PDA

View Full Version : Teachers Strikes


HometownGal
02-19-2007, 05:58 PM
We just learned on the local Saturday evening news that my grandson's school district, Baldwin-Whitehall, will be striking at midnight tonight if a contract is not reached. I just listened to the news and it looks like they are going to walk. What are they seeking one might ask? Obviously money is an issue but their main gripe concerns health benefits - they don't want to have to contribute one dime to their benefits package to which I say - BULL PUCKIES. Most entities now require a contribution from their employees to help to pay for rising health insurance costs - why should these teachers expect to be held to a higher standard than the average Joe/Jane????

Believe me, I realize that most teachers are dedicated to their profession - I adore my grandson's teacher who I attended high school with. He's just as terrific a teacher as he is a person and my grandson absolutely loves him as most of his students and former students do. What I fail to grasp here is why the hell didn't they work on resolving these issues during the 3 month period of time they had off this past summer???? For every day these kids can't attend school, the school year will be extended a day, which is totally unfair imho. Not to mention the costs of babysitting for not only my daughter, but every other parent who works and cannot take time off from their jobs.

I told my daughter to get a receipt from her sitter for every day that she has to pay for child care and when the teachers return to work, figure out the total cost and send the Teachers Union 1/2 of the bill and the School District the other half. I also told her to encourage some of the other mothers she is friendly with to do the same and to alert the media to what they are doing and get it out there.

Story:

http://kdka.com/topstories/local_story_050110211.html

(KDKA) BALDWIN Classes won?t be in session this week for students in one local school district.

Teachers in the Baldwin-Whitehall School District are set to hit the picket lines tomorrow. They gave 48 hours notice to the School Board and Administration over the weekend.

"It'll be nice for the first couple of days. Then, I'm going to be bored,? says 16-year-old student, Lauren Ondo. ?I'll have nothing to do.?

For her father, Dave Ondo, there is another issue.

Ondo?s 14-year-old has autism, and he relies heavily on the regiment and structure of the school day.

Tomorrow could be a day of television and little else for Brett Ondo.

Dave says he understands the side of the teachers, who say they want a better salary, but when it comes to teachers refusing to pay anything for health benefits Ondo says he believes it's absurd.

"I work for a Fortune 500 company and I pay a tremendous amount for benefits,? he says. ?It's about time some of the unions including the teachers get a dose of reality with what's really happening in this world.?

The school year will now be extended each day the strike continues.

And as for Lauren, she says she's finishing up homework that's due for tomorrow.

She says she's ready to help out with her brothers, but there's only so much chatting on her cell, TV watching, and computer time she can take before she's thoroughly bored.

The superintendent of the school district says they have to submit a plan to the state board of education. They were going to do that today, but it's a holiday, so it has to wait until tomorrow.

She adds that the plan outlines how the administrators will teach the seniors so they can go ahead and graduate on time on June 5th. The rest of the district has 180-instructional days to get in by that same date.

Officials with the district say that's going to limit how long the teachers can actually strike to about two weeks.

Preacher
02-19-2007, 06:19 PM
And that my friends.... is why I hate unions.

They destroyed any chance the companies had of pulling out of the hole in the 70's. Now, these other unions are destroying what little public trust people had in them.

I worked for one union. Thank God (Literally) I won't have to work for another. Union leadership is JUST as bad if not worse then management. Actually, what I have found is that union jobs usually have a lot WORSE pay and benefits then non-union jobs... if a person applies themselves.

and that is the key.

Stlrs4Life
02-19-2007, 06:50 PM
And that my friends.... is why I hate unions.

They destroyed any chance the companies had of pulling out of the hole in the 70's. Now, these other unions are destroying what little public trust people had in them.

I worked for one union. Thank God (Literally) I won't have to work for another. Union leadership is JUST as bad if not worse then management. Actually, what I have found is that union jobs usually have a lot WORSE pay and benefits then non-union jobs... if a person applies themselves.

and that is the key.




BS! If it wasn't for Unions, these Non Union jobs wouldn't share some of the same benefits that we have. You can thank Unions for Health and safety, more days off paid. And training and health benefits. I work in a Union and darn glad I have one.




More BS:
Actually, what I have found is that union jobs usually have a lot WORSE pay and benefits then non-union jobs... if a person applies themselves.



Most construction companies have to pay a prevailing wage if they are non union. You can thank Unions for that to. And yopu can thank greedy Companies also for the 70's.



And Unions are made up and run by the peolple that are in them.


The teachers might be in the wrong, it stinks that they would do it now. But I'm sure that there will be some kinda compromise.

PisnNapalm
02-19-2007, 09:33 PM
I have a strong opinion here.


GIVE THE TEACHERS WHAT THEY WANT.

SteelCityMan786
02-19-2007, 09:34 PM
Thank you lord that Hollidaysburg Area School District's School Board and Teachers Union live in perfect harmony.

Punxsatawney just had one. Now they're back in school.

PisnNapalm
02-19-2007, 09:34 PM
2005 Average Teacher's Salary figures

http://www.frteachers.org/Average-Teacher-Salary.htm


Baldwin-Whitehall $55,370

I still say give the teachers what they want.

Preacher
02-20-2007, 01:13 AM
BS! If it wasn't for Unions, these Non Union jobs wouldn't share some of the same benefits that we have. You can thank Unions for Health and safety, more days off paid. And training and health benefits. I work in a Union and darn glad I have one.




More BS:
Actually, what I have found is that union jobs usually have a lot WORSE pay and benefits then non-union jobs... if a person applies themselves.



Most construction companies have to pay a prevailing wage if they are non union. You can thank Unions for that to. And yopu can thank greedy Companies also for the 70's.



And Unions are made up and run by the peolple that are in them.


The teachers might be in the wrong, it stinks that they would do it now. But I'm sure that there will be some kinda compromise.

If it wasn't for Unions, these Non Union jobs wouldn't share some of the same benefits that we have. You can thank Unions for Health and safety,

Most of which was earned long before the 1970's. Which was part of my post. I have no problem with the unions of the early twentieth century. They were needed. Now, they are part of the problem in my opinion. Today, in the non-union jobs I have had, I was able to get good benefits, and they were FLEXIBLE with me. In the union.. Nope. Management could NOT be flexible, because the union would claim preferential treatement and demand it for EVERYONE. BTW.. The union was CWA.



Last union I was in, I went into the job and said, look, here is my experience, here is my education, here is my ability. I need this much money. They looked at me and said NOPE. Sorry. We have to pay union rules. The job before that... I was able to negotiate my OWN SALARY.

Furthermore, I sat there and watched the most despicable actions. People getting IN THE FACE of others and SCREAMING at them. People who should have been fired because they couldn't do the job, kept thier job for months if not a year or more because why??? The union wouldn't let them be fired. She wasted incoming calls that other sales people should have gotten... and made money with.

In non-union jobs, both would have been fired. Period. with good reason.

And yopu can thank greedy Companies also for the 70's

There were many things that can be blamed in the seventies. I grant you that. However, when a company is losing its bottom line, it is not a smart time to go on strike. It is the exact same thing that is happening with the Airlines now.

And Unions are made up and run by the peolple that are in them.

And management is made up by those who have put thier time and money into the company.

What I find real interesting, is the effect that unions have on the general public. The inflated wages of unions only serve to inflate EVERY product that is put out by them. The result? Products from non-union nations can come in and undercut the company, hurting all involved. When those products are homes... the homes are built for a cost that is much more then in non-union areas.

What I find interesting is that in most places were there are unions.. the cost of living is exponentially higher then the places were unions are not strong.. (either they have faltered, or they were never strong). For instance, in most of the west (Outside california, which is a entirely different economy), unions are very weak. The cost of living is also much lower. In the east coast, cost of living is very high... and most labor is done via union. Is there a connection? It would be interesting to find out. I for one think that union demands have now came full circle to hurt the people.

And after working for a union... being FORCED to join it... (which I beleive was VERY wrong), I swore to NEVER work for another union. It was the most poisened work place I have EVER worked in. Absolutely NO trust between management and worker. It really was a shame.

Preacher
02-20-2007, 01:25 AM
2005 Average Teacher's Salary figures

http://www.frteachers.org/Average-Teacher-Salary.htm


Baldwin-Whitehall $55,370

I still say give the teachers what they want.

That is what I make a year... and I PAY FOR MY OWN INSURANCE, and retirement. Plus, I am in a place that is almost DOUBLE the cost of living. WOW...

That is a LOT of money.. plus benefits.

Preacher
02-20-2007, 02:01 AM
This thread could turn ugly. Unions are one of those topics. .

It always could... However, I have seen Stlrs4Life post enough to know that he won't turn it ugly.. Just post the thoughts and let it be... which is why I answered his post. Cause I know i can have that kind of discussion with him.

X-Terminator
02-20-2007, 03:06 AM
I live in Whitehall Borough. Look, I'm one of those people who doesn't think teachers are overpaid, but this is an absolute joke. You mean to tell me that they are actually on strike as I type this post because they don't want to do what the overwhelming majority of workers do - pay into their benefits? Well, they will get NO sympathy from me, not when I see over $300 a month deducted from my gross pay in pre-tax deductions to pay my share of my benefits. No free rides - pay up like the rest of us. It's a damn shame, because now the kids have to suffer for it, and the union doesn't care - as usual.

HometownGal
02-20-2007, 08:03 AM
2005 Average Teacher's Salary figures

http://www.frteachers.org/Average-Teacher-Salary.htm


Baldwin-Whitehall $55,370

I still say give the teachers what they want.

I have no problem with them wanting more money - within reason. My problem with them is the benefits issue. Why shouldn't they have to pay for a portion of their health insurance benefits like most everyone else does in this day and age? And why couldn't their negotiations with the School District have begun when their current contract expired - June 30, 2006 - instead of pulling this stunt in the second half of the school year which isn't going to hurt them - it's going to hurt the kids. While I have always given teachers all of the credit in the world for what they do, I think striking at this time is extremely selfish on their part.

Last but not least, grossing close to $6,200 per month for 9 months of work isn't chump change.

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-20-2007, 09:32 AM
I just resigned as the Union Steward before getting promoted...but even while in that position I told those who appointed me that I was not into the "union mentality".....by that I mean that unlike the way usual unions run...1) If you suck at your job...you need to go 2) I will back you and make sure you get a fair shake if you screw up..but if you screwed up..MAN-UP..and take your lumps 3) The union is NOT in place to protect your bad attitude, poor attendance, and shotty work ethic

Our union worked hand in hand with administration...I was actually able to get quite a few improvements by simply being the mouthpiece for the majority...(TV...Internet...casual attire...2nd and 3rd shift pay differential..etc)..by building a relationship with the director and having the intestinal fortitude to tell the minority "NO"...and not bringing unrealistic demands to the table.

I worked in a factory in college..and was approached by the union steward , who told me to "slow down...or they would expect that type pf production from everyone:dang: ...in a nutshell..THAT is what is wrong with unions!

On a sidenote related to school unions...We forfieted three football games my junior year and got knocked out of playoff contention due to the teachers going on strike ..OVER GETTING MORE VACATION DAYS!!!.....

