| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Even the unions can't win...
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 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 |
"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. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "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. 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. |
WaIIy wrote:
Why do you think a ton of Northern companies moved South in the past 20 years? Your time line is a little off. The past 15 years has seen manufacturing companies, even the once mighty textile industry, fleeing the American South. Go about 110 years further back! DSK |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "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. Aren't you pro choice Don? The workers made a choice to unionize and the company made a choice to shutdown. Everybody got to make a choice. |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:59:47 GMT, "Don White"
wrote: "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. What a piece of **** union! Tell Harry to do some rope climbing. Seems like you're the only one who answers him. The few teachers who actually join a union do so primarily for the legal representation supposedly offered by the union. I opted for an umbrella policy with a 'corporal punishment' rider that cost about $25 per year. Once I spread the word around, several of the few who were in the union quit and did the same thing. 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 |
"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. |
"WaIIy" wrote in message ... What laws did they break? Oh, none? Why do you think a ton of Northern companies moved South in the past 20 years? Survival? They may be charged with bargaining in bad faith. Quecec labour laws are a little more advanced than your 'right to be a slave' states. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Figures you'd be a free-rider, though. Too bad you aren't paid at a rate you have to negotiate on your own. What do they pay 'day care workers' these days? |
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. Later, Tom |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:00:26 -0500, DSK wrote:
WaIIy wrote: Why do you think a ton of Northern companies moved South in the past 20 years? Your time line is a little off. The past 15 years has seen manufacturing companies, even the once mighty textile industry, fleeing the American South. Go about 110 years further back! DSK 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 wonder which is better, taking a reduction in pay to $27 an hour (fictitious number) or a reduction to $0 per hour. 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 15:10:24 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message ... "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. Aren't you pro choice Don? The workers made a choice to unionize and the company made a choice to shutdown. Everybody got to make a choice. Pro-choice is only good if you want to kill an infant. If you want to choose where your social security funds go, or choose whether or not to close a store, you're just *bad*. 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 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. Later, Tom 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. 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 |
"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. |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:50:36 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:59:47 GMT, "Don White" wrote: "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. What a piece of **** union! Tell Harry to do some rope climbing. Seems like you're the only one who answers him. The few teachers who actually join a union do so primarily for the legal representation supposedly offered by the union. I opted for an umbrella policy with a 'corporal punishment' rider that cost about $25 per year. Once I spread the word around, several of the few who were in the union quit and did the same thing. Nice try, liar. More than three million classroom teachers are members of the nation's two largest teacher's unions. Um...John's approach is pretty much the way it is in states that allow for this instead of a closed shop approach. 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. Small locals don't receive the same amount of attention as the larger locals in the state organizations and when it comes to state representation at the national level it is pretty much controlled by those states that have larger delegations - notably CA, NY, PA and NJ. This overweight towards national issues rather than grass roots issues is hurting both unions in a way they are just beginning to perceive. The problems that teachers face in CA aren't the same as those in IA or ME. The problems that beset Bridgeport aren't the same as those faced by teachers in Norwich or Ashford. The face of the state/national unions is that presented by the larger union locals or states. In CT, if you banded all the small locals, meaning 100 or less, into one voting block, you would still not reach the representation of four cities - Bridgeport, Greenwich, New London/Groton and Danbury. The reason it's so disproportionate is because of the rules regarding local representation. One delegate per so many teachers (I forget which). The smaller locals are outgunned at the state level. It's the same at the national level. It may soon become an issue of can I get the same benefits by applying and paying for insurance and negotiating my own contract, as is done in the business world, than I can by joining an organization that doesn't care about me unless I belong to a local with some state level authority. It's that simple. Later, Tom |
