• 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!

Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?


  • Total voters
    64
"Why do the rich deserve to keep more of their money than the working class?"

another one of the idiotic loaded questions. This is as silly a petulant rant I have ever seen


That's what you say every time you cannot answer a question.
 
No, you moved the goal posts in that post even though your original statement was talking in general with no qualifications other than someone having a degree is a better teacher than someone without. (paraphrasing) When I showed you that you were wrong you moved the goalposts.

Are you saying you were unaware of the all inclusive requirements that public schools must operate under? My bad for thinking you would have known that.

Also just so you know, there are homeschooled kids with disabilites also. So you're attempt at an emotional appeal falls a bit flat.

Let's see the comparative results then of kids with disabilities taught at home and those taught through the public school system.
 
I have only read through post #410+/-, primarily because so many pages had degenerated to petty bickering, but I have been thinking of this topic for several days. I said in a previous post that I didn't think that (public) unions are dying, but that we are seeing the end of inflexible and over-generous pensions. I want to expand on that.

I do not believe unions... public or private... will ever go away completely (barring a totalitarian take-over), because of human nature and the "pendulum effect". Think: Why were unions formed to begin with? Business/corporate abuses of workers. Hence, unions formed, conditions improved, yada yada yada.

However, there is a point where enough is done, and anything beyond that becomes absurd. We couldn't be happy with simple good working conditions. No, we had to allow unions to become big-business unto itself. Unions had to push for unwise pensions. Pensions that any reasonable person could see were unsustainable in the long term. Unions began to defend the indefensible... workers who were lazy, or dangerous, or incompetent, or all of the above. Does that help the work environment? No. Does it increase and/or maintain the union's power base and dues? You bet. The "pendulum" had swung to the other extreme. Now, the "pendulum" is swinging back. The shortsighted unwise actions of unions began to catch up with them, and the "pendulum" is swinging back the other direction at an even faster pace today. Looked at objectively, this really shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, even union supporters.

So, what will happen? Rinse and repeat. Unions will continue to lose power for awhile. Businesses/corporations will begin to take advantage of workers again. Fill in the gap, so to speak. (Yes, they will, it's how humans are.) The outrage directed against unions today will begin to shift. People will begin to value unions again to protect them from businesses/corporations.

And it will continue to go back-and-forth.
 
This is where you wander far, far away from reality. You have been told, and will readily accept, AND CONSTANTLY REPEAT, that ONLY people holding a certain degree or certificate, defined as needed ONLY by those currently holding such degrees and certification, CAN effectively teach children in PUBLIC schools. Yet, with our own eyes, we SEE private schools using "less qualified" and lower paid PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS to attain BETTER (not just as good as) student performance on STANDARDIZED tests than those PUBLIC SCHOOLS using your "very qualified", certificate bearing, higher paid public teaching staff.

Only a moron would believe that ONLY a master mechanic can the change oil, fix a flat tire or perform a tune-up on your car, yet YOU constantly assert that nothing short of a masters degree permits ANYONE from teaching a 3rd grader basic math skills. This is EXACTLY why we can not allow teachers unions to set the rules, and then "negotiate" how much to pay those that "meet the qualifications" that they defined as necessary using NO BASIS other than their own say so.

The argument ALWAYS used is that the public school teachers are BETTER because they hold fancy, higher level, paper credentials that deserve "reverence" and thus command "higher pay". Yet, the professional teachers (but not as "well educated"), used in private schools, SOMEHOW manage to constantly (consistantly?) produce better educated STUDENTS while spending less money, per pupil, to do that job; IMHO that proves that private teachers, although BOTH less "educated" and lower paid are, in fact, BETTER.

I don't believe in absolutes, so I accept that I can find one person with less credentials who might be better than a certain person with credentials. But that does not hold true on the average. Your premises that knowing less is better si something I'd like to see you support.
 
*Rubs eyes in disappointment*

Are public schools governed by supply and demand? yes or no.

Are private schools governed by supply and demand? yes or no.

