It's all for the kids

[Themius]

Lockheed martin CEO earns more than 37 millon a year. That's wher your defense expenses go, not to soldiers salaries.

76k a year is not a bad salary, its nothing over the top either.

Maybe the reason why they have that salary in the first place its because they have a good union fighting for their rights, maybe that's why soldiers risking their lives and without the posibility of going to strike earn less.

I dont know, maybe... but lets keep bashing the unions that actually do their work and fight for their rights, seems like a good way to improve the childrens education.

---------- Post added 2012-09-10 at 06:07 PM ----------



Dont worry, they wont become less educated for one day of school. Hell, they are vn learning that workers have rights and that they hav the constitutional right to go to strike.

Constitutional right earned by people with their blood and sweat, not given by the goverment willingly because they are nice people, which is what some people here think the goverment and private corporations would do without unions.

The unions make it almost impossible to fire a bad teacher. A teacher who is late or doesn't teach their children or is just plain horrible is hard to fire and it wouldn't be that way.

[Shadoweye]

The unions make it almost impossible to fire a bad teacher. A teacher who is late or doesn't teach their children or is just plain horrible is hard to fire and it wouldn't be that way.

Just a little fuel for this fire... almost 80% of 8th graders are not proficient in reading and 80% are not proficient in math... every last teacher in the Chicago School System Union should be thrown out on their asses.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-d...icient-reading

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/districts/

[Themius]

Just a little fuel for this fire... almost 80% of 8th graders are not proficient in reading and 80% are not proficient in math... every last teacher in the Chicago School System Union should be thrown out on their asses.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-d...icient-reading

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/districts/

That asian woman in washington was doing something like this she like fired people got all new people and was improving things, wanted to do the same with teachers but then she couldn't because of the unions... i'm not sure what happened beyond that point.

[Crashdummy]

The unions make it almost impossible to fire a bad teacher. A teacher who is late or doesn't teach their children or is just plain horrible is hard to fire and it wouldn't be that way.

I'm not saying unions are perfect, but the unions do give more benefits than cons. The soldiers example is just perfect, they cant have unions, they cant go to strike, and despike risking their very lives and even when they have the guns, BECAUSE they cant really protest they are one of the worst paid in the country.

So instead of asking unions to go away, maybe what people should be asking is to refine the system so that you can do something about a bad teacher (that may or may not mean fire him).

Not having unions is a lot worse than having imperfect ones.

---------- Post added 2012-09-11 at 08:35 AM ----------

Just a little fuel for this fire... almost 80% of 8th graders are not proficient in reading and 80% are not proficient in math... every last teacher in the Chicago School System Union should be thrown out on their asses.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-d...icient-reading

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/districts/

That may have a different reason than teachers being bad.

Again, if everywhere we have a abd education, is it the problem of every single teacher or the problem lies in the system?

Maybe those statistics come from decades of public education being starved from money, schools deteriorating, being unable to replace consumables, having to paint the schools the very good teachers and students because they cant pay painters, the student sthat go there all coming from troubled homes because those homes that can send them to charter schools, etc.

Decades of the goverments ignoring education and cutting there to give more money to defense, or political propaganda, or paying journalists and media to talk good about them, etc ends up in a bad ecducational system, with or without good teachers.

[IxilaFA]

There is a big difference between being in a Union and being FORCED into a Union. Not sure why you thought I said anything about having Unions being forced on you. And nice evidence of your life, you can find evidence both ways really, but history and the overall trends tend to point away from your Anecdotal evidence than toward it. Except since they still have laws for overtime and such, the go the other way to get around it. About 65% of the 500 employees where I work are part time and are not allowed to get full time hours and can actually get fired if they get even 2 minutes over 40 hours on their paycheck.

But the problem is the unions that force people to be a part of them. There are very few unions that are "optional" and they usually aren't that successful. After all, if given the choice to be represented by a union and contribute your dues, or to get the same rights and benefits (in most situations) and not have to be a part of anything, most people won't choose the union. So the argument we're having here has nothing to do with "right-to-join" unions.

