Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 92

Thread: Union membership down again in 2010

  1. #61
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Union membership down again in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    thank you for your reply to my question directed at another poster ... who posited that public unions are problematic
    you are welcome. it seemed at the time that you had asked a fully relevent question that nobody was really addressing.

    unions, by federal law must be democratic organizations
    which is fine. so, technically, was the communist party. having an organization be democratic does not mean that it's rule will be democratic.

    public sector unions do NOT have veto power. they can only negotiate
    really. It's the public's will, as expressed by their representatives, to have a public education system. so you tell me, when the public employee unions were protesting, were the schools in Wisconsin all open? the classrooms all full of students being taught?

    Public sector unions contain the ability to veto representative government because they serve as vehicles to refuse to carry out the tasks for which they are hired. when the public unions went on strike against austerity in Europe they were able to shut entire nations' transportation systems down.

    yes, collective bargaining does give the employee more negotiation leverage than if each employee negotiated with the employer separately
    yes. that's part of the problem here. not only have we reached a situation where public employee unions' grip on government has created fiscal nightmares, but they have managed to successfully fight virtually every major reform effort of our schools, causing our educational establishment to slip, hurting our kids.

    the union can ask for anything it wants ... and stupid union representatives can ask for that which is unsustainable
    so given that many states, municipalities, and counties are facing unsustainable spending on public employee benefits, would you agree that a hefty percentage of union representatives are stupid? I wouldn't; they got exactly what they wanted and they don't care what the cost to everyone else is.

    but the employer has no obligation to do anything more than engage in 'good faith' bargaining
    and when 'employers' in the form of politicians promise the public employee unions that they will "fight" (presumably they will be fighting themselves?) for increased benefits; who is acting in good faith towards the people who pay the taxes whom they are representing?

    if the employer agrees to contract terms it cannot afford, then that indicates the employer selected the wrong person(s) to represent the employer in negotiations
    "we can elect our own boss", is i believe, how the subversion of this process was described. few really pay attention to the election of school boards, local officials, and the like. except for those whose wallets are lined in the process; they pay very close attention and are quite successful at directing elections their way. public sector unions are now THE big-dog campaign donors, and they know well how to target.

    please note. that means the unsound outcome is attributable to management's poor decision making
    no, it is the logical result of a system whose incentive structure is designed to encourage that management to make the long-term-stupid decision and punishes him if he doesn't.

    the union, collectively, has an opportunity to be a formidable political advocate or opponent. but that is no different than any other advocacy groups, including PACs, corporations and foreign entities/governments
    except of course that PAC's, corporations, etc. are all dependent upon some external source of revenue for influence. public employee unions are able to take money from the government to influence the government. which is why they now spend far more money than any of those entities when it comes to influencing politicians. it's a money-laundering scheme wherein Democrats funnel themselves public funds by way of public employee unions. the only losers are the taxpayers.

    it would appear by your post that you do not hold the UAW in any way responsible for the demise of the US auto industry.
    oh, i do. and it should have been a classic example of how a union can shoot itself int he face by driving it's employer into the ground.

    except, of course, unions and Democrats have basically ceased to be seperate entities; and so the Unions were saved by good ole Government (read: yours and mine) money.

    in the instance of wisconsin, we saw the public sector unions quickly concede to wage and benefit reductions ... once it was made apparent that the state could no longer afford to pay the amounts it had previously obligated itself to pay
    so long as they kept the ability to force up those benefits at will, certainly. I promise not to accept a single dollar bill from you, so long as you hand me a book of blank signed checks.

    what we know from what you have stated is that inept employer representatives often bind the public sector employer to contract terms which should be found inappropriate
    not inept. bribed, and owned by the people they are supposed to be negotiating with. when public sector unions sit down at the negotiating table, most times they are sitting on both sides of the table.

    the poor fiscal management on the part of politicians isnt' the result of a sudden rash of greater - than - normal stupidity on their part; its' the result of the growing power of public employee unions.
    Last edited by cpwill; 04-07-11 at 02:34 AM.

