"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:42:56 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:25:20 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:30:07 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:
Wal-Mart's Colorado Unit Rejects Union

3 minutes ago

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE:WMT - news) on Friday
said
workers at its Colorado tire shop have voted to reject union
representation, a
step which deals another blow to efforts to unionize at the world's
largest
retailer.

A Wal-Mart statement said tire and lube express associates at its
Loveland
supercenter voted 17-1 to reject representation by the United Food &
Commercial
Workers Union.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a shame. Wow, seventeen to one.

Wal-Crap's been closing its stores after employees vote for a union.

BTW, Herring, as a sub teacher, aren't you drawing the benefits
negotiated by a labor union?

Actually, in this state anyway, subs aren't part of the collective
bargaining agreement because they aren't subject to the same
educational requirements beyond having a basic degree qualification.

I don't think they are in any other state either, but I'm not sure of
that.

Are you paying your dues, or are you the typical Republican freeloader?

Subs in this state don't pay union dues.

That's also true of Virginia. Teachers don't pay union dues either, if
they have
a little sense and don't get frightened into joining by some union hack.

No offense, but my wife is one of those "hacks" - a fairly important
one to boot - and she, along with others are trying to fix things
instead of hiding behind some notion of independence.

The good thing about negotiated contracts certain aspects of the
teaching/administrating a school can be defined - don't forget that
you don't have a lot of protection from an administration determined
to get you if they wish.

It's not a good ting to take a free ride John unless you are capable
of negotiating your own separate contract.

As I said, no offense.

Later,

Tom


Tom, do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
skill or commitment to the job deserve the same pay increase every year?
Should the bad teachers get the same increase as the good ones? Should the
bad teachers be protected by the union so they keep their jobs?

My wife recently retired from teaching (disability) after 31 or so years.
When she taught she would spend 10-12 hours/day on her work, including time
spent at home grading homework and preparing/planning for her upcoming week.
This was 5 days/weeks with several hours during the weekend. This went on
throughout the school year. Come summer, she would spend 3 full weeks
getting her room ready and preparing for the upcoming year. She was one of
the dedicated teachers.

But she saw her share of teachers on the other end of the spectrum doing
only the minimum to get by.

In the end, they all got the same pay increase and the bad teachers
continued to do a bad job teaching the students.

Is that what the union is all about?

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:09:12 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
Gee, you would have thought the Textile and Clothing Workers Industrial Union
would have saved all those jobs. You reckon the union had anything to do with
the outsourcing of all that work?


I dooubt it strongly, since few textile plants in the South were
unionized right up to the end.

The magic words...the end.


I wonder which is better, taking a reduction in pay to $27 an hour (fictitious
number) or a reduction to $0 per hour.


You're really full of ****.

You're probably correct.

Do you think the average mill worker ever
got anywhere near $27 per hour? What do you think they *did* get, if you
have to pull fictitious numbers out of thin air?

I have no idea what they got. The point is that they are getting *nothing* now.
Of course, that's probably Bush's fault.

Do you think that American laborers should compete on an "even playing
field" ie no pollution laws, no workplace safety laws, and $1/day wages
such as prevalent in the 3rd world? The only way to compete is through
technology... and intelligent management... both of which require the
application of a little political willpower...

Of course, political willpower. Whose? Did Bush wipe out all the textile plants?
Does political willpower create the technology and intelligent management of
which you speak?

Guess we fell short.

DSK


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:17:58 -0500, John H
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

The local counties are all in competition for good teachers here. I think that
helps our pay (or what used to be my pay) more than the unions.

Well, you have county government which is a much different form of
local control than that here in the Nutmeg State.

We have town prefectures which is a whole different ball game.

Hey - it's a worthy discussion.

Later,

Tom

I dooubt it strongly, since few textile plants in the South were
unionized right up to the end.


John H wrote:
The magic words...the end.


Do you have a problem understanding plain English, or is your
Clinton-hating gland jazzed up to the point where you can blame the
unions when a non-union plant goes out of business?



You're really full of ****.


You're probably correct.


And have been all along.


Do you think that American laborers should compete on an "even playing
field" ie no pollution laws, no workplace safety laws, and $1/day wages
such as prevalent in the 3rd world? The only way to compete is through
technology... and intelligent management... both of which require the
application of a little political willpower...


Of course, political willpower. Whose?

Who has been running the country for over 4 years now, watching and
doing nothing about the increasing decline of U.S. manufacturing?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
John H wrote:
Gee, you would have thought the Textile and Clothing Workers Industrial
Union
would have saved all those jobs. You reckon the union had anything to do
with
the outsourcing of all that work?

I dooubt it strongly, since few textile plants in the South were unionized
right up to the end.

I wonder which is better, taking a reduction in pay to $27 an hour
(fictitious
number) or a reduction to $0 per hour.


You're really full of ****. Do you think the average mill worker ever got
anywhere near $27 per hour? What do you think they *did* get, if you have
to pull fictitious numbers out of thin air?