BOXCAR JOEY
02-20-2007, 09:45 AM
2005 Average Teacher's Salary figures

http://www.frteachers.org/Average-Teacher-Salary.htm


Baldwin-Whitehall $55,370

I still say give the teachers what they want.


So thats the average starting salary a Baldwin-whitehall teacher makes? Honestly thats is a helluva lot of money when compared to the cost of living in PA. Here in NJ, the average tenured teacher makes about 65-80 grand with 100/90 health coverage that they pay average 45$ a check, 2.5 months summer vacation(average), and another month to 1.5 months off during the school year about (still paid). Honestly, they dont have the right to complain or strike when me, you, and every tom dick and harry have to work 52 weeks for a fraction of what theyre making, with little time off.

I know im not the only one who believes this or probably im the only one who does. Maybe Im just in favor of public school system being non-union, or just dismantling the failing tenure system which just helps the cause of passing children along the system who have special needs and grow up to be mindless adults.

SteelShooter
02-20-2007, 10:39 AM
I was union before joining the military for a while, then I became sick of it and left. What you may make up for in pay, you lose in paying your dues. The union leaders make their money off of YOUR dues. Do they lose money when you are on strike? Nope! My father, when I was much younger, barely made it once when he was forced to strike. The paltry change they toss your way didn't cover anything. Sure, they got what they (union leadership) wanted....9 cents an hour more!

I am with Preacher on this. The unions served a true purpose earlier last century....but not in this day and age. Union leadership is self-serving.

As for the Teachers, they should all be let go, IMHO. I am military, have been for 20yrs. I pay into retirement, I pay into medical and dental, I pay income taxes. I do not complain. It is a pittance what I pay when compared to the average civilian. I have pretty darned good benefits and am happy to have them. These teachers make more than I do, with much less experience at their chosen profession. They have more earned time off during the year than I do. I have not complained before, because I am happy with my 30 days a year earned leave, which is much, much better than, again, the average civilian. Hmmm, do they put their life on the line? Not the average teacher.........but then, I freely chose my profession. So did they, deal with it teachers!

All in all, this completely sickens me.

Preacher
02-20-2007, 10:52 AM
You know.. With Pittsburgh being a union town..

I really thought i would be in the minority on this one.

Preacher
02-20-2007, 10:53 AM
I just resigned as the Union Steward before getting promoted...but even while in that position I told those who appointed me that I was not into the "union mentality".....by that I mean that unlike the way usual unions run...1) If you suck at your job...you need to go 2) I will back you and make sure you get a fair shake if you screw up..but if you screwed up..MAN-UP..and take your lumps 3) The union is NOT in place to protect your bad attitude, poor attendance, and shotty work ethic

Our union worked hand in hand with administration...I was actually able to get quite a few improvements by simply being the mouthpiece for the majority...(TV...Internet...casual attire...2nd and 3rd shift pay differential..etc)..by building a relationship with the director and having the intestinal fortitude to tell the minority "NO"...and not bringing unrealistic demands to the table.

I worked in a factory in college..and was approached by the union steward , who told me to "slow down...or they would expect that type pf production from everyone:dang: ...in a nutshell..THAT is what is wrong with unions!



On a sidenote related to school unions...We forfieted three football games my junior year and got knocked out of playoff contention due to the teachers going on strike ..OVER GETTING MORE VACATION DAYS!!!.....

If all unions worked like you... Unions would be much stronger these days.

PisnNapalm
02-20-2007, 12:50 PM
Pay the teachers.

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20070220pp_baldwinwhitehall1_brk_300.jpg

For the last who knows how long those teachers have not had to pay for benefits. Now suddenly they should? Why? You say they should because "Everyone else does." Forget that...

My father worked for 30 years in the Pittsburgh city schools as a teacher. The pay sucked ass but the benefits were good. Damn good. He never had to worry about health care or dental for his family.

Don't blast these teachers for trying to KEEP SOMETHING THEY ALREADY HAD!

Preacher
02-20-2007, 12:58 PM
Pay the teachers.



For the last who knows how long those teachers have not had to pay for benefits. Now suddenly they should? Why? You say they should because "Everyone else does." Forget that...

My father worked for 30 years in the Pittsburgh city schools as a teacher. The pay sucked ass but the benefits were good. Damn good. He never had to worry about health care or dental for his family.

Don't blast these teachers for trying to KEEP SOMETHING THEY ALREADY HAD!

In the real world, every employee has had to deal with rising healtcare costs. When the teachers don't, then who pays for it? The tax-payers. As a result, the average tax-payer ends up paying for his or her health-care, and then also the healthcare of the teachers. that doesn't seem fair to me. Why should the average person have to pay for someone else's healtcare?

Stillers#1
02-20-2007, 01:16 PM
Give them what they want. In a sense HTG, this is asking for more money, just in a round about way.

PisnNapalm
02-20-2007, 01:47 PM
In the real world, every employee has had to deal with rising healtcare costs. When the teachers don't, then who pays for it? The tax-payers. As a result, the average tax-payer ends up paying for his or her health-care, and then also the healthcare of the teachers. that doesn't seem fair to me. Why should the average person have to pay for someone else's healtcare?


Yes the tax payers pay for the teachers' health care. That was one of the "perks" of being a teacher for that school district. Your health care was paid for.

Your argument sounds spiteful. Well.... I have to pay for my health care so they should have to pay too. Come on man. really?

SteelShooter
02-20-2007, 01:52 PM
Yes the tax payers pay for the teachers' health care. That was one of the "perks" of being a teacher for that school district. Your health care was paid for.

Your argument sounds spiteful. Well.... I have to pay for my health care so they should have to pay too. Come on man. really?

IMHO.........Yes, Really!

Your Fed taxes pay me (military), but I also pay the same Fed taxes. So, in essence, I am paying part of my own wages, yet I still pay for some of the other "bennies" associated with military life. Should I pay to support myself? You betcha! ...and so should they.

Stillers#1
02-20-2007, 02:08 PM
IMHO.........Yes, Really!

Your Fed taxes pay me (military), but I also pay the same Fed taxes. So, in essence, I am paying part of my own wages, yet I still pay for some of the other "bennies" associated with military life. Should I pay to support myself? You betcha! ...and so should they.

Dude, as military members we dont really pay jack. Paying taxes that go toward out bene's, is not the same as actually paying for bene's. When was the last time you had to even co-pay for a Dr. visit? I am just trying to figure out what benefits you pay for? Other than TSP (which is voluntary, and would be an addition to the retirement you would already get paid) and dental, I don't pay anything for benefits, unless you count taxes which I very rarley pay anyways, with all of the tax-free paychecks I get, and on top of that my taxable income is usually so low, I get all of the Fed taxes I paid, back. PLus being a resident of PA, and being in the military I don pay state taxes.

Paying taxes is not the same as paying benefits.

HometownGal
02-20-2007, 02:57 PM
Yes the tax payers pay for the teachers' health care. That was one of the "perks" of being a teacher for that school district. Your health care was paid for.

Your argument sounds spiteful. Well.... I have to pay for my health care so they should have to pay too. Come on man. really?

P - I tend to think that you are a little biased here, being that your father was a teacher for over 30 years, and that is understandable. However, the fact remains that most business entities today continue to pay for the majority of their employees' health care benefits and ask each employee to chip in a fraction of what they pay, which I do not believe is unreasonable at all. We, the taxpayers, pay their salaries (which again I reiterate is a damned nice chunk of change for working 9 months out of the year) and now they walk off their jobs and the responsibilities that they undertook of teaching our children/grandchildren because they want us to continue to foot the health insurance bill for them and their families? Even the major hospitals in the area now require their employees (including the doctors) to pay a small portion of their health insurance costs - did these doctors, nurses, pharmacists, technicians walk off their jobs and away from the responsibilities they undertook when choosing their professions? Can you imagine the outrage (justifiably) if they did?

I just arrived home from being out on errands all morning and had to pass Baldwin High School which is about a minute from my house. There was a large group of teachers standing near the road in front of the school and I couldn't help but laugh at one of their signs...."Help Us Help Your Children". ROFLMAO!!!! :toofunny: Riiiiiiight. I had a strong urge to be totally unladylike and flip them the bird, but I used all of my inner willpower, shook my head and kept on driving.

As I said above, I do appreciate the job that teachers do. I love children to pieces, but I can honestly say that I wouldn't have the patience to deal with 30-35 little anklebiters at one time every day for 9 months. I say - give the teachers a fair pay hike and stand firm on requiring them to pay for a portion of their health care benefits.

Mosca
02-20-2007, 03:22 PM
Disclaimer: My father was the president of the West Jefferson Hills School Board during the '70s and '80s and was the chief negotiator for the district during some pretty heated strikes (which included rocks through windows, phone threats, trashed cars, etc).

Disclaimer #2: Overall I'm slightly pro-union. I put my time in in factories, and I've seen the worst of both sides, both malingering workers and uncaring management trying to force family men into working in unsafe conditions.

Disclaimer #3: Due to our lack of faith in public education, my wife and I send our daughter to a Catholic school, at no small expense. I'm not religious, but the girls are, and I believe in the values. So, I pay BOTH the school taxes AND her tuition. It's OK, we don't mind not going on vacation every year.


Health care is a "line in the sand" issue for teachers unions in PA. If you made them pay $500/mo and gave them a $6000/year salary bump, it would get rejected.

IMO they've picked a poor issue to draw the line on, because they are paid from tax dollars and most taxpayers pay some or all of their health care. So regardless of the validity of the claim, the issue is unpopular. Hey, as late as 1998 I got 100% BC/BS, but since then I've paid more (and a larger %) each year, and my employers have jumped from company to company trying to keep costs down. But I didn't strike to keep my health care; I sucked it up and understood that if we demanded 100% health care, eventually there would be no business to work at.

The teachers, OTOH, have a different situation in that their pay is not generated by business income but from tax income. They, too, fear rising health insurance costs and negotiating it into the contract is a way of alleviating that fear. Whether or not that is justifiable is one for the negotiators, not me. My opinion is that, at least for my school district, it's not feasible. The tax base can't accept the risk of escalating health care costs. Hey, I can't pay for MY health care AND yours! Crestwood struck over this very same issue a couple years ago; the actual contract negotiations took over THREE YEARS, the longest to this date. In the end, the teachers accepted less money but did get 100% health care.

My own experience is that some teachers are very motivated, and a whole lot of them are like LLT's "Don't work so hard, or everyone will be expected to do the same." I believe that the teachers unions protect quite a few incompetent teachers, ESPECIALLY in middle class districts like Baldwin-Whitehall, Jefferson Hills, and Crestwood.



Tom

Stlrs4Life
02-20-2007, 05:05 PM
The union that I'm in, we work pretty well, and basically get along with management, alot of just like what was said by lamberts lost tooth. And like I said alot of non union workplaces benefited from unions. Trade skill Union jobs put out some of the best workers around. As far as paying union dues, nothing runs for free. I pay $30/month. And I pay for my health benefits. Ya get a raise, and pay for healtyh benefits, it evens out. And still make a good wage. And as far as the old this guy doesn't do his job, well that happens in non union jobs also. And I've also have seen people getting fired also.