  2. #62
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,132

    Re: Union membership down again in 2010


    unions, by federal law must be democratic organizations

    which is fine. so, technically, was the communist party. having an organization be democratic does not mean that it's rule will be democratic.
    you insisted that a reason public unions should be found problematic is that they
    subverts democracy by giving a non-represenatitve, elected, or accountable entity veto power over the decisions of the representatives of the people
    as unions, by federal law must be democratically operated, they cannot then be found to be unrepresentative, unelected or unaccountable

    public sector unions do NOT have veto power. they can only negotiate
    really. It's the public's will, as expressed by their representatives, to have a public education system. so you tell me, when the public employee unions were protesting, were the schools in Wisconsin all open? the classrooms all full of students being taught?
    and pray tell us what prevented the school system from opening its doors? there was nothing which prohibited the public employer - the school system - from staffing its schools
    Public sector unions contain the ability to veto representative government because they serve as vehicles to refuse to carry out the tasks for which they are hired. when the public unions went on strike against austerity in Europe they were able to shut entire nations' transportation systems down.
    absolutely wrong. you seek a repeal of the 14th amendment:
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    those employees are not bound to perform because they are in servitude. they are free men, who exercised their own freedoms - collectively
    the state owned the facility and had every opportunity to staff it - by other than those free men who chose not to. that is hardly veto authority

    yes, collective bargaining does give the employee more negotiation leverage than if each employee negotiated with the employer separately
    yes. that's part of the problem here. not only have we reached a situation where public employee unions' grip on government has created fiscal nightmares, but they have managed to successfully fight virtually every major reform effort of our schools, causing our educational establishment to slip, hurting our kids.
    ok. we agree. your side would prefer to coerce an individual employee to do the state's will, by depriving that employee the right of assembly

    the union can ask for anything it wants ... and stupid union representatives can ask for that which is unsustainable
    so given that many states, municipalities, and counties are facing unsustainable spending on public employee benefits, would you agree that a hefty percentage of union representatives are stupid? I wouldn't; they got exactly what they wanted and they don't care what the cost to everyone else is.
    they got what they wanted via successful negotiation with the employer
    would you prefer that the employer be able to instead dictate to the employee what it would do? rhetorical question. of course you would. that is the system we had before unionization. that time when work conditions were of no concern, despite the harm those conditions inflicted on the employee. a time when children worked in factories. a time when there was no overtime. when no leave was available for vacation or illness. a time when there was no limit to the number of hours an employee would be subject to work, without prior notice
    what you want is a relinquishment of personal freedom to the desires of the employer. a current republican view

    but the employer has no obligation to do anything more than engage in 'good faith' bargaining
    and when 'employers' in the form of politicians promise the public employee unions that they will "fight" (presumably they will be fighting themselves?) for increased benefits; who is acting in good faith towards the people who pay the taxes whom they are representing?
    the 'employer' is the state when the matter involves public unions. in no way is the elected politician the employer. the politician has a fiduciary responsibility to the state
    if that politician abdicates his fiduciary responsibility it is the right - and the obligation - of the represented citizens to oust that inept politician at the ballot box

    if the employer agrees to contract terms it cannot afford, then that indicates the employer selected the wrong person(s) to represent the employer in negotiations
    "we can elect our own boss", is i believe, how the subversion of this process was described. few really pay attention to the election of school boards, local officials, and the like. except for those whose wallets are lined in the process; they pay very close attention and are quite successful at directing elections their way. public sector unions are now THE big-dog campaign donors, and they know well how to target.
    again, the employees are not working for the politician. they are working for the state. the politician was also elected to serve the state. the public employees and the elected representatives both are obligated to serve the state
    if those parties find that their obligations coincide, then negotiations should proceed smoothly. where those parties have different opinions about how the state could best be served, then negotiations will be contentious

    please note. that means the unsound outcome is attributable to management's poor decision making
    no, it is the logical result of a system whose incentive structure is designed to encourage that management to make the long-term-stupid decision and punishes him if he doesn't.
    that you may disapprove of the resulting, negotiated outcome does not cause it to be other than one negotiated by the representative of labor bargaining with the representative of the employer
    the employer - management - must stand responsible for any ineptness it displays at the bargaining table. and the public should reasonably hold the elected representatives who chose inept negotiators responsible for a poor contract result

