patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,196,597 comments by 14,079 users - Ceffer, Falcons12, iommian, Patrick, richwicks, Tenpoundbass online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 27 - 66 of 87 Next » Last » Search these comments
I get that you have a rather extreme opposition to the existence of unions, and that even if I am correct and "took you to school" as well as is possible, YOU ARE NOT ABOUT TO EVEN COMPREHEND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT .
Marcus,
Take me to school please... and explain again how public unions have little political power.. Please please please help me to understand this.
I suppose this lack of political power is the reason why teachers cant be fired for feeding sperm to kids, perhaps this lack of political power is the reason why nearly 70% of city budgets are paid to the wages and benefits of fire and police ALONE. Perhaps this lack of political power is the reason why Prop 30 was passed and 32 failed. Perhaps this lack of political power is the reason why public worker wages keep rising while the private sector wages are stagnant.
Do we really want to sit here and talk about how limited the public union political power is, especially here in California?
Again. I never implied that.
What I said was this:
Sure there are isolated examples of excess. Why not remedy those, rather than using those examples as an excuse to kill practically the last little pocket of political power that workers do have ?
No what you said was this. marcus says
Because you know,...labor,..the typical worker,.. has way too strong of a voice in today's political landscape.
Which was you being sarcastic and implying there was little political power in public unions. Clearly this was the purpose of you starting this thread.
marcus
2012 Dec 21, 9:54am
You live in California, the state that has the most excessive abuse by public unions. A remedy to that was prop 32 which was blocked by unions.
Certainly you cant argue that unions have "the last little pocket of politcal power". are you freaking kidding. Public unions RUN this freakin state!
How is it that school funding on a per student basis ranks California 47th in spending per student ?
California is broken, I think in part because of prop 13.
You were for prop 38 and against 30. Because you wanted spending on schools to go even lower (than 47th in the country) because we public education people needed to be taught a tough and painful lesson ?
Wtf ? If unions run this state, and the state spending on education ranks us 47th, I can only assume that it's because all the other unions that won out over the teachers unions?
How is it that school funding on a per student basis ranks California 47th in spending per student ?
Problem with you union phonies is that you quote statistics about money per classroom, yet you fail to mention that california has the top or second highest pay for teachers.
You union guys always preach more money to classrooms, yet the fights you engage never have to do with money to classroom, but rather money into your pockets. Prop 30 vs prop 38 is a great example. Teachers unions promoted prop 30 although there is no guarantee money to classrooms. Yet you voted against prop 38 even though this was a guaranteed money to classrooms. WHy? Because you had to pay for prop 38 and you didnt have to pay for prop 30.
Its BS that you try to blur the lines between classrooms getting money and teachers getting money. There is a very distinct line.
If you really wanted money to classrooms and not into your wallet, you should have been arguing for prop 38. You know it and the unions know it.
The funny thing is marcus. I actually dont think you teachers get paid that well. HOnestly 60-65k average for a teacher is decent if not low for the amount of education and bullshit you guys go through.
With that said, cops having an average salary of 131k with extra 49k into pensions is BS.
Fire makes even more....
http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/
take a look at the website and look up the CHP as an example. Pay and benefits this great was begotten because of powerful unions.
marcus
2012 Dec 21, 10:06am
Which was you being sarcastic and implying there was little political power in public unions
I see one of your issues.
To sarcastically say their political power is too high (the republican point of view), is not the same as saying that it's too low or that it needs to be higher.
I am against unions being killed which is the direction things are moving in several states. The trend is toward softening their voice.
At least admit that you think unions have too much power and that they need to be done away with all together, and that you think this is the way toward a great long term future for America.
Certainly there are two sides to this and frankly the argument is odd.
Basically in a right to work state there is nothing to compel an employee to contract with a union for terms of work
What the unions contest though is frankly the amount of freeriders. When a contract is signed often times the same benefits are given to non union members then union (hence the name).
So in their mind by enabling this even more it gives less of a reason to join the unions and thus anything they contributed to them is pretty much a waste of time.
But here's the thing. If a state is not a right to work state then it means that the unions are using the government to REQUIRE that members join as part of the agreement to work.
I'm neutral on unions but frankly why rely on the government to gain members via monopoly? Meanwhile I know of other unions such as the IBEW that are confident enough to actually advertise their services and receive customer endorsements.