SteelShooter
02-20-2007, 07:20 PM
Dude, as military members we dont really pay jack. Paying taxes that go toward out bene's, is not the same as actually paying for bene's. When was the last time you had to even co-pay for a Dr. visit? I am just trying to figure out what benefits you pay for? Other than TSP (which is voluntary, and would be an addition to the retirement you would already get paid) and dental, I don't pay anything for benefits, unless you count taxes which I very rarley pay anyways, with all of the tax-free paychecks I get, and on top of that my taxable income is usually so low, I get all of the Fed taxes I paid, back. PLus being a resident of PA, and being in the military I don pay state taxes.

Paying taxes is not the same as paying benefits.


Stillers,

Where I am stationed, I co-pay often (or drive 30+ miles one-way to fill a prescription). Plus dental and other costs for my family. Is it much? Not at all. I never said that it was. Nor should the Teachers, in my opinion, be paying much. I know, my friend, what we do and do not pay. I have 20yrs in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club, I'm familiar with it all.

Retirement, yes TSP is elective. I am not sure what the Force pays into, but Navy personnel pay into the Navy Retirement Home as well. This is a mandatory deduction from my pay for an institution that I will never utilize. It is a very small, inconsequential payment. But I have absolutely no choice whether or not I would like to support this organization.
Yes, we put out lives on the line, some of us more frequently than others. But even with that, we still pay a small amount into various systems.

It is obvious by your remark concerning tax-free paychecks, that you and I deploy frequently (I'll be heading out again in just a couple of months). Not all of the military deploys as you or I do. Admittedly, most do currently, but not all. And this War will not last forever.
Now I have recently finished a short tour as a Mission Planning Instructor and have not deployed in a little while (2 deployments ISO OIF prior to that however, not to mention other conflicts/actions over these past 2 decades). So, this past tax season, with no hostile fire exemptions, and with a decent promotion, I paid out of my yoo-hoo. I was placed in a higher tax bracket due to my wife's 2006 income, coupled with mine. By the way, since I recently transferred (02November06), my wife had to leave her job and is currently unemployed. With a new home, a new area, a new Command, Christmas, New Years, and Thanksgiving in between....that hurts! Did I mention that I have kids? ...add two birthdays to that list as well.

Now, I am not presenting that I believe the Teachers, whom I hold a great deal of respect for, should shoulder the entire weight, not at all. Just a small token payment, plus co-pays...nothing more.

Now, if you or I had a beef with our benefits....what would happen if we went on strike? Teachers have an obligation to children, that they accept willingly, just as you and I have freely accepted responsibility to the Nation and the American People. I have very little respect for that particular group of Teachers at this point. The ones whom I trust to instill in my own children, during the day/during my absence, the sense of using your head and not actions to resolve issues, have just abandoned them. In my own tangential way of viewing the world, I can remotely liken this to you or I deserting because we do/do not believe in an upcoming deployment.

I appreciate your view Stillers, truly I do. But I believe what I believe, and I view the world through my own pessimistically tinted vision.

klick81
02-20-2007, 08:22 PM
I'll have to agree with PisNapalm on this one...give the teachers what they're asking for.

steelerbackr4life
02-20-2007, 10:17 PM
Having a high paying Union job for 20 years with a pension and not having to pay for healthcare benefits. I will attempt to point out some of the pluses and minuses that I have come across at my job involving safety as there are many topics that I feel apply to the Union non Union debate but I feel there are none more important than this.

Safety:Plus: The tools that are in place for me and my co workers to perform my job everyday and come home safely to my family every night were fought for by retirees that worked and in some cases died before me.
My whole career the Union has never waivered on their position here and constantly stress the importance on taking your time and utilizing all the tools there to protect you.

There are things taught to me from fellow Union Brothers and Foreman (yes there are a few good foreman all management isnt bad) when I first started that were instilled in me that I now try to relay to younger guys so that they too will enjoy the unmatched imo joy of raising a family.

Safety: Minus: Despite what Management personell will tell the individual regarding the well being of the employee there are usually two scenarios that take place when dealing with this issue.

1. All too often I have witnessed a Boss in their haste for production numbers, tell an employee to do something that at the very least could cause injury to the employee and or an innocent member of the public.

2. The company has turned safety into more of a way to discipline an employee than as a way to keep them safe.
IE I once saw someone take a suspension without pay for slipping on ice in a parking lot that had not been salted and spraining a wrist. When asked about the validity of the suspension a Management Representative simply said "it is what it is"

The end result of this was that we have a supension fund and gave the employee the money that was lost due to the day suspension. Later the Union grieved the suspension and the Company wound up paying the employee only after an Arbitrator ruled in the employees favor. The Company then had to pay for the Arbitrator along with the Attorney fees for the Union and the Company. (Money that I believe would have been much better invested in my profit sharing plan) The employee donated the money recieved in the settlement to the Unions toy for tots campaign.

This is just a small example of how it is with my particular situation I believe that every situation is unique and should be judged as such. But being a middle class employee I think that the best way for the working person to truly get the best they can is through unification. No matter how much talent or proficiency an individual has if a big company wants to take you down it is so much easier to do without the fear of having the retaliation of possibly thousands of your co workers who all only want the same thing as you to care for the ones they love.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
02-20-2007, 10:26 PM
Teachers are underpaid, their health benifits are a joke and their retirement plan is horrible....When a teacher retires they cant actually retire!!

Its time to pay teachers more.....Give them better benefits......and let them retire with a chance of enjoying it

Stillers#1
02-21-2007, 01:02 AM
Stillers,

Where I am stationed, I co-pay often (or drive 30+ miles one-way to fill a prescription). Plus dental and other costs for my family. Is it much? Not at all. I never said that it was. Nor should the Teachers, in my opinion, be paying much. I know, my friend, what we do and do not pay. I have 20yrs in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club, I'm familiar with it all.

Retirement, yes TSP is elective. I am not sure what the Force pays into, but Navy personnel pay into the Navy Retirement Home as well. This is a mandatory deduction from my pay for an institution that I will never utilize. It is a very small, inconsequential payment. But I have absolutely no choice whether or not I would like to support this organization.
Yes, we put out lives on the line, some of us more frequently than others. But even with that, we still pay a small amount into various systems.

It is obvious by your remark concerning tax-free paychecks, that you and I deploy frequently (I'll be heading out again in just a couple of months). Not all of the military deploys as you or I do. Admittedly, most do currently, but not all. And this War will not last forever.
Now I have recently finished a short tour as a Mission Planning Instructor and have not deployed in a little while (2 deployments ISO OIF prior to that however, not to mention other conflicts/actions over these past 2 decades). So, this past tax season, with no hostile fire exemptions, and with a decent promotion, I paid out of my yoo-hoo. I was placed in a higher tax bracket due to my wife's 2006 income, coupled with mine. By the way, since I recently transferred (02November06), my wife had to leave her job and is currently unemployed. With a new home, a new area, a new Command, Christmas, New Years, and Thanksgiving in between....that hurts! Did I mention that I have kids? ...add two birthdays to that list as well.

Now, I am not presenting that I believe the Teachers, whom I hold a great deal of respect for, should shoulder the entire weight, not at all. Just a small token payment, plus co-pays...nothing more.

Now, if you or I had a beef with our benefits....what would happen if we went on strike? Teachers have an obligation to children, that they accept willingly, just as you and I have freely accepted responsibility to the Nation and the American People. I have very little respect for that particular group of Teachers at this point. The ones whom I trust to instill in my own children, during the day/during my absence, the sense of using your head and not actions to resolve issues, have just abandoned them. In my own tangential way of viewing the world, I can remotely liken this to you or I deserting because we do/do not believe in an upcoming deployment.

I appreciate your view Stillers, truly I do. But I believe what I believe, and I view the world through my own pessimistically tinted vision.

Hey believe me, I am allll about everyone having their own opinion, it doesn't mean either of us are wrong, we just differ in our views. If the military could possibly strike (could that even be organized?), I just don't think we would have much to strike about. Sure we pay into our respective branches retirement homes ($.50 a month in the AF) which neither of us will probably ever use, but there are people who do use them. I will never get to use Social Security, and I pay into it, lol, no worries though. I have my first kid on the way, and I haven't deployed for almost a year (usually I deploy 3 times a year at least though, 2 months at a time), so I kinda know how you feel. I have just gotten back from instructor school, which was a nice little chunk of tax free perdiem, lol. I would venture to say we have it a little better than these teachers.

just my humble.....

Preacher
02-21-2007, 01:05 AM
Having a high paying Union job for 20 years with a pension and not having to pay for healthcare benefits. I will attempt to point out some of the pluses and minuses that I have come across at my job involving safety as there are many topics that I feel apply to the Union non Union debate but I feel there are none more important than this.

Safety:Plus: The tools that are in place for me and my co workers to perform my job everyday and come home safely to my family every night wore fought for by retirees that worked and in some cases died before me.
My whole career the Union has never waivered on their position here and constantly stress the importance on taking your time and utilizing all the tools there to protect you.

There are things taught to me from fellow Union Brothers and Foreman (yes there are a few good foreman all management isnt bad) when I first started that were instilled in me that I now try to relay to younger guys so that they too will enjoy the unmatched imo joy of raising a family.

Safety: Minus: Despite what Management personell will tell the individual regarding the well being of the employee there are usually two scenarios that take place when dealing with this issue.

1. All too often I have witnessed a Boss in their haste for production numbers, tell an employee to do something that at the very least could cause injury to the employee and or an innocent member of the public.

2. The company has turned safety into more of a way to discipline an employee than as a way to keep them safe.
IE I once saw someone take a suspension without pay for slipping on ice in a parking lot that had not been salted and spraining a wrist. When asked about the validity of the suspension a Management Representative simply said "it is what it is"

The end result of this was that we have a supension fund and gave the employee the money that was lost due to the day suspension. Later the Union grieved the suspension and the Company wound up paying the employee only after an Arbitrator ruled in the employees favor. The Company then had to pay for the Arbitrator along with the Attorney fees for the Union and the Company. (Money that I believe would have been much better invested in my profit sharing plan) The employee donated the money recieved in the settlement to the Unions toy for tots campaign.

This is just a small example of how it is with my particular situation I believe that every situation is unique and should be judged as such. But being a middle class employee I think that the best way for the working person to truly get the best they can is through unification. No matter how much talent or proficiency an individual has if a big company wants to take you down it is so much easier to do without the fear of having the retaliation of possibly thousands of your co workers who all only want the same thing as you to care for the ones they love.

Exellent thought out post. I still disagree with you, but I enjoyed reading what you brought to the table.

Let me share with you a situation that in a union, would not have happened... unfortunately.

I was working for Travelers insurance company as a call center insurance agent. A buddy of mine who worked there was in a MAJOR car accident about two weeks into the job. He did not sign up for insurance and hence, had no insurance.

When the management found out that he was in a car accident, and that he had no insurance, they went through and submitted his papers... BACKDATING THEM to make him covered.

That would never have happened in a union shop, because the management is too afraid of setting a precedent that the union would then demand in more and more situations.

I was proud of that company that day, of the management. And I will be honest with you, I have had more GOOD situations with management than I have ever had bad.

Stillers43
02-21-2007, 08:25 AM
Support your teachers!

HometownGal
02-21-2007, 09:25 AM
Support your teachers!

