48.9% of Unions members work for the Government

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 10:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: On the contrary.  please don't let the idea that it's physical education fool you into the idea that it's not worthy.    Let's also not forget that most of your coaches and athletic directors are tied to the Physical Education department.

Worth and leverage aren't the same. Were you a coach or AD?

[Rotobeast]

(02-02-2016, 10:34 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: But by doing this we allow a system where the unproductive workers dictate the wage to the productive.    That is what sucks.     Why should they get carried?  

I've been in a union shop for 27 years.
The only people that "the company" would deem to be "productive" are the brown-nosers/rats.
Without the union, those are the only people that would get paid reasonably.
I will concede, as a union steward, I have saved the jobs of quite a few people that didn't deserve it.
However, in doing so we continue the tradition of matching wits with the "brass".
The people that are not deserving of being saved will eventually hang themselves beyond saving, anyway.
Also, those kind of people tend to get a few hints that they are no longer welcome among the masses and encouraged to find employment elsewhere.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 09:36 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: the point is that you don't need collective bargaining to tell you what your value is to an employer.    If you were a ditch digger then yes those jobs are all the same.      But jobs where you need specialized training should allow you to set your own value by seeing what you can earn.

The majority of labor unions involve tradesmen. Iron workers, pipe fitters, etc. They are blue collar, middle class, bust your ass type of jobs. Labor unions don't represent corporations. 

[fredtoast]

(02-02-2016, 10:34 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: But by doing this we allow a system where the unproductive workers dictate the wage to the productive.  

This is total gibberish.

How do the unproductive workers dictate the wages of the productive workers.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-02-2016, 11:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The majority of labor unions involve tradesmen. Iron workers, pipe fitters, etc. They are blue collar, middle class, bust your ass type of jobs. Labor unions don't represent corporations. 

Tradesman unions are not what I am taking about, they have a place in those settings.

Public unions are my biggest issue. I also do not think there needs to be a teachers union. And a non Union hospital is a good thing as well but you can speak to that with a bit more accuracy than I can so I will let you weigh in directly.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 11:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is total gibberish.

How do the unproductive workers dictate the wages of the productive workers.

Happens in teaching. Unproductive teachers make the same as the most productive. Except for a slight bonus in some cases. Not enough to show the difference in quality of teachers.

Maybe teachers should get 65% of their salary guaranteed and the rest could be awarded based on merit at the principles discretion. that would be something I could get behind.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-03-2016, 01:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Tradesman unions are not what I am taking about, they have a place in those settings.  

Public unions are my biggest issue.   I also do not think there needs to be a teachers union.    And a non Union hospital is a good thing as well but you can speak to that with a bit more accuracy than I can so I will let you weigh in directly.

Yes.  Lets take away even more from our failing education system.  Great idea, even better reasoning.

Do you think we should take away police unions as well?

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 02:04 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Yes.  Lets take away even more from our failing education system.  Great idea, even better reasoning.

Do you think we should take away police unions as well?

I think we can certainly look at some of these ridiculous union deals and the burden it has put on local governments. I think we could keep the unions but just wipe the slate clean on all previous deals so they can negotiate based on the current economic conditions.

I am mixed on the local or state public unions. Federal workers have zero business being in a union.

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 01:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Maybe teachers should get 65% of their salary guaranteed and the rest could be awarded based on merit at the principles discretion.   that would be something I could get behind.

So the lazy brown-nosers get the raises while the people who work hard but don't go along with every idea the principle has will not get any raises.

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 01:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Happens in teaching.   Unproductive teachers make the same as the most productive.    Except for a slight bonus in some cases.   Not enough to show the difference in quality of teachers.  

The bonuses are in place in every state that I know of and they are not "slight".

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 02:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So the lazy brown-nosers get the raises while the people who work hard but don't go along with every idea the principle has will not get any raises.

Funny how you don't expect the principles to be held accountable. If teachers feel that happening then they can take their skills to another school and work for principles who reward results in the classroom as opposed to your brown nosing.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 02:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The bonuses are in place in every state that I know of and they are not "slight".

It still doesn't force the bad teachers to step up.    That's why if every teacher had 35% of their income in play each year then we would see some more motivated teachers.     The bonus is just extra money.    I wish we actually took from the bad ones  and rewarded that money to the good ones.   Then tell the parents who got rewarded and who took a hit.    That way they could put their kids into productive classrooms.

