• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survives recall effort, NBC News projects

Not necessarily. There are other reasons people work at private schools, and wouldn't want to work at a public school. It is easier to look good when you have good students and don't have to deal with the problems of the general population. And you can have that benefit and not face the lack of respect public school teachers face.

I'm so tired of this naive talking point. Many bad students transfer from public schools to private every year and many of them experience an drastic improvement in their grades in private schools. This is WHY this retarded talking point exists to begin with to excuse bad public schools.
 
Most places are eliminating tenure, but that isn't a cure all. It's effect will be minimal, but no real objection from me. However, even tenured teachers can lose their job. Most places, union or not, have procedures in which the employer has to go through to fire people. This is largely fair.

Sure, public school (unionized) teachers can be fired, but only for doing things like sleeping with students or something of equal or worse proportions, or by being laid off (and then they lay off by lowest seniority, not by performance). Public school teachers never get fired on the basis of poor performance, as should happen.

At my job, if I'm not making and/or saving my company more money than what they're paying me, AKA performing well, I lose my job. The same should be true of teachers (of course the criteria of performing well for them would be student test scores, grades, graduation rate, etc., rather than bringing in or saving money for their company), regardless of tenure.
 
Last edited:
Sure, public school (unionized) teachers can be fired, but only for doing things like sleeping with students or something of equal or worse proportions, or by being laid off (and then they lay off by lowest seniority, not by performance). Public school teachers never get fired on the basis of poor performance, as should happen.

At my job, if I'm not making and/or saving my company more money than what they're paying me, AKA performing well, I lose my job. The same should be true of teachers (of course the criteria of performing well for them would be student test scores, grades, graduation rate, etc., rather than bringing in or saving money for their company), regardless of tenure.

That's really not true. There is a procedure everywhere. Some are more difficult than others, but there is a procedure to fire for justifiable reasons, including incompetence.
 
I'm so tired of this naive talking point. Many bad students transfer from public schools to private every year and many of them experience an drastic improvement in their grades in private schools. This is WHY this retarded talking point exists to begin with to excuse bad public schools.

Actually, no. Yes some do, in some places, but the average includes very selective schools. Overall, this gives them an advantage in national statistics. Where the private schools have students that reflect the same make up as public schools, they don't look as good. But even then, they can get rid of a problem student. Can and do.
 
That's really not true. There is a procedure everywhere. Some are more difficult than others, but there is a procedure to fire for justifiable reasons, including incompetence.

Just saying, I've seen plenty of incompetent teachers, none of which have ever been fired for incompetence. I have seen plenty of great teachers fired (laid off), while incompetent teachers keep their job simply because they have more seniority. Teachers unions (or ANY labor unions) do not make any sense at all in that regard. When it comes to lay offs, the best employees should keep their jobs. Seniority should not be a factor.
 
Last edited:
Just saying, I've seen plenty of incompetent teachers, none of which have ever been fired for incompetence. I have seen plenty of great teachers fired (laid off), while incompetent teachers keep their job simply because they have more seniority. Teachers unions (or ANY labor unions) do not make any sense at all in that regard. When it comes to lay offs, the best employees should keep their jobs. Seniority should not be a factor.

I think that senority should be a factor. BUT a very small factor. If someone with 20 years of experiance in that company is a good worker and you have someone thats only worked for 2 years in that company but is just as good a worker as the person with 20 years then the person with 20 years experiance should be kept over that of the one with only 2 years. This should even apply if both people have a total of 20 years experiance but one has been with the company longer than the other.
 
I think that senority should be a factor. BUT a very small factor. If someone with 20 years of experiance in that company is a good worker and you have someone thats only worked for 2 years in that company but is just as good a worker as the person with 20 years then the person with 20 years experiance should be kept over that of the one with only 2 years. This should even apply if both people have a total of 20 years experiance but one has been with the company longer than the other.

I agree with that. I'm talking about when an employee who, for instance, has 20 years experience and is a not as good of a worker as an employee with 2 years experience, but in the case of a lay off keeps their job over the better employee simply because of seniority. That should not be how it works, but that's unions. Makes zero sense.
 
