaching is a unique job in the way that one interfaces with the public - with their children. Remember there are all kinds of kids and all kind s of parents out there. Is it right that teachers have a contract and that there is a process for being fired after one has gained tenure ? It's worked pretty well for a long time. But hey, I guess it's complex enough that it can be used to engineer sound bites about how terrible unions are.

Arguing for gaining tenure to be a more lengthy or rigorous process is something that makes sense.

But this is really a political game of looking for something that's misunderstood by the public such as:

1) pensions and the need for some reform
2) seeking examples of bad teachers being represented by a union attorney and not fired quickly (as somehow an rationale that good teachers being potentially defended is bad policy)
3) unions forcing membership (which I've explained to you is a lie at least 3 times and you still repeat it like the moron that you truly are).

All of this is just BS propaganda. The real point is taking away worker's political voice. That's why you (or your overlords) want to diminish union power.

If any criticism of what unions have obtained is legitimate, THEN FIGHT THAT.

For example if you think that state highway patrol troopers are overpaid, or their pension definition needs to be changed, then fight that fight. Or run political campaigns to highlight which politicians cow tow to their union too much. WE know this can be done.

But don't use it as an excuse to take down the union.

AS for prop 38 versus prop 30. As far as I know, prop 38 was a distraction to beat prop 30. The idea being that the vote would be split and neither one would pass.

IT had to be one or the other, not both. http://roseville-ca.patch.com/articles/proposition-30-or-38-which-should-you-choose-bc2dbbf5 I don't really think that the intention behind 38 was to prevent 30 from passing. But it was my concern. Really a miracle that 30 still passed when there was another option. I guess the voters are smarter than some think.

If you understood how badly underfunded schools are (HS classes in the 40s and 50s students per class(yes, that's how teachers can be half decently paid and yet we are 47th in per student spending), custodial staffs and clerical staffs have been cut in half, counselors now have been cut to about 2/3 of what they were. And we've all have furlough days since 2008), if you understood all of this - it would be a good start in balancing your skewed pov.

I only explain all of this for those who listen to your rubbish, not for you shrek. Some might be semi retarded right wingers like yourself though, who won't hear or comprehend anything that I'm saying. That's okay. For some of you it may be too late to ever have a well reasoned balanced view of the world.

Is Rush on the radio today ? Maybe a good fix of hate radio will get you in to the Christmas spirit ?

Meccos   Sat, 22 Dec 2012, 2:07pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 70

marcus says

You have no clue what you're talking about and are suffering from an overdose of talk radio cool aid.

Why do you assume I listen to talk radio cuz I disagree with you?

marcus says

There is a process for being evaluated and gaining tenure. Maybe that process should be more rigorous. But once that process is met, sure, a teacher can't be fired for looking at an incompetent administrator the wrong way.

Putting sperm on cookies and feeding them to kids is not the same as "looking at an incompetent administrator the wrong way. You keep up bringing up these "administrators" and how they can fire you. THe problem is that no one has an issue with this. HOwever, I have a fundamental problem with teachers who break the law or are completely incompetent but yet they are still not fired because they are backed by the unions.

marcus says

Remember there are all kinds of kids and all kind s of parents out there. Is it right that teachers have a contract and that there is a process for being fired after one has gained tenure ?

Teachers should be fired regardless of tenure if they are incapable of doing their jobs or have committed crimes. LIke I said before, no one is saying that you should be fired for baseless accusations, however if there are clear violations in the law or if a teacher is incompetent, then they should be fired. THe problem is that even when teachers are found to be incompetent or even commit felonies, the unions back them up and makes it impossible for these people be fired.marcus says

But this is really a political game of looking for something that's misunderstood by the public such as:

1) pensions and the need for some reform
2) seeking examples of bad teachers being represented by a union attorney and not fired quickly (as somehow an rationale that good teachers being potentially defended is bad policy)
3) unions forcing membership (which I've explained to you is a lie at least 3 times and you still repeat it like the moron that you truly are).

1. some public pensions DO need to be reformed. I never had issues with teach pay nor pensions as I have mentioned before. However I do have issues with other public employees such as cops and fire who make TONS and TONS of money with excellent benefits

2. There are plenty of bad teachers who have gotten away with things they should have not. Mira Loma is a great example. Other examples include teachers who are paid to do nothing because of bogus unions contracts.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/06/local/me-teachers6

3. Unions essentially DO force membership because at the end of the day, regardless of whether you want to join the union or not, they will still TAKE money from your paycheck. Perhaps you are the moron for not knowing this.
marcus says

All of this is just BS propaganda. The real point is taking away worker's political voice. That's why you (or your overlords) want to diminish union power.

