Unions Support higher taxes

[bpwallace49]

Soooo teachers unions are OK, because school districts already discriminate against non-minorities.

 

This whole conversation has taken an odd turn . . .

[rocknrobn26]

Soooo teachers unions are OK, because school districts already discriminate against non-minorities.

 

This whole conversation has taken an odd turn . . .

Only in your mind.

read and learn,.

[millerx]

I agree.

Love ya Bro, but your comment made me dive back into this fray. I'll try to keep our honor.

Facts:

Schools have insurance to protect themselves and the faculty.

They do not necessarily HAVE to support a teacher of a wrong doing.

Unions provide insurance to protect the teacher regarless. (I was sued twice and had school, Union, and personal insurance.)

School boards are trying to Cover Their Ass First. That is their priority, and perhaps it should be.

Faculty are disposable. It's the $$$$, nothing more.

 

So counter-sue the parents or children!! They probably deserve it.

 

BP,

Your lack of knowledge when it comes to school code, the BoE's ability to do want they want, Unions in general, and teachers rights in general make you look foolish. You have no facts and your bias is so apparent that a qualified statement would go over your head. Don't get into a gun fight with a club. Opinions are fine. Like 'a' holes we all have them, but get some facts first.

Peace.

rr26

 

Have to agree here

[bpwallace49]

I agree.

Love ya Bro, but your comment made me dive back into this fray. I'll try to keep our honor.

Facts:

Schools have insurance to protect themselves and the faculty.

They do not necessarily HAVE to support a teacher of a wrong doing.

Unions provide insurance to protect the teacher regarless. (I was sued twice and had school, Union, and personal insurance.)

School boards are trying to Cover Their Ass First. That is their priority, and perhaps it should be.

Faculty are disposable. It's the $$$$, nothing more.

 

 

BP,

Your lack of knowledge when it comes to school code, the BoE's ability to do want they want, Unions in general, and teachers rights in general make you look foolish. You have no facts and your bias is so apparent that a qualified statement would go over your head. Don't get into a gun fight with a club. Opinions are fine. Like 'a' holes we all have them, but get some facts first.

Peace.

rr26

 

 

Tom, i have admitted that I have no idea how teachers unions work. I was aking Perch cause his wife is a teacher (and I have asked you before but you declined to answer. You just stated "you wouldnt understand unless you are in the union" which aint very helpful)

 

That is why I am asking for more info, and this conversation has been very revealing. I am not a teacher, nor do I belong to a union. These responses have answered a lot of questions that I have had.

 

Tom, I never professed to be an "expert" in school code. THAT IS WHY I AM ASKING QUESTIONS. Thank you for answers. If you have followed my threads, I usually defend most social programs that are associated with the Democrats. yet I havent supported most of the union talk, because no one has come up with a discussion that defends non-tradesman unions in any detail. You just keep saying "you wouldnt understand". Tom, I am really trying to understand here . . . please lay it out for a non-teacher.

 

As the thread started, it discussed unions being a large part of government, and how unions are lobbying for higher taxes to pay for their benefits. I do not work for the gubmnet, but it seems like a pretty sweet deal. How does the Board of Education not care about teachers and only do what they want? Isnt it in their best interests to have GOOD teachers and support them? Or is racial harmony more important, so "bad" teachers get protected (as Perch has said). Wouldnt it be better to get rid of a teacher that stinks?

[Ursa Majoris]

How does the Board of Education not care about teachers and only do what they want? Isnt it in their best interests to have GOOD teachers and support them? Or is racial harmony more important, so "bad" teachers get protected (as Perch has said). Wouldnt it be better to get rid of a teacher that stinks?

You are trying to apply logic and common sense and in the education field, those two guys long since left town.

[bpwallace49]

Only in your mind.

read and learn,.

 

I have respectfully asked for more info on teachers unions from people that have direct expereince.

 

Tom seriously . . . enlighten us. Did you NOT read Perch's post about how a "bad" teacher is protected due to race, but good teachers that are not minorities are left to hang in the wind.

 

Or did I not "read and learn" what they posted?

 

Tom, I keep asking for more insight, and have repeated stated I dont have a lot of union experience. PLEASE educate us. Seriously. How do you explain the benefits of a union/ and defend a situtaion like perch outlined?

[bpwallace49]

You are trying to apply logic and common sense and in the education field, those two guys long since left town.

 

So how does that situation come about? Is it all the Board of Education? Is it all the teachers union? I have heard that the Board of Education (as was implied by some, and directed referenced by Robin) dont give a rats ass about any teachers. But since they do not really get held responsible for being fiscally sound, why is that? Why dont the higher ups care about the teachers? And dont a lot of BoE people rise up throughthe ranks as teachers?

 

Is this on the principal level? Supintendent level? Or higher up?

 

Why is there such a break between the teachers and the admin people? Again . . since most are not held responsible for being fiscally unsound, budget reasons cant be the whole answer . . .

[rocknrobn26]

I have respectfully asked for more info on teachers unions from people that have direct expereince.

 

Tom seriously . . . enlighten us. Did you NOT read Perch's post about how a "bad" teacher is protected due to race, but good teachers that are not minorities are left to hang in the wind.

 

Or did I not "read and learn" what they posted?

 

Tom, I keep asking for more insight, and have repeated stated I dont have a lot of union experience. PLEASE educate us. Seriously. How do you explain the benefits of a union/ and defend a situtaion like perch outlined?

Everything I ever posted, you twist back to an anti unioin theme. So I'm supposed to post more for you to slant? NOT!

In your mind you have the answer. Sleep w/ that and enjoy. You don't want to learn. You just want to bash something that you don't understand but hate.

Read and learn.

Peace.

[bpwallace49]

Everything I ever posted, you twist back to an anti unioin theme. So I'm supposed to post more for you to slant? NOT!

In your mind you have the answer. Sleep w/ that and enjoy. You don't want to learn. You just want to bash something that you don't understand but hate.

Read and learn.

Peace.

 

Tom I am not "slanting" anything here . . seriously. I am asking a person that is in a union that tends to get bashed for more detail. Maybe if more details that explained how teachers unions work were revealed, then people wouldnt bad-mouth them?

 

Hell Tom, PM me or e-mail me some info that I asked for . . . or we can just go out for a beer when it gets nice out at my club . . . my treat.

 

But I really would like some more insight on this stuff, particularly from someone that really knows about it firsthand. The best way to combat disinformation on topics is to spread as much truth as possible . . . .hit me up with some truth . . .cause if I didnt want to learn, I wouldnt be asking.

[Ursa Majoris]

So how does that situation come about? Is it all the Board of Education? Is it all the teachers union? I have heard that the Board of Education (as was implied by some, and directed referenced by Robin) dont give a rats ass about any teachers. But since they do not really get held responsible for being fiscally sound, why is that? Why dont the higher ups care about the teachers? And dont a lot of BoE people rise up throughthe ranks as teachers?

 

Is this on the principal level? Supintendent level? Or higher up?

 

Why is there such a break between the teachers and the admin people? Again . . since most are not held responsible for being fiscally unsound, budget reasons cant be the whole answer . . .

Education professionals are mostly not teachers. They are theorists, IMO. Their theories involve the following:

 

throwing ever larger sums of money into the education pit, almost all of which goes to those that don't want to learn

dismantling tried and tested education systems and installing new ones based on lunatic theories about race, gender and disadvantage-ism

making tests easier and easier to avoid people finding out they have no clue

pandering to the lowest common denominator

 

The teaches, meanwhile, continue to struggle against ever-growing parental indifference, a total breakdown in discipline and a lack of support for teachers that try to impose it, failure to eliminate the troublemakers and curricula that change more often than most change their socks.

[tosberg34]

Tom I am not "slanting" anything here . . seriously. I am asking a person that is in a union that tends to get bashed for more detail. Maybe if more details that explained how teachers unions work were revealed, then people wouldnt bad-mouth them?

 

Hell Tom, PM me or e-mail me some info that I asked for . . . or we can just go out for a beer when it gets nice out at my club . . . my treat.

 

But I really would like some more insight on this stuff, particularly from someone that really knows about it firsthand. The best way to combat disinformation on topics is to spread as much truth as possible . . . .hit me up with some truth . . .cause if I didnt want to learn, I wouldnt be asking.

 

Hey, i was in the union once. What's the name of your club? Maybe I'll swing by and we can talk politics over beer as well? You're treat...of course.

[rocknrobn26]

Tom I am not "slanting" anything here . . seriously. I am asking a person that is in a union that tends to get bashed for more detail. Maybe if more details that explained how teachers unions work were revealed, then people wouldnt bad-mouth them?

 

Hell Tom, PM me or e-mail me some info that I asked for . . . or we can just go out for a beer when it gets nice out at my club . . . my treat.

 

But I really would like some more insight on this stuff, particularly from someone that really knows about it firsthand. The best way to combat disinformation on topics is to spread as much truth as possible . . . .hit me up with some truth . . .cause if I didnt want to learn, I wouldnt be asking.

You espouse understanding, but your posts say otherwise.

When a cow flies over your house, give me a call. I live in Winfield,Il and I'm in the book.

Sorry but your credibility is questionable at best. And you request for knowledge is a ploy. at best.

