- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
In a word no. And my other posts in this thread clarify my initial comments. But then again, when one habitually uses a WiFi hotspot (even with an airport booster) from under a bridge? The most simplistic and obvious of facts can elude them.
No, actually they don't if one is not dishonest. Is that also an issue from down under?Yes, your posts do clarify that you are dishonestly claiming that the union is putting people in danger because of what some unnamed "bad actors" might possibly do.
Yes, freedom of association works both ways, however, when it comes to setting a standard for a skill and keeping that standard, the all in policy not only creates a healthier environment but is but demonstrates a consistency that keeps management from pitting one against the other; which management always has done and brings about a reason for collective bargaining in and of itself.
That – makes no sense. Can you do that again?
Again: how can a union make it worse for you in the long run? I retired at 50 because of my union. And having no problem with unions is a good thing. I have no problem with non union shops: if that’s what they want, good for them. I have problems with unfair tactics like right to work: eventually, and as we have seen over the years as unions have declined, the non union shop has no ability whatsoever to better their condition, avoid discrimination politics in the workplace or plan a future that they can really depend on, as has been seen by several collapses of 401k plans over the years: my ex-mother in law lost everything when her airline employer went through a collapse.
And “unions” don’t create a hostile working environment: employees create their own conditions of cohesion. And nobody can guarantee anything, so I don’t know what your point is there.
As far as what non union auto workers are making; again you missed the side of the barn with the cannon you’re holding: do you think that the UAW and other unions had just a little bit to do with that?
No, actually they don't if one is not dishonest. Is that also an issue from down under?
You should come up with a link and a quotation of mine that supports your "awareness" of my comments. Use those lens wipes I mentioned yesterday before you do though.You should come up with something new. "nuh-uh" and "You're a troll" get pretty old, pretty fast
Why not? Cite what law disallows companies from disclosing that a person was terminated and/or why.
"The motive?" I'm sure some have that motive, others have a motive to fill the spot with the absolute best candidate within a price range of $______ to $______. Unions seek to insulate their members from having to compete on any grounds with others who could fill that job and do it better and/or cheaper.
Unions have a motive to retain all member teachers, good, bad or terrible, doing all they can to prevent even seriously unfit teachers from being ultimately forced out of the profession. How is that good for students that unfit teachers would be so strongly defended and kept in the profession?
You should come up with a link and a quotation of mine that supports your "awareness" of my comments. Use those lens wipes I mentioned yesterday before you do though.
Oh you poor dear. Is that what you really imagine you did? Of course it is. Of course it is.I see you still don't realize how I got you to admit that the things you mentioned (the printing of people's addresses and phone #'s) have nothing to do with this story
Oh you poor dear. Is that what you really imagine you did? Of course it is. Of course it is.
Oh you poor dear. Another flaccid post from the WiFi hotspot from under the bridge. Quelle surprise.Another "Nuh-uh"
Quelle surprise
If they were fired they can state why in some states, but as a whole many don't say anything about the employee's dismissal to avoid law suits.
Again, churning teachers in order to keep prices low would be a very bad practice.
As it is now, good teachers are hard to retain. The key to retain the best and the brightest is to make the field attractive.
Hiring the lowest bidder will not do that at all. Teacher unions can not retain teachers in the state of MA with more than two unsatisfactory evaluations. So, what you are saying is based on a myth.
Enough of yer "oh you poor dear" routine okay Great King Rat.Oh you poor dear.
Exactly where are you coming from and going to with calling posts "flaccid"?Another flaccid post
And then there's the "WiFi hotspot from under the bridge" meme.from the WiFi hotspot from under the bridge. Quelle surprise.
You're scrambling to save your previous inaccurate statement.
I never advocated "churning teachers." I said unions protect even bad teachers, and asked what good that does for our youth.
Bogus. If they were so hard to retain, there would be no need for a union to try to drive the wages up. The wages would rise naturally as a result of districts needing teachers. Your argument does not make sense as to what purpose a teacher's union would possibly serve. Here are the unemployment statistics: A-30. Unemployed persons by occupation and sex
First of all, what do you mean the union "cannot retain" teachers with 3+ bad evaluations? The union would kick them out at that point?
Also, more than two unsatisfactory evaluations is a minimum of three years of a potentially incompetent teacher teaching children. That factoid does not make anything I said a myth. If anything it supports what I said, which is that potentially bad teachers are protected, and this happens at the expense of their students.