While I have always supported our teachers, Stillers43, I have to draw the line in this case. I think this group is demanding way too much and being totally selfish in waiting until midway through the school year to walk out when they could have attempted to resolve their differences with the Board over the summer months. I don't believe they have the kids' best interests at heart here by pulling this stunt. Their selfishness not only affects the kids, but the taxpayers that pay their salaries (which, I might add, are quite generous for the Pittsburgh area) as well as the parents who have to either stay home from work and risk losing their own jobs or spend money on child care during this strike period.

Mosca
02-21-2007, 09:46 AM
Preacher,

While I appreciate the idea of what you and management engineered, I'd like to point out the words that are on every insurance document:

"WARNING: Any person who knowingly and with intent to defraud any insurance company or other person files an application for insurance or statement of claim containing any materially false information or conceals for the purpose of misleading, information concerning any fact material thereto commits a fraudulent insurance act, which is a crime and subjects such person to criminal and civil penalties."

Again, while I understand where you are coming from, I'm not sure I myself would be proud of being party to insurance fraud. I would have a hard time justifying it for any reason.


Tom

floodcitygirl
02-21-2007, 12:22 PM
In my opinion, it all depends upon the union when it comes to advantages and disadvantages. I can speak about the building industry here in Ohio. There is a big difference in the quality of workmanship in the industry as a whole when comparing union to non union work. I'm speaking mainly about commercial construction. I can tell you this, given a choice, I would much rather put my children into a building in Ohio that was union constructed, than not. I have seen both sides.

Within the union commercial construction industry each trade has their own union which negotiates contracts for them. Some of the trades do much better for themselves than others. The carpenter's union is extremely weak. Especially if you consider that the construction superintendent, who is responsible for coordinating the entire raising of that building, and is within the carpenter's union, can be payed less than some of the trades...like drywallers...who actually work for him.

Raises oftentimes don't even keep up with the cost of living. As far as insurance goes...$30 co pays for a Dr visit and oftentimes 80/20 coverage with high deductibles.

I say this because many people think that being in a union automatically means that you have it made and it's not always the case.

Here's another side of the coin. An issue for many workers is that their union dues go to support political candidates and views that they disagree with, but can have little voice in fear that they'll be black listed.

People who work in management, but are still within the union , struggle too. They are required to hire and keep a certain percentage of minority workers and subcontractors regardless of their performance on the job. Yet they are responsible for the quality and timing on that building. Often times they have to use those subs even though they came in with a higher bid...this is especially true for government contracts.

I don't know the particulars with this teacher's union in PA. I'm just saying that when it comes to being pro or anti union, it really depends on the particular field that you're dealing with and even within that field there are many variables.

daisy235
02-21-2007, 06:48 PM
Some points to consider:

- Contract expired June 30, 2006--BWEA and the district have been negotiating since January of 2006, 6 months before the contract was up. No one waited until mid year to begin negotiations.

- The teachers not asking to not contribute towards benefits. They are asking to pay a fair share, or receive a pay raise to offset some of these costs.

- The district is offering a 0% pay increase and demanding that teachers pay for their benefits as well, which means that they district is asking the teachers to take pay cuts.

Stlrs4Life
02-21-2007, 09:58 PM
Exellent thought out post. I still disagree with you, but I enjoyed reading what you brought to the table.

Let me share with you a situation that in a union, would not have happened... unfortunately.

I was working for Travelers insurance company as a call center insurance agent. A buddy of mine who worked there was in a MAJOR car accident about two weeks into the job. He did not sign up for insurance and hence, had no insurance.

When the management found out that he was in a car accident, and that he had no insurance, they went through and submitted his papers... BACKDATING THEM to make him covered.

That would never have happened in a union shop, because the management is too afraid of setting a precedent that the union would then demand in more and more situations.

I was proud of that company that day, of the management. And I will be honest with you, I have had more GOOD situations with management than I have ever had bad.


Are you serious! Majority companies definately would not back date paperwork to have a person covered! The Union has nothing to do with it. Not in my plant anyway.

If above scenario happened at my plant, I believe my company wouldn't do the same, and as far as the Union, if the Company did, they wouldn't stop them.


Why didn't that guy have car in insurance?


And it was said earlier that Unions don't care. I guarantee you that they care more for the worker than any Company cares for thier workers.

Stlrs4Life
02-21-2007, 10:00 PM
Having a high paying Union job for 20 years with a pension and not having to pay for healthcare benefits. I will attempt to point out some of the pluses and minuses that I have come across at my job involving safety as there are many topics that I feel apply to the Union non Union debate but I feel there are none more important than this.

Safety:Plus: The tools that are in place for me and my co workers to perform my job everyday and come home safely to my family every night wore fought for by retirees that worked and in some cases died before me.
My whole career the Union has never waivered on their position here and constantly stress the importance on taking your time and utilizing all the tools there to protect you.

There are things taught to me from fellow Union Brothers and Foreman (yes there are a few good foreman all management isnt bad) when I first started that were instilled in me that I now try to relay to younger guys so that they too will enjoy the unmatched imo joy of raising a family.

Safety: Minus: Despite what Management personell will tell the individual regarding the well being of the employee there are usually two scenarios that take place when dealing with this issue.

1. All too often I have witnessed a Boss in their haste for production numbers, tell an employee to do something that at the very least could cause injury to the employee and or an innocent member of the public.

2. The company has turned safety into more of a way to discipline an employee than as a way to keep them safe.
IE I once saw someone take a suspension without pay for slipping on ice in a parking lot that had not been salted and spraining a wrist. When asked about the validity of the suspension a Management Representative simply said "it is what it is"

The end result of this was that we have a supension fund and gave the employee the money that was lost due to the day suspension. Later the Union grieved the suspension and the Company wound up paying the employee only after an Arbitrator ruled in the employees favor. The Company then had to pay for the Arbitrator along with the Attorney fees for the Union and the Company. (Money that I believe would have been much better invested in my profit sharing plan) The employee donated the money recieved in the settlement to the Unions toy for tots campaign.

This is just a small example of how it is with my particular situation I believe that every situation is unique and should be judged as such. But being a middle class employee I think that the best way for the working person to truly get the best they can is through unification. No matter how much talent or proficiency an individual has if a big company wants to take you down it is so much easier to do without the fear of having the retaliation of possibly thousands of your co workers who all only want the same thing as you to care for the ones they love.



Excellent Post!

steelerbackr4life
02-21-2007, 10:06 PM
With my 450th post I would like to say, Thanks brother :cheers:

Preacher
02-22-2007, 12:34 AM
Preacher,

While I appreciate the idea of what you and management engineered, I'd like to point out the words that are on every insurance document:

"WARNING: Any person who knowingly and with intent to defraud any insurance company or other person files an application for insurance or statement of claim containing any materially false information or conceals for the purpose of misleading, information concerning any fact material thereto commits a fraudulent insurance act, which is a crime and subjects such person to criminal and civil penalties."

Again, while I understand where you are coming from, I'm not sure I myself would be proud of being party to insurance fraud. I would have a hard time justifying it for any reason.


Tom

Tom... It was TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY. So no one was defrauded. They backdated thier OWN material.

Preacher
02-22-2007, 12:42 AM
Are you serious! Majority companies definately would not back date paperwork to have a person covered! The Union has nothing to do with it. Not in my plant anyway.

If above scenario happened at my plant, I believe my company wouldn't do the same, and as far as the Union, if the Company did, they wouldn't stop them.


Why didn't that guy have car in insurance?


And it was said earlier that Unions don't care. I guarantee you that they care more for the worker than any Company cares for thier workers.

That is the problem. in todays union workplace, why would management do it? They are ALWAYS having to fight against the union.

However, in a non-union city.. state... actually, region. that is not true. Like I have said before, the most poisened work place I have ever worked was a union workplace. I think the reason for that is most of the non-union workplaces i have worked... pretty much ALL the management was at one time line workers like me.

Here is the other side of it. Construction. No union construction in the area I grew up (spokane wa). The builders would just sub-contract a small company, which was usually two or three carpenters to come and work. And you know, some of the richest people I knew were those carpenters. Why? Cause they were able to contract on their own, then do the work in the best way they could. And who worked with them? thier buddies... who got paid VERY WELL. The result was a LOT of independant contractors that actually made quite a bit of money.

Mosca
02-22-2007, 09:48 AM
Tom... It was TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY. So no one was defrauded. They backdated thier OWN material.


OK, understood. I didn't realize that it was a co-worker, I misread it to mean a worker for a client. Under the circumstance you describe, I wouldn't know if it was a corporate approved local decision or not.

I would propose, though, that that is analogous to a union taking care of its own. If a union is a self-insured, then they could elect to do the same.

Tom

Preacher
02-22-2007, 01:48 PM
OK, understood. I didn't realize that it was a co-worker, I misread it to mean a worker for a client. Under the circumstance you describe, I wouldn't know if it was a corporate approved local decision or not.

I would propose, though, that that is analogous to a union taking care of its own. If a union is a self-insured, then they could elect to do the same.

Tom

Not really, because it is a worker that in many places would be unionized, probably in the CWA.

It was management that decided to step to the plate, make a couple of phone calls to a few more offices, and put him on insurance.

My entire point behind the post is that when unions don't poisen the work place, management is much more willing to work with the employees to provide what the employee needs, including raises and benefits. Like I said before, unions were necessary in the past. Now, for the most part, IMO they simply get in the way of the company taking care of its stockholders, clientelle, and workers (who are also stockholders and clientelle).

Here is another issue that I have with unions. Some unions DEMAND that you DONT work in non-union jobs... EVEN WHEN THE UNION HAS NO WORK! Now, if the goal of the union is to protect the worker, why do they demand the family starve rather working at a job that will support unions? Things like that make me believe that the union is out for the unions, and not out for the worker. In the end, the head of the unions has just become another management, and is taking MORE advantage of the worker today then the company management is.

A real shame if you ask me.

Preacher
02-22-2007, 01:52 PM
Are you serious! Majority companies definately would not back date paperwork to have a person covered! The Union has nothing to do with it. Not in my plant anyway.

If above scenario happened at my plant, I believe my company wouldn't do the same, and as far as the Union, if the Company did, they wouldn't stop them.


Why didn't that guy have car in insurance?


And it was said earlier that Unions don't care. I guarantee you that they care more for the worker than any Company cares for thier workers.


Not at all. that was true 30, 40, 50 years ago. But today, it costs 10's of 1000's of dollars to fully train workers for many positions. Companies do not want to lose those workers, because they cannot afford to keep throwing that money down the drain. As a result, they try to help thier employees, at least the employees that are working hard.

Cape Cod Steel Head
02-22-2007, 03:52 PM
Some points to consider:

- Contract expired June 30, 2006--BWEA and the district have been negotiating since January of 2006, 6 months before the contract was up. No one waited until mid year to begin negotiations.

- The teachers not asking to not contribute towards benefits. They are asking to pay a fair share, or receive a pay raise to offset some of these costs.

- The district is offering a 0% pay increase and demanding that teachers pay for their benefits as well, which means that they district is asking the teachers to take pay cuts.I knew this issue wasn't as black and white as some of these posters would like to believe.

Stlrs4Life
02-22-2007, 11:23 PM
Are you serious! Majority companies definately would not back date paperwork to have a person covered! The Union has nothing to do with it. Not in my plant anyway.

