Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what's your point besides trying to change the subject, that blacks make bad decisions?

we all make bad decisions... it's just that white people aren't shot with impunity for them. I've given you a whole list of white people brandishing guns where the cops managed to take them into custody without shooting them, but the kid playing with a toy gets shot on sight.

White kids get rehab, black kids get prison.

Or as I said to an aquantence, "Nobody shot you for Grand theft lightbulb!" (A time when he was 17 and got caught stealing a neighbor's outdoor lighting because it would look cool for his garage band.)

It's not 'making bad decisions, it's how the system treats you.

Yeah, it is bad decision making, just like it's bad decision making on your part to keep bringing up an incident where you were proven wrong repeatedly.

This may bust your little race-baiting bubble, but most blacks in our country survive fine with police. How do they do it when our system treats them so unfairly? Could it be they don't break the law in the first place? Could it be that if confronted by a police officer, they just obey his commands? Could it be they make no threatening move (or move that could be construed as a threat) in front of a police officer?

You see, right or wrong, all these police shootings have one thing in common: the suspect didn't listen to the orders of the police officers. That's it. Real simple.......at least for Republicans it is. For liberals? Too complicated to figure out.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, it is bad decision making, just like it's bad decision making on your part to keep bringing up an incident where you were proven wrong repeatedly.

Uh, no, you just ranted a lot of racism about tihs poor child and his family, and ignored the fact that this cop had been fired because even a suburb wouldn't trust him with a gun.

 

[JoeB131]

This may bust your little race-baiting bubble, but most blacks in our country survive fine with police. How do they do it when our system treats them so unfairly? Could it be they don't break the law in the first place? Could it be that if confronted by a police officer, they just obey his commands? Could it be they make no threatening move (or move that could be construed as a threat) in front of a police officer?

You see, right or wrong, all these police shootings have one thing in common: the suspect didn't listen to the orders of the police officers. That's it. Real simple.......at least for Republicans it is. For liberals? Too complicated to figure out.

I don't want officers who shoot people without justification and I'm not sure why you do.

Of course, when you start out the country with only being 3/5th of a white person, don't you think that the culture is already against you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This may bust your little race-baiting bubble, but most blacks in our country survive fine with police. How do they do it when our system treats them so unfairly? Could it be they don't break the law in the first place? Could it be that if confronted by a police officer, they just obey his commands? Could it be they make no threatening move (or move that could be construed as a threat) in front of a police officer?

You see, right or wrong, all these police shootings have one thing in common: the suspect didn't listen to the orders of the police officers. That's it. Real simple.......at least for Republicans it is. For liberals? Too complicated to figure out.

I don't want officers who shoot people without justification and I'm not sure why you do.

Of course, when you start out the country with only being 3/5th of a white person, don't you think that the culture is already against you?

All police shootings are investigated; some with the family of the deceased hiring their own people. Most are ruled justified. The ones that are not, the officer faces charges.

The culture against you? Why do you think white officers accept jobs in black communities, because they're hoping they get a chance at shooting a black person? The problem is you are media brainwashed. Most blacks support their police officers because it is they who risk their lives every day to keep those good black people safe.

I was talking with Coyote last week about a similar subject when she brought up unfairness to blacks when it comes to the law. I told her I researched the subject and found no apples to apples evidence. So I asked a close personal friend about it since he works at the clerk of courts in downtown. He said he did think that some blacks got treated unfairly because of sentencing. But the judges that handed out those harsh sentences were black judges. Why? Because if a white judge really hated black people, the most destructive thing he could do is release those criminals back out into the black community. Black judges are just the opposite. They put other blacks away for as long as they can to help those black communities.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Choice in education has allowed American children to go from being in the top 10 in the world in science and math, to 29th in the world.

With politicized education churning out good little Republicans, you'll be lucky to stay in the top 50.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[JoeB131]

All police shootings are investigated; some with the family of the deceased hiring their own people. Most are ruled justified. The ones that are not, the officer faces charges.

That just proves the police can't be trusted to investigate themselves.

The culture against you? Why do you think white officers accept jobs in black communities, because they're hoping they get a chance at shooting a black person? The problem is you are media brainwashed. Most blacks support their police officers because it is they who risk their lives every day to keep those good black people safe.

Most guys I know who become cops were the insecure bullies who like having a badge and a gun. sadly, we don't do a very good jobs of weeding the truly bad ones out, like your boy Officer McShooty, who was fired from one department for mishandling his weapon, and Cleveland just hired him, no background check.