    the union, collectively, has an opportunity to be a formidable political advocate or opponent. but that is no different than any other advocacy groups, including PACs, corporations and foreign entities/governments
    except of course that PAC's, corporations, etc. are all dependent upon some external source of revenue for influence. public employee unions are able to take money from the government to influence the government.
    this is absolutely false
    your disingenuous effort is exposed with this example. if you were a state contractor receiving contract monies for performance of the contract obligation, that truck you purchased with the proceeds of that contract was not state money. it was the contractor's. just as the money received as salary by the state employees is the employee's money - not the states. the employees have the right to fund their own advocacy group, just as the PACs, other lobby interests, corporations, and foreign states and entities
    while i am opposed to all such political funding, that would be a matter for another thread on such topic. while it is legal, it is as appropriate for state employees to lobby on their behalf as for any other
    which is why they now spend far more money than any of those entities when it comes to influencing politicians. it's a money-laundering scheme wherein Democrats funnel themselves public funds by way of public employee unions. the only losers are the taxpayers.
    i would present, that when compared with the contributions by business, lobbyists, PACs and foreign entities and states, the democrats enjoy no funding advantage

    it would appear by your post that you do not hold the UAW in any way responsible for the demise of the US auto industry.
    oh, i do. and it should have been a classic example of how a union can shoot itself int he face by driving it's employer into the ground.
    then you have chosen to argue against yourself:
    ... private sector unions are limited in their sapping of a corporation by a simple factor; they want the company to survive and the company must be profitable in order to do so. ...
    except, of course, unions and Democrats have basically ceased to be seperate entities; and so the Unions were saved by good ole Government (read: yours and mine) money.
    while i do recognize that the unions' interests do align more closely with that of the democrat party, it is also fair to say that the interests of the corporations and some foreign entities, PACs and lobbyists are usually more aligned with the positions taken by the republican party and its members

    in the instance of wisconsin, we saw the public sector unions quickly concede to wage and benefit reductions ... once it was made apparent that the state could no longer afford to pay the amounts it had previously obligated itself to pay
    so long as they kept the ability to force up those benefits at will, certainly. I promise not to accept a single dollar bill from you, so long as you hand me a book of blank signed checks.
    your position assumes the union can unilaterally give itself a raise. such is not the case. the union could continue to bargain for increases, but the state would have to agree with the union before such increases became effective

    what we know from what you have stated is that inept employer representatives often bind the public sector employer to contract terms which should be found inappropriate
    not inept. bribed, and owned by the people they are supposed to be negotiating with. when public sector unions sit down at the negotiating table, most times they are sitting on both sides of the table.
    so, your position is all elected officials are crooks and they appoint crooks - who are not inept - to agree to contract terms you don't like
    so, you approve of democracy, just not how it works
    the poor fiscal management on the part of politicians isnt' the result of a sudden rash of greater - than - normal stupidity on their part; its' the result of the growing power of public employee unions.
    i would say it is a combination of inept state representation at the negotiation table, coupled with an economy which has behaved in a way which was less than had been forecast by the contract negotiators
    and i still find no basis to conclude that the union was in any way responsible for the problem
    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

  3. #63
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Union membership down again in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    u insisted that a reason public unions should be found problematic is that they as unions, by federal law must be democratically operated, they cannot then be found to be unrepresentative, unelected or unaccountable
    to the people, justabubba.

    and pray tell us what prevented the school system from opening its doors?
    the teachers had all left; shutting down the system.

    there was nothing which prohibited the public employer - the school system - from staffing its schools
    actually there was; it is called a "union contract".

    absolutely wrong
    that is what happened. you can try to come up with reasons why it's effects would be more limited here; but you dont get to choose an alternate reality.

    you seek a repeal of the 14th amendment
    no, i seek a repeal of the 17th Amendmenet. my only problem with the 14th is that the Supreme Court has turned it into a vehicle for rewriting the Constitution at will without the consent of the governed.

    those employees are not bound to perform because they are in servitude. they are free men, who exercised their own freedoms - collectively the state owned the facility and had every opportunity to staff it - by other than those free men who chose not to.
    actually they didn't. i wish they could have; a'la Reagan firing the air traffic controllers; but they couldn't.

