Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Ray From Cleveland]

I haven't read all the pages of posts on this thread but I am clearly against unions. Yes, there was a time when they were necessary to get some kind of relief from "sweatshop" environments in the workplace. But that is not the case today. Given that CWA union reps came into my home and roughed up my mother in an attempt to get me to join the union, I vowed it would never happen ... and I have never joined any union. Many decades later I was working for labor lawyers and had a real good inside look at unions. There was one lawyer in particular who busted the chops of NLRB lawyers to the point that we staffers were laughing so loud we had to close his office door. It was just pitiful ... he could quote labor laws chapter and verse and tell them exactly how wrong they were.

Teacher's union? One year damned near every teacher in the Richmond, VA school system deserted their classrooms en masse because the VCU Rams were in the finals of March Madness and it was far more important to go out of town for the game than it was to do what they were being paid to do: educate their students.

Nobody should have to pay for the right to work in this country - which is exactly what union people do: no union membership, no job. Could the right-to-work states make some changes? Absolutely - probably the most important change being that an employee should not be fired "with or without cause." The employer should have to give a valid reason for someone to be fired.

One of the biggest problems I've seen with union places are that unions basically take over the functions of the business.

Take promotions for example. In a strong union, employees are promoted based on tenure and not performance. No business would ever freely promote employees using that method because it would be a sure recipe for failure. Why would any business promote employees with less than standard performance to a higher position?

True personal story: I went to make a delivery to one of our regular customers. When I approached the receiver, he looked at me with great disgust. It was nothing personal, it's just that it was a very busy day.

I asked what was wrong, and he explained that every time a truck came in, he had to stop packing orders to load or unload. I knew he recently got a helper, so I asked why his helper didn't unload the trucks so he could continue his other chores? He told me because his new helper was afraid to drive a tow motor. Confused, I asked why they gave him such an incompetent to help him out? As guessed, it was a union shop and this guy bid on the job and of course, got it due to seniority.

So I continued my questioning: Okay, but if the guy can't do the job, why can't you complain to your employer or union to get him the hell out of shipping and receiving? He let out a pant of disgust, turned off the tow motor, turned to me and said "I can take this tow motor and drive it right through the front of your trailer, and because I'm in the union, I will have this job tomorrow. But if I even hinted yet alone complained about another union worker not doing their job, I would be on the street in five minutes." He started the tow motor, and continued unloading me.

 

[jc456]

say it aint so! you mean that the states will have their own says in what they teach our children!!!, you are telling us that the government will not be able to force all 57 states to lie to our children about our history and that the pilgrims were all terrorists!!!
this cant be happening !!!

So, you are going to teach that the native Americans welcomed the Europeans & gladly gave them all their land so they could live on reservations.

Isn't that what transpired?

 

[Coyote]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

Why do call anyone who opposes your agenda a snowflake?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

Like the choice between eating or having a roof over your head. "IT'S FREEDOM I TELL YOU" says the billionaire to the poor man.

 

[jc456]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

Like the choice between eating or having a roof over your head. "IT'S FREEDOM I TELL YOU" says the billionaire to the poor man.

What do you want the billionaire do? Off himself?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

Like the choice between eating or having a roof over your head. "IT'S FREEDOM I TELL YOU" says the billionaire to the poor man.

I really have no idea what you're ranting about. Care to elaborate?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

Like the choice between eating or having a roof over your head. "IT'S FREEDOM I TELL YOU" says the billionaire to the poor man.

What do you want the billionaire do? Off himself?

Er... perhaps not tell people to support things that don't benefit themselves but only benefit the rich.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

Why do call anyone who opposes your agenda a snowflake?

Because they melt at opposition.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

Like the choice between eating or having a roof over your head. "IT'S FREEDOM I TELL YOU" says the billionaire to the poor man.

I really have no idea what you're ranting about. Care to elaborate?

