Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 92 of 92

Thread: Union membership down again in 2010

  1. #91
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,162

    Re: Union membership down again in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    It problably won't be vey easy to get competent politicans. I don't think your solution will work.
    the politician probably is not the person best placed to conduct the negotiations for management. but that politician should identify who in the ranks would best negotiate on management's behalf
    in many instances, some incompetent is given that assignment. sometimes due to a relationship with the politician and other times because the politician does not appreciate the need for competency in that negotiator position
    but notice, in neither instance is the union at fault because management selected an inferior negotiator to represent the employer's interests

    To reduce the power of public union is a good solution if you are not a hard-core liberal, because liberals benefit from having strong unions (at least in the short term).
    we all benefit from sound unions. if you enjoy compensation at the minimum wage or higher, vacation and sick leave, a 40-hour work week, overtime compensation, family friendly employer practices, and safe work environments, then thank the union
    or be a hypocrite and enjoy those benefits brought by the unions while simultaneously bashing unionization

    However, it is good for America.
    you think it is good for America that workers are stripped of their ability to bargain collectively, where they have leverage they could not exhibit individually?
    you would then likely falsely believe that whatever the employer does is going to be for the employees' benefit
    notice that no wal mart stores are unionized
    yet wal mart devastates the small businesses - mom and pop shops - in the communities in which it locates (university of iowa has done considerable research in this matter)
    those low paid employees are often receiving welfare benefits from the communities in which they live and work. wal mart then extracts wealth and exports it out of those communities
    that is the paradigm you advocate

    Do you think that bad teachers shouldn't be fired?
    please point out any post by any forum member in any thread within this forum where a forumite has ever advocated for a bad teacher to be allowed to continue to teach
    again, this is the fault of weak management. no union contract can prevent the termination of an incompetent teacher. they only define the process to be followed to fire such teachers. but that requires work and competence. things we do not often see exhibited by weak management

    Do you think all teachers should earn the same, irrespective of their school and their work performance?
    news flash. they don't. our community offers an annual $10,000 bonus to good teachers who agree to teach in the underperforming schools. very few teachers have taken that bonus. sometimes, working conditions are more important to teachers than money. especially if the school they are in has students who arrive ready, willing and able to learn. students who do not occupy their time with disciplinary issues
    let's review work performance: read this Tying Teacher Salaries to Test Scores Doesn’t Work « Parents Across America
    you will see studies at vanderbuilt, the NYC and chicago school systems indicate performance pay:
    will not improve teaching or learning
    will not attract strong teachers
    will lead to more standardized testing and test prep
    there are better ways to improve teacher effectivenes

    ... When Finland’s leaders sought to improve their students’ academic performance, they instituted measures that included reducing class size, boosting teachers’ salaries, and eliminating standardized testing. Teaching is now a highly sought after profession in Finland, and Finnish students top the world in academic performance.

    If we want to make teaching a profession worth pursuing, we must pay all teachers a respectable professional wage—on par with professions that require comparable education and expertise – and provide them the tools they need to do their job – small classes, strong mentors, time for planning and collaboration, scope for their own creativity and help with addressing challenges such as poverty and homelessness.

    Teachers should be evaluated by robust systems that use multiple measures, as well as parent and peer input, to identify their weaknesses, help them improve, and weed those unsuited to the job out of the profession. Concerned parents and community members should insist on fair, broad-based systems of evaluation, as well as on the other kinds of support that teachers need to succeed.
    We should give them the market price,
    on this we agree
    ... you might get a higher wage in another state, but it is really hard to become a teacher there.
    don't think so. many states offer comity. and if one is certified in one state why does that certification not indicate the teacher is competent to teach in another
    Texas has much lower wages (but better performance than Wisconsin when you compare racial groups) and teachers are not running for the hills.
    the outcomes of texas schools suck. maybe not as bad as mississippi, but they totally suck. look at comparative performance stats for both tejas and wisconsin

    Teachers at bad schools should get a higher wage than teachers at good schools to attract the better teachers to bad schools.
    as i noted above, that is insufficient attraction - at least at $10,000 annually the monetary incentive is found insufficient. besides, it is found that the good teachers, once at the weak schools, with the weak students, soon realize student test scores like their counterpart instructors at the weak schools. no positive change results. the students' (lack of) desire for an education has a huge influence on those outcomes

    If the wage is based on the market, then it is in everyone's interest to make sure teachers have good teaching conditions. If you have better conditions, then you will attract more teachers.
    look at the top nations according to student test scores. in each of them the teacher is very respected and is well compensated compared to others with their credentials
    in short, i agree. now i have to wonder if you would agree to do what is necessary to achieve parity with those other high performing nations

    Problem is, unions are against everything I mentioned.
    not at all. teacher unions are for what will be best for the teachers. you don't even believe unions are opposed to "good teaching conditions" that you advocate do you? of course you don't. so then you are wrong in saying that the teacher unions are opposed to all of your recommendations. you should expect union opposition only toward the ones which would be found ineffective

    America has a poverty rate of 14%, why should we spend more money on rich teachers when we could spend the money on reducing poverty? Or reducing the deficit?
    there is no such thing as a rich teacher. unless the teacher got their money outside the school system
    if you want quality you must pay for it
    that should be a lesson learned by adulthood. taking money away from the education system to cover other government expenses is beyond stupid
    notice that the best student test scores are usually found in those states that have teacher unions. in those states which outlaw teacher unions, those test scores suck. kind of like those in texas
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Union membership down again in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    the politician probably is not the person best placed to conduct the negotiations for management. but that politician should identify who in the ranks would best negotiate on management's behalf
    in many instances, some incompetent is given that assignment. sometimes due to a relationship with the politician and other times because the politician does not appreciate the need for competency in that negotiator position
    but notice, in neither instance is the union at fault because management selected an inferior negotiator to represent the employer's interests
    The one who decide teachers wages and act on the employers (people) behalf is politicans. You can't just make politicans more competent. Doesn't work.

