Lets finally get rid of all unions!

BertNEarnie wrote:

Weakening the teachers unions is the first step in education reform. Everyone agrees that our current system is terrible but the second someone starts to really address the issue you get mass demonstations.

I hate unions, but to say the unions are the problems in education is wrong. The real problems occur because education is not valued in this country. If parents and students felt the necessity of a good education, the problems would solve themselves. Unfortunately, the dream of winning the lottery (genetic literal or otherwise) is giving the need for a good education a bad name.

Conundrum wrote:

No one is forced to accept any conditions, that why they call it collective BARGAINING.

The only good coming out of the whole situation is that it has resulted in certain Republican leaders revealing themselves and their basic lack of concern for the middle class. People are catching on to this and already the tea party is losing popularity. Palin has had to cancel a recent speaking engagement because not enough people were interested in attending. Glenn Beck's audience has been reduced by 39% during the year.

I'm hopeful that this attack on unions will back fire. Some Republicans have short memories.

(Sorry - this thread will now be deleted)

Your persecution paranoia has been proven wrong...again!

Conundrum wrote:

Really!? Amazing lack of judgement for a working/union person. Sometimes try voting in your own financial best interest and ignore all the talking points that flood the talk shows each election. Odd that you chose Jimmy Carter of all people.

Racehorse wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am a member of the NEA and I have not voted democrat since Jimmy carter.

Odd that you think only those who vote for democrats are those who are workers.

Are corporations any less "communist" than unions? In communism, as per Marx, first of all, there would be no unions, because there would be no distinction between the people and the government and the businesses. Marx did support labor unions as a transitional function, but we know that unions promote a strong middle class. In what way are unions communist? Is it because they are collectives, organizations, in which members vote for leaders and policies and fund the organization through their dues? Corporations are collectives without the democratic control that unions have. They are owned by their shareholders in common. Their boards of directors may be elected by shareholders in some cases, but the members of the corporation are not allowed to vote on who will lead the corporation and boards of directors of different corporations are interlocking, so that there is constant collusion and conflicts of interest among the oligarchies. Corporations effectively bargain collectively with government, industry, and workers, while non-unionized workers have to bargain individually with corporations, who do not change their policies at all on the basis of individual workers. Only with unions do most individual workers have any significant bargaining power, because they are dealing with large collectives (corporations). So, corporations are oligarchical organizations, while unions are democratic organizations. Which is communist?

sure, let's outsource all the jobs, so that we are all unemployed. That's the corporation for you. No loyalty to anywhere and we are all screwed.

Conundrum wrote:

The attack on the middle class continues. Amazing the number of people who have belief systems that aren't even in their own best financial interests.

Why does your belief system have to be in your best financial interest? If I said I thought only white males should be paid for work, that would be in my best financial interest, but I don't believe that.

Racehorse wrote:

BertNEarnie wrote:

Weakening the teachers unions is the first step in education reform. Everyone agrees that our current system is terrible but the second someone starts to really address the issue you get mass demonstations.

I hate unions, but to say the unions are the problems in education is wrong. The real problems occur because education is not valued in this country. If parents and students felt the necessity of a good education, the problems would solve themselves. Unfortunately, the dream of winning the lottery (genetic literal or otherwise) is giving the need for a good education a bad name.

Not true - I went to public school in a district with one of the strongest teachers unions with very highly paid teachers. A large % of the teachers that were tenured were total deadbeats, did the bare minimum and didn't care about doing a good job - but they knew they would never be fired and continue to get higher pay. Meanwhile the few amazing teachers I had actually weren't part of the union and didn't strike with the other deadbeat teachers.

I didn't say it should be the only reason.

laughingostrich wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

The attack on the middle class continues. Amazing the number of people who have belief systems that aren't even in their own best financial interests.

Why does your belief system have to be in your best financial interest? If I said I thought only white males should be paid for work, that would be in my best financial interest, but I don't believe that.

What I wrote is that an union person who has only voted Republican with the exception of Carter was not voting in his best financial interest.What I claimed to be odd was that the only democrat he voted for was Carter.

