Ahh...thats where my $10,000+ in taxes goes (Albany, Union: felony, teaching jobs)

[sickofnyc99]

[quote=TubaFish;8488339]Exactly. Why should teachers escape this trend? They'd rather the schools fire some of the younger/arts teachers than suffer a reduction to their 3% COL raise across the board or worse, a cut to their pension or health bennies. I ask, where is the brotherhood in these unions?


Exactly where the "Brotherhood" of all the other unions are, in the front office. Just like with GM and countless other unions they would rather not negotiate and watch the employer fail than to make accomodations for the benefit of all. They employ the amazing logic that "I would rather not work than work for a dollar less". Brilliant.

[Transpl]

Keeping Bad Teachers in Front of Students | Teachers Union Facts


A mild example, without commiting a crime, how does one get terminated if you're just not good at teaching?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25430476/

[DeadPool1998]

[quote=sickofnyc99;8495972]

Originally Posted by TubaFish

Exactly. Why should teachers escape this trend? They'd rather the schools fire some of the younger/arts teachers than suffer a reduction to their 3% COL raise across the board or worse, a cut to their pension or health bennies. I ask, where is the brotherhood in these unions?


Exactly where the "Brotherhood" of all the other unions are, in the front office. Just like with GM and countless other unions they would rather not negotiate and watch the employer fail than to make accomodations for the benefit of all. They employ the amazing logic that "I would rather not work than work for a dollar less". Brilliant.

GM is not going broke because of its unions. GM is not going broke because of its unions.

GM is going broke because people don't buy their cars - that has nothing to do with the unions. I wonder if CEO salaries and labor salaries increased at the same rate since 1970? I'll bet my house that the increase in CEO salaries far exceeded that of labor since 1970. Still, management deserved it less because they kept building unattractive gas hogs. They refused to plan out further than 1 or 2 years. In 1984, Roger Smith earned $1.5 million (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._3622304/pg_4/). In 2007, GM's Wagoner earned $15.7 million (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec...ss/fi-autopay3). That's more than a 10-fold increase in salary, all while they've driven the largest corporation in the world right into the toilet on the backs of Hummers and Aztecs.

Then, when they sat with Bush to discuss their retirement health care liabilities shouldered by US car manufacturers, they came out singing the tune that "single provider health care is evil communism." Okay. Fine. Now they go broke.

This was the choice of the CEOs. The unions didn't cause any of this.

[sickofnyc99]

Fine GM is as much to blame but the unions were no help.

How about today, the teacher in the Bronx? I can tell you that he won't be fired right away,he'll go to a rubber room until his case is heard, full pay full bennies. Full BS.

And don't get me started on the Healthcare field. One east end hospital realized that an infection outbreak was caused by poor handwashing and long fingernails. They told everyone that their nails should only be a certain length. The Nurses and aides threw a fit saying the hospital couldn't tell them to cut their nails. The union backed them up. So all you patients out there don't worry, your healthcare is being dictated by fingernail size.

Unions protect the stupid and lazy. At the time my union "rep" saw me in the hallway and told me that I might lose my job if I didn't vote for Gore. Typical fear tactic.
I used to be pro-union. Then we had a big battle over our contract. At the time I was paying 20 bucks every other pay period. After the HUGE 3% raise they "fought" for (that was what the hospital had offered to begin with) They told us that because they "fought so hard for" the raise they had to DOUBLE our dues, which by the way I'd be better off without the "raise".

Oh and another one, one of our LEAD techs turns to us one day and says "well nowhere in my union contract does it say I have to work hard..." It's that kind of mentality that the union fosters and is driving this country straight into the abyss.
They are a scam.

[Mantaray14]

Originally Posted by DeadPool1998

GM is not going broke because of its unions. GM is not going broke because of its unions.

This completely inaccurate - It just shows how you are basing your opinions on emotion and not on fact. Have you ever heard the saying "GM is a healthcare company posing as a car maker". Everyone who ever worked there has family health benefits for life. This was based on the assumption the company would grow and keep growing. That did not happen because there was less population after the baby boomer generation, plus more competition from overseas automakers competing for market share. At that point, the extensive pay/benefits bacame a monkey on their back. Now they have to charge much more for the cars, then no one buys their cars anymore, when other companies that do not have this burden can offer them better quality cars at cheaper cost. See how this is all inter-connected? GM made many, many bad management decisions, but the unsustainable benefits they offered during the good times are a big part oftheir "core" problem.

There is a lot we must learn from this before America can position itself for prosperity again.

[Mantaray14]

But to set the record straight, I'm not anti-union, I'm more for "right-sizing" and planning for long term sustainbility.

I also feel the banks should have been temporarily nationalized and EVERY SINGLE high-paid banker involved with this mess should be unemployed right now. That goes for all the **** poor management at GM, most of the congress and every single lobbiest. Oh, and throw in all everyone from the military-industrial complex who make us spend gazillions on weapons that will never be used or see the light of day. How about putting that money twords some sort of armor for troops? Who would of thought of that?

I'm in some mood today!

[djdairyp]

[quote=Transpl;8495369]

Originally Posted by djdairyp;8488056
Clearly, family background is a big factor, less clearly but also likely is teacher salary has an influence as well. Do we want to take a chance on a guess that it doesnt matter, reduce salaries and possible screw the system. Its an unknown with no evidence and cant be determined. quote

I believe it can be determined that salary is not linked to performance. Unions, such as the Teachers Union, compensation and opportunity are based on tenure, not performance. Today there is no financial advantage to being better than the teacher 2 doors down, put in your time and in X number of years you will make max comp, and be ready to retire. It doesn't matter if you're the best or the worst teacher in the district.

One can only link higher pay with higher performance if the 2 are linked in the selection and promotion of the individuals.

