48.9% of Unions members work for the Government

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-03-2016, 02:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 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.

So unions are able to negotiate "ridiculous deals, but individuals will be able to negotiate super-duper ridiculous deals based upon their exceptionalism and their personal manifest destiny?

An individual negotiating an employment contract with a corporation is like Aunt Bea gambling in a Vegas casino.  The house has all the advantages.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(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.   Then tell the parents who got rewarded and who took a hit.    That way they could put their kids into productive classrooms.

The same teachers who are good teachers now would get the incentives.  Why?  Because they are good teachers who are self-motivated because doing a job well is its own reward.  The bad teachers are still going to be bad because when they see that don't qualify for incentives then what is the point in trying?

From my experience with incentive programs, IMO they encourage the slackers or the greedy to commit fraud rather than actually forcing employees to "step up."

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 03:10 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: 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?  

Turnover is low because of the pay scale system in union contracts. No matter what you do as a teacher you know your salary every year whether you are an educator of the year quality or whether you watch movies and do worksheets. That is the problem.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 04:02 PM)Benton Wrote: 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.

so the union is going promote firing people now?

[Vas Deferens]

(02-03-2016, 05:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Turnover is low because of the pay scale system in union contracts.   No matter what you do as a teacher you know your salary every year whether you are an educator of the year quality or whether you watch movies and do worksheets.     That is the problem.

No i'm talking about in your fantasy trickle dick principal principle.  Where there is a good principal, is there going to be a lot of turn over?  Are those school systems just going to cruise through teachers non-stop?  Fire the bottom 50% every year?  Its just not making any sense.

[Belsnickel]

(02-03-2016, 05:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: so the union is going promote firing people now?

They certainly will if the worker is not up to snuff. The point of a union is to protect the best interest of the workers. If someone is not pulling their weight, then keeping them around is not in the best interest of the workers.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 04:47 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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. 

We should have less federal workers.

And of course unions can bargain better than an individual. That's obvious ..... They also hold down the top tier workers to help keep the lower employed. Why do the lower workers deserve the same protection as the ones who excel or even the ones who just show up and grind.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 05:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They certainly will if the worker is not up to snuff. The point of a union is to protect the best interest of the workers. If someone is not pulling their weight, then keeping them around is not in the best interest of the workers.

Then what's up with all the movie watching and worksheet lesson plans I have seen countless teachers use who are in cruise control mode.

[Belsnickel]

(02-03-2016, 05:56 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Then what's up with all the movie watching and worksheet lesson plans I have seen countless teachers use who are in cruise control mode.

Anyone complaining to the union rep? If so, and nothing is being done, why not take it to administration or higher up the union food chain if your rep is crap? All the times you saw these plans, did you ever complain to anyone and continue to push the issue?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-03-2016, 05:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Turnover is low because of the pay scale system in union contracts.   No matter what you do as a teacher you know your salary every year whether you are an educator of the year quality or whether you watch movies and do worksheets.     That is the problem.

No matter what I do I know my salary every year and I'm not in a union.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-03-2016, 05:50 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We should have less federal workers.  

And of course unions can bargain better than an individual.    That's obvious .....  They also hold down the top tier workers to help keep the lower employed.    Why do the lower workers deserve the same protection as the ones who excel or even the ones who just show up and grind.

If "of course" unions can bargain better than individuals why do you think individual teachers can bargain better than the unions when you think unions can "bargain better" and receive "ridiculous" deals?

The lower workers aren't holding down the top tier workers because as you just stated "of course unions can bargain better than an individual" so individual teachers aren't going to be bargaining "ridiculous" deals on par with the union's ridiculous deals.  The best individual teachers will get less and the worst individual teachers will get less.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 06:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Anyone complaining to the union rep? If so, and nothing is being done, why not take it to administration or higher up the union food chain if your rep is crap? All the times you saw these plans, did you ever complain to anyone and continue to push the issue?

You obviously haven't been in a school. there is a great John Stossel episode on teachers unions. I will have to find it.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 06:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No matter what I do I know my salary every year and I'm not in a union.

Good for you. You managed give yourself a ceiling. Unless you don't have a no compete and can move when you wish.

[Benton]

(02-03-2016, 05:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: so the union is going promote firing people now?

always have.

teacher unions might be an exception, but in the majority of industries, if someone does bad, it makes his coworkers work harder. Nobody wants that.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 06:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If "of course" unions can bargain better than individuals why do you think individual teachers can bargain better than the unions when you think unions can "bargain better" and receive "ridiculous" deals?

The lower workers aren't holding down the top tier workers because as you just stated "of course unions can bargain better than an individual" so individual teachers aren't going to be bargaining "ridiculous" deals on par with the union's ridiculous deals.  The best individual teachers will get less and the worst individual teachers will get less.

