Eliminating Government Unions..It's about time

Most teachers are liberal - it is true.

No, it's not. Teachers are all over the place politically, just like any other profession. The teacher's unions are pretty much Democrat supporters, but the rank and file include a little of everything.



Extra work is voluntary but it is not paid.

Now, that is true.

I hve no doubt that in some states they fair far better than their private sector counterparts.

Yes, health benefits and pensions are better than they are in private sector by and large. That is changing, as health care costs are beginning to outstrip the ability of school districts to pay them. Schools have begun to impose a cap on benefits, and teachers are now paying $4-5 hundred a month for health insurance that once was almost all paid by the district, and lesser plans with higher co-pays are becoming the norm.

If we don't have real health care reform pretty soon, we'll all be priced out of it.

But, that's another issue altogether.

Changes do need to be made I just hope that are reasoned and rational and not reactionary. But governments tend to make the reactionary changes.

Wouldn't that be a refreshing change though, the government making reasoned and rational changes rather than reactionary ones?

And I am all for people being able to band together to negotiate more effectively. I am not for their group getting any special laws to give them a competitive advantage, I am not for them being able to coerce others to join their group or being able to collect dues from people who don't want to pay them.

That sounds like a right to work law. We have that in California. I suspect they are pretty common in other states as well.
 
Werbung:
That sounds like a right to work law. We have that in California. I suspect they are pretty common in other states as well.

That's false - california is NOT a right to work law state.
 
Hmmm? I am not so sure this is an ad hominem in this case.

First lets be clear the attack was on Joseph Stalin (since the word scumbag was in front his nickname) not the HOP member here called Stalin. That's the way I read it anyway. But the "scumbag" was inferred to be the members uncle (mentor). Did Gipper mean that the members argument made no sense because his mentor was Joseph Stalin? That would be an ad hominem.

Second calling Joseph Stalin a scumbag is probably more a reflection that he was a mas murderer rather than an argument against his political point of view. It would appear to be an attack but not an ad hominem designed to win an argument since no argument was made.

Lastly, if an attack against a person is relevant to the conversation then it is no longer a logical fallacy. Is it relevant that Joseph Stalin favored unions? Gipper, care to explain? Is it relevant that the member Stalin's mentor favored unions? If Stalin only backs unions BECAUSE Joseph Stalin backed them then, yes, that would be relevant. But I suspect that the member would have reasons to back unions other than Joseph Stalin's opinion.

Practically every US President is a mass murderer.

It goes with the job.

Comrade Stalin
 
Practically every US President is a mass murderer.

It goes with the job.

Comrade Stalin

If you don't see the difference between practically every US president and Joseph Stalin maybe you should have lived under Jo's rule.

Good idea for a new thread though.
 
If you don't see the difference between practically every US president and Joseph Stalin maybe you should have lived under Jo's rule.

Good idea for a new thread though.

As usual, he's just advertising his historical ignorance. :rolleyes:
 
No, it's not. Teachers are all over the place politically, just like any other profession. The teacher's unions are pretty much Democrat supporters, but the rank and file include a little of everything.


In the Chicagoland area my experience is that most are, but these facts indicate I may be wrong:

"Consider the numbers above: Of that almost $60 million in campaign contributions distributed by the NEA and the AFT, more than $56 million went to Democrats. That means that roughly 95 percent of the unions’ money went toward Democratic candidates. It’s hard to believe that 19 out of 20 teachers are Democrats.

According to the NEA’s own “Status of the American Public School Teacher 2000-2001,” only 45 percent of public school teachers are Democrats.

According to the Public Service Research Foundation, the NEA has long known that its political expenditures don’t reflect the views of its members. PSRF obtained two 1980 internal surveys of NEA members, which showed:

*

As many members voted for Ronald Reagan (44%) as did for Jimmy Carter (44%)
*

More NEA members identified themselves as conservatives (27%) than liberals (21%)
*

A large number — 29% — said they did "not trust" the union

http://teachersunionexposed.com/dues.cfm

Interestingly, and off topic, according to the same site:

"When teachers were given the chance to opt out of paying for the political causes of education unions, the number of teachers participating in Utah dropped from 68 percent to 6.8 percent, and the number of represented teachers contributing in Washington dropped from 82 percent to 6 percent."