Not only that but avoiding admitting that her understanding of some of the "facts" she posts are less than accurate too. It's a theme apparently.You're scrambling to save your previous inaccurate statement.
As for Unions and how they've bettered all of the lives of Americans, when will you be giving up yer weekends off, 40-hour weeks,
paid vacations, safety regs and protection against sexual harassment of the boss?
And I'm quite sure you long for the days of Monopolies and Trusts before the Great Progress--ive Republican President Theodore Roosevelt--oh for the many reasons he's on Mount Rushmore .
Oh you poor dear! You were so concerned about the flaccid nature of Sangha's "contributions" that you have arrived a second time to fluff some more? Hardly requires me to quelle surprise then, owing to your shared berth and WiFi signal from underneath the bridge now is it? Poor dear.Enough of yer "oh you poor dear" routine okay Great King Rat.
Exactly where are you coming from and going to with calling posts "flaccid"?
And then there's the "WiFi hotspot from under the bridge" meme.
From which right-wing hotspot did you pick that up?
As for Unions and how they've bettered all of the lives of Americans, when will you be giving up yer weekends off, 40-hour weeks,
paid vacations, safety regs and protection against sexual harassment of the boss?
How about time off for babies to both female and male workers--I assume yer a "Family Values" kind of a guy.
And I'm quite sure you long for the days of Monopolies and Trusts before the Great Progress--ive Republican
President Theodore Roosevelt--oh for the many reasons he's on Mount Rushmore .
There might be good unions, certainly, but it would likely be the smaller ones. While Unions complain about "Big Business" it is the Unions who are really Big Business. If other businesses behaved in the same way big unions do they'd be charged under antitrust laws, as well as others, rather than getting any public sympathy.While I agree with many of those sentiments, let's not lump ALL unions together with the most obvious and historically documented ones that deserve derision and serious dismantling. I saw the Teamsters were mentioned earlier in the thread. Given their history, your description certainly is fitting with regard to them IMO.
FDR summed it up well. Franklin D. Roosevelt: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Serviceyou deny that public sector unions don't drive up the costs to taxpayers. what about crap like Davis-Bacon or union controlled municipalities that have "prevailing wage" requirements in their contracts?
Private companies can't disclose why a person was dismissed. Your last part about competing in terms of wages and/or job performance is nonsense. The motive is to fill a spot with the cheapest price available. Churning and burning teachers is detrimental to any school system. The motive should be to retain good teachers not chase them away.
what the law says you can do, and what is actually done are two different things.....
i can call the hr department of a potential employee and get he basics...date of hire, date of separation, etc
if as a manager you stop there, you ought to fired yourself
i have had a lot of success talking to immediate supervisors over the years
and usually, it is a one question response i am looking for....
"would you hire that person again?"
almost all of them give me a yes or no.....
While I agree with many of those sentiments, let's not lump ALL unions together with the most obvious and historically documented ones that deserve derision and serious dismantling. I saw the Teamsters were mentioned earlier in the thread. Given their history, your description certainly is fitting with regard to them IMO.
Moderator's Warning: |
1. Funding elections can influence his other criteria.
2. He provided no information whatsoever.
Again, since his claim was purely hot air with zero substantiation an informed rebuttal, even if not direct and proportional, is sufficient to debunk his claim. Generally speaking, they never bring any research or citations, they just make it up as they go. Give the proliferation such an easy approach permits, we can't spend an inordinate amount of time doing their research for them in order to prove them wrong... otherwise they would win just by sheer numbers (it is easier to make things up than to 'prove' them). So a wedge will suffice, given their inability -- and typically subsequent in-your-face refusal -- to provide any documentation whatsoever. A house built of cards does not require complete demolition; simply removing a key item or two will accomplish the same task.
As the old saying goes, "a lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on". The purveyors of falsehood, or opinion-as-fact, are likely well aware of that and use it to their advantage.
Right, your proof positive is Texas. It is illegal for teachers to collectively bargain with a union and has been that way for years. There school system can compete at the top internationally while union loving schools like MA score at the very bottom. Union loving MA bad for students. Union hating Texas good for students- Sarcasm over
Outlawing tenure would not make any measurable difference, it is merely a wedge issue to disempower unions and get the corporatist right one step closer to their goal -- the complete and total elimination of unions. If you were to outlaw tenure, they would suddenly 'expose' yet another issue that is suddenly a 'travesty' in the teachers union which is destroying the education of 'our children' :roll:[...] One word: tenure. [...]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?