Why people decide on the job has nothing to do with my point. If I was talking about teachers and why they decided on private schools your point would be valid, but I didn't do such a thing.

Supply and demand, as in students who need education and schools are built. Yes. But this is more like a fire department than selling a widget. Quality matters to some, but clearly not others. You could, in the market, get someone to pay you to just hand them a diploma, without any real teaching or learning going on. You should spend sometime talking to parents for a while and you might understand what I'm talking about.

*Facedesk* What drives payment? If it was degrees than every last field that needed a BA or MA would pay you extremely well. Again, its wonderful you found some talking point, but it has nothing to do with anything.

And many people DO know how to teach that are not teachers. Did you forget the success of homeschooling?

Would you go to a doctor without a degree in medicine? What drives you to a particular doctor? His education or what?
 
You're right. It's not in that post. But do you know what it means? It appears as if you don't, or you would not be so confused.
I have no clue what it means as you might be attempting to use it.


You act like my wife. If I can't read your mind then it's somehow MY fault! :lamo
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, but I'm still unaware of any rich person who has any sort of power over me, other than those in the government, of course.
If you want to start with the ones influencing the government that's fine with me. That's not all of them by a long shot but at least it's a beginning! :)
 
that article contained no statistical study on right to work states adjusted for cost of living with union states. Why would you provide it as such when it utterly fails to do that?
It does show that right to work states are not poor states like you stated.

However, I used a half an hour to compute median household income in right to work states, and forced unionism states. And guess what I found

Right to work: 51106
Forced unionism: 50339

Right to work states are richer. So right to work for less, is incorrect. They have the right to work for more.

Data_RightToWork.xlsx download - 2shared
 
Last edited:
They earned it. What makes you think you have the right to take from them? Oh right, nothing.
"Earned" it??? :lamo

Not even the IRS calls it earnings in most cases because it's not. Income? Yes. Earnings? No.
 
Actually they are easy to find see: Average salaries for full-time teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools, by selected characteristics: 2007-08

The gap seems to be closing slowly, yet private are still lower on average than public. The farther back you go the more the difference was, in the above link it is a bit over $11K/year on average, in favor of the public school teachers. I have not found more recent data yet.
Most likely the qualifications were not the same. While some private schools have higher standards, and pay much more for those qualifications, many have much lower standards than public school systems. Over time that has been slowly changing as parents demand accredited teachers even in private schools.
 
Last edited:
Supply and demand, as in students who need education and schools are built. Yes.

Yes.

But this is more like a fire department than selling a widget.

If the fire department was private yes.

Quality matters to some, but clearly not others.

Quality matters to everything. Don't try to separate certain fields like fire and education.

You could, in the market, get someone to pay you to just hand them a diploma, without any real teaching or learning going on.

What does this have to do with what you said above?

Would you go to a doctor without a degree in medicine? What drives you to a particular doctor? His education or what?

Tell me, why is a doctor paid so much? Do you really think it is the degree? Or it perhaps the skill and the rarity and value of such a skill? However none of what I just said matters when talking about public school teachers.
 
Last edited:
It does show that right to work states are not poor states like you stated.

However, I used a half an hour to compute median household income in right to work states, and forced unionism states. And guess what I found

Right to work: 51106
Forced unionism: 50339

Right to work states are richer. So right to work for less, is incorrect. They have the right to work for more.

Data_RightToWork.xlsx download - 2shared

First, my hat is off to you for actually trying to back up your claim with research. We rarely see that here and you are to be congratulated for it.

However, I think your data is far from complete and thus your conclusion is not accurate nor factual.

