Just last month in Quebec, Wal-Mart said it was closing a store after the
workers unionized. What a piece of **** company. They should be run out of
the country on a rail.

Man, I hate to fuel OT crap like this, but AFAIC, it's the friggin unions
that should close shop and hit the road. There may have been a need for them
a half century ago, but federal and state regs now do what the unions first
did. Now all they serve to do is to line the pockets of the union "leaders,"
drive up prices, and protect the s**ty worker.

I've worked both sides of that fence...

--Mike

"Don White" wrote in message
news

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.


John H


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?

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


Just last month in Quebec, Wal-Mart said it was closing a store after the
workers unionized. What a piece of **** company. They should be run out
of
the country on a rail.

I guess I should read down before I posted...You stated, much more
elequently I might add, what I did.

--Mike

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"JimH" wrote in message
...

Why should the company be forced to accept union labor? They have every
right to close up shop and move if it is being forced on them.

Thank's for agreeing...they should be moved right back to the US.



We are happy to have Walmart Don. It is indeed an American Company.

Do you know that unions now make up less than 10% of the US workforce,
with that figure shrinking every year?

Unions were indeed once needed. They played a very important part in
making work places safe and raising the income standards for workers. But
that was 75 to 100 years ago.

Their time has passed however. Their high wage and benefits demands,
combined with their keeping unfit and incompetent workers has led to their
demise.

People now want to determine their own worth on the job and not be tied
into a large collective bargaining group when it comes to pay incentives
and increases. They also want the money once going to union fat cats
(dues) to stay in their pocket.

Just remember there is someone out there that will due your job for
less. I work for a major airline that has a union and we were forced to
give back allot. 17.5% in pay, one weeks vacation, 5 holidays at (2.5 times
straight time), lost 5 sick days, overtime after 4 hours was double time,
now time and a half. Add it all up we lost about 20%. That's not including
that medical is going thought the roof. And our union did little to stop
it. The next thing the company will go for is our pension. So if a large
company can do this to its employees that have a union, just think what will
happen if you don't have union. If a few large companies start taking back
benefits and get away with it other companies will follow. Unions are
needed now more then ever.

Tim


Do you know that unions now make up less than 10% of the US workforce,
with that figure shrinking every year?

Unions were indeed once needed. They played a very important part in
making work places safe and raising the income standards for workers. But
that was 75 to 100 years ago.

Their time has passed however. Their high wage and benefits demands,
combined with their keeping unfit and incompetent workers has led to their
demise.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:24:19 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:49:27 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:19:58 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news:he7v119bc7ihvh3ncscq1ic0mt6bujvsjg@4ax. com...

~~ snippage
~~ snippage ~~
Wrong question again. It is assumed that any teacher performing at any
grade level has the skills to teach.

And that is the problem. Perhaps it can be traced back to Unions....eh?

Actually, no. In this state, CEA argued and lobbied unsuccessfully
against the Praxis which was the brain child of a former Dept of Ed
Commissioner who was a real...um...innovator.

In fact, the Praxis test and the whole mentoring system has failed
miserably allowing poorly qualified teachers into the system.

Kind of curious that.

In CT, a skills test must be
passed to obtain a teaching position.

That test shows that basic skill levels have been obtained....nothing
more.

Are you content with "basic level" teachers Tom? Not me,

I'm not at all sure what you mean by that. Everybody has to have a
basic level of understanding of anything before they can become
proficient at it. My first job as an engineer was checking drawings
and compiling/checking data points for Senior Engineers. It only
through the use of those basic skills that one gains experience and
technique.

I'm satisfied with basic skills under supervision which is pretty much
how it works now.

But to be straight forward, if you equate skill to years taught, then
yes - two year teachers should be paid the same - thirty year teachers
should be paid the same.

I never equated the skill level to number of years taught.

You did a good job skirting my original question, so I will ask it again:

1. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
skills deserve the same pay increase every year?