    ok. we agree. your side would prefer to coerce an individual employee to do the state's will, by depriving that employee the right of assembly
    given the choice between the people and a special interest i side with the people, yes. but the employee absolutely still has the right of assembly. petition, speech, all that. i - like FDR - just don't think the public employee should be collectively bargaining.

    they got what they wanted via successful negotiation with the employer
    no, they got what they wanted by bribing/supporting/coercing the negotiators (the politicians) for their employer (the people).

    would you prefer that the employer be able to instead dictate to the employee what it would do?
    yes. that's why we call him or her the boss. if the employee does not like it to the point where it no longer justifies the paycheck; he or she is free to leave. an employer that is overly abusive will quickly find himself with no one of quality working for him or her, and will then see their entity fail.

    what you want is a relinquishment of personal freedom to the desires of the employer
    not at all. the employee retains freedom. simply not the ability to overthrow representative government.

    but you seem to be confused. we are talking about public unions here, not private ones.

    the 'employer' is the state
    the employer is the people; the state is their representative.

    when the matter involves public unions. in no way is the elected politician the employer. the politician has a fiduciary responsibility to the state


    if that politician abdicates his fiduciary responsibility it is the right - and the obligation - of the represented citizens to oust that inept politician at the ballot box
    you haven't been involved in the budget debates of the past.... 20 years, have you?

    again, the employees are not working for the politician. they are working for the state. the politician was also elected to serve the state. the public employees and the elected representatives both are obligated to serve the state
    except that nothing requires them to serve the people, and both are able to make out like bandits by engaging in mutually beneficial grifting of the people.

    that you may disapprove of the resulting, negotiated outcome does not cause it to be other than one negotiated by the representative of labor bargaining with the representative of the employer
    except that the representative of the employer has been subverted by the labor organization, and is no longer serving his employer in good faith.

    the employer - management - must stand responsible for any ineptness it displays at the bargaining table.
    yes, we are starting to do that now, in New Jersey, Wisconsin, and other places.

    this is absolutely false... i would present, that when compared with the contributions by business, lobbyists, PACs and foreign entities and states, the democrats enjoy no funding advantage
    it is absolutely not. OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting peruse for a second and see who the big-ticket donors are.

    while i do recognize that the unions' interests do align more closely with that of the democrat party, it is also fair to say that the interests of the corporations and some foreign entities, PACs and lobbyists are usually more aligned with the positions taken by the republican party and its members
    businesses donate to those whom they percieve to be the winners. this trends back and forth - Obama took more money from Wall Street than McCain did. Public Unions don't align more closely with Democrats; at many points they are indistinguishable.

    your position assumes the union can unilaterally give itself a raise
    and often they can. if you own both sides of the negotiating table, then the outcome will be whatever you want it to be.

    so, your position is all elected officials are crooks and they appoint crooks - who are not inept - to agree to contract terms you don't like
    no, my position is that public sector unions are incredibly powerful, especially at the local level where these decisions are often made.

    from “Political Control and the Power of the Agent,” published by the Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization in 2005:

    In the elections Professor Moe studied, union support was as valuable as incumbency in determining winners. That fact is, in and of itself, sobering: Incumbency is generally the most powerful factor in elections — short of a major scandal or similar political catastrophe, incumbents most often are relatively secure in their reelections. The fact that union support turns out to be not only as powerful a factor but, in fact, a slightly more powerful factor in the most significant contests demands a reevaluation of our fundamental thinking about who is really in charge of our state and local governments. Professor Moe found that in the school-board races he researched, incumbency boosted a candidate’s reelection chances by 47 percent. Union support boosted the odds by 56 percent. The combination of union support and incumbency boosted the odds by 76 percent — an important factor, since many of those incumbents became incumbents on the strength of earlier union support, meaning that the unions are compounding the effectiveness of their electoral efforts over time, stocking the incumbent pipeline with their favored candidates.