"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. I should also add: The unions have done a bang up job with the construction industry apprentice programs, resulting in a highly skilled labor force in some.specific fields, most specifically heavy equipment operators, sheet metal workers, electricians and masons. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:59:47 GMT, "Don White" wrote: "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. What a piece of **** union! Tell Harry to do some rope climbing. Seems like you're the only one who answers him. The few teachers who actually join a union do so primarily for the legal representation supposedly offered by the union. I opted for an umbrella policy with a 'corporal punishment' rider that cost about $25 per year. Once I spread the word around, several of the few who were in the union quit and did the same thing. 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 Nice try, liar. More than three million classroom teachers are members of the nation's two largest teacher's unions. Figures you'd be a free-rider, though. Too bad you aren't paid at a rate you have to negotiate on your own. If your worth doesn't get you the pay rate you want then you have to improve your worth or lower your expectations. It's pretty damn simple and 90% of the workforce already operates this way. |
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 |
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... Guess we fell short. DSK |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:57:04 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: 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 No offense taken. Perhaps your wife employs techniques different than those I've seen used on new teachers by older union reps who happen to also be teachers. I don't agree that all who are receiving the pay are deserving of same. And, I've seen that an administration that is determined can get rid of a teacher even *with* the union representation. I didn't fear the administrators and, in fact, got along very well with them, even though I wrote several letters to our local paper. I would *love* to see the unions get involved in fixing something, like student discipline, rather than attempt to take credit for everything the school board does that *is* helpful. Most of the union effort in this county seems directed against the other union! (I.e., the NEA folks against the AFT folks.) 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. 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 |
"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. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "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. Yep...we are indeed using you. Thanks. |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:33:59 -0500, DSK wrote:
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 *When* did all the textile plants leave? 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:
*When* did all the textile plants leave? Duck, dodge, prevaricate, backpedal... A larger number have closed up in the last 4 years in NC than in the previous 15. Gee, must be Clinton's fault... yeah, that's the ticket! DSK |
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... 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. Don't question authority except when it is on the other side of the issue. Krause shows his elitest leftist colors again. |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:34:12 -0500, DSK wrote:
John H wrote: *When* did all the textile plants leave? Duck, dodge, prevaricate, backpedal... A larger number have closed up in the last 4 years in NC than in the previous 15. Gee, must be Clinton's fault... yeah, that's the ticket! DSK And you actually blame said closures on Bush? And North Carolina was even one of those damn red states! So all those people lost their jobs because of Bush, and all those people voted for that demon. Damn, no wonder they lost their jobs. 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 |
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... 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. OK. Fair enough New questions so I understand where you are coming from on these 2 points: 1. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of skills deserve the same pay increase every year? 2. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of commitment, deserve the same pay increase every year? How do you judge commitment? It is self evident to the principal who runs the school. Talk to your wife. She will confirm this. Commitment to the job is evident during my job appraisals and always has been. Is it hours after school doing additional extra help? I do not understand your question. If you mean does *x* amount of after hours work equate to one being a good teacher, the answer is obviously "no". See my example below of a football coach. 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? Union commitment? Bzzzzzz. No credit. Self satisfying. Self gratifying. 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? I guess you missed my point. And I thought your wife was a teacher. 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? Nope. I can cite an elementary school gym teacher who was totally committed to his job. My wife knew it as did the principal. This aunt's rocket science Tom...so stop trying to make it that. 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? Again the answer is quite evident. A *bad* teacher? One who skates by. One who gives little concern over her students performance. One who leaves at the bell and does not *punch* in again till the next school day. Should that person *deserve* the union negotiated pay increase as the committed and skilled teachers? I say no. Are you saying yes? If your wife was a teacher perhaps you can also ask her. 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. A good teacher cannot be defined by testing. It is a start however. 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. We agree. Unions should be about making sure the field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of. Later, Tom Actually unions are not needed in the teaching profession, amongst others. If we use your definition however (Unions should be about making sure the field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of.) then I guess the teachers union is falling flat on it's face. ;-) |
