Gov. Chris Christie - Giving a Frank Response to a Teacher pushing Union Talking Points

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Holding someone's age against them? Isn't that so open-minded?

Get lost, skeezit. If you're still stuck on the politics of the Carter era, you must have been hiding in a cave all of these years.

reply to post by The Sword


Yes, we must forget about history, it is a non issue.

I am not denigrating anyone's age, only their ignorance or lack of seasoning.

Must not forget, "To forget history we are doomed to repeat it." paraphrase, original sources from many but this variant from-George Santayana

reply to post by links234

To Saltheart: You may not feel a responsibility to society but I do.

Well nice try. I feel responsible for my society, not your version of it. Freedom and Liberty is an animal we must feed well and treat with all matter of care, for if not, she will surely turn on us in all manner of machinations.

I like that one.

Pip pip say no more say no more.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Well nice try. I feel responsible for my society, not your version of it.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Sorry, I am a sovereign and I ask nothing of my government or fellow man. I am not one of the collective.

Could you please elaborate on how you feel responsibility to society yet you seperate yourself from it? If you want to be honest please just say it outright; you feel no responsibility to me, a stranger, but you feel complete responsibility to your immediate family.

I was just offering the reasons for my position on the subject, I feel a greater responsibility to society than you appear to.

reply to post by links234


Let me explain it.

God, Family, Community, State, Country, World.

In order, no further explanation needed.

Just because YOU believe that the state (government) is the way to further societal endeavors, does not end the argument.

I could post millions of examples on how the collectivist attitude of giving the state the power to enforce socialized anything leads to tyranny.

Anyone with any small knowledge of history, and even of today's corrupt and blatant nefarious dealings of our government know this.

So sorry, I put my faith in God and my fellow man, WAY before any damn government.

So now that you have attempted to make this about me instead of the original content of the OP, that the states are going broke and the narcissistic personality disorders of the teacher's union will not make any concessions. Thereby proving to the rest of us, that government sycophants and the other leeches in government do not give a damn about ANYONE but themselves.

So, nice try, but you just proved my point.

reply to post by links234


I am very aware of what a Federal employee receives. Lets say I have intimate knowledge of such.

The argument though is during an economic downturn, private industry is required, nay, forced (if they wish to survive) to cut back on benefits. Whereas the Federal agencies continue guaranteeing benefits as if nothing is going on outside of the sphere of their world.

The info I posted earlier comes directly from an article that pulls it from statistics gathered by the government, yet you still doubt it.

Yes, a Federal employees most likely buys into a private insurer, but the Government covers a lot of the costs....as does a private company when you buy into an employer sponsored program. There are also many associations and groups that help out self-employed individuals in obtaining health care through pooling.

The 401k-ish type program, which is the same as the military uses, Thrift Savings Plan is a sound plan, just as a solid 401k program is. There is again, many companies and associates that are offered at the private level that do just the same if not better.

Now comes to annual leave (time off) and sick pay. The Federal Government does offer a generous amount of time off. There is nothing wrong with that if it is sustainable. I encourage anyone and everyone to use their time off to get some R&R. Something I learned from the military. What most don't know, is all the other days Federal employees get off.

The private sector doesn't have the privileged to just take an obscure holiday off such as Columbus Day, but the Federal employee most likely gets it off.

Expand your scope and step out of the love of the Government for just a second to realize that all that Government employees receive is unsustainable.

Take this for example....I mentioned I have intimate knowledge of such. Here I am making a decent living while my father, who has worked everyday, hard and diligently was basically put out of business because of the policies that the Federal Government put into place to fund workers such as me....so the Federal Government uses private industry to pay its workers, not caring what it does to its funding base.

I'm blown away! That's a very frank and honest answer coming from a politician, and I love the retort "Well then, you don't have to do it" regarding the bitching woman complaining about her job. Can we get this guy to run against Obama in 2012??? Please???

Hey kiddies, while I am not a moderator please remain on topic. This isn't about yourselves, it is about a politician, rather just a man, on the public scene who is standing up for their own convictions (you can disagree with those convictions, but keep the arguments to that).

Thanks

Proud union member here.