If above scenario happened at my plant, I believe my company wouldn't do the same, and as far as the Union, if the Company did, they wouldn't stop them.


Why didn't that guy have car in insurance?


And it was said earlier that Unions don't care. I guarantee you that they care more for the worker than any Company cares for thier workers.


Not at all. that was true 30, 40, 50 years ago. But today, it costs 10's of 1000's of dollars to fully train workers for many positions. Companies do not want to lose those workers, because they cannot afford to keep throwing that money down the drain. As a result, they try to help thier employees, at least the employees that are working hard.


A Company cares about only 1 thing, the bottom line is $$$$$$$$. Not thier workers. Not only my plant every company. In todays greedy world, it's the Rich that only care of what goes in there pocket. I'm talking about Owners of McDonalds to the bigger companies like GM, Etc, etc.

Preacher
02-23-2007, 12:51 AM
[quote=Preacher;220973]


A Company cares about only 1 thing, the bottom line is $$$$$$$$. Not thier workers. Not only my plant every company. In todays greedy world, it's the Rich that only care of what goes in there pocket. I'm talking about Owners of McDonalds to the bigger companies like GM, Etc, etc.

Let me ask you...

Do you beleive that all rich are greedy and that all workers are not?
Or could it be that everyone is greedy?
Or is it that greedy people are found in ALL walks of life, and in all walks, non-greedy people are found too.

HometownGal
02-23-2007, 08:53 AM
BW teachers are still on strike - ughhh. My little grandson is getting very antsy - he loves school and especially misses his science and math classes. My daughter and I are trying to keep him motivated by giving him different things to read and do and I hope the union and the district come to an understanding over the weekend.

Last I heard through the grapevine, the teachers agreed to kick in $10.00 per month to their health insurance costs which, of course, the district rejected. :toofunny:

klick81
02-23-2007, 10:52 AM
Some points to consider:

- Contract expired June 30, 2006--BWEA and the district have been negotiating since January of 2006, 6 months before the contract was up. No one waited until mid year to begin negotiations.

- The teachers not asking to not contribute towards benefits. They are asking to pay a fair share, or receive a pay raise to offset some of these costs.

- The district is offering a 0% pay increase and demanding that teachers pay for their benefits as well, which means that they district is asking the teachers to take pay cuts.

Great first post! So i wonder who here would be willing to take pay cuts and not make any demands???

daisy235
02-23-2007, 02:27 PM
In response to what Marty Griffin has been airing on his radio show, this is the information that the teachers' union is sharing with the community members in a flyer distributed today.




 Teachers work 8 ?required? hours each day, about 4 hours more at home each night, and an additional 8 hours at home on the weekends.
 If I am a ?babysitter? @ $5 an hour per kid - $5 x 8 hours = $40 x 30 students = $1200 per day. An average teacher makes 1/5 of that amount.
 1/3 of BWEA members are taxpayers in the district.
 Most teachers invest part of their salary every year towards continuing education, keeping them up-to-date with the best practices in education.
 The top of our pay scale does not go to 85K; 19 years of teaching with a Masters: $81,650;
19 years with a PhD: $84,650.

 We NEVER gave a ?last best offer.?
 The district team has only discussed money with our team one time. That occurred at the February 12 meeting when we exchanged proposals.
 The district did NOT offer 6% per year and $20 per month for healthcare in the final year.
 We have offered to contribute towards healthcare costs!
 Teachers? health insurance rates are cost effective due to participation in a county-wide consortium. That means that the rate a school district is charged is substantially lower than a company outside of the consortium.
 Retroactive pay is NOT just granted, it is something that must be bargained.

 Due to drops in enrollment, 18 teaching positions were eliminated in June 2006.
 The BWEA felt that an early bird contract was all but settled in May of 2005, and the district shot it down.
 We have had early retirement incentives for the past 3 years resulting in 60+ retirees. The last one saved the district about 1.4 million dollars. Where did that money go?
 Two years ago the district was audited and had a 3.6 million dollar surplus. Where did that money go?

 The association has requested Mr. Campbell come back to the negotiation table every day?still no response.
 Teachers are available to negotiate any day at any time.
 We did NOT call the strike because of 5.75% or healthcare costs. The reason was the unavailability of the district to negotiate until March 8th.
 This is a great community and has always been supportive of our educators!

To get a fast resolution to this dispute please:
 Call or write a School Board Member
 Attend the school board meetings on March 7th and 14th
starting at 7:30 in the Central Administration Board Room.

Preacher
02-23-2007, 04:14 PM
Great first post! So i wonder who here would be willing to take pay cuts and not make any demands???

Most American workers have when thier health insurance skyrocketed, far above what thier raises were, if they ever got a raise. Basically, the unions are now having to catch up with what most others have had to deal with 3-5 maybe 7 years ago.

Stlrs4Life
02-23-2007, 10:44 PM
[quote=Stlrs4Life;221103]

Let me ask you...

Do you believe that all rich are greedy and that all workers are not?
Or could it be that everyone is greedy?
Or is it that greedy people are found in ALL walks of life, and in all walks, non-greedy people are found too.


Do you believe that all rich are greedy and that all workers are not?

Rich-- yes, very, how do you think they became rich?
Workers-- yes alot of them are also, no doubt. Most, just want a fare share.


Or could it be that everyone is greedy?

No, not everyone is greedy, obviously.

Or is it that greedy people are found in ALL walks of life, and in all walks, non-greedy people are found too.

Obviously.

Stlrs4Life
02-23-2007, 10:49 PM
Most American workers have when their health insurance skyrocketed, far above what their raises were, if they ever got a raise. Basically, the unions are now having to catch up with what most others have had to deal with 3-5 maybe 7 years ago.

So you are saying even though I already pay for some of my health care monthly, I should pay more just because everybody else does?


And if their healthcare went up, their pay raises should have went up also.

Stlrs4Life
02-23-2007, 10:54 PM
If everybody here is so jealous, (because that is what it is basically) why not go to college and become a School Teacher so you can join them in the ranks? Everybody complains about teachers, what about Doctors and Lawyers? They are terrible, don't get me wrong, Dr's deserve a healthy paycheck, but jeesh. Now wonder Health care costs are so high.

Preacher
02-23-2007, 11:57 PM
If everybody here is so jealous, (because that is what it is basically) why not go to college and become a School Teacher so you can join them in the ranks? Everybody complains about teachers, what about Doctors and Lawyers? They are terrible, don't get me wrong, Dr's deserve a healthy paycheck, but jeesh. Now wonder Health care costs are so high.

Actually,

Now we are getting to what is probably the heart of the thread.

There are a number of reasons for healthcare being so high. In no particular order, let me list them (as I saw them working at Humana insurance company. Yeah, I went from car/homeowners insurance to health insurance. Talk about a dive into the abyss!!) Thank goodness I got into full time ministry!

Again, in no particular order...

1. Lawsuits: For instance, I remember that some OB GYNS had over half a million dollar INSURANCE PREMIUMS a year for liability. Many OB GYNS simply gave up thier practice and went into other types of medicene. Limit lawsuits, and we limit the amount of insurance premium the doctor has to pay.

2. Medicare: People don't really understand how medicare issues drive the entire medical market. What happens is that doctors and hospitals have to choose whether they want to take medicare patients (Most do, because it is beneficial to them). Now, when they do that, they can only accept the alloted medicare amount. For instance, a 400 dollar doctor visit may be 50 dollars according to medicare. They cannot charge any more then that. What the doctors and facilities (hospitals, etc) do, is that they inflate thier cost... so that same cost is now 700 dollars. This helps them because when Medicare looks at rates to adjust thier payments, they now will adjust according to the 700 dollar bill, instead of the 400 dollar bill. The end result is that medicare may pay 80 dollars instead of 50 dollars. However, this causes a different problem. Insurance companies now have to negotiate based on the 700 dollar bill as well, creating a false baseline for negotiation with the doctors. However, the doctors have to do it because they lose money on medicare patients.

3. uninsured/underinsured. People go to the doctor, or the hospital and cannot pay. While many of those bills get sent to collections. Remember the collections BUY those accounts for basically pennies on teh dollar. Thus, everyone who can pay, including insurance companies, now have to carry thier weight.

4. Illegal aliens. There are what.... thirty some odd million illegal aliens in this country, almost ALL without health care. This exaserbates (sp) issue 3.

5. Personal irresponsibility. Yeah. This one also is a problem. People driving motorcycles without helmets (ahem...ahem... ) or insurance.. Driving cars without seatbelts. Heavily smoking...etc.etc. Just think, one trip to the E.R. can cost 100,000 or more. Then, that bill doesn't get paid (again, see 3) Now, everyones elses has to carry that bill. Especially when it comes to cancer from cigerettes and other things.

Now... AGAIN.. there is no order here. And there are probably many others. However, from where I sat... dealing with Medicare replacement policy's and talking to both hospitals and reg. people. that is what I saw!

And honestly, there is no easy answer. Simply jumping to a single payer system only passes this problem to the govt, which just puts another layer of bureacracy on this issue.

HometownGal
02-24-2007, 07:51 AM
In response to what Marty Griffin has been airing on his radio show, this is the information that the teachers' union is sharing with the community members in a flyer distributed today.




 Teachers work 8 ?required? hours each day, about 4 hours more at home each night, and an additional 8 hours at home on the weekends.
 If I am a ?babysitter? @ $5 an hour per kid - $5 x 8 hours = $40 x 30 students = $1200 per day. An average teacher makes 1/5 of that amount.
 1/3 of BWEA members are taxpayers in the district.
 Most teachers invest part of their salary every year towards continuing education, keeping them up-to-date with the best practices in education.
 The top of our pay scale does not go to 85K; 19 years of teaching with a Masters: $81,650;
19 years with a PhD: $84,650.

 We NEVER gave a ?last best offer.?
 The district team has only discussed money with our team one time. That occurred at the February 12 meeting when we exchanged proposals.
 The district did NOT offer 6% per year and $20 per month for healthcare in the final year.
 We have offered to contribute towards healthcare costs!
 Teachers? health insurance rates are cost effective due to participation in a county-wide consortium. That means that the rate a school district is charged is substantially lower than a company outside of the consortium.
 Retroactive pay is NOT just granted, it is something that must be bargained.

 Due to drops in enrollment, 18 teaching positions were eliminated in June 2006.
 The BWEA felt that an early bird contract was all but settled in May of 2005, and the district shot it down.
 We have had early retirement incentives for the past 3 years resulting in 60+ retirees. The last one saved the district about 1.4 million dollars. Where did that money go?
 Two years ago the district was audited and had a 3.6 million dollar surplus. Where did that money go?

 The association has requested Mr. Campbell come back to the negotiation table every day?still no response.
 Teachers are available to negotiate any day at any time.
 We did NOT call the strike because of 5.75% or healthcare costs. The reason was the unavailability of the district to negotiate until March 8th.
 This is a great community and has always been supportive of our educators!

To get a fast resolution to this dispute please:
 Call or write a School Board Member
 Attend the school board meetings on March 7th and 14th
starting at 7:30 in the Central Administration Board Room.

First - it seems a little odd that you just joined this board and jumped into this thread right away. :scratchchin: Just my own observation - no offense intended.

Second - I've been hearing a totally different story on why these teachers decided to call a strike smack dab in the middle of the school year, their negotiating tactics and what issues caused them to walk out on the kids, but no "flyer" to back it up. I'll go into more detail as to my thoughts on the "facts" listed above when I have a little more time - I have a family emergency going on right now.

klick81
02-24-2007, 11:00 AM
I guess she joined forum to sway the oh so powerful steeler fever opinion! LOL...

X-Terminator
02-24-2007, 10:54 PM
I guess she joined forum to sway the oh so powerful steeler fever opinion! LOL...

...which is why it's odd. Hmmm...just happens to find this board and just happens to find this particular thread to post in. Nah, it's just a coincidence... :wink02:

Anyway, there are a couple of issues in that flyer that was apparently handed out (I never got one even though I live in the borough):

If I am a “babysitter” @ $5 an hour per kid - $5 x 8 hours = $40 x 30 students = $1200 per day. An average teacher makes 1/5 of that amount.

This is not a good argument. Ask a babysitter or daycare employee if they make $1200 per day, and then watch the hysterical laughter that follows. Most daycare workers make the minimum wage, and a babysitter is lucky if he or she gets enough money to pay for a half-decent large pizza and soda for the night. And if an average teacher makes 1/5 of that much (0.20 x $1200 = $240 per day), that's still a pretty damn good salary even if they do only get paid for 9 months of work.

The top of our pay scale does not go to 85K; 19 years of teaching with a Masters: $81,650;
19 years with a PhD: $84,650.

So the difference is $350 - $3350 a year, or between 0.05% and 4%. Sounds like nitpicking to me. 85K is still a good - and correct - estimate when using those numbers.

We have offered to contribute towards healthcare costs!

The last I read, the union's offer was $10 per month, and I'm assuming that covers everything - medical, prescriptions, dental, vision. That's some contribution there! My PPO health plan alone costs me $31 per month, AND I chip in an extra $22 a month for my prescription plan. I pay over $600 a year for my health benefits (not including dental and vision), and the teachers are haggling over $120 (or $240 if the district is in fact correct about their offer)? Sorry, no sympathy here, especially when I make a little more than half of the borough's average teacher salary.

We did NOT call the strike because of 5.75% or healthcare costs. The reason was the unavailability of the district to negotiate until March 8th.

I find it hard to believe that the teachers' union couldn't wait another couple of weeks to get back to negotiating. Apparently, the negotiator for the district wanted to meet with the union on Thursday despite saying he couldn't meet again until the 8th. What happened to that? The union head said it was "unfair" to the union and showed that "teachers aren't important" because they could not meet before the 8th. Well then, how is it fair to the kids and parents to walk out at this point in the school year? Did it ever occur to anyone involved in this or who supports the striking teachers that their responsibility first and foremost is to the education of the students? Apparently not.

Money trumps all, and in the end, everyone suffers. It's just sad.

Preacher
02-24-2007, 11:03 PM
Honestly, I think that teachers, like firefighters and policeman, should not be permitted to strike (oh yeah, and the aircraft controllers).

If they strike, they get fired. Period. I am sure there are a lot of private schools that would LOVE to get the public money to educate these kids. And normally, they do a better job.

daisy235
02-27-2007, 01:41 PM
Good news--the strike is coming to an end. The teachers and students will be back in the classrooms in less than 48 hours.

Stlrs4Life
02-27-2007, 05:29 PM
Glad to hear, any details?

Suitanim
02-27-2007, 06:56 PM
Hmmm...toughie.

First off, Unions are very important and necessary. However, they have also outlived their usefulness and need to be eliminated. How can both statements be true? Easy.

Unions literally saved this country in the early 20th Century, and a lot of brave and courageous abused workers literally risked their lives to make working conditions better for people who worked in atrocious conditions. But decades have passed, and the Union has changed, and not for the better.

The primary reason the big 3 are losing to Toyota and Honda now is upper management in Detroit. The second reason is Unions. They share equal blame, and the common ground is greed and territorial pissing. While the fat cats were being greedy and short-sighted, the Unions were growing fat and learning to be greedy. And look where we are now...

The Unions in the factories need to be abolished and the Japanese model of merit based reward needs to be adopted. But it may just happen on it's own...as American car manufacturing employee's continue to lose their Union jobs, there will probably be plenty of foreign car manufacturing jobs to replace them. If a system works, well...

Anyway, there is a NEW class of people who desperately need to be Unionized. Wal-Mart workers. Building cleaning crews. Landscapers. There is a whole group of exploited workers who desperately need to be Unionized...but the same pro-Union people won't like it. If Wal-Mart unionizes, guess what? The costs will be passed on to the consumer, so that POS Chinese junk thing that you could buy at a non-union Wal-Mart for $3.96 will now set you back a whole $4.12.

Therein lies the rub...Unions were built to protect the working man from harsh and awful working conditions (like the people who clean toilets in office building from 9P-5A for $3.00 an hour under the table) NOT to make sure that as a union factory worker you get a 25 minute break every 45 minutes on top of your 2 hour lunch and...you get the picture.

Bottom line: Unions are good...as long as they serve the exploited and abused.

MACH1
02-27-2007, 07:22 PM
In the state of Idaho where I live, its called a "right to work" state. Very few unions here. In a right to work state who ever you work for can fire you with out cause or reason and most places use that to their advantage by reminding you that your not irreplaceable if you dont work when and where they want. Thought you were working 8 hrs today- nope your here for 12 and if you dont like you no where the door is, the only thing they cant fire you for is some form of discrimination. And being a right to work state it keeps the wages way down, a good entry level pay around here is $7-$8 an hour. Theres a lot of company's moving in from other states for that very reason, no unions and cheap labor.

Stlrs4Life
02-27-2007, 09:27 PM
We call them Right to Starve States.

Stlrs4Life
02-27-2007, 09:43 PM
Hmmm...toughie.

First off, Unions are very important and necessary. However, they have also outlived their usefulness and need to be eliminated. How can both statements be true? Easy.

Unions literally saved this country in the early 20th Century, and a lot of brave and courageous abused workers literally risked their lives to make working conditions better for people who worked in atrocious conditions. But decades have passed, and the Union has changed, and not for the better.

The primary reason the big 3 are losing to Toyota and Honda now is upper management in Detroit. The second reason is Unions. They share equal blame, and the common ground is greed and territorial pissing. While the fat cats were being greedy and short-sighted, the Unions were growing fat and learning to be greedy. And look where we are now... You forgot about the other main reason, Fair Trade, not free trade. We're up against alot more than they are.
The Unions in the factories need to be abolished and the Japanese model of merit based reward needs to be adopted. But it may just happen on it's own...as American car manufacturing employee's continue to lose their Union jobs, there will probably be plenty of foreign car manufacturing jobs to replace them. If a system works, well...

Anyway, there is a NEW class of people who desperately need to be Unionized. Wal-Mart workers. Building cleaning crews. Landscapers. There is a whole group of exploited workers who desperately need to be Unionized...but the same pro-Union people won't like it. If Wal-Mart unionizes, guess what? The costs will be passed on to the consumer, so that POS Chinese junk thing that you could buy at a non-union Wal-Mart for $3.96 will now set you back a whole $4.12.

It was already tried, Wal-Mart threatened to close up and leave, and another store was to be built in Canada, they attempted top go Union,Wal-Mart never built the store. (oooooohhhhh another .16 , I'd gladly pay that .16 xtra to a unionized store. And you don't think non union places don't pass on costs to the consumer? Happens everyday.

Therein lies the rub...Unions were built to protect the working man from harsh and awful working conditions (like the people who clean toilets in office building from 9P-5A for $3.00 an hour under the table) NOT to make sure that as a union factory worker you get a 25 minute break every 45 minutes on top of your 2 hour lunch and...you get the picture.

Bottom line: Unions are good...as long as they serve the exploited and abused.















Though I can agree to somewhat of your statement, abolishing Unions would be the dumbest thing that could ever happen, want to turn even more shit over to foreign Countries, want this country to fall even closer to 3rd World Status? Let it happen. Abolishing Unions would make the greedy even greedier, no check and balances at all. You might as well just give the keys to the Henhouse right to the fox.


Want to see Eastern Ohio fall even flatter on it's face? Watch what would happen if Lordstown closes up. It will be even worse than when the Steel Mills closed up.


I can't believe people want to take away the rights for workers to stick together and have a voice in thier own work place?

MACH1
02-28-2007, 12:26 AM
We call them Right to Starve States.

Exactly.. Thats why I quit my job three years ago and started my own business.

Preacher
02-28-2007, 01:39 AM
In the state of Idaho where I live, its called a "right to work" state. Very few unions here. In a right to work state who ever you work for can fire you with out cause or reason and most places use that to their advantage by reminding you that your not irreplaceable if you dont work when and where they want. Thought you were working 8 hrs today- nope your here for 12 and if you dont like you no where the door is, the only thing they cant fire you for is some form of discrimination. And being a right to work state it keeps the wages way down, a good entry level pay around here is $7-$8 an hour. Theres a lot of company's moving in from other states for that very reason, no unions and cheap labor.

But what is the other side of that story? You can buy a NICE house for what? 75000? How much do you spend for food? Land? etc.etc. (you being general... not you personally bcrabt!)

I have lived most of my life in right to work states... and have had no problem paying my bills. The cost of living MATCHES the wages paid. Unlike in union-strong states, where the unions drive the cost of living off the charts for everyone else.

Preacher
02-28-2007, 01:45 AM
Though I can agree to somewhat of your statement, abolishing Unions would be the dumbest thing that could ever happen, want to turn even more shit over to foreign Countries, want this country to fall even closer to 3rd World Status? Let it happen. Abolishing Unions would make the greedy even greedier, no check and balances at all. You might as well just give the keys to the Henhouse right to the fox.


Want to see Eastern Ohio fall even flatter on it's face? Watch what would happen if Lordstown closes up. It will be even worse than when the Steel Mills closed up.


I can't believe people want to take away the rights for workers to stick together and have a voice in thier own work place?

I have no problem with the rights of workers. What I do have a problem with is when MY rights are taken away, because I am forced to join a union, or not work at a job. When I am forced to join a union, even though that union supports issues which violate my religious beliefs, or politicians which I cannot support because of my religious beleif. What about my right as a worker? I wouldn't have half the problem with unions if they did not have closed shops. But in my belief, closed shops violates the constitution, then again, many laws today violate the constitution, so whats new.

Preacher
02-28-2007, 03:27 AM
Most important of all, thank you all for debating this issue without personalizing it. It says a lot about the class of people on this site, and in Steeler nation...

MACH1
02-28-2007, 09:56 AM
But what is the other side of that story? You can buy a NICE house for what? 75000? How much do you spend for food? Land? etc.etc. (you being general... not you personally bcrabt!)

I have lived most of my life in right to work states... and have had no problem paying my bills. The cost of living MATCHES the wages paid. Unlike in union-strong states, where the unions drive the cost of living off the charts for everyone else.

A nice house about $200,000. a lot to build a house $30,000-40,000 and thats a 100' x 75' lot, not acreage. In the top 5 highest prices for gas in the nation. The people moving in are driving up the cost of living here. Food about the same as every where else accept AK or HW.

