• 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!

Union membership down again in 2010

then you cannot imagine that one or more of those government employees would ever be susceptible to engage in wrong doing

if this were simply a question of someone being sexually harrassed, verbally abused, etc; then no, obviously not. but it's not. this is about pay, benefits, who get's to control the education process. politicians are only representing the people, who are in charge of the government. they do not hold sovereignty themselves.
 
if this were simply a question of someone being sexually harrassed, verbally abused, etc; then no, obviously not. but it's not. this is about pay, benefits, who get's to control the education process. politicians are only representing the people, who are in charge of the government. they do not hold sovereignty themselves.

i strongly disagree
the union moved in the direction needed to address fiscal shortfalls
despite that, the republicans insisted on depriving the state employees of union representation, which then also deprives them of the opportunity to address conditions of employment concerns including those your cited, sexual harassment and verbal abuse (hostile workplace)
if this were truly an issue about reigning in spending, it could have been accomplished without eliminating union representation
this is another republican strategy, like starve the beast, which constitutes payback to corporate America
 
i strongly disagree
the union moved in the direction needed to address fiscal shortfalls
despite that, the republicans insisted on depriving the state employees of union representation, which then also deprives them of the opportunity to address conditions of employment concerns including those your cited, sexual harassment and verbal abuse (hostile workplace)
if this were truly an issue about reigning in spending, it could have been accomplished without eliminating union representation
this is another republican strategy, like starve the beast, which constitutes payback to corporate America

i'm sorry, are we talking about public unions in general, or the wisconsin case in particular; it seems you are switching back and forth.
 
Discussion like this strike me as being very akin to a discussion with veteran ball players joined in by fans who never played pro ball. The professionals who actually did the job have a level of both knowledge and experience far beyond the fans but do you think that stops Joe Blow from telling Albert All Star how to play the game? No way.

Here we have people who have never been in a union pontificating about things they have never experienced.
Here we have people who have never taught in a public school or worked in a public sector union job pontificating about things they never experienced.
Now combine those two together and you have much of the posts in this thread.

Its like listening to Stevie Wonder talks about the wonders of the colors of the spectrum. At some point, credibility becomes a factor in these discussions and there are too many people who have garnered their opinions from fiction, hearsay and just plain false information to be credible on the issue.

We live in the age of political extremist ideology as opposed to pragmatics and practical experience. And much of this 'debate' illustrates that sad reality.
 
i strongly disagree
the union moved in the direction needed to address fiscal shortfalls
despite that, the republicans insisted on depriving the state employees of union representation, which then also deprives them of the opportunity to address conditions of employment concerns including those your cited, sexual harassment and verbal abuse (hostile workplace)
if this were truly an issue about reigning in spending, it could have been accomplished without eliminating union representation
this is another republican strategy, like starve the beast, which constitutes payback to corporate America

No, the unions were making lip service to prevent Americans from disliking them too much. If we don't reduce their power, then they will keep overdemanding after the economy recovers. I'm not against letting public unions negotiate for concern such as sexual harrassment, but then I'm talking about sexual harrassment. Not having to watch students eat lunch. I'm against letting public unions negotiate for wages and benefits. That was what the Wisconsin bill was about, but they can still ask for higher wages, but then they have to consult the people. They can't bribe politicans and therefore the Wisconsin bill is so unpopular.
 
No, the unions were making lip service to prevent Americans from disliking them too much. If we don't reduce their power, then they will keep overdemanding after the economy recovers. I'm not against letting public unions negotiate for concern such as sexual harrassment, but then I'm talking about sexual harrassment. Not having to watch students eat lunch. I'm against letting public unions negotiate for wages and benefits. That was what the Wisconsin bill was about, but they can still ask for higher wages, but then they have to consult the people. They can't bribe politicans and therefore the Wisconsin bill is so unpopular.
again, the public union in wisconsin agreed to wage and benefit modifications, eliminating the need to eliminate the union. that the republicans instead went forward to abolish union representation rights in that state speaks directly to the real republican intent
it was more payoff to a corporate America
no other way around it
that we see it happening in other republican controlled states is only more evidence ... at least for those willing to see it
 
Discussion like this strike me as being very akin to a discussion with veteran ball players joined in by fans who never played pro ball. The professionals who actually did the job have a level of both knowledge and experience far beyond the fans but do you think that stops Joe Blow from telling Albert All Star how to play the game? No way.

Here we have people who have never been in a union pontificating about things they have never experienced.
Here we have people who have never taught in a public school or worked in a public sector union job pontificating about things they never experienced.
Now combine those two together and you have much of the posts in this thread.

Its like listening to Stevie Wonder talks about the wonders of the colors of the spectrum. At some point, credibility becomes a factor in these discussions and there are too many people who have garnered their opinions from fiction, hearsay and just plain false information to be credible on the issue.