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 |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:49:27 -0500, "JimH" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . 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. OK. Fair enough New questions so I understand where you are coming from on these 2 points: 1. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of skills deserve the same pay increase every year? Wrong question again. It is assumed that any teacher performing at any grade level has the skills to teach. In CT, a skills test must be passed to obtain a teaching position. 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. 2. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of commitment, deserve the same pay increase every year? How do you judge commitment? It is self evident to the principal who runs the school. Talk to your wife. She will confirm this. Heh - I just showed it to her and she still is laughing. What if you have an administrator who is biased towards, oh say, younger teachers? Or male teachers over female teachers? Or having affairs with one or the other? Or believes that participation in mandatory "after school events" such as group mountain climbing, bike riding and other participatory sports are essential to the proper running of a school? How about an administrator who, in the throes of divorce, makes improper advances towards staff members and threatens unsatisfactory evaluations? You mean those kind of administrators? Commitment to the job is evident during my job appraisals and always has been. Really? Gee - never has been in my career. I did my job because I got paid to do my job. I got paid to be the best engineer I could be. I was never, EVER, committed to any company for anything other than doing my job. No extras unless I was paid for them. If I committed extra hours to a project, it was pretty much because I was interested in the problem - not because I was committed to anything. I did work my years of eighty hour weeks and it damn near killed me. But it sure as hell wasn't because I was committed to the damn company - it was because I was being paid a lot of money to get things done. Is it hours after school doing additional extra help? I do not understand your question. If you mean does *x* amount of after hours work equate to one being a good teacher, the answer is obviously "no". See my example below of a football coach. 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? Union commitment? Bzzzzzz. No credit. Self satisfying. Self gratifying. So attending a meeting in which a teacher is falsely accused of mistreating a student and scripting the event is not important? Or helping straighten out three consequitive payroll FUBARs isn't important? Or filing harassment charges against an administrator who made sexually suggestive remarks to a subordinate? It's the same type of commitment ON TOP OF being a competent teacher. 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? I guess you missed my point. And I thought your wife was a teacher. I didn't miss your point - I understood it very well. And you didn't answer the question - what is commitment - how do you measure it? 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? Nope. I can cite an elementary school gym teacher who was totally committed to his job. My wife knew it as did the principal. So can I and he works less than any other teacher in the school because he just doesn't have the time to do anything other than what he is contracted to do during his working hours. He has a wife with rapid advance MS and is trying to hold a family of three together along with huge medical bills and a mortgage. Works his day job and two evening jobs to keep afloat. I'd call that commitment - wouldn't you? By the way, this was the same teacher who was called up and reprimanded for leaving five minutes early by an administrator who felt that male teachers weren't worth squat. He was defended by the Union President and won the grievance. This aunt's rocket science Tom...so stop trying to make it that. You are certainly right - it's not rocket science and it sure as hell isn't my aunt's rocket science. (Sorry - couldn't resist). It goes much beyond the mathematical certainty of science and enters into the realm of humanity - feelings, frailty and emotion - misunderstandings and failures to communicate. All those things that you can't objectively measure and are entirely subjective. 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? Again the answer is quite evident. A *bad* teacher? One who skates by. One who gives little concern over her students performance. One who leaves at the bell and does not *punch* in again till the next school day. Should that person *deserve* the union negotiated pay increase as the committed and skilled teachers? I say no. Are you saying yes? I'm saying that you can't differentiate that way because it's entirely subjective. Is a teacher who works hard at teaching, tries their best, puts in tons of hours but is, to put it delicately, a poor teacher that obtains less than optimal results worth more than a teacher who just presents material, tests for it and obtains superior results? How do you judge who is worth more? Are you saying that in your criteria the former is worth more than the later? If your wife was a teacher perhaps you can also ask her. Insulting me is not rational discussion. 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. A good teacher cannot be defined by testing. It is a start however. How can it be a start if you can't define it objectively? 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. We agree. Unions should be about making sure the field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of. Actually unions are not needed in the teaching profession, amongst others. If we use your definition however (Unions should be about making sure the field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of.) then I guess the teachers union is falling flat on it's face. ;-) I disagree - in terms of personnel matters, contract legalities, health insurance benefits, Unions have great merit. Our local here has done great things for both kids, teachers AND, believe it or not, Administrators who, in one instance that I personally know about, benefitted from Union representation in a particularly difficult parent/teacher kerfuffle. I am not anti-Union - I believe that they have a place in the worker's world. I do believe that Unions have lost their way and it's time for a different approach to Labor problems in the US. Later, Tom |