I was talking with Coyote last week about a similar subject when she brought up unfairness to blacks when it comes to the law. I told her I researched the subject and found no apples to apples evidence. So I asked a close personal friend about it since he works at the clerk of courts in downtown. He said he did think that some blacks got treated unfairly because of sentencing. But the judges that handed out those harsh sentences were black judges. Why? Because if a white judge really hated black people, the most destructive thing he could do is release those criminals back out into the black community. Black judges are just the opposite. They put other blacks away for as long as they can to help those black communities.

I didn't know Coyote was a woman, but anyway, I'm not sure what research you did, but the fact is, blacks are more likely to be pulled over by police, more likely to be arrested for minor offenses, and more likely to get prison time.

White people are more likely to deal drugs, but black people are more likely to get arrested for it

Even more surprising is what gets left out of the chart: Blacks are far more likely to be arrested for selling or possessing drugs than whites, even though whites use drugs at the same rate. And whites are actually more likely to sell drugs:

Whites were about 45 percent more likely than blacks to sell drugs in 1980, according to an analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth by economist Robert Fairlie. This was consistent with a 1989 survey of youth in Boston. My own analysis of data from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health shows that 6.6 percent of white adolescents and young adults (aged 12 to 25) sold drugs, compared to just 5.0 percent of blacks (a 32 percent difference).

Wait, it gets worse. A lot worse...

Eight Charts That Show How the Justice System Is Stacked Against Black Americans

 

[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.

Who said replace? Just have them compete, so if charter schools suck as much as you guys say, what is the problem?

The problem is under the guise of competition theyre taking from the public schools and promoting Charters.

But everyone can't go to a charter school. Everyone isn't given the choice. So in reality if you cut one to promote the other that's not competing at all.

 

[RealDave]

School Choice is just the Republican scam for privatizing education. See in Republican world, the government can't do anything & everything must be done by private enterprise. Because we can certainly trust private enterprise to teach our kids what they need to know.

School Choice is bad.

Here in Pennsylvania, the State has a mandate to provide every kid with an education. This is why we have a public school system. In my opinion, you send your kid there & or are on your own.

But we have private companies that provide home schooling. They provide a computer hookup & students tap into their educational programming. Unfortunately, these companies get paid by the local school districts. Millions & millions of dollars are sucked out of the system that pay for this home schooling.

First, talking out one student does not save the district squat. Schools provide free transportation to school. Why should we pay for some kid to stay home instead of going to the school to get the education we are already paying for?

As for school choice, it would take a few kids out of poorer districts & put them in better schools while leaving the students in that poorer district with now fewer dollars.

Second, here in PA, when they tried to pass it, it was estimated that 40% of the funding would go to families with kids already in private school.

Third, If the is school choice, private schools must take every student that applies. No skimming off the smarter kids

4th, they must take the disabled & mentally challenged kids too. I was on a school board where we were paying $275k a year to send a severely retarded child to special school (we have to educate every kid). That was 30 years ago & would cost well over half a million a year today. ( it would have been cheaper to give the family a million bucks if they moved to another district)

So, if you don't like the local public school, then put up your own money to send your sniveling brat to private school. Where you live is a choice & if you were so stupid to move into a bad school district then it is your fault.

We have a great public school system & if your child is doing poorly then I suggest it is a problem with the kid's parents.

 

[Mr Natural]

Some people refuse to accept that their kid is stupid and blame his problems on the government provided schooling.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That just proves the police can't be trusted to investigate themselves.

So who do you want to do the investigation, Ronald McDonald?

Most guys I know who become cops were the insecure bullies who like having a badge and a gun. sadly, we don't do a very good jobs of weeding the truly bad ones out, like your boy Officer McShooty, who was fired from one department for mishandling his weapon, and Cleveland just hired him, no background check.

Nope, Cleveland called Independence for a reference and got a good one.

I didn't know Coyote was a woman, but anyway, I'm not sure what research you did, but the fact is, blacks are more likely to be pulled over by police, more likely to be arrested for minor offenses, and more likely to get prison time.

And that's all you know. But statistics are not apples to apples.

Judges do just that, they judge based on many factors of a case. I know, I've seen this happen when I had to appear in court.