All teachers are not paid the same in any school district in CT. It's
based on years of service and education. And by definition a thirty
year teacher is, in theory, paid more than a two year teacher because
of experience, education and in-service skills.

Let me try it this way. If you mean that a two year teacher with a BS
degree should be paid the same as a two year teacher with a BS/MS,
then no - the two year teacher with the BS/MS should be paid more than
the teacher with the BS. That is a skills based criteria.

If you mean that a two year teacher with a BS/MS should be paid the
same as a thirty year teacher with a BS/MS, then no - the thirty year
teacher should be paid more because of seniority which translates to
experience and skills related to that experience.

Does that make more sense?

Of course teachers are paid differently according to the number of years on
the job. I never said anything differently....I said *pay increases* Tom.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:24:09 -0500, DSK wrote:

Gee, must be Clinton's fault... yeah, that's the ticket!



John H wrote:
And you actually blame said closures on Bush?

Of course not, poor baby. He's been so worried about terrorism, and busy
making up nicknames for his new Cabinet, how could we expect him to
actually do anything about the economy?

Especially when so many people like yourself will swallow all sort of
bull**** about how they haven't really lost a million jobs.

It's remarkable... you seem to expect to be taken seriously, and yet you
have no intention whatever holding Bush & Cheney accountable for anything.

Try this on your Descartes: The President is either responsible, or he's
irresponsible.

DSK

*I* expect to be taken seriously? Where the hell did that come from?

Yesterday France passed the 10% unemployment mark. Ours is what, 5.6%?

"Germany, the world's third largest economy, now has over five million
unemployed, the highest level since the economic chaos of 1933. Expected
economic growth of 1.6 percent this year is not expected to improve labor
markets significantly." (CNN.com, Feb 15)

Our growth rate was 3.8% last quarter.
(http://www.globalinsight.com/Perspec...Detail1703.htm)

In fact, the article at the referenced site is worth a read.

Do some reading about the French and German economies, where your heros Chirac
and Shroeder reign supreme, and *then* come back and whine about Bush!


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 Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:49:43 GMT, "mgg" wrote:

Just last month in Quebec, Wal-Mart said it was closing a store after the
workers unionized. What a piece of **** company. They should be run out of
the country on a rail.

Man, I hate to fuel OT crap like this, but AFAIC, it's the friggin unions
that should close shop and hit the road. There may have been a need for them
a half century ago, but federal and state regs now do what the unions first
did. Now all they serve to do is to line the pockets of the union "leaders,"
drive up prices, and protect the s**ty worker.

I've worked both sides of that fence...

--Mike

"Don White" wrote in message
news

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.


John H


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?

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


Just last month in Quebec, Wal-Mart said it was closing a store after the
workers unionized. What a piece of **** company. They should be run out
of
the country on a rail.


One needs only to look at France and Germany to see what the unions can do to an
economy, even when the countries are run by such noble characters as Chirac and
Shroeder.

Germany has 10,5% unemployment and France just hit the 10% mark.

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

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:24:09 -0500, DSK wrote:

Gee, must be Clinton's fault... yeah, that's the ticket!



John H wrote:
And you actually blame said closures on Bush?

Of course not, poor baby. He's been so worried about terrorism, and busy
making up nicknames for his new Cabinet, how could we expect him to
actually do anything about the economy?

Especially when so many people like yourself will swallow all sort of
bull**** about how they haven't really lost a million jobs.

It's remarkable... you seem to expect to be taken seriously, and yet you
have no intention whatever holding Bush & Cheney accountable for anything.

Try this on your Descartes: The President is either responsible, or he's
irresponsible.

DSK

*I* expect to be taken seriously? Where the hell did that come from?

Yesterday France passed the 10% unemployment mark. Ours is what, 5.6%?

