- Feb 1, 2010
- Reaction score
- Waynesboro, VA
FS, generalize much? My wife is a member of the teachers union ONLY bc she is in an unstable, difficult situation and knows the union will have her back if her school system screws with her. As they have done before to other people. I know if your world, unions are evil and employers are good and do no wrong. I wish i could live in that world, i really do. Because the world I live in allows me to see that the teacher's union is too large, has too much influence and is for the most part evil, BUT (you knew it was coming) without it, the school systems would be just as bad if not worse.
If would like to have a serious conversation without your ridiculous generalities, tell me. I can see both sides on this one. The teacher's union in WI is preposterous. But to lump all teachers together under that umbrella is just as preposterous. I would be delighted to intelligently discuss the differences.
As to video, i thought it was funny. So did my wife. I think it's funny as **** when people say teachers make too much money. My wife hasn't had a raise in 3 years. She is looking for a new position to get away from the craziness in her current school system. I see the hours she works, and given the number of times in my life i have had people laughingly tell me that they work at least twice as hard as the guy in Office Space, while in the private sector, I generally laugh AT the fools who say teachers make too much money. Apparently, I'm laughing at you.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
I'll try to type slower this time, in the hopes you will understand my position better.
I hate the NEA. My mother was a teacher for 30+ years and never joined the union. Not once. The ONLY reason my wife joined is because the school system she teaches in is corrupt, dishonest, and problematic at best. Neither of us can stand the union, ,and it honestly turns both of our stomachs to give them any money. I agree with a lot of your post regarding the evil of the NEA.
Where I differ with you is my ability to see both sides, that there is a possibility that having unions is a necessary evil. You, and many of my blindly Republican following friends seem to believe that regular workers do not need representation or a check in their favor. Somehow, even after the complete lack of regulation that completely ****ed our economy three years ago, you people still seem to think that these corporations and/or governments can do no wrong. I don't get it. The organization my wife works for would screw her over in a minute, as would many school systems around the country if not for the threat of reprisal from the union. Listen very carefully to this: I do not like the power the union currently has. Nor do i like the back room deals with Democrats and all the other shady dealings. But I do NOT have enough faith in people in general to believe that without the unions, teachers would be treated fairly. I would be open to discussing what the union ought to look like in a perfect world, though it will never happen that way.
To your larger point, whether you intend to or not, your posts always come across as detesting the Dems and defending the Repubs. I don't get this. Is the teachers union a blotch of the Dems? Hell yeah. No argument at all. Are the banks a blotch on the Repubs? Do you not think back room deals abound in that arena? Are you going to try to convince me that those back room deals are not nearly as damaging as the teachers union? Go ahead, I relish your verbal contortions.
And yes, i do take the individual's perspective into account. You act like being a human is a bad thing. There are times to be driven by numbers only, and other times to consider the human element. There are moron teachers who need to be replaced, we need to come up with a way of measuring teacher performance to cull the field. No argument. And if my wife is found wanting, so be it. Your little crack about finding work that doesn't pay well enough is very revealing, and untimely sad. My wife teaches because she loves children and wants to help them succeed. She wants to make a difference, as cheesy as it sounds. And yes, she could do other things she is qualified for and would make more money with, but she does what she loves. I am sorry if that idea is lost on you. Genuinely sorry.
And for the record, neither of us whine about her pay. We are both thankful for her salary, until morons try to tell us and everyone else that teachers are overpaid. Tell ya what, take her job for a year at the salary you think is appropriate, and let me know what you think at the end of that year. Until then, hush.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
Sooooo... now you want to privatize education? Interesting arguments on both sides. You should state that as your argument if that is correct, however.1) I haven't said she was underpaid. I don't care what she is paid. I care if I am taxed to support that pay and benefits.
With all due respect, WTF are you talking about? Are you suggesting that I like the union? Do you have reading comprehension problems? I believe I spelled out my position above: I hate the union. However, as stated above, I can see BOTH sides. The unions provide a check against the corruption of the government officials in charge of education that you apparently are unwilling or unable to admit exists.2) I explained my position which you understandably avoid addressing: the power play that really underlies all of this....the inherent corruption, the vested interests that produce dysfunctional incentives, the obvious violence, the lying and manipulation......my focus is on what the Union leadership goals truly are and how Democratic leadership has an unholy relationship with those Union heads that serves totally unrelated objectives...often to the dteriment of the very people who are supposed to be served by public officials/servants. that is the reality.
I find this funny. I used to be just like you. Virtually a carbon copy. Until I realized THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. None. Zippo. You can talk all you want about how the Dems are duplicitous, and I will agree with you. And then point out the Repubs do the same damn thing. There is no lesser evil. Just evil.3) I do detest the Dems..they are the ones who postured themselves as paragons of virtue....and have proceeded to be anything but. who's kidding whom here? I'm no big fan of Repubs. I have also stated....ad vomitum.....that I view them as the lesser evil.