But I would not confuse willingness to give money with any political view. Surely some democratic teaches would still rather keep their money.
 
As usual, he's just advertising his historical ignorance. :rolleyes:


I would not be so quick to use such harsh language. After all many us presidents' actions did result in the deaths of many people. Many US citizens probably do not even know that. But I still think that if we weigh the deaths according to how justified or unavoidable they were then the hypothetical scales would weigh American Presidents to be far far more benevolent than Joseph Stalin.
 
Really? Every US president was a mass murderer? Justify that for Einsenhower, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Carter - what rubbish.

Do you think that Dr. Who's statement:

American Presidents to be far far more benevolent than Joseph Stalin.
was rubbish, or did you just not bother to read the entire post?
 
Unions-and-Middle-Class.jpg
 
so your mad that they negotiated a good deal for there people ...how horrible..And then when needed they are willing to reduce how good that deal is to help the state finances....at the same time the same people asking for them to pay more...are giving tax breaks to others...

Its like when the airlines asked pilots and flight attendants to take huge pay cuts to help the airline...and they did...and the company did well...as reward...the top executives who did gave them self a big raise .

Its sad, some on the right like to yell about how liberals want to punish and hate people for being rich and successful...those same people cry about middle class workers getting anything positive.

The rich are getting richer evry year, the poor and the middle class get less and less each year...and they cry only about the plight of the richest. Its class war...but only they are fighting for the other class and not there own.


pocket I AM NOT AGAINST TEACHERS...In education, there are two specific categories in which the U.S. excels, compared to the rest of the world. First, the U.S. ranks second in the world in the amount we spend per student per year on education = $11,152. The U.S. is also a leader in having some of the smallest classroom numbers in the world. Yet the slide continues. American students grow more illiterate by the year. How can that be? We’re doing everything the “experts” tell us to do. We’re spending the money. We’re building more and more schools. We’re raising teacher’s pay.

Every one of us should understand that these three items: higher pay, smaller classrooms and more money for schools are the specific agenda of the National Education Association (NEA). The NEA is not a professional organization for teachers. It is a labor union and its sole job is to get more money into the education system, and more pay for its members. It also seeks to make work easier for its members – smaller classrooms. IMO..Clearly the NEA is not about education – it’s about money and a political agenda.

Clearly the nation’s education system is not teaching the children. They can’t read or work math problems without a calculator. They can’t spell, find their own country on a map, name the president of the United States or quote a single founding father. America’s children are becoming just plain dumb.

Yet we have been focusing on a massive national campaign to “fix” the schools for the past decade or more. Now we have ultra high-tech, carpeted, air-conditioned school buildings with computers and television sets. We have education programs full of new ideas, new methods, and new directions. In the 1990’s we set “national standards,” accountability through “national testing” through Goals 2000. Through that program we declared that every child would come to school “ready to learn,” “no child would be left behind,” and pledged that our kids would be “second to none” in the world. Above all, we’ve spent money, money and more money. The result, American students have fallen further behind, placing 19th out of 21 nations in math, 16th in science, and dead last in physics.


The truth is, none of the problems will go away, nor will children learn until both parents and politicians stop trusting the education establishment and start ridding the system of its failed ideas and programs. Parents and politicians must stop believing the propaganda handed down by the education establishment that says teaching a child in the twenty-first century is different and must be more high tech than in days past. It simply isn’t so.

It’s time to ignore the agenda of a self-interested labor union and begin to look at the real reasons why American public schools are in crisis. What is robbing our children of the ability to get a good education?

besr regards
doug
 
Werbung:
Back
Top