Labor unions have done great things for the plight of workers in the last century. If it wasn't for labor unions we would still have six-day work weeks with a half day off on Sundays, as they did before workers organized to fight for rights and benefits. We can thank them for the concept of the weekend. Unions introduced collective bargaining, which gave ordinary workers the opportunity to band together to improve wages and working conditions. Before the unions, workers who were injured on the job just lost them; often they were unable to ever work again so they and their families were just thrown into desperate poverty for the rest of their lives. Workers' compensation is another outcome of union activity. And these are just a few examples.

Yes, the "poor, poor" corporations have been FORCED by unions to pay ordinary workers a fair wage and provide decent benefits for them. This of course cuts into the profits of the mega-giants so we should feel so sorry that their CEO's might not get private jets and vacation homes in the Caribbean (or at least have to have smaller, less expensive ones) in order to take care of their lowly employees,

Anybody who believes that workers are ever paid fairly for their contributions to the owners of the means of production are naive. None of them pays a penny more than they have to and still get qualified employees.

Ordinary working people who hate unions are just jealous of union workers for having it better than they do. They should be organizing to raise their own pay and working conditions rather than wanting to bring all workers down to their own level.

Yes, there have been some union bosses who were corrupt and they have blackened the reputation of unions overall. But don't let big business fool you into thinking that they have your best interests at heart and there is no need to unite with your fellow workers for better wages and working conditions.

Only through unity and collective bargaining will we be able to improve the lot of the struggling middle and working classes.

reply to post by Misoir


Why shouldn't a janitor make $18 an hour? Without seniority, a janitor shouldn't make as much as a lawyer or any any educated man or woman does because there is no higher education involved. There is no education. So you're willing to clean up vomit and feces - big deal! So are many other uneducated Americans. Anyone who busts their ass to educate themselves and then works hard at what they do should reap the benefits in kind. Those who don't seek to better themselves through education deserve to stay at the bottom rung of society.

Welcome to the discussion! I am glad to have your views and I thank you for articulating them.

Originally posted by Sestias
Proud union member here,

Same here, first time I have ever been in one, but I still hold my reservations regarding them.

Labor unions have done great things for the plight of workers in the last century. If it wasn't for labor unions we would still have six-day work weeks with a half day off on Sundays, as they did before workers organized to fight for rights and benefits.

This is a blanket statement and not all workers were under these conditions. Nonetheless, there were some horrible conditions and yes, the unions of the day, that were ran by the workers and not paid persons, contributed and raised the level of a workers standard of living vastly.

We can thank them for the concept of the weekend. Unions introduced collective bargaining, which gave ordinary workers the opportunity to band together to improve wages and working conditions. Before the unions, workers who were injured on the job just lost them; often they were unable to ever work again so they and their families were just thrown into desperate poverty for the rest of their lives. Workers' compensation is another outcome of union activity. And these are just a few examples.

Which are all very good examples I will agree. But my argument has been when there is a large-scale economic downturn, unions typically push to continue the cushioned lifestyle while everyone else sacrifices, even if it is their own members. More on this later though.

Yes, the "poor, poor" corporations have been FORCED by unions to pay ordinary workers a fair wage and provide decent benefits for them. This of course cuts into the profits of the mega-giants so we should feel so sorry that their CEO's might not get private jets and vacation homes in the Caribbean (or at least have to have smaller, less expensive ones) in order to take care of their lowly employees,

Okay now you have to lay off the wealth envy. I know you didn't direct your response at me, but I have never had a problem with workers banding, if THEY wish to, to bring about workplace changes. Freedom to associate and come to the table and bargain is an awesome thing and should never be infringed upon in this situation. But the table does have two sides. Just as the workers have the ability to make demands and requests, so does the company in which they are working for.

Anybody who believes that workers are ever paid fairly for their contributions to the owners of the means of production are naive. None of them pays a penny more than they have to and still get qualified employees

I can show a lot of jobs where this is untrue. Expand your scope out of what ever line of work you are in. I, along with others I am acquaintances with have been lavished upon in order to remain employed with a certain employer. No union involved. If you are skilled enough and your skills are in demand, then an employer will provide the things you ask for or even give them in attempts to maintain your employment. Union is not the only path or solution. It is just as naive as you say, for those that think that all unions are 100% for the workers...which they are not.