One of the big issues I'm seeing here, from both you and the other guy I was debating with yesterday, is you keep saying "there's evidence on both sides." Yet, from my personal point of view (which admittedly is not all-inclusive, though I have worked for 7 years, met hundreds of employees in non-union companies, and currently work for a company that employs 2500+ people [union and non-union]), and from browsing through articles and doing research, all I can ever find is the opposite. I still haven't seen anyone link a single positive article saying something like "Union saves people from unfair working conditions" etc. that is from the last few decades. I will gladly accept your non-anecdotal proof, but I'm not going to lay down and admit you're right because I have both personal experience and the many articles in the media that show the ugliness of unions.

As for your workplace, 500 employees is a rather small sample size and in a lot of corporations the majority of jobs are going to be part-time, low-wage positions. It's just a fact of life, unless you work for an advanced sciences lab or something of the sort. People not being able to get full-time hours or overtime is company policy, and it's hardly comparable to the sweat shop, labor camp conditions that unions once saved us from. I'd rather work two part-time jobs that won't let me go full-time than have to settle for a full-time job that makes me work 80 hours a week without breaks or vacation time. If these part-time employees want full-time hours, they have every right and opportunity to find a full-time job. It wasn't always the same back in the days of what was essentially slave labor. Many people had very few opportunities for their skill level and were forced to work in factories / on farms due to lack of options.

Free Market Dominates? Man, I am 31 years old, I have yet to see a free market in my life. Just cause they say it is free, doesn't mean it is. A free market requires multiple and varied options and an informed populace, tell me when we have that instead of a populace that knows little overall and options that are mostly all just more of the same.

This is ignorance, pure and simple. If you can't see how the free market has shaped decisions made by companies and corporations, then you are just turning a blind eye to all of the opportunity out there. You also haven't been around enough, even for a 31 year old, to see how the local economics of a situation has a major impact as well. If you believe that all of your work options out there are essentially the same, well, then I'm sorry man. I'm only 23 and see nothing but options and opportunities in my future.



I just want to add one very important thing here that unfortunately I don't believe I've expressed properly through my other posts.

If a company has unfair working conditions, then I believe that people have every right to want to unionize, rise up and strike against their employers in a fair and legal way. My problem is with these unions that want to give their employees more money, more benefits, more pensions, more time-off, etc. That's not what unions are for. For example, in the Chicago situation, if these union guys wanted to argue about the possibly unfair testing standards that would be implemented, that's great. But they're sitting there, in the middle of our country's greatest economic recession since the Great Depression, trying to fight and make sure their salary hikes are going to remain intact. The article I mentioned about cities such as Stockton, Vallejo, and Los Angeles all going bankrupt is despicable, because these cities are going bankrupt due to maintaining expensive labor costs that support union pension and health plans. These unions don't see the economic side of things and say "You know what, times are hard, let's cut a few benefits, freeze our salaries, and then wait out the storm. Just keep things fair for us." No, instead they say "We don't care about your financial situations, we want our benefits and our salaries, and you can go bankrupt providing them for us."

[stabetha]

open mouth insert foot

[The Riddler]

That's what I love about the Internet.... It is far better at pointing out hypocrisy than Jon Stewart wishes he was in his dreams.

[Kathandira]

The way i see it.

Parents "don't want to teach their kids" is not true. They can't, and here are just two reasons why.

#1: Parents aren't accredited. You can home school your child, and he really know his stuff by the time he is 16 years old and can legally work. But without a high school diploma you will have a hard time finding a job that isn't working at a convenience store or pizza parlor. Also, it's going to be mighty hard to get a college degree coming from home schooling, so if you want a job in corporate America that requires you to have a bachelors degree, your S.O.L.

#2 In today's economy the only people who can be home to teach their children are those who have 1 parent who makes enough to support the entire family while the other spouse is at home taking care of the family. That is a rarity in America these days, especially if you live in New Jersey where i am from. Our economy is so screwed that you either have both parents working and sometimes 1 of those parents will have to work 2 jobs, or you are doomed because your parents just had kids because they were immature and irresponsible and didn't consider the fact that kids cost a whole hell of a lot of money to raise. So you'd be doomed to low expectations and little drive and no parental role models.

