Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i dont understand what the compensation of union leadership has to do with money spent on kids. the union gets dues from a % of the income of its members. if the union compensation is too high, thats an issue for the teacher's whose dues are paying them.
You would think this would be painfully obvious. Maybe they think teachers would take that money if didn't go to the union and donate it back to the school.
So which is it delusional, bi-polar, or typical union doublespeak?
It is just your absolute lack of common sense. People everyday refer to government spending as taxpayer expenses. Hence people say taxpayers paid for it. Of course it went though the gov't first. It is such a meaningless distinction rational people don't care. Using your logic no one should ever complain on how their tax dollars are being spent since you didn't directly give it to wherever you didn't want it to go.
And I would be happy if the NJEA was disbanded tomorrow. I think they are horrible. But how they choose to spend money given to them by teachers is not my concern. It's not my money they are spending.
People everyday refer to government spending as taxpayer expenses. Hence people say taxpayers paid for it. Of course it went though the gov't first.
Oh so public school teachers don't constitute as local or state gov't employees to you? Last I checked their salaries were listed under "Public records of Federal, State and Local employees," and the IRS and NJDOE recognizes school districts as government and public entities.
So if you're implying since "people every day refer to gov't spending as taxpayer expenses" which paid for TARP whereby banks benefited, then how's that different if "people every day refer to local gov't spending (public teacher salary) as taxpayer expenses" which paid for union contributions whereby Union officials benefited?
I don't care either way, but why cherry pick? Contradictory much or more double speak?
Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6
And I would be happy if the NJEA was disbanded tomorrow. I think they are horrible.
What the hell are you babbling about? I just said it obviously went through the gov't.
The fact that you equate the gov't being the middle man with a teacher being the middle man is what is hard to fathom.
Manderly ... In case you haven't seen it yet, it seems newjitty has a severe problem with reading comprehension. Although you and I don't often agree, I feel I must forewarn you about trying to have an intelligent conversation with this individual. Better to let this sleepy dog alone, lest he AGAIN brings up his "for the kid$$$" mantra.
You would think this would be painfully obvious. Maybe they think teachers would take that money if didn't go to the union and donate it back to the school.
i think the problem is that some people who are anti-union are happy to attack unions for anything even if it isnt legitimate. i dont attack high ceo compensation for private companies or even non-profits, why would i attack it for unions just because i dont like what they do? you also cant attack them for marketing and lobbying expense because thats a big part of what they do and it helps them be more successful at getting more compensation for their public employees. its harder for them in the private sector because things have to make more sense on a financial basis, which is why they are less common in the private sector.
i think the problem is that some people who are anti-union are happy to attack unions for anything even if it isnt legitimate. i dont attack high ceo compensation for private companies or even non-profits, why would i attack it for unions just because i dont like what they do? you also cant attack them for marketing and lobbying expense because thats a big part of what they do and it helps them be more successful at getting more compensation for their public employees. its harder for them in the private sector because things have to make more sense on a financial basis, which is why they are less common in the private sector.
They are less common in the private sector because there aren't laws mandating that employers (which in this case are the local school boards) can only hire their members.
..the link clearly showed, no bonuses of any sort, simply annual rate and overtime
You've yet to respond.
How's that for reading comprehension?
Then again, what's expected from someone who tried to justify a toll collector's excessive wage by claiming the job, a "mentally exhausting task."
I can't imagine how you get through the task of grocery shopping.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
