In article ,
says...

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:03:24 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:49:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:37:33 -0700, wrote:


It is a strange comment from a person who believes in the unions and
their policy of paying the oldest and longest serving employees the
most, regardless of performance.

Who believes that? I don't think you'll find anyone who does.

School teachers.

Nonsense. They believe performance does matter, and they're sick of
teaching to tests that don't teach kids anything useful except maybe
how to take tests.

Taking tests is a very important skill but these teachers do not want
their salary tied to any measure of performance. They want to be paid
by credentials and time in grade.
Make that sound reasonable to me..
A totally out of touch teacher with 20 years on the job and a PhD, who
gets horrible results, makes 3 times as much as a new teacher who
connects with the kids and really gets something done in the
classroom. That is ridiculous.

It's just the way of the unions. When I got laid off from Finast I was
number two from the bottom of siniority, so I went second. At the same
time, I was consistently in the top ten percent of production, day after
day. At the same time the union worked very hard to keep guys caught
sleeping in the bathroom or stealing, earning a steady paycheck.

There is something inherently wrong with Unions taking millions from
their employees, handing it to politicians, and then going to those very
same Politicians for negotiations... Period.

wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:34:07 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:03:24 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:49:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:37:33 -0700, wrote:

It is a strange comment from a person who believes in the unions and
their policy of paying the oldest and longest serving employees the
most, regardless of performance.
Who believes that? I don't think you'll find anyone who does.
School teachers.
Nonsense. They believe performance does matter, and they're sick of
teaching to tests that don't teach kids anything useful except maybe
how to take tests.
Taking tests is a very important skill but these teachers do not want
their salary tied to any measure of performance. They want to be paid
by credentials and time in grade.
Make that sound reasonable to me..
A totally out of touch teacher with 20 years on the job and a PhD, who
gets horrible results, makes 3 times as much as a new teacher who
connects with the kids and really gets something done in the
classroom. That is ridiculous.
It's just the way of the unions. When I got laid off from Finast I was
number two from the bottom of siniority, so I went second. At the same
time, I was consistently in the top ten percent of production, day after
day. At the same time the union worked very hard to keep guys caught
sleeping in the bathroom or stealing, earning a steady paycheck.

There is something inherently wrong with Unions taking millions from
their employees, handing it to politicians, and then going to those very
same Politicians for negotiations... Period.


We just had an article in the paper about suspended employees who were
still being paid. Their top example was a teacher who was suspended
for sexual assault on a faculty member, off on "suspension" for over a
year and still getting the $61,000 salary. Not bad money for staying
home and watching soaps all day. This person was reinstated, back to
teaching. What do you learn in that class?


Hell, man, you guys elected a governor who should be in federal prison.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:14:54 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:32:06 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:34:07 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:03:24 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:49:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:37:33 -0700, wrote:

It is a strange comment from a person who believes in the unions and
their policy of paying the oldest and longest serving employees the
most, regardless of performance.
Who believes that? I don't think you'll find anyone who does.
School teachers.
Nonsense. They believe performance does matter, and they're sick of
teaching to tests that don't teach kids anything useful except maybe
how to take tests.
Taking tests is a very important skill but these teachers do not want
their salary tied to any measure of performance. They want to be paid
by credentials and time in grade.
Make that sound reasonable to me..
A totally out of touch teacher with 20 years on the job and a PhD, who
gets horrible results, makes 3 times as much as a new teacher who
connects with the kids and really gets something done in the
classroom. That is ridiculous.
It's just the way of the unions. When I got laid off from Finast I was
number two from the bottom of siniority, so I went second. At the same
time, I was consistently in the top ten percent of production, day after
day. At the same time the union worked very hard to keep guys caught
sleeping in the bathroom or stealing, earning a steady paycheck.

There is something inherently wrong with Unions taking millions from
their employees, handing it to politicians, and then going to those very
same Politicians for negotiations... Period.


We just had an article in the paper about suspended employees who were
still being paid. Their top example was a teacher who was suspended
for sexual assault on a faculty member, off on "suspension" for over a
year and still getting the $61,000 salary. Not bad money for staying
home and watching soaps all day. This person was reinstated, back to
teaching. What do you learn in that class?


Hell, man, you guys elected a governor who should be in federal prison.


Right next to Charlie Rangel but evidently crime does pay.

Who was censured and removed from the chairmanship of his committee.
Not much punishment, but certainly more than your governor got.

