Those poor Milwaukee teachers
- Thread starter Canceled2
- Start date
Don't be a fool....you can take ALL the money away from ALL the rich and still not get out of whole overspending has put us in.
Stack your strawmen somewhere else.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No moron.... anytime you bargain FOR yourself... you are bargaining AGAINST someone else.
No moron.... they have EXACTLY the same rights I do. If they don't like 'what the market will bare' for their professions... they can choose to go elsewhere.
Again moron.... WHERE does each additional dollar they 'bargain' for come from?
Why can you not answer that simple question Mott? Are you too fucking retarded to comprehend it?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I have always known you offer little to these discussions.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
There you go again, parroting the bullshit your dem masters fed you.
Tax cuts did not create the budget problem you fucking hack.
How many times do you have to be corrected on this before you cease spouting the bullshit?
Well, you keep bitching about bought off politicians. The way to rectify that isn't to dismantle public employee unions and eliminate collective bargaining, unless, of course, you only want to eliminate the unions buying off politicians and don't care about the other players buying off politicians. Surely you wouldn't take such a partisan approach.
Bfgrn
New member
You are arguing with people raised by wolves. These are people who as kids were 'present counters'. At Christmas, when the families got together and one of their cousins got more presents than they did, they threw themselves on the floor an had a tantrum.
They don't understand the word invest. They are patriots, they love America, it's just those damn AmericANS they have disdain for.
Ironic, the best education system in the world is in Finland, where teachers are payed moderate salaries, but they are revered, highly respected and given autonomy by the government and the parents.
Lessons From Finland: The Way to Education Excellence
At the heart of Finland's stellar reputation is a philosophy completely alien to America. The country of 5.3 million in an area twice the size of Missouri considers education an end in itself - not a means to an end. It's a deeply rooted value that is reflected in the Ministry of Education and in all 432 municipalities. In sharp contrast, Americans view education as a stepping stone to better-paying jobs or to impress others. The distinction explains why we are obsessed with marquee names, and how we structure, operate and fund schools.
The headlines notwithstanding, misconceptions about Finland's renown as an educational icon abound. The Finns spend a meager (compared to the U.S.) $5,000 a year per student, operate no gifted programs, have average class sizes close to 30, and don't begin schooling children until they are 7. Moreover, Finland is not the homogeneous nation of lore. While still not as diverse as the U.S., the number of immigrant students in Helsinki's comprehensive schools is exploding, with their numbers expected to constitute 23.3 percent of the city's schools by 2025. At present, about 11 percent are immigrants, compared with just 6 percent in 2002. According to the City of Helsinki Urban Facts, by 2015 there will be schools with more than half of the student body from abroad.
Not surprisingly, in a land where literacy and numeracy are considered virtues, teachers are revered. Teenagers ranked teaching at the top of their list of favorite professions in a recent survey. Far more graduates of upper schools in Finland apply for admission to teacher-training institutes than are accepted. The overwhelming majority of those who eventually enter the classroom as a teacher make it a lifelong career, even though they are paid no more than their counterparts in other European countries.
One of the major reasons for the job satisfaction that Finnish teachers report is the great freedom they enjoy in their instructional practices. As long as they adhere to the core national curriculum, teachers are granted latitude unheard of in the U.S. The scripted lesson plans that teachers here are increasingly being expected to follow would be rejected out of hand as an insult by teachers in Finland and by their powerful union, which has a growing membership of some 117,500 members.
If none of these facts are enough to raise doubts about the policies the U.S. has in place or on the drawing board, Finland's testing practices should raise a final red flag. The Finns do not administer national standardized tests during the nine years of basic education. Instead, the National Board of Education assesses learning on the basis of a sample representing about 10 percent of a stipulated age group. Individual school results are strictly confidential, and schools are neither ranked nor compared. The data collected are available only to the schools in question and to the National Board of Education, which use them to help improve instruction. The naming and shaming that No Child Left Behind relies on in its obsession with quantification would be unthinkable.
What ultimately emerges from studying Finland is the realization that the reform movement in America is based on a business model fundamentally at odds with the education model used by a country with the world's finest schools. While it's always risky to attempt to apply findings from one country to another, particularly when the two are so different, it's a mistake to turn our backs on Finland's approach.
http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_gardner27_02-27-08_C48VQ4I_v12.39b8f4d.html
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I have been and will continue to be a proponent for the elimination of the big money going into politics. I have stated this numerous times in the past.
I know this matters little to you. Because you simply wish to play your typical role of partisan schmuck/hack.
Mott: The unions would have exactly the same capacity to lobby for legislation that would increase their benefits/salary as those businesses. It puts them on the same playing field as those corporations rather than giving them a more direct purchase/negotiate method where they can simply target and buy only the politician that will be "negotiating" with the union.
Thanks Damo....I mis-stated that.....I was referring to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978....passed by Carter and the Democrats...
If its good enough for Federal workers it should be good enough for school teachers....
Like I said, I hadn't realized you were such a proponent of campaign finance reform. I was serious. I'm not really interested in get into a partisan pissing match with you.
And castration so they don't procreate and assign their legacy to the next batch of DOPES.
I'd prefer both, however the Unions who can negotiate have a more direct method with less need to lobby every politician. They do not have to buy every politician or even a majority of them, and in the years contracts end they only have to directly purchase the one with which they will next "negotiate".
While I'd rather the coin-operated government disappear entirely, if they are going to be playing on that field I prefer a more even distribution of "negotiating" powers. Unions can form and lobby the government, there is no need to also hand them the means to simply purchase both sides of the negotiating table so that they are basically accepting no-bid contracts.
It is basically like giving out no-bid contracts, those are wrong and we should eliminate the ability of anybody in government doing such a thing. These companies and unions have enough power through lobbying the politicians, there is no need to give away the barn in no-bid contracting for either of them.
The screamers forget that Federal Employees, the ones who work for Obama, don't have the very rights they're screaming the public sector employees should have.
It should be interesting to see how Obama squeezes himself out of this one!
I don't know that that is necessarily true, particularly at the federal level. For example, defense contractors know who is on the defense appropriations committee, who is in line to chair the committees depending on which party controls Congress. Same with scores of other industries. The appropriations committee chairs are always know and the jurisdictions of the committees carve it up into nice little fiefdoms where the players know who needs to get greased.
State governments often operate similarly.
The unions only try to purchase the Democrats. Businesses buy everybody. I have a greater concern for the latter than the former.
So, planned parenthood doesn't target their contributions to candidates?
I think you are mistaken. Not all businesses target "all" politicians, only those who aren't quite as controversial. Unions target Ds because they know that even if they give money to the Rs they have other priorities and they will not get that for which they have paid, while the Democratic party is more directly owned by them and has been for decades. They simply prioritized, just as Planned Parenthood prioritizes.
I was only talking about unions and businesses, not non-profits or other advocacy groups.
I was speaking about business more broadly, not suggesting that each individual business spreads money around equally. In the 2010 cycles, contributions by businesses (employees and PACs) totaled $1.3 billion and went 48% Democrat, 47% Republican. Labor unions spent $93 million, 70% to Democrats. (These figures exclude outside, independent expenditures). Again, to me, the former is more concerning that the latter.
Labor unions (and most advocacy groups) are more selective in who they give money to because they have less money to throw around. If they could afford to buy off everyone, they would.
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php