[FathomFear]

Click the link in the op

"Chicago teachers have the highest average salary of any city at $76,000 a year before benefits"

Didnt obamas ugly wife just tell us in her speech how the teachers arent there for money? LMAO

I know it's all relative, but $76k/year is not exactly rich. Doesn't take much effort to take something that pays more than that in the private sector, especially if you have a degree and some experience behind you.

I have some friends who are teachers who barely make 35k/yr before taxes. I don't know why they even bother sometimes.

[Kathandira]

open mouth insert foot

Playing with context is FUN! I was actually just listening to her speech a few hours ago. She didn't say those teachers who would continue to work without pay were from Chicago.

---------- Post added 2012-09-12 at 04:39 PM ----------

I know it's all relative, but $76k/year is not exactly rich. Doesn't take much effort to take something that pays more than that in the private sector, especially if you have a degree and some experience behind you.

I have some friends who are teachers who barely make 35k/yr before taxes. I don't know why they even bother sometimes.

You are correct, in New Jersey, 76k a year is just barely middle class (middle class starts at $70k a year in New Jersey). Our teachers are in the 35k mark. If you had two employed people in a household, and they were both teachers, they just barely make enough to be considered middle class as a combined household income. Now don't get me wrong, there are also teachers who make much much more. They are generally College level teachers or those who have been teaching for over 20 years. But there are people who, much like Michelle Obama's speech pointed out, don't care about the money. They do it because they have a passion for educating our youth and helping create a better future for them.

She never said, "Every Teacher i've met" She said, "I've seen it in teachers." It's all about listening and comprehension.

[Sealed Shut]

Playing with context is FUN! I was actually just listening to her speech a few hours ago. She didn't say those teachers who would continue to work without pay were from Chicago.[COLOR="red"]

His post was about irony. maybe YOU should learn about reading comprehension. the irony is that the city she hails from is doing the exact opposite of what she's spewing.

[Targaryen]

This is an issue to which there is no perfect answer as we have already created quite a mess. My biggest issue is that a chunk of school funding comes from either the Federal or State level of government. I hate to get all Constitution but the point of a Federal government was to establish highways and organize a national defense. I just feel we have way too many bureaucratic hurdles in place that stymies progress.

I will agree it is not entirely the Unions fault but to all those who rally that some CEO makes millions why is it they never quote the salary of the leader/s of these unions?

[Symphonic]

Cut their pay to 50,000 a year (In my state a teacher wage starts at about 33,000). that'll teach them!

[Kathandira]

His post was about irony. maybe YOU should learn about reading comprehension. the irony is that the city she hails from is doing the exact opposite of what she's spewing.

Then how is it that she is putting her foot in her mouth? She never said anything about Chicago. If she did, then fine that jab at her would be justified, but this is like a doctor saying i have seen people cured of cancer, then someone from his practice saying they still have cancer. In the end all the doctor had said was that there are people he has seen who have been cured, not that it was from his town, not that it was from his practice. Just that some people have been. Just as Michelle Obama did not say the teachers of Chicago would work for free. She was stating that there is hope because even though there are people out there who do things for what ever reasons, there are also those who do what they do for a noble cause, and that there are people out there who are willing to sacrifice to make things better and to do what needs to be done.

So yeah, no, my comprehension is spot on here. If it was just ironic there wouldn't have been the snide comment of her putting her foot in her mouth.

---------- Post added 2012-09-12 at 05:29 PM ----------

This is an issue to which there is no perfect answer as we have already created quite a mess. My biggest issue is that a chunk of school funding comes from either the Federal or State level of government. I hate to get all Constitution but the point of a Federal government was to establish highways and organize a national defense. I just feel we have way too many bureaucratic hurdles in place that stymies progress.

I will agree it is not entirely the Unions fault but to all those who rally that some CEO makes millions why is it they never quote the salary of the leader/s of these unions?

I listen to talk radio a bit on my way to and from work. When Chris Christie issued huge budget cuts across NJ's public works, the teachers Union flipped out. They were pointing their finger in every which direction, except at themselves. Their salaries were brought up (which was well into the 6 figure range) and they totally ignored the fact. They just kept saying, "Great now were going to have to fire teachers because the Governor didn't give us enough money" Instead of taking a pay cut or trimming the fat.

