Unions and Democrats - Page 2 - Political Forum

colourislast · 11-28-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prrriiide

My wife is in a union, and your post offends me to the core.

How very liberal of you, being offended for someone else.

You take a small sampling of lazies, and apply their traits to all union people, which is a bald-faced lie. In fact, my lazy union wife works her ass off. And she has a college degree to do what she does, as do the many union members.

There are certainly problems with some union members, and with certain unions. But your blanket statement is a giant fuck you to all of the very conscientious and hard-working union people that keep this country running.

What do unions do? They make sure that when someone is fired, they deserved it. They make sure that skilled labor gets paid more than some drunk off the street. They make sure that Joe Employee isn't getting it in the butt because the CEO wants a new vacation house in Aruba. Do you have health care benefits? Thank a union, because that's where they first came from. The level of wages across the board from mailroom to CEO in this country is a direct result of union activism.

In short, the gains made by unions have spilled over into non-union sectors, and are now standard operating procedure for companies from A to Z. If you have a safe working environment, a pension or retirement plan, health benefits, and a living wage, you have a union to thank for it somewhere along the line.

You people shriek about socialist this and communist that, as if union members value their freedoms any less than you do. You know as well as I do that that's bullshit; the union people I know are also the most pro-American patriots you'll find anywhere.

So before you go throwing out that kind of blanket drivel, you might want to take off your fascist sunglasses (fascists are the anti-unionists, remember?) and look at the postives that far out weigh the negatives.

I pointed out the problems with Unions today, gave credit to the Unions of yesterday and praised the workers that fought for the changes they got. If you feel offended at that, I say good.

Can you give me some good things the Teacher's unions have done? How have UAW helped future workers when the average US auto has to have an additional $3000 tacked on to every vehicle sold to just pay for benefits of workers that no longer produce for the company? (The companies made the promises and should make good on those promises.) As a consequence it has become a more financially sound track to do more business overseas and to automate to reduce the work force.

Doublebase, Unions should be very wary of Universal Healthcare. If promises have been made to the members that they will get healthcare benefits from the company, it would be very easy for the company to stop paying for those benefits and say UH covers those promises. They will no longer have access to private doctors or even those that used to take their insurance. In a way many large corporations that have huge burdens put on them because of these promises have advocated for UH so they can get rid of a huge drain on profits.

prrriiide · 11-28-2007, 05:01 PM

Quote:

How very liberal of you, being offended for someone else.

It's liberal to be offended when someone gratuitously demeans something that has a direct positive effect on their daily life? I guess you would qualify as a liberal on a number of subjects, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by colourislast

Can you give me some good things the Teacher's unions have done?

How about getting teacher pay raised across the board? Are you saying that teachers don't deserve every cent they make and much more? Pay for teachers is still embarrassingly low, and is the reason that most of the best and brightest potential teachers never set foot in a classroom. How about overall raising the standards for teacher certification? Or maybe you want your kids going to a school where the teacher is only there because it has more prestige than MacDonald's.

Oh. I'm sorry. Higher teacher pay means you have to pay a little more in taxes. Can't have that. I mean you should have access to all of the public services of your heart's desire without paying for them. That's the right's stance, is it not? Nah, don't want to pay those useless ol' teachers too much. After all, a country full of educated people might wake up and realize how badly the right has steered this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colourislast

How have UAW helped future workers when the average US auto has to have an additional $3000 tacked on to every vehicle sold to just pay for benefits of workers that no longer produce for the company? (The companies made the promises and should make good on those promises.) As a consequence it has become a more financially sound track to do more business overseas and to automate to reduce the work force.

The UAW was one of the unions I had in mind when I said:

Quote:

There are certainly problems with...with certain unions.

That being said, the big three spent over $24 million in 2006 alone for lobbying efforts, mostly to block increases in CAFE standards. Don't give me a line of crap about doing the right thing by their former employees being the cause of all their woes and certainly don't tell me it's why cars cost $3000 more than they should. Those three companies have taken pissing away money to a high art. And I think the UAW has seen the error of their excesses of years past. Why do you think there weren't MASSIVE strikes when several hundred thousand workers lost their jobs last year due to poor management decisions on the parts of the big three? The union has moved from a how-much-can-I-get mentality to mindset that keeps them getting a fair shake without costing jobs. Average auto worker's salary is $60k. But Ford paid $28 MILLION over the first four months of 2007 to a new CEO hired after being fired from Boeing FOR LACK OF PERFORMANCE. You want to address problems in the auto sector, start with the top down.