Before you insult me again, I would ask you to go back and actually read my post. You will find if you take the time to read that I sidestepped nothing, and addressed what you asked me to.4) I have laid out what I think this is really all about. You are free to agree or disagree...but don't spoonfeed me more dirt and water that entirely sidesteps that set of ideas.
So you have no knowledge of what a teacher does (aside from probably thinking it entails babysitting), and yet you feel qualified to dictate what her pay should be? Given your military background, are you comfortable with me, a civilian with absolutely no military training or background setting your salary, then telling you to take it or leave it? Your idea that the folks in government are somehow paragons of virtue and should be trusted to know what's best without any checks or balances is incredibly naive. After watching my parents put up with buerocratic foolishness for 30 years each while working for the government (both local and feds), I can safely say a system without the checks and balances a union provides is not a just, fair system.5) I'll reiterate...yet again....another concept: there are individuals and there is the political expression of their GROUP interests. It is the latter that is horse manure in my book when it comes to Unions. I'll sidestep the whole discussion of public servant and taxpayer equities since you obviously want to maintain the fiction that that relationship is the same as private employer/employee.
btw...wall street contributed far more money to Dems in the last Pres election than to Repubs.
there's no discussion here since we are talking about two different things.....so...I'll return your euphemism...HUSH!
the teachers work for me and every other taxpayer. they don't like the terms? go find a job someplace else.
I don't want you accept anything. I simply want you to understand my position, acknowledge it's a valid point of view without belittling it, and then have a reasonable discourse.expnding this thread:
1) public school systems have been going down the crapper for a long time...including during periods of increasing Union power and benefits. The causes run deeper than how much these people are paid.
1) vis dems/repubs: got it. you believe in equivocation and want me to adopt your value system. AINT GONNA HAPPEN.
I don't think you can say it is exclusively the product of either. Both contribute. Again, I am not saying unions or teachers are without blame, simply that corruptness in the local, state and federal govt does exist, and the workers need to be protected from that corruption. Is the union is the best way to do that? Probably not. But I don't see a whole ton of alternatives right now.3) it's immaterial to me whether you love/hate Unions. government official corruption? specifically in the context of school boards, superintendents, etc? and the check is? the voter. the media. prosecution. those officials are there to represent the taxpayer. that is the REAL relationship....not the intermediary you are proposing. are prevailing/local working conditions/wages always the product of corrupt government...or the product of local wealth and preferences?
Trying not to be passive aggressive, Mike. Promise.4) vis lesser evil: guess we'll just have to disagree. the Republican party is at the front end of a long term process of purging and rejuvenation. or it will perish. you discretely avoid all the philosophical/governance issues I drew out. "What's the difference" isn't a satisfying answer...but if you are comfortable with that mindset...so be it! and no...you haven't addressed much of what I described....you expressed your attitude...but not disposition vis the goals Unions are organized to muster money and votes for (other than wages and working conditions).
They haven't, and the students. Good teachers put their student's priorities first, therefore the union should as well. Sadly however, no one puts the teacher's needs first. No one. The choice should not be between the union and students. The teachers needs should be factored in as well.5) How have Unions productively, positively and continuously served the interests of parents (i.e., taxpayers) and students? and what takes priority: students or Union objectives?
Well, I would generally say if the nurses in the VA system (to pick a position at random) are treated poorly and feel they need a union to get proper representation, go for it.6) We have not had any real discussion on whether Unions should even be acceptable or what is negotiable when serving local/State/Federal institutions.
OK.7) Both my parents taught at public Universities. I have a family member who teaches at a secondary school in Fla. Always helps to ask before jumping to conclusions!!!!
I don't really understand your argument here, sorry. Are you saying you think the military should be able to have a union? Or that because the military can't, therefore the teachers shouldn't either?8) Umm...the Congress sets military wages (manning levels, personnel account funding). They add in perks/benes as needed to maintain required manning/specialty skills. Local school districts will have the same option depending on what quality/quantity of teacher they want to attract. but, in the military, there is no negotiation other than with our feet.
So your solution is to get rid of the evil unions without any alternative for the workers? In one breath you acknowledge there is corruption in government on all levels, but feel as though the teachers who work under that corruption should have no recourse to deal with that corruption?9) having worked in the Federal system myself for many decades....I can agree with many of the dysfunctions you suggest. and I can also add legions of examples about protected Union workers who served no real purpose, originated no real ideas, produced no real product....and remained a burr on the taxpayer rear quarter for years because it is nearly impossible to fire these people. no argument from me if you actually accept that there are incompetent government servants. I disagree that the answer is Public Unions empowered with expansive collective bargaining rights. those powers aren't used to protect workers...they are used to hold governement and the public hostage. they can and have led to death (see NYC snow quasi-strike).
we aren't going to agree on this. time to move on.
I suspect we are closer on this than either of us first realized. I have no problem with reducing the power of the unions, and in fact would prefer that. My contention with your position which seems to have lessened in this last post is that teachers need some form of recourse against abusive systems. Eliminating the union all together strikes me as a poor idea. But reducing their power does not.
And yes, my wife is a saint. Can you imagine putting up with me twenty four seven for fourteen years now?
Posted via BGO Mobile Device