Racehorse wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

Really!? Amazing lack of judgement for a working/union person. Sometimes try voting in your own financial best interest and ignore all the talking points that flood the talk shows each election. Odd that you chose Jimmy Carter of all people.

Odd that you think only those who vote for democrats are those who are workers.

You heard it from me first(read below). I just read that NY school leaders are looking into throwing the union's precious seniority clause right out the windows.

They want to lay off expensive older teachers instead of the young ones.

Chip, chip, chip...the unions are being taken down!!

[quote]SamuelAdams3 wrote:

Absolutely, why should someone keep their job just because they are older, make more money, and are probably less efficient that the younger worker. Its all backwards thanks to unions.

No wonder schools are failing.

[quote]adfdsafasd wrote:

[quote]jjjjjjjjj wrote:

Are corporations any less "communist" than unions? In communism, as per Marx, first of all, there would be no unions, because there would be no distinction between the people and the government and the businesses. Marx did support labor unions as a transitional function, but we know that unions promote a strong middle class. In what way are unions communist? Is it because they are collectives, organizations, in which members vote for leaders and policies and...............workers have to bargain individually with corporations, who do not change their policies at all on the basis of individual workers. Only with unions do most individual workers have any significant bargaining power, because they are dealing with large collectives (corporations). So, corporations are oligarchical organizations, while unions are democratic ........

Unions are communist not because they are popular in communist countries, (today's communisms aren't always true to their philosophies or ideals because of monarchs) but because they are against democracy. Capitalism thrives on competition. Capitalism is the economic system of democratic countries. Unions are anti-competition. It doesn't matter who works harder in a union. Much like communisms. This is oversimplified, and I'm almost certainly not explaining it well, but it's the best I can give at the moment. And to people throwing out political parties and such, I am a white male with no major association. There are things I like to the right and to the left, but for the most part I am objective. If I like something, it's because I think it works better, not because anyone else does.

Racehorse wrote:How would a union help these people? Unions do not help those who are not yet employed.

Not completely true. Work rules defined by collective bargaining can determine pre-employment practices. Depending on the union some do provide services between employment sometimes including funding, and other help you find work at other union employers. Some of those services have been supplanted by unemployment insurance and job bureaus, but there are often services through the union for the unemployed. In fact that was one of their main functions at one point.

For example, years ago when I was a Teamster I was required by the union to take job specific training on my time. What was in it for me was I had documentation of an enhanced skill set that improved my pay. Since what I was doing at the time (painting) was a common skill with variable demand I had the option to sign up at the union hall and they would list me out with union paint shops in the area. Since I got a job directly at a company but because the union had a job bank if the company didn't have work I could queue up and get work based on seniority and skill set.

It was also the Teamsters that provided workers to several moving companies. Different local, but during the school year in college the local would obtain what amounted to day laborers for the moving companies and if your schedule allowed you queued up and moved furniture. Same deal with training, but if you did it you had documentation you could work with all the various types of moving apparatus and could get work when you were short on cash.

That later worked great because several members of my fraternity got the training and would get walking around money moving furniture (no I wasn't a runner in college). Our specialty was breaking into other fraternity or sorority houses and removing all the furniture, sometimes swapping it with other houses. Our coup de gras was removing everything but the grand piano from the first floor of the Gamma Phi house without waking anyone up, leaving nothing but mixing bowls and cookies sheets and note saying if they didn't deliver 12 dozen cookies we wouldn't bring their furniture back in time for parents day the next day.

So yes, some unions do provide a valuable service to those not employed.

What going on is serious with ramifications for the middle/working class. Some groups will profit greatly from weaker unions and I am not talking about tax payers.Unfortunately during times of uncertainty scapegoat politics are effective.Severely weakened unions will radically change America and its values.http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/24/fantasia.union.wisconsin/index.html?hpt=C2

Racehorse wrote:

Your persecution paranoia has been proven wrong...again!

Conundrum wrote:

Severely weakened unions will radically change America and its values.

You mean it will crush YOUR values. But you sure as hell don't speak for me.