Do you think that American laborers should compete on an "even playing
field" ie no pollution laws, no workplace safety laws, and $1/day wages
such as prevalent in the 3rd world? The only way to compete is through
technology... and intelligent management... both of which require the
application of a little political willpower...

Are you for or against the Kyoto Protocols?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
John H wrote:
Gee, you would have thought the Textile and Clothing Workers Industrial
Union
would have saved all those jobs. You reckon the union had anything to do
with
the outsourcing of all that work?

I dooubt it strongly, since few textile plants in the South were
unionized right up to the end.

I wonder which is better, taking a reduction in pay to $27 an hour
(fictitious
number) or a reduction to $0 per hour.


You're really full of ****. Do you think the average mill worker ever got
anywhere near $27 per hour? What do you think they *did* get, if you have
to pull fictitious numbers out of thin air?

Do you think that American laborers should compete on an "even playing
field" ie no pollution laws, no workplace safety laws, and $1/day wages
such as prevalent in the 3rd world? The only way to compete is through
technology... and intelligent management... both of which require the
application of a little political willpower...

Are you for or against the Kyoto Protocols?



I once posted an actual UAW contract agreement showing janitors in one plant
making $80,000 not including benefits and overtime.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:47:03 -0500, "Bert Robbins"
wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
Gee, you would have thought the Textile and Clothing Workers Industrial
Union
would have saved all those jobs. You reckon the union had anything to do
with
the outsourcing of all that work?

I dooubt it strongly, since few textile plants in the South were unionized
right up to the end.

I wonder which is better, taking a reduction in pay to $27 an hour
(fictitious
number) or a reduction to $0 per hour.


You're really full of ****. Do you think the average mill worker ever got
anywhere near $27 per hour? What do you think they *did* get, if you have
to pull fictitious numbers out of thin air?

Do you think that American laborers should compete on an "even playing
field" ie no pollution laws, no workplace safety laws, and $1/day wages
such as prevalent in the 3rd world? The only way to compete is through
technology... and intelligent management... both of which require the
application of a little political willpower...

Are you for or against the Kyoto Protocols?

I'm four square for bombing the whales and Jane Fonda. :)

Later,

Tom

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:19:58 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

~~ snippage

Tom, do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
skill or commitment to the job deserve the same pay increase every year?
Should the bad teachers get the same increase as the good ones? Should the
bad teachers be protected by the union so they keep their jobs?

This is a interesting subject and one that can take up terabytes of
bandwidth if the discussion turns - um - difficult. :)

Let's start with the first comment - to wit:" do you believe that all
teachers in a school district, regardless of skill or commitment to
the job deserve the same pay increase every year?

You have to separate this question into two because the first is
totally different than the second.

How do you judge commitment? Is it hours after school doing
additional extra help? Committing to a non-paying coaching or
mentoring position? How about Union commitment - doing all the dirty
work in the organizational trenches so that teachers aren't beat to
hell by administration's and Board of Educations? Is bringing home
reams of papers to correct on a weekend commitment or a function of
the job? Are you in it for yourself or in it for the thrill of
teaching kids?

It's a subjective value and nothing that can be objectively valued.
Is a gym teacher who does his/her job competently who has little or no
out of school commitments or homework assignments less committed to
teaching than a language arts teacher with tons of papers to read and
correct?

Let's move to the second two - this is where the rubber meets the
road. To wit: Should the bad teachers get the same increase as the
good ones?

First, you have to define the objective goals. How does one define
acceptable, or outstanding, teaching? How do you define the skill set
needed to acceptably teach a mixed classroom? How do you define a
"bad" teacher?

The simple answer is testing, but that is also a false value. A
teacher with all high level learners will do much better on a standard
test than a teacher of equal skill who has a mixed class of special
education mainstreamers and middle skill level learners. Or a teacher
with a mix of high, middle, low and Speds.

How do you judge the relative value of a Language Arts teacher vs a
Math or Science teacher - is one more worthy of money than another?
Is one easier to teach than the other?

Then there is a whole matter of seniority - it costs more for teachers
with long term skill sets. Are these more valuable teachers than
those who are first timers? How do you define it?

If you find the answers to these questions, I know somebody who would
really like to talk to you. :)

In the end, they all got the same pay increase and the bad teachers
continued to do a bad job teaching the students.

Is that what the union is all about?

No - or at least it shouldn't be. Unions should be about making sure
the field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of.

Later,

Tom

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:44:49 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

The simple truth is that the NEA/AFT leadership is so out of touch
with the everyday teacher that these same teachers see little value in
contributing.

You're not in any position to make a statement like that. The NEA grows
substantially every year and now has around 3 million members, making it
the largest union in the USA. I'm not that familiar with the AFT.

I'm not?

How - interesting.

Later,

Tom

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
snip
Note that we really don't need your trade / laws / people at all, we are
just good neighbours.
Try it sometime.


Now you're showing your stupidity again. Before you go flapping your gums
about not needing our trade.....find out who uses our electricity, our
natural gas & oil. Actually, we could be self supporting.....exporting to
you just puts more money in our governments pockets. Thanks for paying for
my heath care & social benefits.