I think in cases of a teacher. If you are a high level instructor and keep yourself operating at a high level then yes you could get a better deal. The union hurts the best employees to provide for the worst and average. They are dependent on the top tier produxtion to set a basement for wages. The reason they can't offer more money to the top tier is because it will come from the bottom tiers share of the pie. All I am saying is that they should take from the bottom tier to take care of the top tier since they are doing the heavy lifting.

How much harder and smarter would you work if 35% of everyone pay was put into a kitty to he distributed to the ones with the highest production? Reward high effort and punish the ones cruising along. No reason anther nurse practitioner (I think that's your job).who isn't doing a better or at least the same level of job performance..... No way they should make the same or more.

In education it works out this way and that's wrong.

Without getting into too much detail how are your contracts set up? You get a bonus which forces a non compete?

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 07:56 PM)Benton Wrote: always have.

teacher unions might be an exception, but in the majority of industries, if someone does bad, it makes his coworkers work harder. Nobody wants that.

Well I have never personally dealt with union membership other than when I was teaching. Hence why I am against public unions. I'm not concerned about private unions. Other than the direct debit nonaense all unions run.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-03-2016, 07:53 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Good for you.  You managed give yourself a ceiling.     Unless you don't have a no compete and can move when you wish.

LMAO.  Salaries typically do have ceilings because they are different than hourly wages.  No matter how much or how little you work the salary is the same.  You're expected to work until the job is done regardless of the hours.  That's why it is called "salary."  I know how much I will make if I work the minimum hours I agreed to work.  I can also earn more and there is an incentive program.  In fact, in 2015 I earned approx. $40K more than my minimum (without any incentive pay.)  If you had been paying attention, I already told you I have a non-compete clause and penalties if I fail to give 90 days advance notice.  You also asked why I didn't get offers throughout the year to test my value.  Well, for your information, you just don't go out and collect salary offers throughout the year for multiple reasons.  It takes time and effort which I'm using on other things.  Before you talk salary with an employer, they will want to interview you.  If they decide it is a good fit, they will offer you a position and that is when you negotiate the salary.  That's not the time to tell them, "I appreciate the offer, but I was just wasting your time because I was just shopping my value."  They would never seriously consider me for any positions in the future if I pulled some BS like that.  You seem completely unaware of how all of this works.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-03-2016, 07:53 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Good for you.  You managed give yourself a ceiling.     Unless you don't have a no compete and can move when you wish.

You know what?  It just occurred to me.  You own a real estate development company, right?  Where you pray before all your meetings?  Well, then you should know how little bargaining power your applicants have.

This is a ******' joke.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 09:27 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You know what?  It just occurred to me.  You own a real estate development company, right?  Where you pray before all your meetings?  Well, then you should know how little bargaining power your applicants have.

This is a ******' joke.

So their salary depends on how much they put into their job. My employees work on %.... And their are other perks but that's case by case.

And actually my best employees have a lot of power in negotiation, I am fortunate that they enjoy working for us and we reward that loyalty as much as possible but we know that we could lose our best people if we don't take care of them. They can certainly get a better % elsewhere. We just know what we can and can't afford.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-03-2016, 08:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I think in cases of a teacher.    If you are a high level instructor and keep yourself operating at a high level then yes you could get a better deal.    The union hurts the best employees to provide for the worst and average.   They are dependent on the top tier produxtion to set a basement for wages.   The reason they can't offer more money to the top tier is because it will come from the bottom tiers share of the pie.     All I am saying is that they should take from the bottom tier to take care of the top tier since they are doing the heavy lifting.  

High level instructors are "high" level for a reason.  It's like a Bell curve.  They are the minority at the far right of the curve.  So the people who you think might get a better deal are few and far between. 

Quote:How much harder and smarter would you work if 35% of everyone pay was put into a kitty to he distributed to the ones with the highest production?    Reward high effort and punish the ones cruising along.    No reason anther nurse practitioner (I think that's your job).who isn't doing a better or at least the same level of job performance.....   No way they should make the same or more.

How much smarter would I work?  LMAO!  Incentive pay won't make anyone smarter!  I already have a legal and moral obligation to care of every patient to the best of my ability.  Incentive pay has zero affect on my effort or my intelligence.  One, because if a patient has a bad out come I can be sued for malpractice.  Two, and more importantly, someone might ***** die!

Like I stated previously, I'm not comfortable with incentive programs.  I'm already legally and morally obligated to do the best I can.  How do you think incentive programs work in the medical field?  How might that be abused?

Quote:In education it works out this way and that's wrong.  

Without getting into too much detail how are your contracts set up?  You get a bonus which forces a non compete?

A non-compete clause means you can't do the same job for someone else within a certain radius.  It isn't related to your position, not bonuses.