Yes, you said that choice is freedom (while stating that states are going to restrict abortion too, go figure), I disagree. Choice is not always freedom. If choice is about either doing one thing, or something else, when you should have both, that isn't freedom, is it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

Like the choice between eating or having a roof over your head. "IT'S FREEDOM I TELL YOU" says the billionaire to the poor man.

I really have no idea what you're ranting about. Care to elaborate?

Yes, you said that choice is freedom (while stating that states are going to restrict abortion too, go figure), I disagree. Choice is not always freedom. If choice is about either doing one thing, or something else, when you should have both, that isn't freedom, is it?

How can you have both? You either have choice in something or you don't.

I believe that parents should have choice in education for their children while not going broke because they don't go with the flow. I believe people should have choice in joining a union or not without the threat of being denied employment because they don't believe in joining unions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

Like the choice between eating or having a roof over your head. "IT'S FREEDOM I TELL YOU" says the billionaire to the poor man.

I really have no idea what you're ranting about. Care to elaborate?

Yes, you said that choice is freedom (while stating that states are going to restrict abortion too, go figure), I disagree. Choice is not always freedom. If choice is about either doing one thing, or something else, when you should have both, that isn't freedom, is it?

How can you have both? You either have choice in something or you don't.

I believe that parents should have choice in education for their children while not going broke because they don't go with the flow. I believe people should have choice in joining a union or not without the threat of being denied employment because they don't believe in joining unions.

Yes, I also believe that parents should have the choice for which school they want to send their kids to. That doesn't mean I want a system of vouchers that hands rich kids loads of money to go to the rich school they already go to.

And I believe people should have the choice of joining a union or not.

However not everything you said was about choice. I believe a woman should have the choice to have an abortion within a specific time frame, like 4-5 months. Yet this isn't a choice that the right want. In fact you posted that Republicans want to LIMIT ABORTION. That's not choice.

Also I believe people should have the choice to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, choose which political party they want, have one person one vote etc. This is all choice. Did the people of the USA choose the president? No, they did not. The people of 4 states chose the president. That's not choice if a person in California doesn't have choice, is it? And they only really had the choice of two parties, I'd open up choice to many more political parties with Proportional Representation.

So who is more for choice? Me, or the Republicans? certainly it is me, and yet I have no doubt most Republicans on this forum would disagree with me on opening up choice for most of the things I have said. So why do they want choice for education? Is it because they really want choice, or is it because they see a way of taking money for themselves? Why do they want choice with Unions? Is it because they see a way of making money? Sure it is.

 

[Coyote]

If people have a choice to not join unions then they should not be allowed a free ride on unions and the people who do pay.

They should have to negotiate their benefits, protections and salaries completely on their own.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

Like the choice between eating or having a roof over your head. "IT'S FREEDOM I TELL YOU" says the billionaire to the poor man.

I really have no idea what you're ranting about. Care to elaborate?

Yes, you said that choice is freedom (while stating that states are going to restrict abortion too, go figure), I disagree. Choice is not always freedom. If choice is about either doing one thing, or something else, when you should have both, that isn't freedom, is it?

How can you have both? You either have choice in something or you don't.

I believe that parents should have choice in education for their children while not going broke because they don't go with the flow. I believe people should have choice in joining a union or not without the threat of being denied employment because they don't believe in joining unions.

Yes, I also believe that parents should have the choice for which school they want to send their kids to. That doesn't mean I want a system of vouchers that hands rich kids loads of money to go to the rich school they already go to.

And I believe people should have the choice of joining a union or not.

However not everything you said was about choice. I believe a woman should have the choice to have an abortion within a specific time frame, like 4-5 months. Yet this isn't a choice that the right want. In fact you posted that Republicans want to LIMIT ABORTION. That's not choice.

Also I believe people should have the choice to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, choose which political party they want, have one person one vote etc. This is all choice. Did the people of the USA choose the president? No, they did not. The people of 4 states chose the president. That's not choice if a person in California doesn't have choice, is it? And they only really had the choice of two parties, I'd open up choice to many more political parties with Proportional Representation.