    Money is certainly a factor in public-sector unions’ electoral influence. Despite the Left’s panicky talk about “corporate money” shaping our elections, unions are almost always either the top spenders or in the top few at the federal and state levels. The biggest-spending unions, and those who provide the most critical operational support to Democratic campaigns (staffing phone banks, doing door-to-door retail politics, volunteering for get-out-the-vote efforts, channeling the “walking around money” that delivers vote blocs in big-city elections, filing lawsuits to stop reform proposals), are public-sector unions. As Professor Moe reports, “Studies of the U.S. states have asked experts to rank interest groups according to their influence on public policy. Throughout the 1990s, the teachers unions came out number one on the list, outdistancing general business organizations, trial lawyers, doctors, utilities, bankers, environmentalists, and even state AFL-CIO affiliates...

    In many school-board races, the raw number of union members’ votes was significantly greater than the margin of electoral victory, meaning that a union-disciplined bureaucrats’ bloc could have, by itself, determined the outcome (and in many elections probably did). These facts suggest that in a great many cases — a great many of the most significant political cases — elected officials answer to public-sector unions more than public-sector unions answer to elected officials. That is not democracy; it is a caste system given democratic form...
    so, you approve of democracy, just not how it works
    i approve of our representative government and want to fix its' flaws. like our unionized public workforce.

    i would say it is a combination of inept state representation at the negotiation table
    nothing inept about it. they are doing precisely what they intend to do.

  4. #64
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,888

    Re: Union membership down again in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    one of the things I've learned on this board is that when someone wants you explain with an air of condescension, they're not really interested in understanding - so i'm not really interested in wasting my time.

    like i said, in many schools and districts, the problems i highlighted are not as easily dealt with as cpwill perceives it to be from my knowledge and experience of the system. if you haven't had those experiences, then we're going to disagree. fortunately, for people who've seen what i've, unions still have their power.
    Your inability to explain your poor case is noted. The air of condescension comes from the fact that nothing in your list constitutes "taking advantage."
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  5. #65
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,888

    Re: Union membership down again in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    the employer has an insufficient budget to perform the tasks management wants to achieve[
    the employee is then forced to work additional hours - without compensation - to make those objectives result
    it can also cause the employer to direct the employees to perform tasks at grade levels above that for which they are hired/employed
    without union involvement: the employees work uncompensated hours and/or work at higher levels than the salary they receive[/quote]

    Story of any company ever. If you wanted an hourly wage you shouldn't have accepted a salary.


    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    the employer may want field visits performed but is without adequate travel dollars necessary to achieve those field visits. if the employee fails to perform them - despite there being no travel money available - then the employee receives a poor performance review. result: employee pays for travel out of pocket
    without union involvement: the employees continue to subsidize the government by paying for official business travel out of their own pockets
    When has this ever happened?
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Union membership down again in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    Your inability to explain your poor case is noted. The air of condescension comes from the fact that nothing in your list constitutes "taking advantage."
    You're just proving my point...Your condescension does nothing to help your ignorance.

  7. #67
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,888

    Re: Union membership down again in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    You're just proving my point...Your condescension does nothing to help your ignorance.
    What point am I proving? I am ignorant of nothing, you however turned tail rather than defending your specious argument. Calling me ignorant proves nothing, explain how I am ignorant. Just what am I ignorant of?

    Also, condescension is warranted when one claims that crowded classrooms constitutes teachers being "taken advantage of." Your refusal or inability to support such a terrible argument merits further contempt. It doesn't matter what reason you have for running away.

    Stating something as truth and turning tail does is NOT debating. On this board, a skilled debater explains why his adversary is wrong, he doesn't just claim it and log off. Thats what noobs who realize the weakness of their arguments do. "You're wrong and I don't have to explain why."

    Your repeated refusal/inability to make your case only proves my point, that you have no case. But wait, my boss just asked me to do something outside my job description, I had better notify the state department right? No? Unionize then? OR I could continue to STEP UP, be the 1st one in, last one out, and do whatever it takes. Thats why I was promoted...
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 04-07-11 at 11:42 AM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  8. #68
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Union membership down again in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    I am ignorant of nothing, you however turned tail rather than defending your specious argument.