DIminishing union power and taking away workers political rights are two completely separate issues. A worker can still choose to contribute and participate in politics without having to do this through the unions. And if they wish to participate their political rights through unions, they still can, if they choose to. However, when you force someone to give to unions (even against their wishes) then you truly do take away from their political voice.
marcus says

For example if you think that state highway patrol troopers are overpaid, or their pension definition needs to be changed, then fight that fight. Or run political campaigns to highlight which politicians cow tow to their union too much. WE know this can be done.

But don't use it as an excuse to take down the union.

Well the overwhelming political power of the unions are the reason why we have overpaid public workers and unsustainable pensions, which is precisely the reason why union powers need to be diminished.

marcus says

AS for prop 38 versus prop 30. As far as I know, prop 38 was a distraction to beat prop 30. The idea being that the vote would be split and neither one would pass.

As far as you know??!?!?! WOW, either you are really more stupid than I thought or you are trying to deceive the readers here. You and I both know that Prop 38 would have placed money directly into the classrooms. Prop 30 on the other hand is money to the public employees, which could or could not be money to the classrooms. If as you say, we need more money into the classrooms, then it shoudl have been a no brainer to vote for prop38. THe reason prop 30 prevailed was because the unions backed prop 30, because this meant more money into union member pocketbooks. In addition prop 38 meant that everyone would be paying more taxes, not just "the rich".

marcus says

If you understood how badly underfunded schools are (HS classes in the 40s and 50s students per class(yes, that's how teachers can be half decently paid and yet we are 47th in per student spending), custodial staffs and clerical staffs have been cut in half, counselors now have been cut to about 2/3 of what they were. And we've all have furlough days since 2008), if you understood all of this - it would be a good start in balancing your skewed pov.

I like how you keep mentioning underfunded schools, yet your unions fight for legislation that increases teachers pay while fighting against actual increases of monies into the classroom.
marcus says

I only explain all of this for those who listen to your rubbish, not for you shrek. Some might be semi retarded right wingers like yourself though, who won't hear or comprehend anything that I'm saying. That's okay. For some of you it may be too late to ever have a well reasoned balanced view of the world.

Is Rush on the radio today ? Maybe a good fix of hate radio will get you in to the Christmas spirit ?

and no I am not a right winger and my views on this subject and these facts were not received from talk radio. Rather they were begotten from my wife who is a school teacher of 8 years.

marcus   Sat, 22 Dec 2012, 3:13pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Comment 71

We have no argument. You don't even know what you're arguing, you just love arguing.

Meccos says

As far as you know??!?!?! WOW, either you are really more stupid than I thought or you are trying to deceive the readers here. You and I both know that Prop 38 would have placed money directly into the classrooms. Prop 30 on the other hand is money to the public employees

Most of what you say is just made up BS. I don't even think you believe half of the stupid stuff you make up, and you have totally lost track of what we are even talking about.

If people want to look up the difference between prop 30 and prop 38 they are free to. This was a decent summary.

http://roseville-ca.patch.com/articles/proposition-30-or-38-which-should-you-choose-bc2dbbf5

Meccos says

The reason prop 30 prevailed was because the unions backed prop 30, because this meant more money into union member pocketbooks. In addition prop 38 meant that everyone would be paying more taxes, not just "the rich".

You have it backwards.

I guess the governor was behind prop 30 because he's owned by the unions.

I'm done here shrek. There's nothing I respect less than someone who just pulls all their arguments out of their arse. Who knows, maybe you are an extreme leftist liberal in disguise. You constantly make Iwog right and set him up with softball pitches (that he handles wonderfully).

I have no interest in arguing just to argue, even if you are setting me up to win.
I've said what I want to say on this. People will take what they want from it (not that many will read it). I think all but the wacko right wingers will see through the made up BS.

Meccos   Sat, 22 Dec 2012, 3:30pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 72

marcus says

We have no argument. You don't even know what you're arguing, you just love arguing.

You are right there is no argument. You have not made a case for yourself... Come back when you have something worth sharing to back your case, rather than these dismissive comments.

marcus says

I guess the governor was behind prop 30 because he's owned by the unions.

you are right about that..

marcus says

There's nothing I respect less than someone who just pulls all their arguments out of their arse.