Oh, don't forget Newt. He was just reprimanded for the use of a
tax-exempt organization for political purposes and providing false
information to the House Ethics Committee.

wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:32:06 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:34:07 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:03:24 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:49:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:37:33 -0700, wrote:

It is a strange comment from a person who believes in the unions and
their policy of paying the oldest and longest serving employees the
most, regardless of performance.
Who believes that? I don't think you'll find anyone who does.
School teachers.
Nonsense. They believe performance does matter, and they're sick of
teaching to tests that don't teach kids anything useful except maybe
how to take tests.
Taking tests is a very important skill but these teachers do not want
their salary tied to any measure of performance. They want to be paid
by credentials and time in grade.
Make that sound reasonable to me..
A totally out of touch teacher with 20 years on the job and a PhD, who
gets horrible results, makes 3 times as much as a new teacher who
connects with the kids and really gets something done in the
classroom. That is ridiculous.
It's just the way of the unions. When I got laid off from Finast I was
number two from the bottom of siniority, so I went second. At the same
time, I was consistently in the top ten percent of production, day after
day. At the same time the union worked very hard to keep guys caught
sleeping in the bathroom or stealing, earning a steady paycheck.

There is something inherently wrong with Unions taking millions from
their employees, handing it to politicians, and then going to those very
same Politicians for negotiations... Period.

We just had an article in the paper about suspended employees who were
still being paid. Their top example was a teacher who was suspended
for sexual assault on a faculty member, off on "suspension" for over a
year and still getting the $61,000 salary. Not bad money for staying
home and watching soaps all day. This person was reinstated, back to
teaching. What do you learn in that class?

Hell, man, you guys elected a governor who should be in federal prison.


Right next to Charlie Rangel but evidently crime does pay.

Charlie is small potatoes compared to your governor.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:28:38 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:34:07 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:03:24 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:49:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:37:33 -0700, wrote:


It is a strange comment from a person who believes in the unions and
their policy of paying the oldest and longest serving employees the
most, regardless of performance.

Who believes that? I don't think you'll find anyone who does.

School teachers.

Nonsense. They believe performance does matter, and they're sick of
teaching to tests that don't teach kids anything useful except maybe
how to take tests.

Taking tests is a very important skill but these teachers do not want
their salary tied to any measure of performance. They want to be paid
by credentials and time in grade.
Make that sound reasonable to me..
A totally out of touch teacher with 20 years on the job and a PhD, who
gets horrible results, makes 3 times as much as a new teacher who
connects with the kids and really gets something done in the
classroom. That is ridiculous.

It's just the way of the unions. When I got laid off from Finast I was
number two from the bottom of siniority, so I went second. At the same
time, I was consistently in the top ten percent of production, day after
day. At the same time the union worked very hard to keep guys caught
sleeping in the bathroom or stealing, earning a steady paycheck.

There is something inherently wrong with Unions taking millions from
their employees, handing it to politicians, and then going to those very
same Politicians for negotiations... Period.


We just had an article in the paper about suspended employees who were
still being paid. Their top example was a teacher who was suspended
for sexual assault on a faculty member, off on "suspension" for over a
year and still getting the $61,000 salary. Not bad money for staying
home and watching soaps all day. This person was reinstated, back to
teaching. What do you learn in that class?

So, because there's occasionally abuse of the system, that means the
system is bankrupt and should be discarded? Nonsense.

On 3/28/2011 2:00 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:28:38 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:34:07 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:03:24 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:49:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:37:33 -0700, wrote:


It is a strange comment from a person who believes in the unions and
their policy of paying the oldest and longest serving employees the
most, regardless of performance.

Who believes that? I don't think you'll find anyone who does.

School teachers.

Nonsense. They believe performance does matter, and they're sick of
teaching to tests that don't teach kids anything useful except maybe
how to take tests.

Taking tests is a very important skill but these teachers do not want
their salary tied to any measure of performance. They want to be paid
by credentials and time in grade.
Make that sound reasonable to me..
A totally out of touch teacher with 20 years on the job and a PhD, who
gets horrible results, makes 3 times as much as a new teacher who
connects with the kids and really gets something done in the
classroom. That is ridiculous.

It's just the way of the unions. When I got laid off from Finast I was
number two from the bottom of siniority, so I went second. At the same
time, I was consistently in the top ten percent of production, day after
day. At the same time the union worked very hard to keep guys caught
sleeping in the bathroom or stealing, earning a steady paycheck.

There is something inherently wrong with Unions taking millions from
their employees, handing it to politicians, and then going to those very
same Politicians for negotiations... Period.


We just had an article in the paper about suspended employees who were
still being paid. Their top example was a teacher who was suspended
for sexual assault on a faculty member, off on "suspension" for over a
year and still getting the $61,000 salary. Not bad money for staying
home and watching soaps all day. This person was reinstated, back to
teaching. What do you learn in that class?

So, because there's occasionally abuse of the system, that means the
system is bankrupt and should be discarded? Nonsense.