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:49:27 -0500, "JimH" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:19:58 -0500, "JimH" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message m... ~~ 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. OK. Fair enough New questions so I understand where you are coming from on these 2 points: 1. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of skills deserve the same pay increase every year? 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? 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, 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? 2. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of commitment, deserve the same pay increase every year? How do you judge commitment? It is self evident to the principal who runs the school. Talk to your wife. She will confirm this. Heh - I just showed it to her and she still is laughing. So? How does that address the question? Is she still laughing? What if you have an administrator who is biased towards, oh say, younger teachers? Or male teachers over female teachers? Or having affairs with one or the other? Or believes that participation in mandatory "after school events" such as group mountain climbing, bike riding and other participatory sports are essential to the proper running of a school? How about an administrator who, in the throes of divorce, makes improper advances towards staff members and threatens unsatisfactory evaluations? You mean those kind of administrators? We are taling about the masses...the norm. One persons opinion does not represent the masses. Commitment to the job is evident during my job appraisals and always has been. Really? Gee - never has been in my career. So? It has been in mine. I did my job because I got paid to do my job. Then you had non commitment. My point made. I got paid to be the best engineer I could be. I was never, EVER, committed to any company for anything other than doing my job. No extras unless I was paid for them. If I committed extra hours to a project, it was pretty much because I was interested in the problem - not because I was committed to anything. I did work my years of eighty hour weeks and it damn near killed me. But it sure as hell wasn't because I was committed to the damn company - it was because I was being paid a lot of money to get things done. Sounds like you have some personal issues to deal with. Is it hours after school doing additional extra help? I do not understand your question. If you mean does *x* amount of after hours work equate to one being a good teacher, the answer is obviously "no". See my example below of a football coach. 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? Union commitment? Bzzzzzz. No credit. Self satisfying. Self gratifying. So attending a meeting in which a teacher is falsely accused of mistreating a student and scripting the event is not important? When did I say that? Or helping straighten out three consequitive payroll FUBARs isn't important? Or filing harassment charges against an administrator who made sexually suggestive remarks to a subordinate? Again, when did I day that? It's the same type of commitment ON TOP OF being a competent teacher. 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? I guess you missed my point. And I thought your wife was a teacher. I didn't miss your point - I understood it very well. And you didn't answer the question - what is commitment - how do you measure it? I already answered that. 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? Nope. I can cite an elementary school gym teacher who was totally committed to his job. My wife knew it as did the principal. So can I and he works less than any other teacher in the school because he just doesn't have the time to do anything other than what he is contracted to do during his working hours. He has a wife with rapid advance MS and is trying to hold a family of three together along with huge medical bills and a mortgage. Works his day job and two evening jobs to keep afloat. I'd call that commitment - wouldn't you? By the way, this was the same teacher who was called up and reprimanded for leaving five minutes early by an administrator who felt that male teachers weren't worth squat. He was defended by the Union President and won the grievance. This aunt's rocket science Tom...so stop trying to make it that. You are certainly right - it's not rocket science and it sure as hell isn't my aunt's rocket science. (Sorry - couldn't resist). LOL. Regardless, you come across as confrontationa and bitter in this thread and there is no need to be. It goes much beyond the mathematical certainty of science and enters into the realm of humanity - feelings, frailty and emotion - misunderstandings and failures to communicate. All those things that you can't objectively measure and are entirely subjective. Yep...it all boils down to common sense. 