Last edited:
Just saying, I've seen plenty of incompetent teachers, none of which have ever been fired for incompetence. I have seen plenty of great teachers fired (laid off), while incompetent teachers keep their job simply because they have more seniority. Teachers unions (or ANY labor unions) do not make any sense at all in that regard. When it comes to lay offs, the best employees should keep their jobs. Seniority should not be a factor.

There is really only a small number of incompetent teachers. And much of business, even without a union, do things based on seniority. Both however can make exceptions for what they consider exceptional. Such is rare for both however. YOu should also know most are average. It's the nature of nearly everything.
 
As far as working conditions, there are already laws that dictate satisfactory working conditions and worker safety. There's no negotiations needed for that.

And as far as raises only within the rate of inflation, what's wrong with that? I say to them: Welcome to reality. And overtime should never be guaranteed to begin with.

Please reread my post. It was directed at Adam's false assertion that Walker ELIMINATED collective bargaining (agreeing with you). The working conditions, safety points you make are valid. Raises should be assessed based on merit…period! Overtime for hourly work should certainly be guaranteed else managers potentially will work fewer more rather than more enough. In the short term overtime is effective but studies have shown that persistent overtime causes ‘burnout’ and safety concerns.
 
Please reread my post. It was directed at Adam's false assertion that Walker ELIMINATED collective bargaining (agreeing with you). The working conditions, safety points you make are valid. Raises should be assessed based on merit…period! Overtime for hourly work should certainly be guaranteed else managers potentially will work fewer more rather than more enough. In the short term overtime is effective but studies have shown that persistent overtime causes ‘burnout’ and safety concerns.

Overtime pay for overtime worked should be guaranteed, yes. I meant that availability of overtime hours should not be guaranteed. (I know people who depend on getting OT hours to make ends meet, and they're crazy for doing that). Sorry if I was unclear.
 
From your link “Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has officially taken away nearly all collective bargaining rights from the vast majority of the state's public employees.”

Does ‘nearly all’ equate to ‘eliminate’?

Further reading:

As for the other public employees -- a much larger group that includes schoolteachers, local government workers and about half of 76,000 state employees -- the bill would allow collective bargaining only on a base pay rate (not overtime or special pay issues), and on raises only within the rate of inflation. That means no bargaining on fringe benefits, working conditions, outsourcing, safety and other issues.
PolitiFact Wisconsin | Wisconsin AFL-CIO says Gov. Scott Walker

It would appear that Walker DID NOT ELIMINATE collective bargaining rights for ALL public workers but HE DID SOME OF THEM…can we stipulate to that?

Go yammer semantics with someone else. He effectively eliminated collective bargaining. :roll:
 
Go yammer semantics with someone else. He effectively eliminated collective bargaining. :roll:

You modify your position from 'eliminated' to 'effectively eliminated' and want ME to 'yammer semantics with someone else', thank you for that...Ok, moving on...:lamo
 
Go yammer semantics with someone else. He effectively eliminated collective bargaining. :roll:

The only bargaining rights that were eliminated was the ability to negotiate how much they get paid and how much benefits they get. All other forms of collective bargaining is still freely available.
 
You wanna talk about "Wise Ass Things"... dude when you make outrageous claims about how liberals are destroying the country you've earned all the wise assness you're gonna get :lol:

Well, just as liberals made such sweeping generalizations, and still do of conservatives, I do indeed think that liberal/progressives are out to literally destroy America as it exists today. They don't like it, they are ashamed of it, ie Bill Press. They think America is an ignoble, stolen, unfair, imperialistic, enclave of bitter failure. And they think that if they could just do away with freedom, and capitalism then everything can be equal and fair, like some Star Trek episode from the 70s.

These are the hippies that didn't get their way then, teaching a new generation of selfish, belligerent, arrogant, misguided youth into a pipe dream that never has, and never will exist. It always ends in dictatorship and ruin.

You don't feel perhaps it's a little arrogant to "MY COUNTRY" like you own it or like your sides opinion is the only one that's valid?

No. I think it's arrogant to say that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

I think it's arrogant to demonize success, and praise dependence.

I think it's arrogant to tell me that I am in debt to someone else simply because I work, and they don't.

I think it's arrogant to enter a discussion for the sole purpose of setting a premise of agree with me or you're stupid (not you specific mind you)...

I think it's arrogant to think that Americans are too stupid to understand, and recognize when an ideology is bent on tearing down what we were founded on for a promise of 'fundamental transformation' without ever being clear what that transformation is transforming to.

I think a lot is arrogant.


j-mac
 
The only bargaining rights that were eliminated was the ability to negotiate how much they get paid and how much benefits they get. All other forms of collective bargaining is still freely available.

And what's wrong with each individual employee negotiating their own pay and benefits? I've done just fine negotiating on my own. Who needs a union?
 
Last edited:
And what's wrong with each individual employee negotiating their own pay and benefits? I've done just fine negotiating on my own. Who needs a union?

Never said that it is wrong for individuals to negotiate their own pay. Where did you get that?
 
Never said that it is wrong for individuals to negotiate their own pay. Where did you get that?

Ahh, well then I misunderstood you, sorry! I thought that you were hinting that taking away collective bargaining rights for pay and benefits is a bad thing.
 
Again, Walker did not bust any union. Being fiscally responsible and balancing the state budget is NOT union busting. Are public labor unions no longer allowed to exist in Wisconsin? I'm pretty sure that even if the whole point of the labor union is only to get together to go bowling every Friday, or have a barbecue twice a week, labor unions are allowed to exist.

But, even if candidates can't receive out of state money in the future, does it really matter? If no candidate can receive out of state funding, then it's still an even playing field, no?


206116_370824492971867_1976215665_n.jpg
 
The only bargaining rights that were eliminated was the ability to negotiate how much they get paid and how much benefits they get. All other forms of collective bargaining is still freely available.

Is that all?! :lamo
 
Is that all?! :lamo

Yep. They can still bargain for extra hours, less hours, safety, and anything else you can imagine. Just not for pay raises and better benefits.

One more thing that I did forget to mention is that it does not apply to the police unions or the firefighter unions. They still have their FULL collective bargaining capabilities.
 
Yep. They can still bargain for extra hours, less hours, safety, and anything else you can imagine. Just not for pay raises and better benefits.

One more thing that I did forget to mention is that it does not apply to the police unions or the firefighter unions. They still have their FULL collective bargaining capabilities.

IOW, the ban ONLY applies to what is, by a mile, the number one reason employees engage in collective bargaining. That's kind of like saying, "we're not making pot illegal -- we're just making it illegal to SMOKE or otherwise ingest pot!"
 
Don't forget the fake D's , creating the false need for a primary. :peace

So what, just put a dollar figure on all protests? I wonder how much in todays dollars MLK's "I have a dream" speech was worth to the pro-civil rights side? How much in publicity was the TPers disrupting Town Hall meetings across the country worth?

It's ridiculous to go down this road.
 
They created the Wisconsin Filibuster. How can the R's not love it? :peace
I disagree. They need to represent constituents, but they shouldn't try to put a roadblock on legislation by leaving the state and thus legally closing down the state legislature. It prevents the state from getting work done. Fleeing the state to block a vote was very cowardly in my opinion and juvenile. All representation being equal, they are blocking the representatives of others from representing their constituents instead of representing theirs with a no vote. They didn't get what they wanted, so they tried to halt the democratic process in an attempt to overrule the majority and prevent representation of the majority from being legally passed/voted on.
 
I'm not sure whether to call that Soviet inspired propaganda, or Cuban inspired propaganda... Either way, it has communist/socialist stench all over it... Someone open a window.

You can call it whatever you choose...fact remains it is what it is as I described it...you can put whatever label makes you happy grim.
But I take note that you dont dispute anything ive said in that post except to try to demean it...like every other single one of the teaparty lets screw everyone else cheerleaders on here....NONE OF YOU EVER DISPUTE what ive said in this post...because you cant its all fact...SO im good with you calling me a communist or anything else :)
 
So, how many times was Walker on Fox (small n) news.:peace
Regardless. Money buys publicity. The anti-Walker publicity, rendered for free by the main-stream media for 18 months, dwarfs anything pro-Walker that was paid for. Just as it was Obama-McCain. Same media bias dynamic.
 
Back
Top Bottom