    we all benefit from sound unions. if you enjoy compensation at the minimum wage or higher, vacation and sick leave, a 40-hour work week, overtime compensation, family friendly employer practices, and safe work environments, then thank the union
    or be a hypocrite and enjoy those benefits brought by the unions while simultaneously bashing unionization
    No, unions have nothing to do with these benefits. Unions aren't very stong in New Zealand either, but we got a 4 week vacation for all employees, a minimum wage which would correspond to about 15 USD, sick leave, 40 hour work, overtime compensation. Why? Because the government mandates it. National law state that all employees have a right of 4 weeks of vacation. Unions are not the cause.


    you think it is good for America that workers are stripped of their ability to bargain collectively, where they have leverage they could not exhibit individually?
    you would then likely falsely believe that whatever the employer does is going to be for the employees' benefit
    notice that no wal mart stores are unionized
    yet wal mart devastates the small businesses - mom and pop shops - in the communities in which it locates (university of iowa has done considerable research in this matter)
    those low paid employees are often receiving welfare benefits from the communities in which they live and work. wal mart then extracts wealth and exports it out of those communities
    that is the paradigm you advocate
    I don't think everything employers do is in the interest of employees. However, I know that employees can leave their job if unsatisfied and that governments can provide additional welfare or mandate vacation.

    Also, I don't like buying at small shops because they are expensive, and people seem to agree with me. Wal Mart wages isn't too bad compared to what you would earn as a small businessowner. And the hours are better as well. Here there is a lot of high end shops in the city centre. Why would I buy there when I can find the same for 1/3 of the price at the big warehouses? Warehouses is a good thing for America. Sure some small shops die out, but that is fine.


    please point out any post by any forum member in any thread within this forum where a forumite has ever advocated for a bad teacher to be allowed to continue to teach
    again, this is the fault of weak management. no union contract can prevent the termination of an incompetent teacher. they only define the process to be followed to fire such teachers. but that requires work and competence. things we do not often see exhibited by weak management
    Union managers are close to marxsts. It is made hard for a reason, and that is to prevent employers from firing any teacher at all. It doesn't really matter why they did it. But unions are making it impossible to fire bad teachers, and they are taking too much in benefits. Unions are standing in the way of educational reform.

    on this we agree
    But you still want unions to push the price way above market level. I hardly think you agree about having market prices.

    don't think so. many states offer comity. and if one is certified in one state why does that certification not indicate the teacher is competent to teach in another
    Because there is no positions availabe at any decent school?

    the outcomes of texas schools suck. maybe not as bad as mississippi, but they totally suck. look at comparative performance stats for both tejas and wisconsin
    I did, and Texas beat Wisconsin for every single race. So if Texas schools suck, then Wisconsin schools must completly suck ass.


    as i noted above, that is insufficient attraction - at least at $10,000 annually the monetary incentive is found insufficient. besides, it is found that the good teachers, once at the weak schools, with the weak students, soon realize student test scores like their counterpart instructors at the weak schools. no positive change results. the students' (lack of) desire for an education has a huge influence on those outcomes
    What is the point of getting a 10K bonus when you are already earning 80-90K after benefits?

    look at the top nations according to student test scores. in each of them the teacher is very respected and is well compensated compared to others with their credentials
    in short, i agree. now i have to wonder if you would agree to do what is necessary to achieve parity with those other high performing nations
    Really? US teachers are paid very well comparedto other countries and US students are doing terrible. Just compare US wages with Swedish school wages. In "socialist" Sweden the average teacher earns 45K after benefits, and Sweden benefits are way worse than American benefits. I think they are paying their teachers too little, but they are performing better than the US. Finish teachers aren't paid very much better but cost of living is somewhat lower. Teachers in Singapore earn about 25000 USD. And Finland and Singapore is in the top of the world. It's about quality of teachers, but you don't get quality teachers by raising their wages but demanding nothing.

    not at all. teacher unions are for what will be best for the teachers. you don't even believe unions are opposed to "good teaching conditions" that you advocate do you? of course you don't. so then you are wrong in saying that the teacher unions are opposed to all of your recommendations. you should expect union opposition only toward the ones which would be found ineffective
    Under unions there is no incentive for the employer to provide good teaching conditions. When the wages are so high, then there is never a shortage of teachers. Secondly they will hardly switch jobs. You will often find that the working conditions to be worse in the public sector, because the employer is only willing to do what is demanded of him.


    there is no such thing as a rich teacher. unless the teacher got their money outside the school system
    if you want quality you must pay for it
    that should be a lesson learned by adulthood. taking money away from the education system to cover other government expenses is beyond stupid
    notice that the best student test scores are usually found in those states that have teacher unions. in those states which outlaw teacher unions, those test scores suck. kind of like those in texas
    But they don't suck in Texas. All ethnicities in Wisconsin are doing worse than Texas.

    Which state do you think are the worst performers. That is DC (and Mississippi). But they are one of the biggest spenders in the US. More spending do not mean better results. Increasing teachers wages won't increase their performance when they can't get fired and there is very little performance pay. Good teachers can't get into the profession, because bad teachers can't be fired. Teachers in the US are paid too much or at least is paid too well compared to what is demanded from them. Many of them are rich. They are earning as much as engineers.
    Last edited by Camlon; 04-09-11 at 04:05 PM.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •