Glenn Beck -Fox News - Rush All Belong To A Union

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


Good answer.. You perfectly highlighted the problem with education. Private schools are better mianly because of the ability to let underperforming teachers go. They arent forced to continue their eomployment because they are part of a union or have tenure, both of which reward underperforming treachers by guaranteeing them their job, regardless of how bad they are.

I am not saying all teachers, nor all unions, are bad.

When the till is dry though, what do you do?

reply to post by Xcathdra

I am saying that it is not the teachers' fault. It is a structural problem of the public school system, which is outmoded and underfunded. It isn't up to snuff anymore because the educational needs of children are changing, because the demographics of the country are changing.

In my opinion, a lot of things would be improved if there were separate streams for science/math/whatever offered in multiple languages, so that students who do not speak English as a first language or very well can still keep up with their peers, at least in terms of their conceptual knowledge. Instead, we have students who are struggling to keep up with both an English education and a scientific/mathematical/whateverical education offered in English, a language that they do not understand. The single, monolithic school boards ought to be broken up into smaller units and specialized to suit the needs of the community, instead of forcing the community to conform to the system.

Teachers are generally good and hard working people, but the students are unable or unwilling to learn. I don't think that teachers should be penalized because they have to use methods that, to modern students, are frankly ancient and backwards. How can children born in the digital age be expected to sit still for hours on end in a classroom, silently reading a textbook and listening to teacher?

I for one do not think that private schools are inherently superior, but they are at least free to specialize and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, they have the resources necessary to dedicate adequate time to each student. In the public system, monsters such as the ones in this thread continuously demand that the standards of education be raised, but that the funding for teachers be decreased. At the same time, they demand more investment in education - - do they really think that buying millions of dollars of textbooks will do any good when there is a shortage of teachers? Do they really think that anyone will want to work in a school system that regularly abuses them and blames them for systemic failures? The life of a teacher is not an easy one, despite what the critics say.

And, of course, I fully expect SOMEONE to come in and say 'hurp i know A teacher that lives well!' It's like the welfare queen argument. It's exaggerating a rare case and applying it to the whole, and like the welfare queen argument, it is not something that people have actually observed. It is a rhetorical tool that has been given to them by the ideologues who stand to benefit from some hidden motive (Rush, Beck, any media personality).

Originally posted by Xcathdra
When the till is dry though, what do you do?

How about the government buys domestic to engage the manufacturing sector and rebuild the commercial tax base?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Xcathdra
When the till is dry though, what do you do?

How about the government buys domestic to engage the manufacturing sector and rebuild the commercial tax base?

What? No way we want to stop sending our jobs to china but we can't live without their cheap products. You are being unreasonable. What next Lower the corporate tax rate to encourage business growth? If you do that you would just have to increase the taxes on the top 2%. This plan is inane.


Joking aside you have a valid point.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Xcathdra
When the till is dry though, what do you do?

How about the government buys domestic to engage the manufacturing sector and rebuild the commercial tax base?

From a FEderal standpoint there is a law in place that requires government bids to go to the cheapest bidder, regardless of what country that business is located in. Congress would need to change that little caveat.

At the State level, it will vary from State to State, they do the best they can with what they have.

At the local level, where all of this mess is at, they are spending more money than what they have.

reply to post by Ex


Thanks for posting this. S & F for you. I never would have guessed in a million years they belonged to a union. Wow, and they can't fess up to this on their shows? Wouldn't that be something to see?

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans
Are they paid by tax dollars? Are their benefits paid by tax dollars?

You probably mean other than the money culled from the huge tax subsidies enjoyed by Newscorp?
Because, actually yes part of them.

reply to post by centurion1211


When I worked for my local government agency, we were asked to join the Teamsters and if you did, you paid a union due of $25.00 a month. I worked with two ladies in my unit who did not join and therefore weren't able to vote on the union contract and participate in that way. Are you saying some unions force people outright? Can you give me an example?

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by ossminid

 

It's not about the Government enforcing workers rights. In a free market it is in a company's best interest to treat their workers fairly and provide fair pay and benefits. If company "A" isn't and company "B" and "C" are then company "A" will soon go out of business because company "A" will lose it's employees to the other companies. Individual workers enforce there own "rights" in a competitive free market. Besides, if you don't like how a company treats you then don't work there. This is the same argument that has been had about the minimum wage for years. Ignorant people are told and believe that if it wasn't for the government mandating a minimum wage that they would make 50 cents an hour. This argument is ridiculous because if there were a company that was trying to pay their employees 50 cents an hour that company would go out of business due to not having any employees, because those people would seek employment elsewhere. Abolishing the minimum wage would create competition between businesses for the available labor. This would lead to an overall increase in the amount someone makes an hour. The Democrats, as well as labor unions, will have you believe that they are there to protect the little guy, the poor, the downtrodden, the "working families". This is a lie. Politicians want one thing and one thing only... to retain their power and control, and they do this by any means, one of which is by enforcing a minimum wage that they know no one can live off of, and so the minimum wage worker is forced on to government entitlement programs in order to survive, and the cycle repeats. Then the Democrats will say "if you don't vote for us the mean ole' Republicans will take away your food stamps and government housing". If Democrats are so compassionate then why don't they just raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour? Because if they did that then the minimum wage worker would be less dependent on them and their entitlement programs. Unions have only one goal and that is to make money. Do you honestly believe that a union boss cares about "working families"? No, the union boss only cares about the union dues that he gets from the "working families". Then the union boss will bitch and moan about outsourcing and corporations sending jobs overseas, all the while the same union boss is donating millions of dollars to the very politicians that create the hostile environment through taxation and over regulation that force corporations to outsource jobs. If you are a union worker there is no way that you can't understand this if you just stop listening to the lies and propaganda and look at the truth with an open mind.

Remember the industrial revolution? Apparently not.

It's funny how so many posting here attack these individuals for being hypocrites, and by doing so they are proclaiming their own ignorant hypocrisy.

The fact that they fail to mention that all of the Vitriolic Racist Liberal Nazi Propagandists at all the other networks are members as well.

As for those claiming they are somehow seeking to punish teachers, I wouldn't know about that since I have blocked all network news channels from entering my home.

The problem with teachers stems from the Unions growing fat and filthy rich. All to the detriment of the children, by keeping salaries so low that a minority of most dedicated remain, while the majority that remain are nothing less than second rate teachers that are protected from being fired for incompetence by the Union. While the quality teachers seek more gainful careers.

Get rid of the Unions, raise teachers salaries and tenured benefit packages to a level competitive with those paid to College Professors, fire the incompetent teachers currently on the payroll. Then take the remaining Union pork and invest it directly into the schools.

An excellent example of this can be viewed in the documentary "The Cartel".

That's the thing about union bashing. When a working person has a chance to join or organize..............they do, and they have a better life because of that fact. Union bashing is nice and trendy when you have employees to pay while you secretly desire to not pay them at all and don't want to offer vacation days or sick days or overtime, or healthcare. Taking care of your employees properly exposes the glaring fact that perhaps you aren't as successful as you initially thought.