Dr. Gordon Lafer has made an extensive study of right to work. He is one of the national experts on the subject. Last year I was fortunate enough to be in the audience in a special in service he gave for members and staff of the Michigan legislature. Here is his report

‘Right to work’: The wrong answer for Michigan’s economy | Economic Policy Institute

this is from the summary


Right-to-work laws lower wages—for both union and nonunion workers alike—by an average of $1,500 per year, after accounting for the cost of living in each state.
Right-to-work laws also decrease the likelihood that employees get either health insurance or pensions through their jobs—again, for both union and nonunion workers.By cutting wages, right-to-work laws threaten to undermine job growth by reducing the discretionary income people have to spend in the local retail, real estate, construction, and service industries. Every $1 million in wage cuts translates into an additional six jobs lost in the economy. With 85 percent of Michigan’s economy concentrated in health care, retail, education, and other non-manufacturing industries, widespread wage and benefit cuts could translate into significant negative spillover effects for the state’s economy.

I would urge you to read the report and compare your findings to his.
 
"Earned" it??? :lamo

Not even the IRS calls it earnings in most cases because it's not. Income? Yes. Earnings? No.

I don't really care what the IRS thinks. It is their property and that is that.
 
Yes, that's how our legal system works. When a person buys something, they become the owner. Are you proposing a change to this?

No... Not sure what you mean exactly. Sure, they'd still be the owner. People who own stock in companies that share more of the profits with their employees are still the owner...

Someone else's proceeds are not yours to split up.

You aren't really responding to my position. Whose proceeds they are is a decision we make as a society.
 
What is your point. Yes, teaching is a good job with high pay, excellent benefits, and long vacations. I would say many teachers are above middle class.

That is just absurd. You're being ridiculous. Teachers range between lower middle class and middle class. It's like you live on a different planet than I do... Do you not know any teachers or something?
 
I don't really care what the IRS thinks. It is their property and that is that.

I always try to use the sale of a home as an example of a "capital gain". If you buy your house, at fair market value ($100K), make no improvements, and later sell it, at fair market value ($150K) you have NO real "capital gain". Why? Because you can still only buy that SAME house, not a house that is worth $50K more than the house that you just sold. In fact, after taxation, you no longer even have enough money left to buy your SAME old house back. ;-)
 
Last edited:
You aren't really responding to my position. Whose proceeds they are is a decision we make as a society.
Marxist? Awesome. From each to each?
Failing to protect property rights is unjust. Without justice there can be no civil society. Why bother funding such a government?
 
You aren't really responding to my position. Whose proceeds they are is a decision we make as a society.

No we don't. Its a fact of the matter who owns what.

You haven't been able to defeat this either other than calling it out as a slogan either.
 
Marxist? Awesome. From each to each?
Failing to protect property rights is unjust. Without justice there can be no civil society. Why bother funding such a government?

You wouldn't have a choice other than to fight them in arms. He is using the Marxist language though by saying society decides property. It was pure gibberish when he said it and still pure gibberish.
 
No we don't. Its a fact of the matter who owns what.

Its a fact? What do you mean? It's a fact that you stop at a red light and go at a green light too. That doesn't mean society didn't decide that was how we would do things.
 
First, my hat is off to you for actually trying to back up your claim with research. We rarely see that here and you are to be congratulated for it.

However, I think your data is far from complete and thus your conclusion is not accurate nor factual.
First, off. The aims of the research, and my aim wasn't the same. I was just interested in one thing. Who is richer? Right to work, or states who are not right to work. For doing that, my data is complete. RTW states are richer.

His research has the aim, does right to work benefit a state. I looked through his research, but his findings do not support his conclusion. He show growth rates, and state there is no correlation. However, there certainly is. Of the 20 states with lowest growth, only 5 are right to work. Among the top 10, 5 are right to work. If he actually computed the data and adjusted for population, he would find a correlation. But he never did.

Then he starts talking about Oklahoma, but that is only one state. I skipped that part.

Then he starts talking about manufacturing losses, but doesn't include all states in America. If he did, he would have seen this. If you know which states are right to work, then you can see how bad it would look if he included all states.
manufacturingjoblossmap.jpg


Dr. Gordon Lafer has made an extensive study of right to work. He is one of the national experts on the subject. Last year I was fortunate enough to be in the audience in a special in service he gave for members and staff of the Michigan legislature. Here is his report.
He is like many famous "experts", both on the left and the right, a fraud. That is how you become famous as a scientist in America.
 
Back
Top Bottom