NEA union thugs threaten Republican teachers (states, vote, pay, workers)
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.
Too funny. And most teachers don't support republicans because they are treated like crap by them.
That's an opinion and they are entitled to support who they want as individuals but don't you think there is an issue here where union dues are being used to support a political party?
First of all, how do you know they were less qualified. You don't. Maybe your girlfriend was the one not qualified. Did you ever think of that. And you are also speculating that they got their job because they were lesbians and involved Too funny. And most teachers don't support republicans because they are treated like crap by them.
Let me ask you a question. In hard core Democratic party controlled states, are the teachers regularly getting better pay and benefits or does the Democratic party merely give them lip service with full support of their union leadership? Vote for those who you feel are best for the city, county, state, or nation.
Let me ask you a question. In hard core Democratic party controlled states, are the teachers regularly getting better pay and benefits or does the Democratic party merely give them lip service with full support of their union leadership? Vote for those who you feel are best for the city, county, state, or nation.
Better pay and benefits than who? Sorry, don't understand
The probelm starts when your forced into joining a union and your dues are being used to support something you don't believe in.
I'm a public employee, and had the option of becoming a paying member our local SEIU... they do kinda bully you into doing that, but EVERYONE has the right to opt out of paying for membership. I also doubt anyone was "threatened" into supporting Obama, as nobody (whether they're paying or not) is forced to attend any of the rallies & events. I've been a member of SEIU for some 5 years now, and have only attended one event - a local union election, just to vote specifically on a salary negotiation. So if their widdle feewings are hurt by this union's position, they have every right to stay home from these gatherings.
Methinks Fox "News" is taking some liberties with the interpretation, which doesn't exactly surprise me.
Sorry but whether you're in the union or not if you're paying dues you're "in" the union.
You can choose to be a non-paying member, at least we're given that option as California public employees... you would lose most of the "added benefits" (credit union memberships, auto discounts, voting rights, etc), but are still offered general protections that any paying member would receive.
Understood and if I'm going to accept that the union is going to bargain for my wages and benefits I can understand paying the dues but what if I don't want them bargaining for me and prefer to bargain with the company myself?
\What reasonable explanation is there for me not being able to choose to do that?
Considering that our last bargaining agreement was for a 3% pay decrease (less worse than more layoffs and subsequent class size increase), a lone individual would just get laughed at and fired immediately.
So if their widdle feewings are hurt by this union's position, they have every right to stay home from these gatherings.
Whatever the unions position is to me irrelevant in this discussion other than fact you may have some members that have had to pay to support these activities without a choice.
.....a lone individual would just get laughed at and fired immediately.
If that is the case then perhaps the next time around they will join the union. All choices are going to have consequences but you should be free to make them.
You can choose to be a non-paying member, at least we're given that option as California public employees... you would lose most of the "added benefits" (credit union memberships, auto discounts, voting rights, etc), but are still offered general protections that any paying member would receive.
Can the state offer someone better salary and benefits if they are not in the union? That's the key question.
Whatever the unions position is to me irrelevant in this discussion other than fact you may have some members that have had to pay to support these activities without a choice.
Members of unions have a choice. Their choice is exercised when they vote for local union and internatioinal officers, delegates, etc. The policy makers. Someone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand how a democracy works.
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.
Too funny. And most teachers don't support republicans because they are treated like crap by them.