I agree
marcus says

I have no interest in arguing just to argue, even if you are setting me up to win.

win? hahhahaah The truth wins, unfortunately you dont have the truth on your side. However keep telling yourself you have won, Im sure that will make you feel better.

marcus   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 3:19am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 73

I know I said I'm done, But since your last point was about having the truth on your side (which is funny because you don't even have a side when you don't know what you are arguing - other than DUH UNIONS BAD - ME HAVE TRUTH)

Meccos says

Teachers should be fired regardless of tenure if they are incapable of doing their jobs or have committed crimes.

And they are !!!

Perfect example of ridiculous propaganda lies.

I guess if you repeat it enough it's true for you.

Don't worry the half wits are buying your BS hook line and sinker.

Meccos says

LIke I said before, no one is saying that you should be fired for baseless accusations, however if there are clear violations in the law or if a teacher is incompetent, then they should be fired.

Of course, and they are.

So you are saying on the one hand "no one is saying that you should be fired for baseless accusations" which measn you should be able to comprehend why there are examples of teachers deserving to be fired, but it not happening immediately. Not firing fast enough is what you're really talking about.

This isn't rocket science. You can not have a system in place that will protect someone who is wrongly accused, but also have the abililty to fire someone instantly when they are rightly accused. But teachers are taken out of the class room quickly for certain kinds of accusations.

By the way Meccos, why do you deny being a rapist pedophile ?

marcus   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 3:38am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 74

What some simpletons can't seem to get is that there is more than one propaganda sound bite to consider on most issues. THey want to reduce every issue down to something that they can wrap their hate around.

IF you make it easy enough to fire teachers (after they have proven themself), or if you had no union, what's to stop say one day a brilliant high level administrator from initiating a plan to replace all senior teachers with beginning teachers that they can pay 30K less than the average senior teacher ?

It would be great for the taxpayers. Hey, why shouldn't teaching be just as brutal as any other field, with a "what have you done for me lately"policy? Why not the same for all public workers ?

Answer: Because the job is a service job that doesn't pay that much, and if one commits themself to this kind of job, they should have some confidence that the job will still be there when they are 55 and have a family to support. THe job security (not for lazy incompetents), helps to offset the mediocre pay.

Bellingham Bill   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 5:20am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 75

When I was hired as a "teacher" in Japan in 1992, we had a different contract that the previous people.

25 hours instead of 23 for the same pay, ¥2300/hr for overtime instead of ¥3000.

Now, working for less for us new guys made sense since the yen had appreciated 100% in 10 years and FOB people like me were still thinking in dollar terms (what was $1100/mo in 1985 became $2100 in 1992 thanks to the Plaza Accord etc)

But the existing workers there knew they were screwed going forward as if they could be replaced with us cheaper slobs over time they would be.

So they had a walk-out on my first day, LOL. Being in Japan, us clueless Americans were actually in the minority, most of the workers were from the commonwealth, so they had a bit more of the old "Labour" outlook on things. Plus many were in their 30s and 40s and hadn't just fallen off the turnip truck like I.

taxee   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 8:19am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 76

marcus says

It would be great for the taxpayers. Hey, why shouldn't teaching be just as brutal as any other field, with a "what have you done for me lately"policy? Why not the same for all public workers ?

Here's what I learned as a Teamster: If you break down working conditions, disrespect seniority, ignore industrial stability, and don't tax away excessive CEO compensation, you end up with purposely bankrupted unionized companies replaced by new bottom feeding companies with young immigrant labor taxed to support disabled older working people through government programs. Not exactly a recipe for success.

Meccos   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 9:22am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 77

marcus says

Meccos says

Teachers should be fired regardless of tenure if they are incapable of doing their jobs or have committed crimes.

And they are !!!

Perfect example of ridiculous propaganda lies.

I guess if you repeat it enough it's true for you.

Don't worry the half wits are buying your BS hook line and sinker.

Just like the guy at Mira Monte got fired? Let see, he is charged with a felony but yet, the district couldnt fire him, in fact they had to pay him to leave because of teach unions! Or the countless teachers who are paid to sit in rooms and do nothing?
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/06/local/me-teachers6

marcus says

Meccos says

LIke I said before, no one is saying that you should be fired for baseless accusations, however if there are clear violations in the law or if a teacher is incompetent, then they should be fired.