It happens every day, dear.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:17:26 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:00:42 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:28:38 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:34:07 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:03:24 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:49:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:37:33 -0700, wrote:


It is a strange comment from a person who believes in the unions and
their policy of paying the oldest and longest serving employees the
most, regardless of performance.

Who believes that? I don't think you'll find anyone who does.

School teachers.

Nonsense. They believe performance does matter, and they're sick of
teaching to tests that don't teach kids anything useful except maybe
how to take tests.

Taking tests is a very important skill but these teachers do not want
their salary tied to any measure of performance. They want to be paid
by credentials and time in grade.
Make that sound reasonable to me..
A totally out of touch teacher with 20 years on the job and a PhD, who
gets horrible results, makes 3 times as much as a new teacher who
connects with the kids and really gets something done in the
classroom. That is ridiculous.

It's just the way of the unions. When I got laid off from Finast I was
number two from the bottom of siniority, so I went second. At the same
time, I was consistently in the top ten percent of production, day after
day. At the same time the union worked very hard to keep guys caught
sleeping in the bathroom or stealing, earning a steady paycheck.

There is something inherently wrong with Unions taking millions from
their employees, handing it to politicians, and then going to those very
same Politicians for negotiations... Period.


We just had an article in the paper about suspended employees who were
still being paid. Their top example was a teacher who was suspended
for sexual assault on a faculty member, off on "suspension" for over a
year and still getting the $61,000 salary. Not bad money for staying
home and watching soaps all day. This person was reinstated, back to
teaching. What do you learn in that class?

So, because there's occasionally abuse of the system, that means the
system is bankrupt and should be discarded? Nonsense.

We are just talking about fixing the system so that doesn't happen and
so you can give those younger teachers who do have a good success
record, more money.

Fixing it how? So far the only "proposal" is to strip teachers of
their rights to bargain collectively.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:10:48 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:17:26 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:00:42 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:28:38 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:34:07 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:03:24 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:49:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:37:33 -0700, wrote:


It is a strange comment from a person who believes in the unions and
their policy of paying the oldest and longest serving employees the
most, regardless of performance.

Who believes that? I don't think you'll find anyone who does.

School teachers.

Nonsense. They believe performance does matter, and they're sick of
teaching to tests that don't teach kids anything useful except maybe
how to take tests.

Taking tests is a very important skill but these teachers do not want
their salary tied to any measure of performance. They want to be paid
by credentials and time in grade.
Make that sound reasonable to me..
A totally out of touch teacher with 20 years on the job and a PhD, who
gets horrible results, makes 3 times as much as a new teacher who
connects with the kids and really gets something done in the
classroom. That is ridiculous.

It's just the way of the unions. When I got laid off from Finast I was
number two from the bottom of siniority, so I went second. At the same
time, I was consistently in the top ten percent of production, day after
day. At the same time the union worked very hard to keep guys caught
sleeping in the bathroom or stealing, earning a steady paycheck.

There is something inherently wrong with Unions taking millions from
their employees, handing it to politicians, and then going to those very
same Politicians for negotiations... Period.


We just had an article in the paper about suspended employees who were
still being paid. Their top example was a teacher who was suspended
for sexual assault on a faculty member, off on "suspension" for over a
year and still getting the $61,000 salary. Not bad money for staying
home and watching soaps all day. This person was reinstated, back to
teaching. What do you learn in that class?

So, because there's occasionally abuse of the system, that means the
system is bankrupt and should be discarded? Nonsense.

We are just talking about fixing the system so that doesn't happen and
so you can give those younger teachers who do have a good success
record, more money.

Fixing it how? So far the only "proposal" is to strip teachers of
their rights to bargain collectively.

That is what the union wants you to think.

It is not the case here.

The issue is unions buying politicians with millions of dollars of dues
money, then going to those same politicians to negotiate their own
benefits. If they don't get what they want, they can buy someone else
and he pols know that. It's called racketeering, or "business as usual"
for Unions...

I_am_Tosk wrote:


It is not the case here.

The issue is unions buying politicians with millions of dollars of dues
money, then going to those same politicians to negotiate their own
benefits. If they don't get what they want, they can buy someone else
and he pols know that. It's called racketeering, or "business as usual"
for Unions...

You ignorant little slut. It is illegal for unions to use dues money for
political purposes. Unions may collect voluntary gifts from members for
political action.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

I_am_Tosk wrote:


It is not the case here.

The issue is unions buying politicians with millions of dollars of dues
money, then going to those same politicians to negotiate their own
benefits. If they don't get what they want, they can buy someone else
and he pols know that. It's called racketeering, or "business as usual"
for Unions...

You ignorant little slut. It is illegal for unions to use dues money for
political purposes. Unions may collect voluntary gifts from members for
political action.

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean that it's not done, dip****.