Ordinary working people who hate unions are just jealous of union workers for having it better than they do. They should be organizing to raise their own pay and working conditions rather than wanting to bring all workers down to their own level.

Agreed upon your last sentence. It is their right to do so as long as when they were getting hired it was never stipulated otherwise.

Only through unity and collective bargaining will we be able to improve the lot of the struggling middle and working classes.

Only is a strong word. One could educate themselves into a skill that is in high demand and achieve better wages that way....so you see, unity and collective bargaining is not the only way.

Now, onto what I was hoping would be a result of this thread:

Mainly I was pointing out that usually politicians are in the pocket of someone, maybe unions, businesses, whatever. What I see out of Gov. Christie is someone who is not, yet that is my observation. I see someone who is asking his state to do what is necessary to turn things around and get back on track in terms of finances. That will require a sacrifice from all, not just some. It will require cuts, possibly tax increases (although he has been adamant that they will not happen!), it will require teachers not getting a guaranteed pay raise that is above inflation every year just because. It will require everyone to hunker down and re-prioritize.

But you see, the teachers' union doesn't want to do such a thing. They want to continue the gravy train even when the state cannot afford to supply the gravy. My other beef with the teachers' union is that if they are for their workers and their workers are for the children, why do they continually hold that over voters heads? They can't take pay freezes (not even cuts) because its for the children. They cannot pay back into a generous system, because its for the children., etc, etc.

The teachers may be for the children, but the union that represents them is nothing but a strong armed bully that uses 'the children' to obtain more money and unsustainable benefits.

Other than that, unions-non unions, doesn't matter to me as long as it was a secret ballot and you are never forced or discriminated against if you are in one, or not in one.

You have covered quite a few topics so I am going to focus on just two.

I don't dispute that many people at the top of the job ladder, especially the Chief Executive Officers of large corporations, are paid well. Too well, judging by the popular response when this was disclosed during the Wall Street crisis.

I am talking about average, middle and working class people, who constitute the majority of the American workforce. Many of these workers have not been in the privileged position of getting MBA's from the top colleges and universities -- they haven't been able to afford it -- and even then, they just might not be geniuses who can climb up the ladder reserved for graduates of Harvard, etc. And of course, who you know is a large part of getting really good jobs too. These connections are usually made among those who attend the elite schools and meet, say, at the country club. There are also, too, just average scholars who manage to get in the top schools, usually because they are legacies, or know somebody, or etc. Overall, the already-privileged tend to get the jobs which maintain their privilege.

The people who labor at factory jobs, say, are the actual producers of the goods that the owners and top management of businesses get their wealth from. Although as a society we tend to look down on such people, thinking they are a dime a dozen, that is not always true. You would be surprised at the skills required for many factory positions today, especially since the introduction of computers and computer-driven equipment. These people work just as hard as anyone else; often it is not because they are lazy or less worthy that they are not able to move into the ranks of management. In my opinion these workers are just as entitled to job safety, job security, and a decent wage. These are by and large the people unions benefit the most.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

It will require cuts, possibly tax increases (although he has been adamant that they will not happen!), it will require teachers not getting a guaranteed pay raise that is above inflation every year just because. It will require everyone to hunker down and re-prioritize.

But you see, the teachers' union doesn't want to do such a thing. They want to continue the gravy train even when the state cannot afford to supply the gravy. My other beef with the teachers' union is that if they are for their workers and their workers are for the children, why do they continually hold that over voters heads? They can't take pay freezes (not even cuts) because its for the children. They cannot pay back into a generous system, because its for the children., etc, etc.

The teachers may be for the children, but the union that represents them is nothing but a strong armed bully that uses 'the children' to obtain more money and unsustainable benefits.

Okay, you've hit home again. I am a professor, and I am familiar with many, many teachers at many levels. Although the job comes with a lot of prestige and social status, I am paid just middle-middle class wages; you have to be aware that I have had many years of academic preparation, which was not cheap by any means, so I believe my wages are just average considering the training and skills I have achieved.

Perhaps you don't know that teachers, especially primary and secondary school teachers, are paid less than the average middle manager of the average business. They know that when they go into the profession, of course, but they do so anyway because they are concerned with the welfare and education of our youth, which you must admit should be a primary goal of society. Thus the teachers' unions.

Considering their service to the next generation and the skills required for their jobs, I think their wages should be among the last to be cut. They are not people in an economic or social position to do without.

The problem with unions in the public sector.

If the union affecting a private business gets too burdensome, The company can always move, or close and shut down completely.

If the cost of labor is so much cheaper somewhere else, that it would pay for the cost of moving the company, then the company can move.

If the cost is so great that that the company can no longer pay the bills with the money it makes off of it’s product, and it can’t afford to move, and can’t raise the price of the product and still remain competitive, then it can always close it’s doors. Which many have.

That forces the union to keep in mind the affect of it’s demands on the company it is making the demands to. If they make too great of a demand, then the company will be gone, and the union will cease to exist.

But a union in the public sector is another situation all together.

Public sector jobs are tied to the county or state which the work is associated with. So the “company” can’t move. The Indiana Department Of Transportation (IDOT) can’t move to Texas to get away from an Indiana union. The county or state can’t go out of business. The amount that the state can charge in taxes is not limited; you pay it or go to jail.

So, none of the factors that affect a private sector union will affect a public sector union. The public sector unions basically have a government mandated key to ever person’s wallet, with no limit on how much they can take.

The only thing that the public sector unions are just finding out about is the fact that that in reality, taxes are not unlimited. If you tax too much, then the economy will come to a halt, and there will be nothing to tax. That is a realization that they don’t want to come to grips with. They have milked the cash cow dry.

The amount that you can take out in taxes and still have a working economy has already been passed, and they don’t want to take the step back to a more reasonable level.

And above all, the taxes that a public employee pays, does no good for anyone. The money they use to pay state taxes, comes from the state. It is a zero gain loop. The only inflow is private sector employees paying taxes. That is why everything will grind to a halt if too much of the economy is public sector.

where to begin in this thread i guess first off way to go nj you hired the right man for the right job!!!!

unions have become a cancer in society and that woman is further proof of it. come on people she was whining about she wasnt making enough? she doesnt even work a full year.

unions are greedy unions ARE one of the many reasons businesses leave this country. i have many many many problems with unions and trust me i know i was a member for 10 years.

i have no problems with a person making a fair days pay for a fairs day work problem is this woman is proof of the millions that are in unions quality and productivity or thae lack there of.

that was laughable she said teachers do it because they love to and turns around and says she wants more money.


i also have my problems with carter the department of education was due to him and we seen how well it has worked out never in the history have millions of americans become more stupid and this is on display every single day in american poltics.


and a persons age well since you are a product of carters department of education i do hold age agianst people for the simple fact 99% of people under 35 DONT HAVE A FREAKING CLUE.

this teacher is proof of that obama in office is proof of that biden as vice president is proof of that pelosi is proof of that and that is one hell of a long list.

and when it comes to unions or teachers unions dont think you are safe either. when it came the the indiana teachers union and general motors. general motors got bailed out and indiana did not. indiana fought it and i think they might have won.

you people put to much faith in unions the only thing you people have done is trade one set of masters for another.

No Teachers at "Back to School Night"

Now, I understand they are in negotiations, but really? You can't take time out of your own day to understand that you are their for the children, not yourself.

Teaching is a selfless job. It demands you give up a large amount of your day to 25-40 kids that you have no relations to. It demands you sacrifice some of your own ambitions to fulfill the needs of educating a child. It should be a passion, similarly to being a police officer, fireman, doctor or any other profession.

This is just a highlight of how Teachers' Unions are not for the children like they profess (especially during election year!) Yet, while the particular citizen's of this state pay their salaries, they refused to push back upon their own union and show that they, the teachers themselves are willing to sacrifice just a bit to ensure a strong teacher/student/parent relationship.

This is another reason I advocate anything but public schools, rather, government schools. Core studies go by the way side to teach social issues that either will contribute nothing to the early development of a child or is part of a larger agenda.

Kids are subjected to grading systems that make them feel good. They are given so many damn tests that never really tests their knowledge, but rather can they bubble in dots neatly and with a #2 pencil. No longer is a child held back because they cannot obtain the level of knowledge needed for the next step in their education. Just pass 'em through because we don't want them mentality has destroyed American education. The Department of Education has destroyed the American education, Teachers' Unions that only care about money and benefits without regard to what is happening outside of their perfect little bubbles has destroyed American education.

Put the role of education back into the hands of the States and the Individual. Get the Federal Government out of controlling the education agenda. I have no problem with teachers being able to unionize, but it is out of hand.

I ask this question in the end of my rant: How come we do not see private school teachers constantly in the media whining about benefits, pay, etc, etc?

Originally posted by Sestias
You have covered quite a few topics so I am going to focus on just two.

I don't dispute that many people at the top of the job ladder, especially the Chief Executive Officers of large corporations, are paid well. Too well, judging by the popular response when this was disclosed during the Wall Street crisis.

Eh...to me that is wealth envy. People have replaced words such as "hard-work, tenacity, determination, go getter-attitude, etc" with "lucky, given, happened upon, stumbled into, etc". Now are 100% of people that make a good amount of money all hard workers? No. Are 100% of them lucky? No. But the vast majority of persons that say, make $60,000/year and above were not lucky. They worked hard and continue to work hard for that pay.

For you to say "too well..." shows that you believe you should determine someone's pay because you think they are being paid "too well..." If I misinterpreted that, let me know. I am not trying to knock you personally, just what you have said.

I am talking about average, middle and working class people, who constitute the majority of the American workforce. Many of these workers have not been in the privileged position of getting MBA's from the top colleges and universities...

I stop right here because you have used a certain tone again, in which you set during your opening paragraph. The word you used, I put into bold type. I am sorry, but what is this privileged notion you are portraying. Either you really think everything is a luck of the draw or are misusing that word.

Privilege, being the root word means 'a special advantage, immunity, permission, or right'. Yes some people come from a privileged background but far more come from everyday backgrounds. They have worked hard to reach the points they are at and you strike it all as 'privileged.'

-- they haven't been able to afford it -- and even then, they just might not be geniuses who can climb up the ladder reserved for graduates of Harvard, etc. And of course, who you know is a large part of getting really good jobs too. These connections are usually made among those who attend the elite schools and meet, say, at the country club. There are also, too, just average scholars who manage to get in the top schools, usually because they are legacies, or know somebody, or etc. Overall, the already-privileged tend to get the jobs which maintain their privilege.

It seems you have a chip on your shoulder. You have a view that everyone that has made it in life is because of who they know, their social backgrounds and they must be wealthy and well connected. Really?

Now you did state truth in your last sentence, but you are using that to push your ideals that in the grand scheme, only privileged, silver spoon kids ever make it because that is how the world works. Ill tell you what...that is far from the truth and stop looking at just ivy-league and get out and see the rest of America. You see people come from farms, where they are 3rd and 4th generation that break the mold and go to school. You see people rise out of a crummy situation within the inner cities to make something of themselves. You see people that are told they will never amount to anything, and low and behold, they stick it to those that have said that to them and have changed their lives to what they want. Maybe I am over optimistic, but I believe what we have always been told. You can be whatever you want to be with enough hard work and determination.

The people who labor at factory jobs, say, are the actual producers of the goods that the owners and top management of businesses get their wealth from. Although as a society we tend to look down on such people, thinking they are a dime a dozen, that is not always true.

Who is looking down upon the average everyday worker? Where are you getting this angst from? You seem to have deep rooted ire for anyone outside of a union and anyone outside of blue-collar work. When people argue about the unions, it generally is directed at the union, not the workers. The workers were exerting their right to associate freely amongst their peers. They were trying to better their conditions and they have. Now we see the beast take over, which is the Union itself, no longer the workers being just as greedy and selfish as an unethical businessman on Wall-Street thinking they can game the system and they are owed what they want.

It is not the workers, but the people that no longer come from the ranks of the workers to run the Unions.