Just because compensation is not tied to performance does not mean people sit back and do nothing and don't perform. They are not dogs doing tricks for a treat. Your notion that the only reward for performance is money is not universally accepted especially in a field like education where many of the teachers actually care about their students.

That being said, everyone needs to eat, and salary helps. The point you are overlooking is the fact that higher salaries attract higher initial talent and creates a larger applicant pool to choose from. If McDonlads in Oklahoma paid trained managers from any McDonalds college 300k a year, you would have a mass influx of managers to that region and the ability to choose the best ones. The fact that 300 people apply for a single teaching position is very much tied to fair compensation that is absent from teaching positions in many other parts of the country. Unfortunately this can lead to corruption where 'you have to know someone' to get in and there should be more regulation on this, but it is certainly not exclusively the case as you can get LI teaching jobs from the NY times without knowing anyone.

[TubaFish]

Originally Posted by dman72

You're a college kid ..you're not suffering. What altruistic field are you going to be entering into, after you're done trolling this board, that is?

You have no way of knowing whether I am "suffering" or not. I live on this island - in an apartment currently - and the price of my rent is inflated to account for the high property taxes my landlord has to pay. If you want to talk about tax burden, alone, I paid the Feds and NY state over $10K in capital gains taxes last year. As a frickin COLLEGE STUDENT!!! That in itself is outrageous. I honestly could have put myself through school trading options if the government didn't have its hands so deep in my pockets. So, yes, I have a right to complain about taxes even though I am just a student!!

As to the second part of your statement, No I am not going into an altruistic field, strictly speaking. That is unless you consider making high net worth individuals and endowments even richer altruistic. haha

Unlike teachers, though, I am not drawing a paycheck from the government and "professing" to be a public servant. They don't work for an institution that makes a profit and don't take the same risks that private sector employees do, as a result. Why then should their rewards mirror - and in many cases exceed - those of the private sector? Knowing that your job is safe should be enough of a reward. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Especially when the people paying you can't have their cake or eat it.


Just because my career is not altruistic does not mean that I don't do altrusitic things. For one thing, I will pay Uncle Sam an arm and a leg so that he can provide social programs for McDonalds drive-through workers in Kansas who pop out that ump-teenth baby. I also donate to religious charities. Why can't teachers do THEIR part by agreeing to work for less so that hard-working Long Islanders don't prematurely gray worrying about their next $8K local tax bill?

[dman72]

Originally Posted by TubaFish

You have no way of knowing whether I am "suffering" or not. I live on this island - in an apartment currently - and the price of my rent is inflated to account for the high property taxes my landlord has to pay. If you want to talk about tax burden, alone, I paid the Feds and NY state over $10K in capital gains taxes last year. As a frickin COLLEGE STUDENT!!! That in itself is outrageous. I honestly could have put myself through school trading options if the government didn't have its hands so deep in my pockets. So, yes, I have a right to complain about taxes even though I am just a student!!

As to the second part of your statement, No I am not going into an altruistic field, strictly speaking. That is unless you consider making high net worth individuals and endowments even richer altruistic. haha

Unlike teachers, though, I am not drawing a paycheck from the government and "professing" to be a public servant. They don't work for an institution that makes a profit and don't take the same risks that private sector employees do, as a result. Why then should their rewards mirror - and in many cases exceed - those of the private sector? Knowing that your job is safe should be enough of a reward. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Especially when the people paying you can't have their cake or eat it.


Just because my career is not altruistic does not mean that I don't do altrusitic things. For one thing, I will pay Uncle Sam an arm and a leg so that he can provide social programs for McDonalds drive-through workers in Kansas who pop out that ump-teenth baby. I also donate to religious charities. Why can't teachers do THEIR part by agreeing to work for less so that hard-working Long Islanders don't prematurely gray worrying about their next $8K local tax bill?

[TubaFish]

[quote=DeadPool1998;8496784]

Originally Posted by sickofnyc99

GM is not going broke because of its unions. GM is not going broke because of its unions.

GM is going broke because people don't buy their cars - that has nothing to do with the unions. I wonder if CEO salaries and labor salaries increased at the same rate since 1970? I'll bet my house that the increase in CEO salaries far exceeded that of labor since 1970. Still, management deserved it less because they kept building unattractive gas hogs. They refused to plan out further than 1 or 2 years. In 1984, Roger Smith earned $1.5 million (Roger Smith - GM's big surprise | Nation's Business | Find Articles at BNET). In 2007, GM's Wagoner earned $15.7 million (General Motors and Ford CEOs putting their salary on the line - Los Angeles Times). That's more than a 10-fold increase in salary, all while they've driven the largest corporation in the world right into the toilet on the backs of Hummers and Aztecs.

Then, when they sat with Bush to discuss their retirement health care liabilities shouldered by US car manufacturers, they came out singing the tune that "single provider health care is evil communism." Okay. Fine. Now they go broke.

This was the choice of the CEOs. The unions didn't cause any of this.

To be fair, GM's demise is a combination of a poor business model and the unions. Placing all of their egges in the huge, gas-guzzling SUV basket was the first ***** in their armor. The fact that the auto union drags their feet and does not agree to necessary concessions to keep the company afloat now is what's killing GM right now. The CEO that led GM to record profits during the 90's is worth his weight in gold. The Joe Schmoe, GED assembly-line worker is not worth $72 an hour (bennies included). If GM didn't have such tremendous, union-imposed labor costs perhaps it could tread water in this treacherous market by pricing its cars well below foreign imports. In the end, such labor costs are unsustainable. Getting it through union-leaders' heads that perhaps their workers aren't worth $72 an hour is impossible. Now many midwest cities are feeling the pain of such stubborness (combined with the poor economy).