Private and public unions vary dramatically. Government unions cannot go on strike (legally). In Mass the situation is odd because it takes nearly one week of a strike to convince a judge that they are on strike. Private can go on strike although much of the time it is largely anticipated.
I'd also note that there's not much of a correlation of higher government spending in public education and better results. I live in Massachusetts and frankly if a school system does bad...REALLY bad then the state takes it over and as a incentive throws money at teachers to work there. Spending per student skyrockets but it doesn't *really* solve the problem. I'm not in a teachers union but it doesn't take one to know that parents are really key to much of the performance. If students cannot study in a good area, if the only food they had in a day was school lunch, if they get mugged on the way home etc.
BTW I'm no expert on California but eventually I think prop 13 is going to have to go, it's only a matter of time.
Which was you being sarcastic and implying there was little political power in public unions
I see one of your issues.
To sarcastically say their political power is to high (the republican point of view), is not the same as saying that it's too low or that it needs to be higher.
I am against unions being killed which is the direction things are moving in several states. The trend is toward softening their voice.
At least admit that you think unions have too much power and that they need to be done away with all together, and that you think this is the way toward a great long term future for America.
No its not my issue. you have the issue. Reducing union powers is not the same as "killing" them.
Why cant unions play by the same rules as everyone else. Why do unions automatically get money deducted from people and placed into their accounts, especially since this is eventually used for political influence.
Why cant people in the unions decide on their OWN to contribute? Essentially this was what prop 32 was about correct?
Why not let union members decided for themselves?
If you had corporations deducting money from their workers automatically and used for political influence peddling, people would be rioting.
marcus
2012 Dec 21, 10:22am
'd also note that there's not much of a correlation of higher government spending in public education and better results. I live in Massachusetts and frankly if a school system does bad...REALLY bad then the state takes it over and as a incentive throws money at teachers to work there.
Yes but this is an extremely limited inference.
Sure, if a school is in a terrible impoverished neighborhood, where attendance not to mention general physical and emotional health of the children is in question, then increasing spending may have a limited impact.
This is a far cry from concluding that no matter how little you spend, and how overcrowded classes are, it just doesn't matter.
In a middle class neighborhood school there is an optimal amount to spend per student, and it might be slightly above the level that diminishing returns kick in.
But it's also true that some districts spend money more eficiently than others, with higher percentages going to the front lines (so to speak) and less going to beurocrats, consultant and so on.
marcus
2012 Dec 21, 10:29am
Reducing union powers is not the same as "killing" them.
Again, what I said, was...
which is the direction things are moving
It's towards reducing their voice.
Why cant unions play by the same rules as everyone else. Why do unions automatically get money deducted from people and placed into their accounts, especially since this is eventually used for political influence.
I didn't say it, because I'm trying not to be rude, but your issue is open mindedness and comprehension.
Regarding: "especially since this is eventually used for political influence."
HEre just the relevant part. Maybe you will be willing to read and comprehend (you can if you want to !!)
It was already illegal to force workers to join a union. Seriously! Don’t trust my word on this; trust the rabidly anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which explains, “You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.â€
So the difference here is that, in non-RTW states, unionized workers have to pay some kind of agency fee to unions that bargain on their behalf, but they don’t have to join the union (or pay for things like the union’s political activity).
That minimal agency fee ( I know people that just pay that) does not go to politics. It's really not even enough to cover the cost of what they do get from the union.
marcus
2012 Dec 21, 11:44am
I suppose this lack of political power is the reason why teachers cant be fired for feeding sperm to kids,
If had seen this I surely would have stopped talking to you sooner. That guy is going to go to prison if he isn't already there. And those guys in prison don't take kindly to child molesters.
Do you think anyone in the union is not sickened by that. Surely does help the anti teacher crusade though.
Yeah, okay, so the fact that teachers have a contract, and that a student can't easily get any teacher fired for looking at him or her the wrong way. I guess that's bad for education. Teachers, you know the same ones who sometimes have to give students failing grades. I guess in this day in age, we should just have teachers fired on the spot for anything a student accuses a teacher of, with no one representing the teachers position at all.
MAybe the same reasoning should apply to all crime. IF a person is accused of anything, they are guilty. Period.