 

 

Education professionals are mostly not teachers. They are theorists, IMO. Their theories involve the following:

 

throwing ever larger sums of money into the education pit, almost all of which goes to those that don't want to learn

dismantling tried and tested education systems and installing new ones based on lunatic theories about race, gender and disadvantage-ism

making tests easier and easier to avoid people finding out they have no clue

pandering to the lowest common denominator

 

The teaches, meanwhile, continue to struggle against ever-growing parental indifference, a total breakdown in discipline and a lack of support for teachers that try to impose it, failure to eliminate the troublemakers and curricula that change more often than most change their socks.

 

Spot on.

[millerx]

Education professionals are mostly not teachers. They are theorists, IMO. Their theories involve the following:

 

throwing ever larger sums of money into the education pit, almost all of which goes to those that don't want to learn

dismantling tried and tested education systems and installing new ones based on lunatic theories about race, gender and disadvantage-ism

making tests easier and easier to avoid people finding out they have no clue

pandering to the lowest common denominator

 

The teaches, meanwhile, continue to struggle against ever-growing parental indifference, a total breakdown in discipline and a lack of support for teachers that try to impose it, failure to eliminate the troublemakers and curricula that change more often than most change their socks.

Well said.

 

We CAN agree!

[Perchoutofwater]

Education professionals are mostly not teachers. They are theorists, IMO. Their theories involve the following:

 

throwing ever larger sums of money into the education pit, almost all of which goes to those that don't want to learn

dismantling tried and tested education systems and installing new ones based on lunatic theories about race, gender and disadvantage-ism

making tests easier and easier to avoid people finding out they have no clue

pandering to the lowest common denominator

 

The teaches, meanwhile, continue to struggle against ever-growing parental indifference, a total breakdown in discipline and a lack of support for teachers that try to impose it, failure to eliminate the troublemakers and curricula that change more often than most change their socks.

 

This is absolutely right. The reason it is so bad, or at least part of the reason is education is so political. You have a school board that is elected breathing down the district superintendent's neck for any heat they may be getting from people in their voting districts, and as the saying goes it floats down hill. It's part of the problem with public education.

[Perchoutofwater]

I do want to reiterate what I wrote in my first post, where I said I can almost see a use for the teacher's union, but that most of the advantage they provide could be provided by a private insurance policy with premiums generally less than the union dues. As long as the unions get involved in politics and protect some teachers that need to be done away with, I still have a hard time seeing a legitimate use or need for them. Sure if you really want to fight the district the union will help, but in most cases it is simpler, less costly, and less stressful just to go to a different district.

[bpwallace49]

Education professionals are mostly not teachers. They are theorists, IMO. Their theories involve the following:

 

throwing ever larger sums of money into the education pit, almost all of which goes to those that don't want to learn

dismantling tried and tested education systems and installing new ones based on lunatic theories about race, gender and disadvantage-ism

making tests easier and easier to avoid people finding out they have no clue

pandering to the lowest common denominator

 

The teaches, meanwhile, continue to struggle against ever-growing parental indifference, a total breakdown in discipline and a lack of support for teachers that try to impose it, failure to eliminate the troublemakers and curricula that change more often than most change their socks.

 

What is the line of demarcation then? I have a college buddy that is now a principal that rose through the ranks as a teacher.

 

Is it the break between the BoE and superintendents then?

 

What I dont get is when we talk about throwing money away down a money pit for education . . . but then districts dont want to protect teachers against lawsuits? Isnt that counter-intuitive? I have railed away at how I REALLY dont agree with the direction and focus for education programs and overall policy lacking focus and measurable results. But I still dont get how teachers unions help that.

 

There has been a long standing debate on how to evaluate the effectiveness and success of good versus bad teachers outside of standardized testing. I would not even begin to pretend to know how that would be done . . but shouldnt that be a goal of teachers unions? A way to really reward the good performers and separate the good from the bad?

 

Perch I understand your point about a separate insurance policy, but you would still have issues of reverse discrimination, right?

[Yukon Cornelius]

I agree.

Love ya Bro, but your comment made me dive back into this fray. I'll try to keep our honor.

Facts:

Schools have insurance to protect themselves and the faculty.

They do not necessarily HAVE to support a teacher of a wrong doing.

Unions provide insurance to protect the teacher regarless. (I was sued twice and had school, Union, and personal insurance.)

School boards are trying to Cover Their Ass First. That is their priority, and perhaps it should be.

Faculty are disposable. It's the $$$$, nothing more.

 

 

BP,

Your lack of knowledge when it comes to school code, the BoE's ability to do want they want, Unions in general, and teachers rights in general make you look foolish. You have no facts and your bias is so apparent that a qualified statement would go over your head. Don't get into a gun fight with a club. Opinions are fine. Like 'a' holes we all have them, but get some facts first.