[Sealed Shut]

Then how is it that she is putting her foot in her mouth? She never said anything about Chicago. If she did, then fine that jab at her would be justified, but this is like a doctor saying i have seen people cured of cancer, then someone from his practice saying they still have cancer. In the end all the doctor had said was that there are people he has seen who have been cured, not that it was from his town, not that it was from his practice. Just that some people have been. Just as Michelle Obama did not say the teachers of Chicago would work for free. She was stating that there is hope because even though there are people out there who do things for what ever reasons, there are also those who do what they do for a noble cause, and that there are people out there who are willing to sacrifice to make things better and to do what needs to be done.

So yeah, no, my comprehension is spot on here. If it was just ironic there wouldn't have been the snide comment of her putting her foot in her mouth.[COLOR="red"]

ah, my bad. missed the parts where you wrote the rules on forum posts interpretation.

[Themius]

Playing with context is FUN! I was actually just listening to her speech a few hours ago. She didn't say those teachers who would continue to work without pay were from Chicago.

---------- Post added 2012-09-12 at 04:39 PM ----------



You are correct, in New Jersey, 76k a year is just barely middle class (middle class starts at $70k a year in New Jersey). Our teachers are in the 35k mark. If you had two employed people in a household, and they were both teachers, they just barely make enough to be considered middle class as a combined household income. Now don't get me wrong, there are also teachers who make much much more. They are generally College level teachers or those who have been teaching for over 20 years. But there are people who, much like Michelle Obama's speech pointed out, don't care about the money. They do it because they have a passion for educating our youth and helping create a better future for them.

She never said, "Every Teacher i've met" She said, "I've seen it in teachers." It's all about listening and comprehension.

Nj teachers make 50k.

76k isn't rich however it's much much better than the average.

70k is plenty to live off in New Jersey if you don't live in pricy Hudson or the first class areas of Bergen. I mean when people start complaiing that 50k 60k 70k 80k 100k isn't enough to live on, you have to wonder how the fuck the rest of the country is living.

[Targaryen]

I listen to talk radio a bit on my way to and from work. When Chris Christie issued huge budget cuts across NJ's public works, the teachers Union flipped out. They were pointing their finger in every which direction, except at themselves. Their salaries were brought up (which was well into the 6 figure range) and they totally ignored the fact. They just kept saying, "Great now were going to have to fire teachers because the Governor didn't give us enough money" Instead of taking a pay cut or trimming the fat.

Yes I hate when they do that...reminds me of how when a local levy for a school fails and the school says "well since we are tight on money we have to cut costs so no more bussing in kids." Well if anyone follows the budget (at least in my area) school bus funding comes from a Federal/State stipend so something like 90% of that cost is already covered saving them hardly anything...they just use this as a tool to strong arm parents into voting for the next levy.

Also to show how silly Unions can be one buddy teaches at a local middle school. His spot is a Federally funded spot via grant money so it caps salaries far earlier than a normal teach gig. Well he has done it for 4 years b/c there have been no openings anywhere near him and he is now at that salary cap. Well the Union guarantees him a raise so rather than letting him stay on but just not get a raise the Union would rather have him laid off because they can't have a teacher on their member list that doesn't get a raise...figure that out.

[Laize]

What the fuck is wrong with the teachers' unions?

Yes, it's their job to get the best they can get for the teachers.

They seem to forget, however, that this isn't a for-profit company they're dealing with. The disadvantage of being a government agency is that you, by design, have no extra money to work with because all your money is taken from taxpayers.

They're trying to bleed money that doesn't exist from a city government that can't raise more without harming its citizens.

In NJ we had the same problem. Teachers told the government to take the money for their contracts from the Police. The Police told them to take the money to pay them from the Firemen. The Firemen told the government to take the money from the teachers.

The end result was that Christie basically said "Fuck you all, if no one will agree to pay cuts, I'll just fire enough of you until the budget will support your exorbitant raises and benefits and I'll do the same thing next year."

And he's stayed true to his word.