The first thing that happens is the judge talks to the police officers involved to get their take on the subject. If the officers tell the judge the suspect was cooperative, understanding, obedient, the judge has more favorable view of the defendant than if the police officers tell him or her that the suspect fought them, swore at them, threatened them, was uncooperative and disrespectful.

The court opens session and the judge notes the appearance of the suspect, how he or she respects the court, how remorseful they are if guilty of something, how honest they are when questioned by the attorneys. Before sentencing, the judge also looks at the defendants criminal history if they even have one at all.

If you get a white guy with no criminal record that is totally honest and remorseful for his crime, he's going to get a much lighter sentence than a black guy who was rolling his eyes during the trial, shaking his head back and forth, dressed like he was going to a rap concert, and has a criminal record a mile long.

But these statistics show none of that. They just show a white guy got six months in prison for having 2 ounces of cocaine and the black guy got five years.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Many Republicans push the voucher scheme which in many cases gives money to any student to go to any school they like. In Arizona 75% of the recipients of this money already went to private schools and merely paid the school less money.

Choice can exist without vouchers, it's not hard, the UK does it. The only reason to promote vouchers is as a way of funneling money back to the rich.

Nothing is stopping any other party joining the presidential race, and other parties do join. That's not the point here. The point is the mentality that people have towards politics. Many people voted AGAINST Hillary or AGAINST Trump by voting for the other. The money goes to the main two parties, the spending is from the main two parties, and people get into that mentality. Without change, nothing changes, it stays a two horse race.

The Republicans aren't calling for it to change, are they?

You're not calling for it. You go on about CHOICE and then when I show you where you can have CHOICE and where it leads to FREEDOM and you REJECT it. Go figure.

What am I rejecting? And BTW, the Democrats sure as hell like the two party system as well, so don't say it's just Republicans.

So how do you expect to "change the minds" of the voters? Brainwashing? If people want to vote for a third party, it's up to them. Because you don't like voters not exercising that option is not restricting anybody from anything. You're just making that all up.

As for vouchers, they go to lower income families in most cases. That's what they were designed for. The rich don't necessarily make out because with vouchers, you can send your kid to a religious school and even another public school in your area.

Our schools are mostly locally funded. The only way to have school choice without vouchers is to make education federal or state run which I'm sure many don't want to do.

So what if the Democrats like the system too? I don't like them and I don't like the Republicans.

How do you change the minds of voters? Sometimes you need that person who can do it. Sometimes you turn it into a cult. Sometimes it's out of necessity. However in the US I'm not sure it's possible any more. The country is lost.

Vouchers don't always go to lower income parents. That's why in Arizona 75% of vouchers went to RICH KIDS IN PRIVATE SCHOOL. Don't tell me they were designed for poor kids, you need to go research vouchers.

No, I don't think the only way to make school choice is with federal or state run schools.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

School Choice is just the Republican scam for privatizing education. See in Republican world, the government can't do anything & everything must be done by private enterprise. Because we can certainly trust private enterprise to teach our kids what they need to know.

School Choice is bad.

Here in Pennsylvania, the State has a mandate to provide every kid with an education. This is why we have a public school system. In my opinion, you send your kid there & or are on your own.

But we have private companies that provide home schooling. They provide a computer hookup & students tap into their educational programming. Unfortunately, these companies get paid by the local school districts. Millions & millions of dollars are sucked out of the system that pay for this home schooling.

First, talking out one student does not save the district squat. Schools provide free transportation to school. Why should we pay for some kid to stay home instead of going to the school to get the education we are already paying for?

As for school choice, it would take a few kids out of poorer districts & put them in better schools while leaving the students in that poorer district with now fewer dollars.

Second, here in PA, when they tried to pass it, it was estimated that 40% of the funding would go to families with kids already in private school.

Third, If the is school choice, private schools must take every student that applies. No skimming off the smarter kids

4th, they must take the disabled & mentally challenged kids too. I was on a school board where we were paying $275k a year to send a severely retarded child to special school (we have to educate every kid). That was 30 years ago & would cost well over half a million a year today. ( it would have been cheaper to give the family a million bucks if they moved to another district)

So, if you don't like the local public school, then put up your own money to send your sniveling brat to private school. Where you live is a choice & if you were so stupid to move into a bad school district then it is your fault.

We have a great public school system & if your child is doing poorly then I suggest it is a problem with the kid's parents.

