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****.

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:21:39 -0400,
wrote:

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.

Cite that law. I would like to read what it actually says because it
is clear the unions are spending a lot of money.
More than half of the top 20 contributors to the 2010 cycle were
unions.

Many - most - unions have PACs, and the contributions to PACs are
voluntary. PAC money, not dues money, is used to support union political
action.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:21:39 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

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.

Cite that law. I would like to read what it actually says because it
is clear the unions are spending a lot of money.
More than half of the top 20 contributors to the 2010 cycle were
unions.

Harry is full of ****... He will certainly insult us though for asking

I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:21:39 -0400,
wrote:

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.
Cite that law. I would like to read what it actually says because it
is clear the unions are spending a lot of money.
More than half of the top 20 contributors to the 2010 cycle were
unions.

Harry is full of ****... He will certainly insult us though for asking

You ignorant ass.

18 U.S.C. § 610 prohibits a labor organization from making a
contribution or an expenditure in connection with a federal election.
Many states have similar regulations.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 added a paragraph at the end
of § 610 that expressly authorizes labor organizations to establish,
administer, and solicit contributions for political funds, provided that
the fund not make a contribution or expenditure in connection with a
federal election by utilizing money or anything of value secured by
physical force, job discrimination, financial reprisals, or the threat
thereof, or by monies required as a condition of employment or union
membership.

That's why unions have PACs. It is legal for a union to raise non-dues
money for its PAC.

There have been some few cases, successfully prosecuted, against union
officials who broke this law.


Stick to shoveling **** in barns. It obviously is what you know best.
You're not equipped to deal with adult, knowledge-based political
discussions.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:16:26 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:21:39 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

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.

Cite that law. I would like to read what it actually says because it
is clear the unions are spending a lot of money.
More than half of the top 20 contributors to the 2010 cycle were
unions.

Wow, if what Harry said is true, then this must be all false! [It didn't
reproduce all lined up, but even a dunce can figure it out.]

Leading Union Political Campaign Contributors
1990-2010
Democrats Republicans
American Fed. of State, County, & Municipal Employees $40,281,900 $547,700
Intel Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 29,705,600 679,000
National Education Association 27,679,300 2,005,200
Service Employees International Union 26,368,470 98,700
Communication Workers of America 26,305,500 125,300
Service Employees International Union 26,252,000 1,086,200
Laborers Union 25,734,000 2,138,000
American Federation of Teachers 25,682,800 200,000
United Auto Workers 25,082,200 182,700
Teamsters Union 24,926,400 1,822,000
Carpenters and Joiners Union 24,094,100 2,658,000
Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union 23,875,600 226,300
United Food and Commercial Workers Union 23,182,000 334,200
AFL-CIO 17,124,300 713,500
Sheet Metal Workers Union 16,347,200 342,800
Plumbers & Pipefitters Union 14,790,000 818,500
Operating Engineers Union 13,840,000 2,309,500
Airline Pilots Association 12,806,600 2,398,300
International Association of Firefighters 12,421,700 2,685,400 United
Transportation Workers 11,807,000 1,459,300
Ironworkers Union 11,638,900 936,000
American Postal Workers Union 11,633,100 544,300
Nat'l Active & Retired Fed. Employees Association 8,135,400 2,294,600
Seafarers International Union 6,726,800 1,281,300
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, Washington, D.C.

John H wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:16:26 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:21:39 -0400,
wrote:

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.
Cite that law. I would like to read what it actually says because it
is clear the unions are spending a lot of money.
More than half of the top 20 contributors to the 2010 cycle were
unions.

Wow, if what Harry said is true, then this must be all false! [It didn't
reproduce all lined up, but even a dunce can figure it out.]

Leading Union Political Campaign Contributors
1990-2010
Democrats Republicans
American Fed. of State, County,& Municipal Employees $40,281,900 $547,700
Intel Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 29,705,600 679,000
National Education Association 27,679,300 2,005,200
Service Employees International Union 26,368,470 98,700
Communication Workers of America 26,305,500 125,300
Service Employees International Union 26,252,000 1,086,200
Laborers Union 25,734,000 2,138,000
American Federation of Teachers 25,682,800 200,000
United Auto Workers 25,082,200 182,700
Teamsters Union 24,926,400 1,822,000
Carpenters and Joiners Union 24,094,100 2,658,000
Machinists& Aerospace Workers Union 23,875,600 226,300
United Food and Commercial Workers Union 23,182,000 334,200
AFL-CIO 17,124,300 713,500
Sheet Metal Workers Union 16,347,200 342,800
Plumbers& Pipefitters Union 14,790,000 818,500
Operating Engineers Union 13,840,000 2,309,500
Airline Pilots Association 12,806,600 2,398,300
International Association of Firefighters 12,421,700 2,685,400 United
Transportation Workers 11,807,000 1,459,300
Ironworkers Union 11,638,900 936,000
American Postal Workers Union 11,633,100 544,300
Nat'l Active& Retired Fed. Employees Association 8,135,400 2,294,600
Seafarers International Union 6,726,800 1,281,300
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, Washington, D.C.


What part of "It is illegal to use dues money..." do you mooks not
understand?

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:54:16 -0400, wrote:

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.

Where is here? Florida? That's what's going on in a bunch of other
places. It's nonsense. It's union busting pure and simple.