Stlrs4Life
02-28-2007, 03:56 PM
A nice house about $200,000. a lot to build a house $30,000-40,000 and thats a 100' x 75' lot, not acreage. In the top 5 highest prices for gas in the nation. The people moving in are driving up the cost of living here. Food about the same as every where else accept AK or HW.



Don't worry bcrabt, we will all be behind you real soon.

Stlrs4Life
02-28-2007, 04:00 PM
Go ahead get rid of the unions like I said before. Pretty soon when the American autoworker is extinct, other manufacturers will follow. Less Steel will be made. What are we going to do when all the Steel is made in China, and God forbid that there is another war, who is going to make our Tanks? You want our tanks built in China?

Stlrs4Life
02-28-2007, 04:03 PM
But what is the other side of that story? You can buy a NICE house for what? 75000? How much do you spend for food? Land? etc.etc. (you being general... not you personally bcrabt!)

I have lived most of my life in right to work states... and have had no problem paying my bills. The cost of living MATCHES the wages paid. Unlike in union-strong states, where the unions drive the cost of living off the charts for everyone else.



Cost of living goes up evry year everywhere. Greedy corporations drive up the cost of living. Around this area it is pretty union strong, and the cost of living is not bad, could be better.

Suitanim
02-28-2007, 05:17 PM
I'm not saying abolish the unions, I'm saying let the unions get back to doing what they were originally intended to do. How did we get from protecting workers from 80 hour work weeks and 12 hour days working in deplorable conditions to union workers literally being unable to pick up a piece of scrap paper on the floor because it's not their responsibility?

The problem is that the American steel and auto industry runs on an outdated and obsolete business model. It is no accident that the Japanese automakers are eating our lunch. I think the Japanese worker is probably actually inferior to the American worker, but American workers have to fight the battle with their hands tied behind their backs. And, don't get me wrong...upper management gets absolutely no kind of pass. The American executive lacks vision and plans nothing longer view than what may push up the stock a point or two over the next quarter. By the Union getting an inch and taking a mile, and the executives lacking vision, we get exactly what we are seeing happen right now: Eroding market share, and jobs disappearing by the thousands. Incidentally, I saw that Toyota is planning on opening a plant in Mississippi that will employ 2,000.

Anyway, I want to relate a personal story about unions and how they have spun out of control. Circa 2001 I was hired to sell advertising for Bellsouth. My first week after training, I made $2500, and there was only one or two weeks in the next 6 months where I made less. I had a corporate Amex card, a $400 a month car stipend and a free cellphone. But it was a Union shop.

A Union shop. Why? Why does a suit wearing guy knocking down 6 figures need to be in a Union? To protect me from excessive paper cuts? There were people cleaning our offices after hours making less than minimum wage who couldn't form a Union if they tried, and here is a whole office if white collared workers in a Union. It was absurd. And when Bellsouth laid off me and 12,999 other workers after 9/11, the union (had I joined, which I didn't) was completely powerless to stop the lay-offs.

Stlrs4Life
02-28-2007, 09:42 PM
I'm not saying abolish the unions,



Yeah you did, from earlier post:


The Unions in the factories need to be abolished and the Japanese model of merit based reward needs to be adopted. But it may just happen on it's own...as American car manufacturing employee's continue to lose their Union jobs, there will probably be plenty of foreign car manufacturing jobs to replace them. If a system works, well...

Stlrs4Life
02-28-2007, 09:48 PM
Another reason we can not compete is because they don't face the same we have to, health care, working conditions, low well below poverty wages, environmental issues in Mexico, China, and Japan are almost non existent.

Suitanim
03-03-2007, 07:51 PM
Yeah, you're damn skippy, I DO want to abolish Unions from factory jobs. The UNION is slowing US manufacturing down, and there's simply no denying it. Huge fat pension plans and healthcare that no other segment of the workforce enjoys is the exact opposite of merely protecting a worker from slave labor. Why are GM and Ford laying off people left and right? Because each car they make automatically costs a couple grand in pension/healthcare costs before the first bolt is ever turned.

Unions need to adapt. They need to move into Wal-Mart and warehouses and janitorial services and fruit picking and any other shit job where the workers are truly being exploited.

As for this:

Another reason we can not compete is because they don't face the same we have to, health care, working conditions, low well below poverty wages, environmental issues in Mexico, China, and Japan are almost non existent.

Health care is provided in Japan, and what about the plants in the US? You think Honda isn't providing great healthcare to those workers? Working conditions in Nissan and Honda plants are as good or better than any Union plant in the US. Below poverty wages? Where? Japan? Here's the bad news...a worker who turns a bolt doesn't deserve to be make 60,000 a year. The Japanese model takes care of it's employee for life, though, even if they don't overpay.

I have more bad news...the "environmental issues" are a strong left platform issue. You can't have it both ways. If you want to protect the environment at any expense, you have to make sacrifices...if you don't, it can no longer be a workers issue.

Stlrs4Life
03-03-2007, 08:14 PM
Yeah, you're damn skippy, I DO want to abolish Unions from factory jobs. The UNION is slowing US manufacturing down, and there's simply no denying it. Huge fat pension plans and healthcare that no other segment of the workforce enjoys is the exact opposite of merely protecting a worker from slave labor. Why are GM and Ford laying off people left and right? Because each car they make automatically costs a couple grand in pension/healthcare costs before the first bolt is ever turned.

Unions need to adapt. They need to move into Wal-Mart and warehouses and janitorial services and fruit picking and any other shit job where the workers are truly being exploited. I agree, they should Unionize Wal-Mart.


As far as adapting, you watch we will be, how far? Don't know yet, contract talks are atarting now, in Lordstown we realize what we have to do and know what we have to do.

As for this:



Health care is provided in Japan, and what about the plants in the US? You think Honda isn't providing great healthcare to those workers? Working conditions in Nissan and Honda plants are as good or better than any Union plant in the US. BS

Below poverty wages? Where? Japan? Here's the bad news...a worker who turns a bolt doesn't deserve to be make 60,000 a year. The Japanese model takes care of it's employee for life, though, even if they don't overpay. Yeah in Japan China, bet you they do work for way less than what our minumum wage is. In Japan./China where 46% of the vehicles are made and shipped to the US.

I have more bad news...the "environmental issues" are a strong left platform issue. You can't have it both ways. If you want to protect the environment at any expense, you have to make sacrifices...if you don't, it can no longer be a workers issue.



Healthcare is an issue for every manufacturing, job everywherein america, not just in the Auto industry. I guarantee you healthcare in Japan is way lower in Japoan that it is the USA. And we do have tougher Environmental Laws in the US than what they have in Japan/China, that's a fact, you are getting your stats from the Far right. FAIR trade. Not FREE trade is what we need.

Suitanim
03-03-2007, 08:39 PM
Of course healthcare is an issue...but keep it in perspective. MOST workers who NEED heathcare have NONE. And they can't get it. No healthcare at all. What kind of health plan do you have? Healthcare is an issue for 80%+ Americans. You know who has it best of all besides the uber-rich? The Unions! Hell, I'd KILL for the healthplan you have...

I'm getting my facts from the facts, by the way, and no position or political party. We DO have tougher environmental policies than just those countries, but we do it by choice, and political pressure from the left, but it's the same left that say we need to join the Kyoto Protocol, which would make those standards even HIGHER and harder to comply with.

The fact is, if you have a HS diploma and can work with your hands, you deserve a job with benefits. But that's all you deserve. Not guaranteed pensions, not tenured health insurance for life for free, not things that 85% of the other segments of the workforce can't get....If you have a HS diploma and work at Wal-Mart, you can't even get ANY health insurance.

Bottom line? Unions are no longer serving their original intended purpose...it's undeniable.

Stlrs4Life
03-03-2007, 10:21 PM
Of course healthcare is an issue...but keep it in perspective. MOST workers who NEED heathcare have NONE. And they can't get it. No healthcare at all. What kind of health plan do you have? Healthcare is an issue for 80%+ Americans. You know who has it best of all besides the uber-rich? The Unions! Hell, I'd KILL for the healthplan you have...My healthplan? I pay for my health plan, not all of it, but I pay a monthly premium. f ya want the same, have your fellow employees grow some cajones and form a Union.

I'm getting my facts from the facts, by the way, and no position or political party. We DO have tougher environmental policies than just those countries, but we do it by choice, and political pressure from the left, but it's the same left that say we need to join the Kyoto Protocol, which would make those standards even HIGHER and harder to comply with.

The fact is, if you have a HS diploma and can work with your hands, you deserve a job with benefits. No kidding, so do I, obviously your buddies on the right don't feel the same. But that's all you deserve. Not guaranteed pensions, not tenured health insurance for life for free, not things that 85% of the other segments of the workforce can't get....If you have a HS diploma and work at Wal-Mart, you can't even get ANY health insurance.If Wal-Mart wasn't so far right or non american, it wouldn't be that way.

Bottom line? Unions are no longer serving their original intended purpose...it's undeniable.
No, what's undeniable, is the fact of pure jealousy of Unions. "Waaaah, Unions get this, unions get that, waaah, I can't get that. Oh well, join or form a Union, ya deserve it.

I think I said enough on this subject.

Suitanim
03-04-2007, 06:27 PM
I think you should read back to my Bellsouth job. It was a Union shop, and I refused to join. It made no sense to do so. It's not jealousy, either. It's common sense, or lack thereof. Unions should exist ONLY to protect exploited workers...and Dom, I'm sorry, but auto workers haven't been exploited in decades...

As for political posturing, I break with my party all the time. ALL the time. I'm at odds with a lot of Iraq policy, I hate the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration, and I'm not happy that Bush isn't willing to compromise on the current pro-Union legislation he's threatening to veto.

Let's get things straight...only one of us is 100% toeing the party line, and it ain't me. Unions are fallible, and they have cost this Country big time over the last 20 years. If they don't straighten up and start doing what they were formed to do in the first place, they deserve to go the way of the Dodo...

Suitanim
03-04-2007, 06:34 PM
Just for reference, I know Dom personally, and we have heated debates on this subject in person as well. But we respect each other and each others opinions, and there is nothing "personal" about this. We can argue and then laugh about it 30 seconds later. I want to make sure nobody gets the wrong impression.

Stlrs4Life
03-05-2007, 06:08 PM
Just because I'm a union man I'm toeing the party line? For your info, we have Republicans in the UAW to. Like I said before, get rid of the unions and see what happens to this country. We have fallen now, but we will be on our knees pretty soon.

Suitanim
03-06-2007, 04:32 PM
In a word, yes. You are blindly following the Union when they tell you that they are completely benevolent on only helping American workers, when the evidence is to the contrary.