People generally live in an area they can afford. If you can't afford much, chances are your public school is a crime ridden drug infested rat hole. All the money in the world won't help it either.

Of course if you had the money, you would live in a much nicer area or be able to afford private education. But for many inner-city people, that's not an option at all.

We don't have the money to save all the kids from these tragic public schools, but if we can save a few of them, that's better than not saving any of them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Many Republicans push the voucher scheme which in many cases gives money to any student to go to any school they like. In Arizona 75% of the recipients of this money already went to private schools and merely paid the school less money.

Choice can exist without vouchers, it's not hard, the UK does it. The only reason to promote vouchers is as a way of funneling money back to the rich.

Nothing is stopping any other party joining the presidential race, and other parties do join. That's not the point here. The point is the mentality that people have towards politics. Many people voted AGAINST Hillary or AGAINST Trump by voting for the other. The money goes to the main two parties, the spending is from the main two parties, and people get into that mentality. Without change, nothing changes, it stays a two horse race.

The Republicans aren't calling for it to change, are they?

You're not calling for it. You go on about CHOICE and then when I show you where you can have CHOICE and where it leads to FREEDOM and you REJECT it. Go figure.

What am I rejecting? And BTW, the Democrats sure as hell like the two party system as well, so don't say it's just Republicans.

So how do you expect to "change the minds" of the voters? Brainwashing? If people want to vote for a third party, it's up to them. Because you don't like voters not exercising that option is not restricting anybody from anything. You're just making that all up.

As for vouchers, they go to lower income families in most cases. That's what they were designed for. The rich don't necessarily make out because with vouchers, you can send your kid to a religious school and even another public school in your area.

Our schools are mostly locally funded. The only way to have school choice without vouchers is to make education federal or state run which I'm sure many don't want to do.

So what if the Democrats like the system too? I don't like them and I don't like the Republicans.

How do you change the minds of voters? Sometimes you need that person who can do it. Sometimes you turn it into a cult. Sometimes it's out of necessity. However in the US I'm not sure it's possible any more. The country is lost.

Vouchers don't always go to lower income parents. That's why in Arizona 75% of vouchers went to RICH KIDS IN PRIVATE SCHOOL. Don't tell me they were designed for poor kids, you need to go research vouchers.

No, I don't think the only way to make school choice is with federal or state run schools.

I'd sure like to see where you get your stats from. Do you have a credible link that shows 75% of kids in Arizona that gets vouchers are rich kids?

Yes, we are stuck with a a two-party system. That's because as time goes on, both parties are drifting further and further from the middle, so the goal is to keep the other side out of power.

On the right, the Tea Party types are fighting for power over the establishment. On the left, the US Communist Party supported their last three presidential nominees. So where is the middle ground between Communism and constitutionalism? There is none. And let's be honest here, if not for Hil-Liar, your nominee would have been an admitted Socialist.

 

[RealDave]

Another point against school choice through vouchers is that vouchers don't cover the costs 100%.

So no, you aren't rescuing poor kids because they can't cover the balance the vouchers don't cover.

 

[Dragonlady]

Prior to the introduction of Charter Schools under the Reagan Administration, the United States lead the world in education rankings. Since the US started taking children out of the public school system, and cutting giving money to charter schools, US education rankings have dropped like a stone.

American children are falling farther and farther behind the world in education standards, precisely because of the choices being offered. Parents should NOT be deciding what their children should be taught, because these parents are more concerned with politicizing what their children learn than they are concerned with their children's ability to compete in a globalized economy.

The US is now ranked 28th in the world in math and science. You used to lead the world. Continuing to teach Creationism, denying science and global warming and ensuring your children won't have the education to compete against the kids from Asia, Europe and Canada.

In your zeal to raise good little Republicans, you'll be raising them in a country which continues to decline in every measurable field.

 

[Iceweasel]

Prior to the introduction of Charter Schools under the Reagan Administration, the United States lead the world in education rankings. Since the US started taking children out of the public school system, and cutting giving money to charter schools, US education rankings have dropped like a stone.

American children are falling farther and farther behind the world in education standards, precisely because of the choices being offered. Parents should NOT be deciding what their children should be taught, because these parents are more concerned with politicizing what their children learn than they are concerned with their children's ability to compete in a globalized economy.

The US is now ranked 28th in the world in math and science. You used to lead the world. Continuing to teach Creationism, denying science and global warming and ensuring your children won't have the education to compete against the kids from Asia, Europe and Canada.