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 02:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It still doesn't force the bad teachers to step up.    That's why if every teacher had 35% of their income in play each year then we would see some more motivated teachers.     The bonus is just extra money.    I wish we actually took from the bad ones  and rewarded that money to the good ones.  

Now you have completely lost me.

Is better pay an incentive to be a better teacher or not?  You seem to be saying the exact opposite now.

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 02:21 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Funny how you don't expect the principles to be held accountable.    If teachers feel that happening then they can take their skills to another school and work for principles who reward results in the classroom as opposed to your brown nosing.

So forcing a teacher to move is your way of "holding the principle accountable"?  What if there are no opportunities at better schools?  And why should the teacher be punished for something the principle does?  And how does this help the students at schools where principles reward brown-nosers?

Do you ever think about things like this before you post them?  Because I really have a hard time taking this one serious.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 02:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So forcing a teacher to move is your way of "holding the principle accountable"?  What if there are no opportunities at better schools?  And why should the teacher be punished for something the principle does?  And how does this help the students at schools where principles reward brown-nosers?

Do you ever think about things like this before you post them?  Because I really have a hard time taking this one serious.

Any teacher on this board will tell you that having a good principle makes a huge difference. So moving to another building to get that good principle is worth it. Also makes districts want to ensure they hire good principles to keep top talent in the classroom.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 02:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Now you have completely lost me.

Is better pay an incentive to be a better teacher or not?  You seem to be saying the exact opposite now.

Yes an incentive but also the ability to take away from bad teachers is crucial as well. This way everyone has something on the line.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-03-2016, 02:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Any teacher on this board will tell you that having a good principle makes a huge difference.    So moving to another building to get that good principle is worth it.    Also makes districts want to ensure they hire good principles to keep top talent in the classroom.

cuz trickle down good principal principle.

whats the turn over at these other schools?  or are the teachers just constantly moving up some good principal ladder?  

[Benton]

(02-02-2016, 10:34 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: But by doing this we allow a system where the unproductive workers dictate the wage to the productive.    That is what sucks.     Why should they get carried?    In education it's even worse.

not at all to the first part and they don't get carried.

exceptional people shouldn't and don't set the average wage. Average people should (and did up until the last 15 or so years). I don't understand your use of average and unproductive as interchangeable. They aren't. Unproductive workers typically get fired regardless of unions, and sometimes because of them. If you're in a union and you're working harder to make up for a guy who is less skilled or lazy, you're going to complain to your rep and he's either going to improve or be out of work.

stop buying the anti-union hype that they only exist to promote stupid or lazy people. If that was true, this country wouldn't have been one of the greatest in terms of industry and innovation for a century.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-03-2016, 02:21 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Funny how you don't expect the principles to be held accountable.    If teachers feel that happening then they can take their skills to another school and work for principles who reward results in the classroom as opposed to your brown nosing.

Of course they can take their skills someplace else.  That's part of testing their value and you are a proponent of testing ones value.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-03-2016, 01:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Tradesman unions are not what I am taking about, they have a place in those settings.  

Public unions are my biggest issue.   I also do not think there needs to be a teachers union.    And a non Union hospital is a good thing as well but you can speak to that with a bit more accuracy than I can so I will let you weigh in directly.

I have no experience with unionized hospitals or healthcare workers.

I don't have a problem with public unions.  I understand you don't like them because they are able to negotiated "ridiculous" deals which increase your tax burden.  The fact you think union deals are ridiculous indicates that unions have more bargaining leverage when it comes to pay and benefits compared to individuals.  You won't admit it because you don't realize the implication of your own opinion.

Let's take fast food industry as an example.  I'm not aware fast food workers having unions so when it comes to accepting a job it is pretty much take it or leave it.  I'm not aware of any incentive pay, either.  From my perspective, most conservatives consider the poor pay and lack of benefits an incentive to get a better job.  Basically, you want to treat federal employees like fast food workers except add in incentive pay.  If you offer shitty pay and shitty benefits, what type of applicant will you attract? The type of unmotivated underachievers you're already complaining about, but probably worse.