Look. Unions, as you and others have pointed out, came into being because of employer greed. Because doing right by their workers would mean less money coming into the coffers. They were necessary. That is still the case today, even more so perhaps. The very fact that employers are more than happy to move their operations overseas to countries where worker's rights are non-existent in order to improve profits proves that point beyond argument.

colourislast · 11-28-2007, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prrriiide

It's liberal to be offended when someone gratuitously demeans something that has a direct positive effect on their daily life? I guess you would qualify as a liberal on a number of subjects, right?

I am only liberal in the colonial sense of the word, not the modern definition.

How about getting teacher pay raised across the board? Are you saying that teachers don't deserve every cent they make and much more?

Yes, I would say that many teachers are getting about 100% more than they deserve.

Pay for teachers is still embarrassingly low, and is the reason that most of the best and brightest potential teachers never set foot in a classroom.

The AFT teacher salary survey for the 2004-05 school year found that the average teacher salary was $47,602, the median household income for the country was $46,000. Household income included 2 incomes in most cases, teacher salary was lone income. Most households worked 12 months of the year, 2 weeks vacation.

How about overall raising the standards for teacher certification? Or maybe you want your kids going to a school where the teacher is only there because it has more prestige than MacDonald's.

Getting an elementary teaching degree is the easiest degree available. Statistics have shown all recipients of that degree that have tried for a DR. have by far been the largest failure group. In some states, such as mine, you only need a 2-year degree to get a certificate.

Oh. I'm sorry. Higher teacher pay means you have to pay a little more in taxes. Can't have that. I mean you should have access to all of the public services of your heart's desire without paying for them. That's the right's stance, is it not? Nah, don't want to pay those useless ol' teachers too much. After all, a country full of educated people might wake up and realize how badly the right has steered this country.

I believe in school vouchers.

The UAW was one of the unions I had in mind when I said:

Look. Unions, as you and others have pointed out, came into being because of employer greed. Because doing right by their workers would mean less money coming into the coffers. They were necessary. That is still the case today, even more so perhaps. The very fact that employers are more than happy to move their operations overseas to countries where worker's rights are non-existent in order to improve profits proves that point beyond argument.

At least there is some common ground here.

prrriiide · 11-28-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Yes, I would say that many teachers are getting about 100% more than they deserve.

That's because you have spent a lot of time in front of a classroom, right? RIGHT?

Here's a news flash: it isn't about the three R's. Very little of it is about that. In the space of one 50-minute class period you have to:

-be able to not only identify the differences in learning abilities and speeds of 30-40 students, but be able to tailor your teaching to meet these differences
-be able to understand what motivates 30-40 different students, and be able to impart that motivation to them
-be able to tell without being asked when a student is having difficulty grasping a concept and be able to help that student without making it look like they aren't getting it
-be able to deal with all of the baggage that kids bring into the classroom with them. You ever had to try to teach a kid that is going through their parent's divorce?

And after all of that, you have to deal with parents that refuse to believe that their little Johnny got a b-minus because he did b-minus work, not because you have it out for him. You have to convince these same parents that just because little Johnny reads two grade-levels higher than he is expected to, he is not motivated and doesn't do his work.

Teachers have to be not only educators, but psychologists, social workers, nutritionists, babysitters, motivational gurus, referees, even sometimes marriage counselors. What do workers in those fields earn? How many of them have to wear as many hats? How often are teachers blamed for children not learning, even when the parents haven't spent one minute with them on their homework? How about this catch-22: a teacher is criminally liable for not reporting suspected abuse. So when the fears are laid to rest and no abuse is found, how do those teachers now go back business as usual with that student and their parents? Now that teacher has to live with the fact that they threw an entire family into utter turmoil, as required by law, for unfounded fears. We expect them to be social workers, and they are trained to be teachers.

As a society, teachers have been scapegoated into being the responsible parties for educating, when in reality, it's more the parent's responsibility. So you would have them shoulder the entire load that is expected of them, accept lower pay than they should be getting given the responsibilities, and be 100% motivated all the time, every day. Even when the very kids that they are trying to teach do not wish to accept that education? Sorry to disappoint you, but teachers are human too.

If you have never spent time in front of a classroom, then on this subject, you are talking out your ass because you haven't the first clue about what a teacher's working conditions are like and what their day-to-day challenges are.

Quote:

in most cases, teacher salary was lone income.

Quote:

Statistics have shown all recipients of that degree that have tried for a DR. have by far been the largest failure group.

I'm callin' ya on those two. Show me the proof.

Computer Systems Analysts earn $28k more than a teacher, and you don't even need a degree for that. You can get your CPA with a 2-year associates degree, and they earn $7k more than teachers.

If you think being a teacher is so easy, and the money is so good, why don't you go do it?

dahermit · 11-28-2007, 10:44 PM

Quote:

...Today’s Unions have close ties with socialism,...