"Germany, the world's third largest economy, now has over five million
unemployed, the highest level since the economic chaos of 1933. Expected
economic growth of 1.6 percent this year is not expected to improve labor
markets significantly." (CNN.com, Feb 15)

Our growth rate was 3.8% last quarter.
(http://www.globalinsight.com/Perspec...Detail1703.htm)

In fact, the article at the referenced site is worth a read.

Do some reading about the French and German economies, where your heros
Chirac
and Shroeder reign supreme, and *then* come back and whine about Bush!


John H


Some additional proof for DSK:

===========================================
Saturday, February 26, 2005

Jeannine Aversa

Associated Press

Washington- The economy clocked in at a 3.8 percent pace in the final
quarter of 2004 - faster than initially thought - and is now cruising at
that speed or better. That could be good news for jobless people hoping for
companies to increase hiring.

In the newest reading on the economy's fitness, the gross domestic product
exceeded a previous estimate of a 3.1 percent annual growth rate for the
October- to-December quarter, the Commerce Department reported Friday. GDP
measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United
States.

The improvement reflected more robust spending by businesses on capital
equipment and on inventories of goods. The trade deficit also was less of a
drag on fourth-quarter growth than initially thought.

Although economic growth in the final quarter of last year was a bit slower
than the third quarters' 4 percent, the performance was still solid.

"We are now at a comfortable cruising altitude," said Lynn Reaser, chief
economist at Banc of America Capital Management. "What is significant is
that all parts of the economy were pulling their own weight."

In other news, sales of previously owned homes slipped 0.1 percent in
January from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.80
million units, the National Association of Realtors reported. Even with the
dip, sales remained healthy, analysts said.

Also Friday, Bloomberg News reported that 7 million fewer previously owned
single-family houses were sold in the last 16 years than the National
Association of Realtors initially estimated, according to the group's
revised figures.

Resales since 1989 were 10 percent lower per year on average than previously
estimated, the association said in Washington on Friday.

The Realtors issued the revisions after comparing its estimates with results
from the 2000 Census. Single-family home resales last year were still a
record 5.96 million compared with a previous estimate of 6.68 million, the
group said.

On Wall Street, the GDP report lifted stocks. The Dow Jones industrials rose
92.81 points to 10,841.60, the best close since Dec. 28. For the week, the
Dow rose 0.52 percent.

For the current January-to- March quarter, the economy is expected to grow
at a rate of around 4 percent, some economists project.

Analysts are hoping that with the economy moving ahead at a good pace,
companies will feel more inclined to step up hiring in upcoming months.
Economists predict the nation's payrolls will expand by a sizable 225,000 in
February, which would be up from January's 146,000 gain. The government
releases the February employment report next week.

"With decent momentum entering the New Year, we should soon be generating
the kind of job growth that will make the expansion feel like good times,"
said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services.

Nice chatting with you.

Later,

Tom


You too. ;-)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:30:26 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:24:19 -0500, "JimH" wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

I never equated the skill level to number of years taught.

You did a good job skirting my original question, so I will ask it again:

1. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
skills deserve the same pay increase every year?

All teachers are not paid the same in any school district in CT. It's
based on years of service and education. And by definition a thirty
year teacher is, in theory, paid more than a two year teacher because
of experience, education and in-service skills.

Let me try it this way. If you mean that a two year teacher with a BS
degree should be paid the same as a two year teacher with a BS/MS,
then no - the two year teacher with the BS/MS should be paid more than
the teacher with the BS. That is a skills based criteria.

If you mean that a two year teacher with a BS/MS should be paid the
same as a thirty year teacher with a BS/MS, then no - the thirty year
teacher should be paid more because of seniority which translates to
experience and skills related to that experience.

Does that make more sense?

Of course teachers are paid differently according to the number of years on
the job. I never said anything differently....I said *pay increases* Tom.

Ok, we'll try it again.

A second year teacher, in this state anyway and I believe it's the
same in RI, MA and NY but I'm not sure, does not get the same yearly
contracted increase as a 30 year teacher.