We live in the age of political extremist ideology as opposed to pragmatics and practical experience. And much of this 'debate' illustrates that sad reality.
nominated as post-of-the month
 
again, the public union in wisconsin agreed to wage and benefit modifications, eliminating the need to eliminate the union. that the republicans instead went forward to abolish union representation rights in that state speaks directly to the real republican intent
it was more payoff to a corporate America
no other way around it
that we see it happening in other republican controlled states is only more evidence ... at least for those willing to see it

Not sure if you know this is untrue or you really believe the junk you post.

Local unions had to agree to any changes and most if not all DID NOT.

This site is getting boring reading posts with such flawed logic.

I am not good on the computer and fell upon this site.

Can anyone here suggest alternative sites where one can find good honest debate from thoughtful people. If so it would be appreciated.
 
Not sure if you know this is untrue or you really believe the junk you post.
and yet you are without the ability to render my arguments as anything other than valid. my sense is that you are experiencing extreme frustration and/or may need to lay off the kool aid

Local unions had to agree to any changes and most if not all DID NOT.
not certain how you are able to make this conclusion, since the locals never got an opportunity to make a decision about the matter. i am guessing you are engaging in more specious speculation or have adopted the talking points of some ignorant reich wing propaganda site

This site is getting boring reading posts with such flawed logic.
we disagree again. i find it vastly entertaining, despite (or possibly because of) the array of those on the right who are without the ability to defend their often stupid positions

I am not good on the computer and fell upon this site.
you have fallen and can't get up. too late. that expression has already been used

Can anyone here suggest alternative sites where one can find good honest debate from thoughtful people. If so it would be appreciated.
while it possesses none of the characteristics you insist you are seeking, from reading your posts, i would recommend you to the political forum. you should fit in well over there
 
and yet you are without the ability to render my arguments as anything other than valid. my sense is that you are experiencing extreme frustration and/or may need to lay off the kool aid


not certain how you are able to make this conclusion, since the locals never got an opportunity to make a decision about the matter. i am guessing you are engaging in more specious speculation or have adopted the talking points of some ignorant reich wing propaganda site


we disagree again. i find it vastly entertaining, despite (or possibly because of) the array of those on the right who are without the ability to defend their often stupid positions


you have fallen and can't get up. too late. that expression has already been used


while it possesses none of the characteristics you insist you are seeking, from reading your posts, i would recommend you to the political forum. you should fit in well over there

You are good at trying to flame and bait. Sometimes I even fall for it. Not sure if you are a moderator, or they just think like you so they put up with it. I think it is fair to say that I despise what people like you do to a site whch should be enjoyable for people who want reasonable debate.

Perhaps yu are just ill informed or uninformed, not your diatribe is boring. Little value from anything you write in my view.

Perhaps the site uses people like you same as the people who poke bulls before the matadore gets into the ring.
 
justabubba said:
it was more payoff to a corporate America
no other way around it
that we see it happening in other republican controlled states is only more evidence ... at least for those willing to see it

What?

the public union in wisconsin agreed to wage and benefit modifications, eliminating the need to eliminate the union.

Short term solution only.
 
Last edited:
What?



Short term solution only.

then i take it you are of the opinion that collective bargaining must be abolished as a long term solution to the state's present fiscal shortfall
 
again, the public union in wisconsin agreed to wage and benefit modifications, eliminating the need to eliminate the union. that the republicans instead went forward to abolish union representation rights in that state speaks directly to the real republican intent
it was more payoff to a corporate America
no other way around it
that we see it happening in other republican controlled states is only more evidence ... at least for those willing to see it

Please read what I wrote. I didn't say they didn't agree to the wage and benefit modifications. I said that if the politicans are interested in keeping benefits for teachers at reasonable levels, and balance future budgets. Not just next year budget. Then they will need to reduce the power of public unions.
 
Please read what I wrote. I didn't say they didn't agree to the wage and benefit modifications. I said that if the politicans are interested in keeping benefits for teachers at reasonable levels, and balance future budgets. Not just next year budget. Then they will need to reduce the power of public unions.
that is not the solution ... at least not a good one (but yes, quite effective in both reducing salaries and benefits and the desire of teachers to teach in that state)
the more appropriate solution is to assure that the employer is represented by competent individuals the next time they engage in contract negotiations with the union
 
that is not the solution ... at least not a good one (but yes, quite effective in both reducing salaries and benefits and the desire of teachers to teach in that state)
the more appropriate solution is to assure that the employer is represented by competent individuals the next time they engage in contract negotiations with the union
It problably won't be vey easy to get competent politicans. I don't think your solution will work.

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). However, it is good for America. Do you think that bad teachers shouldn't be fired? Do you think all teachers should earn the same, irrespective of their school and their work performance?

We should give them the market price, you might get a higher wage in another state, but it is really hard to become a teacher there. Texas has much lower wages (but better performance than Wisconsin when you compare racial groups) and teachers are not running for the hills. Teachers at bad schools should get a higher wage than teachers at good schools to attract the better teachers to bad schools. 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. Problem is, unions are against everything I mentioned. 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?
 
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
 
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:
Back
Top Bottom