So who is more for choice? Me, or the Republicans? certainly it is me, and yet I have no doubt most Republicans on this forum would disagree with me on opening up choice for most of the things I have said. So why do they want choice for education? Is it because they really want choice, or is it because they see a way of taking money for themselves? Why do they want choice with Unions? Is it because they see a way of making money? Sure it is.

So how would Republicans make money from giving choice of whether people have to join a union or not? How about choice in education?

Nothing is stopping any other political party from joining a presidential race. In fact, you had four choices to vote for this past election.

Your claim here is that four states chose the President and one was disenfranchised. So do you think only one state should choose the President instead? We've been voting the same way for over 200 years now. the electoral college guarantees that every state has some representation. Popular vote guarantees states with smaller populations have no vote at all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If people have a choice to not join unions then they should not be allowed a free ride on unions and the people who do pay.

They should have to negotiate their benefits, protections and salaries completely on their own.

Who says they don't? If you don't join a union, there is no law that states non-union people get the same deals as union people. If a company wants to pay their non-union people less, that's their call.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

You can't blame liberals anymore. What will you do?

PS. When your only defense consists of asking "is this bad?" You already know it is and have no defense.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

given that Charter schools have worse record than public schools, and that's before all the protections to keep the scams out are eliminated, um, yeah, that would be a bad thing.

The thing about it is, no one wants to set up Charter Schools in the Cleetus states. There's no money to be made there. They want to get into LA and NY and Chicago, where there are big old pots of money to be had.

Yeah public schools are awesome!!!! Don't introduce competition, Nah let the unions control everything, they really care about the kids and not about themselves.

Sarcasm isn't a defense of why Charter Schools should replace public schools.

 

[Coyote]

If people have a choice to not join unions then they should not be allowed a free ride on unions and the people who do pay.

They should have to negotiate their benefits, protections and salaries completely on their own.

Who says they don't? If you don't join a union, there is no law that states non-union people get the same deals as union people. If a company wants to pay their non-union people less, that's their call.

The benefits that the union negotiates for are applied to all the workers. Non-union workers should be made to negotiate seperately. That would only be right wouldn't it? You don't approve of free riders do you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If people have a choice to not join unions then they should not be allowed a free ride on unions and the people who do pay.

They should have to negotiate their benefits, protections and salaries completely on their own.

Who says they don't? If you don't join a union, there is no law that states non-union people get the same deals as union people. If a company wants to pay their non-union people less, that's their call.

The benefits that the union negotiates for are applied to all the workers. Non-union workers should be made to negotiate seperately. That would only be right wouldn't it? You don't approve of free riders do you?

That's the choice of the company not the union or non-union worker.

Unions only negotiate for their employees. I don't know where they are forced to negotiate for everybody.

If the union contracts their workers out for $25.00 per hour plus benefits, what's stopping a company from paying their non-union employees $22.00 plus benefits? Nothing.

 

[Coyote]

If people have a choice to not join unions then they should not be allowed a free ride on unions and the people who do pay.

They should have to negotiate their benefits, protections and salaries completely on their own.

Who says they don't? If you don't join a union, there is no law that states non-union people get the same deals as union people. If a company wants to pay their non-union people less, that's their call.

The benefits that the union negotiates for are applied to all the workers. Non-union workers should be made to negotiate seperately. That would only be right wouldn't it? You don't approve of free riders do you?

That's the choice of the company not the union or non-union worker.

Unions only negotiate for their employees. I don't know where they are forced to negotiate for everybody.

If the union contracts their workers out for $25.00 per hour plus benefits, what's stopping a company from paying their non-union employees $22.00 plus benefits? Nothing.

If non-Union members benefit, then they should pay also.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

You can't blame liberals anymore. What will you do?

PS. When your only defense consists of asking "is this bad?" You already know it is and have no defense.

No, because I don't believe it is bad. What is bad is limiting choices people have.