Be careful out there.
That guy is going to go to prison if he isn't already there.
Yes he is going to prison because he broke a law, yet the teachers union still wouldn't let him be fired. Instead the district was forced to give this guy money to quit, instead of firing him.
Do you think anyone in the union is not sickened by that.
If the union is so sickened by him, why does the union not propose steps to fire teachers who commit these crimes instead of blocking legislation that would expedite the firing of these teachers?
Please note how the article points out how legislators voted or didnt vote at all because of their fears of the California Teachers Association. Still think you have no political clout in California???
MAybe the same reasoning should apply to all crime. IF a person is accused of anything, they are guilty. Period.
No one said everyone who is accused is guilty until proven innocent. Im sure everyone could agree (even the unions) that cases such as the one at Mira Monte was a clear case of abuse. Yet what actions did the union take? Your reasoning is a rather pitiful excuse to protect all teachers at any cost.
BTW, Im still waiting for your response regarding prop 30 and prop 38 issue I brought up earlier.
Vicente
2012 Dec 21, 3:06pm
Why cant unions play by the same rules as everyone else.
If only!
Industry trade groups and lobbying groups are fine right? Please explain why? It's a the biggest money finding ways to concentrate it's power and muscle so it can wield a club and sway opinions.
After Citizens United they can do so with near anonymity and no limits.
Labor unions lack anything like that level of power now and are slipping down to zero quickly.
I think we know what happens in warfare when one side is defenseless. Some will say yeah let's START with the unions because... something... and we'll get around to step 2 which is we want to reel in all that corporate influence-peddling. They never get around to step 2, because they don't really believe in it. We hate lobbying they say, only they never actually do anything about it.
Y"ALL SHOW ME CITIZENS UNITED ROLLED BACK AND LYING DEAD IN THE DIRT... THEN! THEN I'll believe you aren't two-faced hypocrites.
@ marcus
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/12/19/ca-public-worker-pay-soars-to-unsustainable-levels/
This is what happens when public unions have too much power... They bankrupt states and make its citizens slaves to fund unsustainable compensation packages.
Industry trade groups and lobbying groups are fine right?
Do those trade groups and lobbying groups take money from people without giving them a choice???
Vicente says
Labor unions lack anything like that level of power now and are slipping down to zero quickly.
YOu live in california. Labor unions run this state. are you blind?
Vicente says
I think we know what happens in warfare when one side is defenseless. Some
TO say that labor unions are defenseless is the most ridiculous thing to say especially since you live in california. You forget, labor unions got Brown elected, labor unions got a super majority in california politics, labor unions got prop 30 passed, 38 stopped and 32 stopped.
Vicente
2012 Dec 21, 3:13pm
Do those trade groups and lobbying groups take money from people without giving them a choice???
Yes.
Do those trade groups and lobbying groups take money from people without giving them a choice???
Yes.
Really? can you tell me who?
THe only one not playing on a level playing field are the unions. Who else is currently allowed to force people to join their union and then take a percentage of their pay without even asking????
NO ONE BUT UNIONS.
@ vincente
Next you are gonna tell me that, like marcus, you voted for prop 30 but yet no on prop 38 to put more money into the classroom right???
Vicente
2012 Dec 21, 3:18pm
Really? can you tell me who?
Why should I? You'll only twist away and change the subject Shrek.
Really? can you tell me who?
Why should I? You'll only twist away and change the subject Shrek.
YOu cant tell me cuz no one else does it!
Peter P
2012 Dec 21, 3:19pm
Well, other groups tilt the playing field using other ways though. So unions are not the *only* distortions.
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
2012 Dec 21, 3:21pm
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.
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
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
2012 Dec 21, 3:25pm
So basically if you are not willing to join the union, you cant work. RIGHT?
Not at all. WRONG!
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.
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?
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
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
2012 Dec 21, 3:30pm
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!
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?
Vicente
2012 Dec 21, 3:34pm
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.
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.
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.
« First « Previous Comments 27 - 66 of 87 Next » Last » Search these comments
Obviously.
Because you know,...labor,..the typical worker,.. has way too strong of a voice in today's political landscape.
"In Michigan, the Republican Will to Power"
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/michigan-the-republican-will-to-power.html
#politics