In fact, the two year teacher is generally paid a greater percentage
of the contracted amount of money (which is how it is done here -
there is a pool and the money is apportioned by contract) than the
higher paid (read longer in-service) teachers.

For example (and this is just an example - has no relevance in the
real world) if the contract calls for a 3% increase of the total
amount of money allocated to teacher salaries, that 3% is divided up.
The increase is proportioned into increases based on "steps" (two year
intervals plus education - for example a second step teacher is one
who is in-service for three years with a BS or could be a BS/MS which
would be Step Two plus Masters).

The lower paid teachers receive the largest share of the increase with
the highest paid teachers receiving the least amount of increase both
in terms of money and percentage.

You are asking for a straight answer and I can't give you one because,
at least here, it doesn't work the way you think it does.

You are trying to separate this into one single issue and you can't
because the equation is constantly variable - it's not a linear issue.

I'm sorry - I can't answer the question because I don't understand it.

My fault probably.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:30:26 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:24:19 -0500, "JimH" wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

I never equated the skill level to number of years taught.

You did a good job skirting my original question, so I will ask it
again:

1. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of
skills deserve the same pay increase every year?

All teachers are not paid the same in any school district in CT. It's
based on years of service and education. And by definition a thirty
year teacher is, in theory, paid more than a two year teacher because
of experience, education and in-service skills.

Let me try it this way. If you mean that a two year teacher with a BS
degree should be paid the same as a two year teacher with a BS/MS,
then no - the two year teacher with the BS/MS should be paid more than
the teacher with the BS. That is a skills based criteria.

If you mean that a two year teacher with a BS/MS should be paid the
same as a thirty year teacher with a BS/MS, then no - the thirty year
teacher should be paid more because of seniority which translates to
experience and skills related to that experience.

Does that make more sense?

Of course teachers are paid differently according to the number of years
on
the job. I never said anything differently....I said *pay increases* Tom.

Ok, we'll try it again.

A second year teacher, in this state anyway and I believe it's the
same in RI, MA and NY but I'm not sure, does not get the same yearly
contracted increase as a 30 year teacher.

In fact, the two year teacher is generally paid a greater percentage
of the contracted amount of money (which is how it is done here -
there is a pool and the money is apportioned by contract) than the
higher paid (read longer in-service) teachers.

For example (and this is just an example - has no relevance in the
real world) if the contract calls for a 3% increase of the total
amount of money allocated to teacher salaries, that 3% is divided up.
The increase is proportioned into increases based on "steps" (two year
intervals plus education - for example a second step teacher is one
who is in-service for three years with a BS or could be a BS/MS which
would be Step Two plus Masters).

The lower paid teachers receive the largest share of the increase with
the highest paid teachers receiving the least amount of increase both
in terms of money and percentage.

You are asking for a straight answer and I can't give you one because,
at least here, it doesn't work the way you think it does.

You are trying to separate this into one single issue and you can't
because the equation is constantly variable - it's not a linear issue.

I'm sorry - I can't answer the question because I don't understand it.

My fault probably.

Later,

Tom

Let me put it another way.

Joe and Bob work for XYZ Manufacturing Company. Joe is new, works his tail
off and produces top notch widgets with close to zero rejects.

Bob is an old timer running at half speed. He feels secure in his position
and produces far less widgets with a high frequency of rejects. He also has
a tendency to get hurt right before a holiday or vacation, taking additional
time off to *mend*.

It is a union shop. Management has tried to get rid of Bob based on poor
performance but the union fights back and Bob stays.

Come contract negotiation time both Bob and Joe will get the same increase %
in their pay.

Fair? Nope.

Does that system eventually lead one to mediocrity? Yep

That is my point Tom. So when I ask if it is fair that all teachers,
regardless of skill or commitment to their work get the same pay increase I
hope you understand where I am coming from.