In your zeal to raise good little Republicans, you'll be raising them in a country which continues to decline in every measurable field.

I don't share your religion. From the outside it looks more like liberals have taken over public ed and put social matters ahead of academics. Charter schools are non existent around here and I doubt we are alone. You worship a false god.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Another point against school choice through vouchers is that vouchers don't cover the costs 100%.

So no, you aren't rescuing poor kids because they can't cover the balance the vouchers don't cover.

That depends on how much you spend and where you want to go. Vouchers are for a set amount. If you can afford to kick in a couple bucks, then you can send your child to a better school. If not, you can send them to whatever school the voucher covers completely.

If a parent believe that fully covered schools are no better than their public school, they have the option to refuse the voucher and it will go to somebody else. In my opinion, only people with kids in school should pay for education in the first place.

 

[Granny]

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.

Ahh ... a trucker. Don't know your age, Ray, but I'm old enough to remember trucker strikes and particularly in PA the union guys were up on overpasses shooting at the independents and/or other truckers who might be rolling in spite of the strike ... never mind there were innocents in cars on the highways with those truckers. Those shooters aimed to kill ... question was how good was their aim. Scary times those trucker strikes.

A law firm I worked with long ago had a huge paper company for a client ... plants all over the country. Union chapters out the wazoo and I damned near went blind typing all those little union booklets into our computer system for corporate/legal use. The filing system reached such proportions that it took up an entire wall of shelves and I had to color code all the files so others could figure it all out. I had an opportunity to go to one of their conventions in Detroit and asked my boss what she thought - she said to go for it. The mass of humanity descending on me was overwhelming as I took pertinent info from them and spit out their financial future from my printer.

You're right ... it's hard as hell to get rid of someone. When you think about all the machinery, etc. and some jerk can perpetually come in drunk as a skunk, high on drugs of one kind of another and make a mistake in their stupor that costs another worker severe injury or death ... it's scary that the jerk can't be fired until after three verbal and three written warnings (or whatever their contract says) and then they can go to the NLRB to further delay things and at great legal expense to the company for private lawyers while the taxpayers pay for NLRB representation of the jerk.

Screw these unions.

 

[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.

Ahh ... a trucker. Don't know your age, Ray, but I'm old enough to remember trucker strikes and particularly in PA the union guys were up on overpasses shooting at the independents and/or other truckers who might be rolling in spite of the strike ... never mind there were innocents in cars on the highways with those truckers. Those shooters aimed to kill ... question was how good was their aim. Scary times those trucker strikes.

A law firm I worked with long ago had a huge paper company for a client ... plants all over the country. Union chapters out the wazoo and I damned near went blind typing all those little union booklets into our computer system for corporate/legal use. The filing system reached such proportions that it took up an entire wall of shelves and I had to color code all the files so others could figure it all out. I had an opportunity to go to one of their conventions in Detroit and asked my boss what she thought - she said to go for it. The mass of humanity descending on me was overwhelming as I took pertinent info from them and spit out their financial future from my printer.

You're right ... it's hard as hell to get rid of someone. When you think about all the machinery, etc. and some jerk can perpetually come in drunk as a skunk, high on drugs of one kind of another and make a mistake in their stupor that costs another worker severe injury or death ... it's scary that the jerk can't be fired until after three verbal and three written warnings (or whatever their contract says) and then they can go to the NLRB to further delay things and at great legal expense to the company for private lawyers while the taxpayers pay for NLRB representation of the jerk.

Screw these unions.

My first driving job was with a local vending company back in the later 70's. They had several outlets and stores we used to ship product back and forth from.

There was one place I went to frequently in downtown. After I delivered there for a couple of months, I noticed that the shipper was not there half of the time, so one day I asked his replacement what was up with that?

He told me that the regular guy goes out for lunch and sometimes comes back drunk so they can't let him work. I asked how long it was going on and he said for over 10 years. He stated the company would love to fire him, but the union forbade it. In their contract, as long as any employee attends AA meetings, they can't do a thing to them. They just had to figure out a way to get the work done without him.

In the US, we would still have a lot of unions if they didn't get so power hungry. They were good many years ago, but overstepped their boundaries big time to the point they were running the company their employees worked for.

 

[LeftofLeft]

When Obama was first elected, one of the first things he the unions did was to target School Vouchers. Shit, Obama was correct......Elections do have consequences.