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? Again the answer is quite evident. A *bad* teacher? One who skates by. One who gives little concern over her students performance. One who leaves at the bell and does not *punch* in again till the next school day. Should that person *deserve* the union negotiated pay increase as the committed and skilled teachers? I say no. Are you saying yes? I'm saying that you can't differentiate that way because it's entirely subjective. Is a teacher who works hard at teaching, tries their best, puts in tons of hours but is, to put it delicately, a poor teacher that obtains less than optimal results worth more than a teacher who just presents material, tests for it and obtains superior results? How do you judge who is worth more? Are you saying that in your criteria the former is worth more than the later? If your wife was a teacher perhaps you can also ask her. Insulting me is not rational discussion. I never insulted you or your wife. Donn't throw that old excuse on me. 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. A good teacher cannot be defined by testing. It is a start however. How can it be a start if you can't define it objectively? It can...by testing. A start but not a final answer. 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. We agree. Unions should be about making sure the field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of. Actually unions are not needed in the teaching profession, amongst others. If we use your definition however (Unions should be about making sure the field is level and that nobody is taken advantage of.) then I guess the teachers union is falling flat on it's face. ;-) I disagree - in terms of personnel matters, contract legalities, health insurance benefits, Unions have great merit. Our local here has done great things for both kids, teachers AND, believe it or not, Administrators who, in one instance that I personally know about, benefitted from Union representation in a particularly difficult parent/teacher kerfuffle. I am not anti-Union - I believe that they have a place in the worker's world. I do believe that Unions have lost their way and it's time for a different approach to Labor problems in the US. Later, Tom I have already stated my position on unions and their worth in the education field in another thread. Have a nice evening Tom. |
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 ... On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:19:58 -0500, "JimH" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message om... ~~ 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? 2. Do you believe that all teachers in a school district, regardless of commitment, deserve the same pay increase every year? How do you judge commitment? It is self evident to the principal who runs the school. Talk to your wife. She will confirm this. Heh - I just showed it to her and she still is laughing. So? How does that address the question? Is she still laughing? What if you have an administrator who is biased towards, oh say, younger teachers? Or male teachers over female teachers? Or having affairs with one or the other? Or believes that participation in mandatory "after school events" such as group mountain climbing, bike riding and other participatory sports are essential to the proper running of a school? How about an administrator who, in the throes of divorce, makes improper advances towards staff members and threatens unsatisfactory evaluations? You mean those kind of administrators? We are taling about the masses...the norm. One persons opinion does not represent the masses. Commitment to the job is evident during my job appraisals and always has been. Really? Gee - never has been in my career. So? It has been in mine. I did my job because I got paid to do my job. Then you had non commitment. My point made. I got paid to be the best engineer I could be. I was never, EVER, committed to any company for anything other than doing my job. No extras unless I was paid for them. If I committed extra hours to a project, it was pretty much because I was interested in the problem - not because I was committed to anything. I did work my years of eighty hour weeks and it damn near killed me. But it sure as hell wasn't because I was committed to the damn company - it was because I was being paid a lot of money to get things done. Sounds like you have some personal issues to deal with. Now see, that's not at all fair or even true. Being totally dispassionate about any company is the best way to make money - you see beyond the BS and can make decisions based on reality. I always, without fail, went with the money. The four times I changed companies, it was because (1) the money was better (2) the responsibilities were greater (3) the perks were better. Now is you mean commitment as in staying the length of the contract, then yes - I never changed in the middle of the contract even if there was mucho money involved. It was a matter of personal integrity. It's different than commitment although they share similar meanings. The only thing I am loyal (read committed) to is my family, country, the Corps and myself. :) Is it hours after school doing additional extra help? I do not understand your question. If you mean does *x* amount of after hours work equate to one being a good teacher, the answer is obviously "no". See my example below of a football coach. 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? Union commitment? Bzzzzzz. No credit. Self satisfying. Self gratifying. So attending a meeting in which a teacher is falsely accused of mistreating a student and scripting the event is not important? When did I say that? You did - look above. Bzzzzzzz - no credit - self satisfying - self gratifying? :) Or helping straighten out three consequitive payroll FUBARs isn't important? Or filing harassment charges against an administrator who made sexually suggestive remarks to a subordinate? Again, when did I day that? Look, you obviously have an opinion that is diametrically opposed to mine. And that's fine. My opinions are based on my personal experiences and observing the experiences of a lot of teacher's who are my friends. ~~ rest snipped ~~ Have a nice evening Tom. Back at 'cha. Nice chatting with you. Later, Tom |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:43 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com