    Also, condescension is warranted when one claims that crowded classrooms constitutes teachers being "taken advantage of." Your refusal or inability to support such a terrible argument merits further contempt.
    Not only does it take advantage of teachers by requiring them to manage an excessive amount of children or teenagers on their own (not adults as it is college) - not to mention that behavior problems tend to increase as class size increases.

    it also prevents them from giving necessary attention to students and because students have been proven to learn much better in smaller class sizes - teacher's evaluations necessarily become worse because of the unavoidable fact that students will do worse in classes with 40 students than they will with 20 (particularly in poor, overcrowded schools). How nice is it to tie teacher evaluation to a circumstance of proven failure - it's even better for the students.

    So your asking teachers to manage more students, manage more behavior problems, give the required attention to each student, make up for the time lost with classroom management/discipline in the same amount of total time and all the while have their evaluation tied to a circumstance that has already been proved to turn out worse results and still pay them the same amount. No, it's not taking advantage at all.

    If you cannot understand how the things I listed constitute taking advantage, then you are, in fact, ignorant and your condescension does nothing more than exaggerate it.

  9. #69
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Union membership down again in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    What point am I proving? I am ignorant of nothing, you however turned tail rather than defending your specious argument. Calling me ignorant proves nothing, explain how I am ignorant. Just what am I ignorant of?

    Also, condescension is warranted when one claims that crowded classrooms constitutes teachers being "taken advantage of." Your refusal or inability to support such a terrible argument merits further contempt. It doesn't matter what reason you have for running away.

    Stating something as truth and turning tail does is NOT debating. On this board, a skilled debater explains why his adversary is wrong, he doesn't just claim it and log off. Thats what noobs who realize the weakness of their arguments do. "You're wrong and I don't have to explain why."

    Your repeated refusal/inability to make your case only proves my point, that you have no case. But wait, my boss just asked me to do something outside my job description, I had better notify the state department right? No? Unionize then? OR I could continue to STEP UP, be the 1st one in, last one out, and do whatever it takes. Thats why I was promoted...
    Wow, you added a lot while I was typing - I can see you're distressed. I'm not talking about "doing things outside of your job description" - most teachers do that anyway. The ones of known regularly spend their money on supplies and books for their students, organize trips outside of schools, volunteer for monitoring detention, go to their students sports games, etc. I'm talking about making excessive demands that decrease their ability to teach their students and tying their evaluation to such demands. I'm talking about requiring them to go to work in unsafe environments and intimidating teachers who would rather not cheat on standardized tests or who speak out against ineffective education policies.

    I have debated several posters on here and in the beginning I assumed that everyone should be debated, but after a time you realize that those who ask you for clarification with an air of condescension that proves they are not interested in hearing the clarification are best left to soak in their own unearned arrogance.
    Last edited by ThePlayDrive; 04-07-11 at 12:03 PM.

  10. #70
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,888

    Re: Union membership down again in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Not only does it take advantage of teachers by requiring them to manage an excessive amount of children or teenagers on their own (not adults as it is college) - not to mention that behavior problems tend to increase as class size increases.

    it also prevents them from giving necessary attention to students and because students have been proven to learn much better in smaller class sizes - teacher's evaluations necessarily become worse because of the unavoidable fact that students will do worse in classes with 40 students than they will with 20 (particularly in poor, overcrowded schools). How nice is it to tie teacher evaluation to a circumstance of proven failure - it's even better for the students.

    So your asking teachers to manage more students, manage more behavior problems, give the required attention to each student, make up for the time lost with classroom management/discipline in the same amount of total time and all the while have their evaluation tied to a circumstance that has already been proved to turn out worse results and still pay them the same amount. No, it's not taking advantage at all.
    Now was that so hard? K, I've taken you off my list of potential trolls.

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    If you cannot understand how the things I listed constitute taking advantage, then you are, in fact, ignorant and your condescension does nothing more than exaggerate it.
    Its certainly tough, but that still doesn't constitute being taken advantage of. In order to "take advantage" of someone, you either exploit a mistake they made (like taking an underpaid overworked job) or to make excessive use of.

    5 -10 Additional students is a headache. I know many teachers, and I understand such a dilemma, especially when teacher merit is a consideration. But its not being "taken advantage of."

    Edit: I do also recognize that small classrooms are more effective, but I consider the problem symptomatic of public education and is one of the reasons I oppose the existence of the Dept of Ed.
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 04-07-11 at 12:12 PM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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