Of course, and they are.

Who said lets fire teachers for any baseless accusations? Oh and they are? Tell me one person who got fired for baseless accusations? They cant even fire someone who took pictures of kids eating his sperm filled cookies!

marcus says

So you are saying on the one hand "no one is saying that you should be fired for baseless accusations" which measn you should be able to comprehend why there are examples of teachers deserving to be fired, but it not happening immediately. Not firing fast enough is what you're really talking about.

Trust me, like i said, my wife is a school teacher and I can definitely comprehend examples of teachers who should be fired from the many stories I have heard. And no, do not put words into my mouth. I never said this was an issue of not firing fast enough.
marcus says

By the way Meccos, why do you deny being a rapist pedophile ?

Hahaha back to personal attacks now that you have nothing to say. Typical.

Meccos   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 9:31am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 78

marcus says

IF you make it easy enough to fire teachers (after they have proven themself), or if you had no union, what's to stop say one day a brilliant high level administrator from initiating a plan to replace all senior teachers with beginning teachers that they can pay 30K less than the average senior teacher ?

Marcus how many times do I have to beat this through your thick skull. I dont have issues with teachers being protected from unfair administrators. And I dont want an easy way to fire teachers. I would just like to be able to fire a teacher for obvious abuses. THe problem is that teachers unions do whatever they can to help even those who are abusers. This is why the guy at Mira Monte was paid to quit rather than being fired. Why was this guy paid to quite and not fired? Because of the teachers unions! This is why the teachers unions blocked legislation to fire teachers who commit serious or egregious acts. If we can prove a teacher commits these serious acts why should we not be able to fire them? I have never said lets fire anyone for baseless accusations, only those who commit unlawful acts or is incompetent.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/29/local/la-me-teachers-20120629

BTW I have no issues of a teacher can prove that they are innocent. Also I am not saying get rid of unions, so again please do not put words into my mouth or make up things to support your point.

marcus says

Answer: Because the job is a service job that doesn't pay that much, and if one commits themself to this kind of job, they should have some confidence that the job will still be there when they are 55 and have a family to support. THe job security (not for lazy incompetents), helps to offset the mediocre pay.

Marcus Ive already agreed with you that teacher pays are not that high, especially compared to other public workers like cops whose average pay is 131k with 49k in benefits each year.
WIth that said, no one is saying teachers should be fired at will for no reason. However no one should be entitled to anything. No one in the private sector is entitled to anything, so why should you? Sure if a teacher is competent they should not be fired for no reason. However if they are incompetent, break rules, commit crimes, cant teach, they why should they not be fired?

marcus   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 9:47am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 79

Meccos says

However if they are incompetent, break rules, commit crimes, cant teach, they why should they not be fired?

But they are, and you're lying, when you imply that they can't be. Are there examples of teachers taken out of the class room, but not fired immediately ? Yes.

To those with severe cognitive challenges, this leads to a generalization that ALL incompetant teachers and all teachers who break rules can NEVER be fired ? Because of the union?

Again, why do you deny being a rapist pedophile ?

(see how it works ? I can imply anything I want, that doesn't make it true. )

Meccos   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 9:54am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 80

marcus says

But they are, and you're lying, when you imply that they can't be. Are there examples of teachers taken out of the class room, but not fired immediately ? Yes.

I am not saying they can not be fired. Again you are putting words into my mouth. I am saying that it is extremely difficult because of the crazy amounts of protection these teachers get from their unions. Why are you so against teachers being fired if they commit a crime or are incompetent? I would think it would be easy for all of us to agree on this.
marcus says

To those with severe cognitive challenges, this leads to a generalization that ALL incompetant teachers and all teachers who break rules can NEVER be fired. Because of the union.

Perhaps your cognitive impairment is the reason why you keep thinking that I am saying they can NEVER be fired...

marcus says

Again, why do you deny being a rapist pedophile ?

(see how it works ? I can claim anything I want, that doesn't make it true. )

You are right, making a claim doesnt make it true, but examples I have given you do make my comments true. Let me clearly state it just so your cognitive limitations do not get in the way.

Your teachers unions protect incompetent teachers and protects teachers who even brake the law. Example Mira Monte. Example the dozens of teachers who sit in a room to get paid for doing nothing. Example, a teacher who teaches so poorly, the district had to hire another teacher to come teach for him, all the while he sits in his classroom and just watches the other teacher teach. This last example was not in the news, but seen personally.

Meccos   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 9:58am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 81

Marcus,

As this thread has digressed into the teaching world, let me just get it back on track to the original argument.

Public unions have too much power. You may not see this so much in other states, but you living in California should know better... To argue that public unions have little or no power only makes you seem either clearly biased or an idiot.

marcus   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 10:13am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 82

Meccos says

I am not saying they can not be fired. Again you are putting words into my mouth.

Oh really. Do you have any idea what it's like responding to you ?

Meccos says

I suppose this lack of political power is the reason why teachers cant be fired for feeding sperm to kids

Meccos says

Your reasoning is a rather pitiful excuse to protect all teachers at any cost.

Meccos says

I have a fundamental problem with teachers who break the law or are completely incompetent but yet they are still not fired because they are backed by the unions.

Meccos says

THe problem is that even when teachers are found to be incompetent or even commit felonies, the unions back them up and makes it impossible for these people be fired.

This is just one topic where you lie, exaggerate and lie again. THere are about five others that I could respond to, and you would just cover it up and neither respond nor comprehend.

I explained in detail what the law is about membership in non rtw states, and that employees are only reuired to pay a much smaller agency fee and they are not required to become members, and yet you repeatedly pounded that drum after that. It's worse than talking to the wall.

There are at least three other examples that are much like me saying:

How is it that you contiunue to deny being a rapist and a pedphile Messos ?

I just do have time for your trolling or whatever it is you think you're doing.

marcus   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 10:18am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 83

In Meccos world, if the district finds it more expeditious and less costly to
pay the guy to quit (essentialy severance pay), rather than go through the process of firing him, you want to use this as a propaganda sound bite.

"They couldn't fire him."

marcus   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 10:21am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 84

Ignore.

See you later when you select your 15th Patnet identity.

Meccos   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 10:24am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 85

Marcus,

EVERY example you used was me talking about teachers who cant be fired for committing a crime, which is clearly different from any teacher who cant be fired for other reasons. Shouldnt it be obvious and without much opposition for teachers to be fired for committing a crime?!?!?! How is it that a teacher is not fired for feeding sperm to kids and taking pictures of it?
Explain that one to everyone... please im sure we all would love to hear it.

marcus says

I explained in detail what the law is about membership in non rtw states, and that employees are only reuired to pay a much smaller agency fee and they are not required to become members, and yet you repeatedly pounded that drum after that. It's worse than talking to the wall.

this is so funny. They dont have to be members but they are still REQUIRED and FORCED to pay a fee. How is that right?

marcus says

I just do have time for your trolling or whatever it is you think you're doing.

Oh ok, now I am trolling because Im calling your union thuggish activities out...

Let me summarize.

Unions have helped protect teachers who have committed crimes against our kids from getting fired

Unions have protected incompetent teachers from being fired, instead having them placed in rooms to sit all day long and collect pay and benefits.

Unions have required teachers who do not wish to join the union into paying a fee even against their wishes.

Explain how any of these things are ok...

Meccos   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 10:26am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 86

marcus says

In Meccos world, if the district finds it more expeditious and less costly to
pay the guy to quit (essentialy severance pay), rather than go through the process of firing him, you want to use this as a propaganda sound bite.

"They couldn't fire him."

Exactly, the unions have made it so costly and time consuming to even try to fire a teachers who commit felonies, that it is better to pay them them to quit then to fire them. Thank you for proving my point.

Meccos   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 10:27am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 87

marcus says

Ignore.

See you later when you select your 15th Patnet identity.

My first and only... bye bye..

Scagnetti   Sun, 23 Dec 2012, 11:21am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 88

I work in a union shop too....

Here's the reality. A lot of unions love the "us" versus "them" game. Even when an employee is blatantly in the wrong and should be disciplined or fired, the union will play the game, file their grievances to discipline, argue there baseless grievances, and try to arbitrate it with a moderator that is sympathetic to there "I've been oppressed" mantra.

A lot of union workers don't feel they should be accountable for anything! They know the union is all to happy to defend their incompetence, apathy, and laziness. After all, if the union doesn't stay busy and file grievances (Mainly without just cause), what is the point of having a one (Other than group bargaining)? They have to create problems so they have justification for existence!

« First     « Previous comments    

marcus is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net