That is an idiotic statement. I look forward to apologizing when you prove that todays unions have close ties to socialism.

colourislast · 11-28-2007, 11:22 PM

This pay study was done by the Teachers Union to help point out that teachers don't earn enough. The study was individual teacher's salary, not household income.

AFT - Teacher Salary - Teacher Salaries - Teachers Salary - Teachers Pay - Teacher Pay

How about teachers themselves talking about how testing teachers on skills they are supposed to be teaching could eliminate close to 25% of incoming teachers? Or how in some states that require testing now have a 56% failure rate?

Education World ® School Issues: Testing Teachers Makes Teachers Testy!

I may have to concede the point about elementary education degree holders being the largest failure group for doctorial degrees. I can not find a link for that. It may also be a numbers thing since so many in that field go for the doctorial degree.

I think the main problem is half the things you listed as being a part of a teacher’s job. All that touchy feely psycho babble is the last thing a teacher should deal with. I am sure there are teachers out there that break their necks trying to do all those things you listed. Banging their heads against walls to try to keep the attention of so many kids and balancing their actions with the copious amounts of rules and regulations they are restrained by. Most of those rules are from outside the teaching profession, like teachers unions, politicians and administrators. They are the reason the three R's have become such a small part. If you look at the end product, having such poor results there has to be more teachers giving up or doing a really bad job than those that really try. Again, the outside influences are the most likely cause of the frustration and burn out rate of teachers.

The parent issue is a generational problem. This could be a post unto itself, but boiled down to: The liberalization of giving kids equal rights to adults within the last couple of decades. Also being more worried about self esteem than actual success. Thus negating any true structure for respect to be bestowed upon authority figures and respect having to be earned by those not in charge. Now that those kids have grown up, with the "question authority" along with the self-esteem trumps all attitude, and have kids. Those parents believe their kid over an authority figure, especially if that authority figure will bruise Hunter's ego by telling him he can't do something.

Yes, I have taught in front of classes. Granted they were only military classes, and were only about keeping people alive.

colourislast · 11-28-2007, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahermit

That is an idiotic statement. I look forward to apologizing when you prove that todays unions have close ties to socialism.

If you don't see how today's unions are socialistic, I a mere mortal, would never be able to prove it to you.

prrriiide · 11-29-2007, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colourislast

I think the main problem is half the things you listed as being a part of a teacher’s job.

All that touchy feely psycho babble is the last thing a teacher should deal with. I am sure there are teachers out there that break their necks trying to do all those things you listed. Banging their heads against walls to try to keep the attention of so many kids and balancing their actions with the copious amounts of rules and regulations they are restrained by. Most of those rules are from outside the teaching profession, like teachers unions, politicians and administrators. They are the reason the three R's have become such a small part. If you look at the end product, having such poor results there has to be more teachers giving up or doing a really bad job than those that really try. Again, the outside influences are the most likely cause of the frustration and burn out rate of teachers.

It's not psychobabble. It's reality. Teachers have to deal with all of that stuff and more, and not from rules and regulations necessarily. Often it's by default. Parents abdicate their responsibilities, because somewhere along the line it became the teacher's job to instill morals and motivation. Things that kids should already have when they make it into the classroom. But woe betide the teacher that doesn't deal with those "outside influences," mandated or otherwise.

Quote:

Yes, I have taught in front of classes. Granted they were only military classes, and were only about keeping people alive.

It's a lot easier to motivate people to stay alive than it is to motivate them to read Chaucer or learn how to balance a checkbook.

But to get back to the OP, the teacher's unions are one of the only organizations that regognize that teaching is more of an art than a science, and they are the ones that are standing up for teachers that are being forced, through policy and default both, to perform duties that they are not prepared to do. Not prepared in their education or their expectations.

As a musician, I have many friends that are band directors. Every one of them will tell you that music is about 30% of what they do. The rest is politics, economics, logistics, and yes, psychology. One joked to me once that he had no idea he needed a minor in logistics when he graduated from college.

dahermit · 11-29-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colourislast

If you don't see how today's unions are socialistic, I a mere mortal, would never be able to prove it to you.

"ties...", TIES, TIES! You said "ties". I do not need to see how they are socialistic, you need to prove "ties" to socialism. That is what you stated. Do not morph your augment into something else when you are caught in a nonsense blather.

colourislast · 11-30-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahermit

"ties...", TIES, TIES! You said "ties". I do not need to see how they are socialistic, you need to prove "ties" to socialism. That is what you stated. Do not morph your augment into something else when you are caught in a nonsense blather.

Being socialistic is not a tie to socialism? Or are you looking for political donations from one to the other? I am sure you have heard of the Labour party. Is there a government job that is not a union job, other than the military?