Bite yourself - twenty dollars an hour is peanuts. Are you from the ghetto?

In Question wrote:

Unions are communist not because they are popular in communist countries, (today's communisms aren't always true to their philosophies or ideals because of monarchs) but because they are against democracy. Capitalism thrives on competition. Capitalism is the economic system of democratic countries. Unions are anti-competition. It doesn't matter who works harder in a union. Much like communisms. This is oversimplified, and I'm almost certainly not explaining it well, but it's the best I can give at the moment. And to people throwing out political parties and such, I am a white male with no major association. There are things I like to the right and to the left, but for the most part I am objective. If I like something, it's because I think it works better, not because anyone else does.

Thank you for providing a counterargument, rather than an ad hominem. Quite a contrast. But to respond to your points:

1) unions are democratic in structure, whereas corporations are authoritarian (workers do not vote to determine their leadership or policies),

2) unions support democracy in the countries where they exist by supporting political candidates agreeable to their membership, sponsoring get out the vote drives, and often supporting grassroots organization,

3) many authoritarian countries are capitalist. Zizek writes (and I don't need to cite him on this obvious point) that authoritarian capitalism is increasingly common, on the model of Singapore and China. Corporate contributions (which are remitted often against the interests and decisions both of the workers and the stockholders) may very well undermine the independence of our representatives, because they are on such a large scale and so specifically directed toward the profits of a select few,

4) unions may or may not have an effect on work ethic, but I heard a scholar on NPR today citing studies that unions have neither a positive, nor a negative effect on worker productivity, controlling for experience (greater at union jobs), I would assume.

"why should anyone keep their job just because they are older, make more money, and are PROBABLY less efficient than (that was a teacher correcting your spelling by the way just now) the younger worker"........

Why is the presumption that older = less efficient?

In that case lower the minimum age for being a president.

How about all corporate CEO's over 40 getting the can to save some money?

Tenure's purpose isn't to protect the bad teachers....it is to protect the rights of all teachers, especially the veteran teachers. Can you imagine giving your whole life to a district, then when financial times get bad they fire you to save money and keep younger, less experienced teachers? Administrator's recommend teachers for tenure, then the boards of education grant it or not. Let's put more pressure on those structures to supervise and support rather than just pass along. If there are so many "bad" teachers with tenure, who recommended them? Hold your board of education accountable and the administration that is obligated to properly supervise. Don't blame the teacher's unions for poor teachers receiving tenure.

Schools are not failing because of unions. Schools are failing because communities now expect schools to do more every day. Teachers must now play the part of parents that have no interest in raising their children anymore. Go to any suburban district and watch how many nannies are dropping off and picking up the students, spending time with them doing homework, feeding them dinner and then tucking them in, all so wealthy parents can continue to make a lot of money to take a lot of vacations, buy houses, clothing, nice cars, and blame teachers for their taxes being so high. Go to any inner city school and see how many kids don't get 3 balanced meals, don't have anybody at their home (if they have a home) to help with homework, wear the same clothing for many days in a row. Communities should put as much pressure on their own members to do a better job of actually raising their children and taking an active role in their child's education instead of complaining about how easy teachers have it with their "summers off" and short days......too much pay.....guaranteed pensions (or more accurately, money we have deferred).....health care (and boy do we need it when you continually send your kids to school with viruses, colds, etc. and "can't take a sick day to stay home with Bobby because my job is very important (translated = Bobby is not as important as my job)......

And you sure as hell don't reflect American values. Middle class, working values, representation, negotiation, do any of these concepts have any value to you.

i am a champion wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

Severely weakened unions will radically change America and its values.

You mean it will crush YOUR values. But you sure as hell don't speak for me.

A pay for performance culture should be considered---I work in Pharmaceuticals and if anyoe wonders why we make so much $$$, this is why. It is a great motivator, and quite honestly theres no room for slacking---the better you perform the more you make, its very simple BUT very effective. Rubber rooms should be eliminated, were paying for multiple offenders to sit in a dunce cap room with full pay as if thats supposed to teach them a lesson. Who's gonna complain about full pay and not working? NONE of them!!