Peace.

rr26

RR stay out.. I know its hard but........

[Ursa Majoris]

What is the line of demarcation then? I have a college buddy that is now a principal that rose through the ranks as a teacher.

 

Is it the break between the BoE and superintendents then?

 

What I dont get is when we talk about throwing money away down a money pit for education . . . but then districts dont want to protect teachers against lawsuits? Isnt that counter-intuitive? I have railed away at how I REALLY dont agree with the direction and focus for education programs and overall policy lacking focus and measurable results. But I still dont get how teachers unions help that.

 

There has been a long standing debate on how to evaluate the effectiveness and success of good versus bad teachers outside of standardized testing. I would not even begin to pretend to know how that would be done . . but shouldnt that be a goal of teachers unions? A way to really reward the good performers and separate the good from the bad?

 

Perch I understand your point about a separate insurance policy, but you would still have issues of reverse discrimination, right?

The points I was making stand on their own but to address the "money down a pit" point, there is evidence that the more money spent, the worse the results. In my own metro area, the two core cities spend FAR more per pupil than the surrounding three dozen cities, yet they are always bottom of the league in reading, etc. Why? Educationalists would have you believe it's all to do with race, English as a second language, poverty, disadvantage and on and on with excuse after excuse.

 

It's actually to do with effort and parental involvement and commitment. Throwing money at education in ever-increasing dollops is not going to solve the problem. Elimination of troublemakers and focusing on kids that actually want to try IS going to make a difference. Far too much attention is paid to the useless no-hopers holding the rest back but that's where the education purists want to spend more instead of simply culling the weeds and letting the flowers grow.

[Yukon Cornelius]

It's actually to do with effort and parental involvement and commitment.

[bpwallace49]

This is absolutely right. The reason it is so bad, or at least part of the reason is education is so political. You have a school board that is elected breathing down the district superintendent's neck for any heat they may be getting from people in their voting districts, and as the saying goes it floats down hill. It's part of the problem with public education.

 

I have a son that has autism. We have had some amazing teachers and aides in our district, but the school psychologist is next to useless. We have been butting heads with the principal and his teachers since day one. The vice principal and speech therapist are amazing (and we have nominated the speech therapist for the "Golden Apple" awards every year). I keep asking questions like this to try and better understand why people like the school psychologist who have had complaints filed by multiple parents never gets their questions answered, while truly fantastic teachers that have parents praying that their children are in their classes do not get the accolades they deserve.

 

The principal says her hands are tied, the vice principal has been very helpful, and nothing gets done (cause this lady has been in the district forever and has tenure, the psychologist basically disagrees with certain kids diagnosis of autism and aspergers, that are done by a very accredited outside firm that she doesnt "trust") As a result, some kids have not been getting the services that they need to succeed in school. My son gets the support he needs now, but we know of others that are fighting the admin giant while more time slips away.

 

Not being a teacher, it helps to have the input of others to try and sort out the frustration of having to deal with a bureacracy that appears to protect the incompetent and fails to reward the outstanding. It appears the principal WANTS to help, but seems locked into a situation she cant control. (which helps with the input on school boards and BoE admin positions. It looks like she is having this person forced on her . .)

 

Do principals have ANY say in the teacher makeup of their school? or is it all dictated by union-mandated tenure? Are there different determinations? For instance, the issue is with a school psychologist, NOT a teacher with a classroom. Does that difference matter?

[Azazello1313]

as good a place to post this as any, but I thought this bit of news was rather surprising: private sector union membership dropped 10% last year, the largest decline in 25 years. perhaps that's evidence the unions should be careful what they wish for, politically speaking.

[gbpfan1231]

It's actually to do with effort and parental involvement and commitment.

Don't kill me Yukon - I am not a parent - I agree with you 1,000%

[Yukon Cornelius]

as good a place to post this as any, but I thought this bit of news was rather surprising: private sector union membership dropped 10% last year, the largest decline in 25 years. perhaps that's evidence the unions should be careful what they wish for, politically speaking.

or when people are unemployed they dont pay union dues.

[Perchoutofwater]

or when people are unemployed they dont pay union dues.

 

Based on your comment as well as the 10% decline in union jobs suggest that more union jobs are lost than non-union jobs?

[Yukon Cornelius]

Based on your comment as well as the 10% decline in union jobs suggest that more union jobs are lost than non-union jobs?

nope, not saying that at all, but the union guys i know that are unemployed over 6 moths are not paying dues. not sure why the idiots running the unions wont drop the amount for those unemployed but they are loosing members because they cant or wont pay.