You would be surprised at the skills required for many factory positions today, especially since the introduction of computers and computer-driven equipment. These people work just as hard as anyone else; often it is not because they are lazy or less worthy that they are not able to move into the ranks of management. In my opinion these workers are just as entitled to job safety, job security, and a decent wage. These are by and large the people unions benefit the most.

This I all agree with. The people doing their jobs, day in and day out, 8-16 hours a day are not the problem. The problem as I have said before is the Unions have been overrun at the top and no longer represent the worker but themselves and the power they can achieve.

Okay, you've hit home again. I am a professor, and I am familiar with many, many teachers at many levels. Although the job comes with a lot of prestige and social status, I am paid just middle-middle class wages; you have to be aware that I have had many years of academic preparation, which was not cheap by any means, so I believe my wages are just average considering the training and skills I have achieved.

I commend you for your service in becoming an educator. It takes a lot to do what you do. I have no qualms there.

Here is the thing though....anyone will most likely always say 'I believe my wages are just average considering the training and skills I have achieved'. Typically a people will consider themselves worth more. Nothing wrong with that. It is what drives us to seek out better places or become more skilled.

Perhaps you don't know that teachers, especially primary and secondary school teachers, are paid less than the average middle manager of the average business.

You are comparing apples to oranges though. Why didn't you compare private sector teachers with public sector teachers?

Historically, private school teachers are paid less than public school teachers and did not enjoy guaranteed benefits, healthy above inflation increases every year and yet, they remained in the private sector.

It is hard to find data on private school teachers, because well, they are private. They do not need to report their incomes as the public sector does. Here is data from 2003...granted, a lot has changed now so we cannot see it as authoritative, but gives a baseline.

ISACS 2003 Salary Report - Private Schools

In there we can see that average wages for a school teacher was starting out at $30K/year. Not too shabby, but the average starting pay for a public school teacher is around $35K/year. Note, these averages are from around the country. Of course in places where demand is higher, wages will typically be higher. So if you are from middle of nowhere Oklahoma and complain you only get $25K/year, well, that is how it goes.


Now you are contradicting your entire premise and tone you have set.

First you have been pleading the following:
A - People with high paying jobs are in such a spot because they are lucky and privileged....nothing to do with hard work and determination.

B - People that get on unions also must be harping on the workers. That people who are fighting back against the unions are fighting against the American worker.

C - Teachers get paid dismal salaries and you deserve more

Then you follow it up with:
"They know that when they go into the profession, of course, but they do so anyway because they are concerned with the welfare and education of our youth, which you must admit should be a primary goal of society. "

So which is it? The profession is not one that has high wages, even in the private sector. So thus it requires sacrifice and selflessness to do the job. I will always commend teachers for what they do, but I do not understand there demands they get paid more while saying "its for the children" from the other corner of their mouths.

Considering their service to the next generation and the skills required for their jobs, I think their wages should be among the last to be cut. They are not people in an economic or social position to do without.

As opposed to EVERYONE else? I am sorry but just because they are teachers does not make them immune to financial crunches. The main problem is the Unions are demanding INCREASES and the States are just asking for a freeze in proposed guaranteed raises that are way about inflation. I normally do not interject personal emotional arguments, but your statement "they are not people in an economic or social position to do without" is ignorant and it is evident you only care about yourself and feel you deserve a handout.

My dad, who has worked everyday of his life for the past 55 years is now struggling because the economy went south. He is in a position where he cannot do without. He built the damn schools you are so proud of. He built houses for families you have taught. He built places of employment so people can do businesses. Yet now, he struggles because asinine policies from Wall-Street, the Unions and Government has destroyed the American Dream.

When the local economy, or even in this case, the economy at large is sagging, the free-market steps into self-regulation mode. It isn't pretty because it is trying to correct wrong doings, nefarious actions upon it, ill-conceived policies to try and regulate it and control it, etc.

What Gov. Chris Christie is trying to get across is that in order to survive, he needs everyone to sacrifice. He needs people to understand that the State can no longer fund 5%+ increases, paying for over half their health-care cost, etc, etc. The gravy train has to stop. It hurts, it really does.

Overall it is obvious that you and I have a different view upon the situation. Which is healthy for the debate. We learn from each other.