A) Adding $1,000-$1,300 per vehicle
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070209/bs_nm/autos_upgrade_dc

B) Union greed. Dude, this was written by George McGovern, one of the most liberal men on the planet. This is VERY damning.
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=132196

C) Not protecting employees who are truly being exploited (But this article shows this may be changing)
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=6100&sectionID=19

D) Wages too high
E) Less ability to hire workers
F) Price their goods out the market
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/labor_unions.html

This can all be summed up with this quote:

Postscript: After completing the above, I noticed an article in The New York Times of September 8 that is too apropos to let pass with acknowledgment. The article, entitled “10 U.A.W. Leaders Find Unions are Losing Members’ Loyalty,” by Damon Stetson, reports that executives of the United Automobile Workers met to discuss the problem of workers’ increasing lack of loyalty to union leadership and union solidarity. One U.A.W. official is quoted as declaring: “How can we get greater loyalty from the individual to the union? All the things we fought for, the corporation is now giving the workers. What we have to find are other things the workers want which the employer is not willing to give him, and we have to develop our program around these things as reasons for belonging to the union.”

Stlrs4Life
03-06-2007, 05:22 PM
Like I said before, abolish the unions and we will be answering to China and Japan.


D) Wages too high? Yeah. Let's al go to barely above minmum wage. Nobody thinks of Cost of Living going up all he time.

Suitanim
03-06-2007, 05:35 PM
You should read the articles before you respond to them.

Stlrs4Life
03-06-2007, 05:44 PM
I read them. I even can agree with some of them. The Union needs to adjust, no doubt. Funny how the articles don't explain Corporate greed though. Imagine that. (Well the one article goes into it.But gives the same anti union answer.)

Suitanim
03-06-2007, 05:53 PM
Hey, I said it was 50/50 split. Corporate greed and Union greed combined equally to help destroy American manufacturing dominance.

Stlrs4Life
03-06-2007, 08:21 PM
Yeah, outside of corporate/union, other people aren't greedy. That's the number 1 thing wrong in America today, it isn't Drugs, it's Greed. Heck, nothing lasts forever. Even the Roman Empire had to fall someday.

Stlrs4Life
03-06-2007, 08:49 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06tues1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Suitanim
03-08-2007, 04:53 PM
I'm not greedy. I didn't join the Union because I saw absolutely no reason to...

But that's not the point. The Union being greedy wouldn't mean anything if they didn't have any power to flex that greed. Unfortunately, the Union was immensely powerful just not that long ago. Greed + Power = Wrecked American manufacturing.

There's just a few points to sum up. George McGovern himself says the Unions need to change. Union officials themselves are acknowledging that corporations are now freely offering what the Unions used to have to fight for. Union wages are on average 68% than the wages of non-union employees. That's way out of whack.

I'm in no way saying that Union workers should be paid $10 an hour. But I AM saying that workers who have a high school education or less should NOT be making 80k a year of wage/ benefit for turning a bolt. That cost will HAVE to be passed on to the consumer which WILL make the price of those goods so expensive that the employer can't compete. Look, EVERYONE thinks they make too little, but this is a case where real-life is showing what happens when big companies overpay their employees for decades. Something has to give, and it'll probably end in about a million US manufacturing auto workers losing their jobs.

Also, if the Union doesn't change, it will become extinct for failure to adapt in a capitalist free market society. You know who's fault that would be? It would be the Unions fault.

Stlrs4Life
03-08-2007, 05:18 PM
I'm not greedy. I didn't join the Union because I saw absolutely no reason to...

But that's not the point. The Union being greedy wouldn't mean anything if they didn't have any power to flex that greed. Unfortunately, the Union was immensely powerful just not that long ago. Greed + Power = Wrecked American manufacturing.

There's just a few points to sum up. George McGovern himself says the Unions need to change. Union officials themselves are acknowledging that corporations are now freely offering what the Unions used to have to fight for. Union wages are on average 68% than the wages of non-union employees. That's way out of whack.

I'm in no way saying that Union workers should be paid $10 an hour. But I AM saying that workers who have a high school education or less should NOT be making 80k a year of wage/ benefit for turning a bolt. That cost will HAVE to be passed on to the consumer which WILL make the price of those goods so expensive that the employer can't compete. Look, EVERYONE thinks they make too little, but this is a case where real-life is showing what happens when big companies overpay their employees for decades. Something has to give, and it'll probably end in about a million US manufacturing auto workers losing their jobs.

Also, if the Union doesn't change, it will become extinct for failure to adapt in a capitalist free market society. You know who's fault that would be? It would be the Unions fault.



I already said that they know they have to change. Everybody can see that. And they will, watch this Se[ptember to see how many concessions that they will be taking.


And with the cost of living constantly going up, everybody is underpaid. And I don't care if you graduate from HS and get a job making $80K a year, more power to ya, this is America. Sounds like some college kids are pissed and jealous that this can happen, when they get a 4 year degree to be book smart with no common sense they get jealous.

And it is Corporate greed, telll me some execs need $2million bonuses? Who is the greedy ones.


"I'm in no way saying that Union workers should be paid $10 an hour."


Well, it's already happening, Delphi already tried it.

And as far as Toyota, you don't think that they aren't manipulating the yen? Please.

Suitanim
03-08-2007, 05:38 PM
I already said that they know they have to change. Everybody can see that. And they will, watch this Se[ptember to see how many concessions that they will be taking.


And with the cost of living constantly going up, everybody is underpaid. And I don't care if you graduate from HS and get a job making $80K a year, more power to ya, this is America. Sounds like some college kids are pissed and jealous that this can happen, when they get a 4 year degree to be book smart with no common sense they get jealous.

And it is Corporate greed, telll me some execs need $2million bonuses? Who is the greedy ones.


"I'm in no way saying that Union workers should be paid $10 an hour."


Well, it's already happening, Delphi already tried it.

And as far as Toyota, you don't think that they aren't manipulating the yen? Please.

No, it's not that simple. You can't say "More power to ya". It's not realistic. Do you know that JC Penneys had a HUGE celebration when they achieved the goal of making a 1% profit? 1 cent per dollar! If they used Union labor, they would have lost 10 cents per dollar (Minimum...maybe much more) and would have gone bankrupt. It's not speculation or guesswork or jealousy, it's absolute fact. The cost of doing business, the bottom line or whatever is the most important thing in any business. Yes, CEO's make WAY too much money, but if Wal-Mart's Corporate bonuses were instead distributed equally to all their employee's, it would have equaled $20 an employee. Wal-Mart is awful and evil and I hate them, but they still only make 4 cents on the dollar...and they are the industry darling for profitability!

There is no sense for me to go on here...you aren't gonna budge, nor should you. You have you and yours and your 4 walls and you'll fight for it, but there is a much bigger picture going on that is much more complicated.

MasterOfPuppets
03-08-2007, 06:21 PM
In the real world, every employee has had to deal with rising healtcare costs. When the teachers don't, then who pays for it? The tax-payers. As a result, the average tax-payer ends up paying for his or her health-care, and then also the healthcare of the teachers. that doesn't seem fair to me. Why should the average person have to pay for someone else's healtcare?

couldn't this be said of all government employee's? i don't know about in your area,but in mine, the mailman makes as much or more than the average teacher. who pays the mailman? our tax dollars?? whats more important, your childs education, or your monthly subscription to home and garden?

Suitanim
03-08-2007, 06:39 PM
Complex issue...the problem with most arguments like this is that very few actually see all the sides of the issue, yet everyone has an opinion.

Teachers have a gripe...but they caused a lot of their own problems. The conditions are awful in schools because they have lost the ability to discipline students, but they are just obeying their own ultra-liberal tenants they adopted under Dr. Spock. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" worked fine for 10,000 years. I doubt many cavemen or Egyptians or Mesopytanians or Greeks or Romans or Gauls had problems with their students clubbing or spearing their teachers...

Suitanim
03-08-2007, 07:44 PM
Perfect example is George Will. Today's Op/Ed piece couldn't be more apropos when talking about finding common/middle ground. The problem with George is that, even though the far left liberals are supposed to be the bastions of all that is intellectual, Will talks above most of their heads. And he exercises common sense, which is not only not that common, but also anathema to the far left:

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/editorial/16858393.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

How conservative is conservative enough?

By GEORGE F. WILL, Washington Post columnist

WASHINGTON - The axiom is as old as human striving: The perfect is the enemy of the good. In politics, this means that insisting on perfection in a candidate interferes with selecting a satisfactory one.
Which is why the mood of many of the 6,300 people, lots of them college age, who registered at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference here, was unreasonably morose.
Sponsored annually by the American Conservative Union, CPAC is the conservative movement's moveable feast. Many at CPAC seemed depressed by the fact, as they see it, that the top three Republican candidates -- John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani -- are flawed. Such conservatives should conduct a thought experiment.
Suppose someone seeking the presidential nomination had, as a governor, signed the largest tax increase in his state's history and the nation's most permissive abortion law.
And by signing a law institutionalizing no-fault divorce, he had unwittingly but substantially advanced an idea central to the campaign for same-sex marriages -- the minimalist understanding of marriage as merely a contract between consenting adults to be entered into or dissolved as it suits their happiness.
Question: Is it not likely that such a presidential aspirant would be derided by some of today's fastidious conservatives? A sobering thought, that, because the attributes just described were those of Ronald Reagan.
Now, consider today's three leading candidates, starting with McCain, the mere mention of whose name elicited disapproving noises at CPAC. This column holds the Olympic record for sustained dismay about McCain's incorrigible itch to regulate political speech (``campaign finance reform''). But it is not incongruous that he holds Barry Goldwater's Senate seat.
McCain, whose career rating from ACU is 82 (100 being perfect), voted in 2003 against the prescription drug entitlement because of its cost. He is a strong critic of corporate welfare. And since 2003 he has been insisting that the mission in Iraq requires more troops -- even more than will be there during the current ``surge.''
Conservatives' anger about McCain coexists with others' discordant criticism of him for ``pandering'' to conservatives.
Astonishingly, a recent Vanity Fair profile accused McCain of ``toeing the conservative line'' on immigration, which shows that Vanity Fair does not know what that line is.
The journalistic rule is that conservatives pander, liberals ``grow.'' When Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Jesse Jackson and Dennis Kucinich changed from being pro-life to pro-abortion, their conversions, which were a price of admission into Democratic presidential politics, were often described as conscientious ``growth.''
But when McCain, who opposed Bush's tax cuts, concludes on the basis of the humming economy that they should be made permanent, this is called pandering.
At CPAC, Romney gave the most polished speech, touching all the conservative movement's erogenous zones, pointedly denouncing the ``McCain-Kennedy'' immigration bill and promising to seek repeal of the McCain-Feingold law regulating campaign speech.
Romney, however, is criticized by many conservatives for what they consider multiple conversions of convenience -- on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, gun control. But if Romney is now locked into positions that these conservatives like, why do they care so much about whether political calculation or moral epiphany moved him there?
Giuliani is comprehensively out of step with social conservatives, and likely to remain so. He probably assumes two things.
First, that some of the social issues have gone off the boil because argument about them seems sterile: Democrats have scant interest in federal gun-control legislation; scientific advances may obviate the need for using stem cells; cultural changes will do more than any feasible legislation can do to reduce abortion numbers; the way to change abortion law is to change courts by means of judicial nominations of the sort Giuliani promises to make.
Second, that his deviations from the social conservatives' agenda is more than balanced by his record as mayor of New York. That city was liberalism's laboratory as it went from the glittering metropolis celebrated in the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) to the dystopia of the novel Bonfire of the Vanities (1987). Giuliani successfully challenged the culture of complaint that produced the politics of victimhood that resulted in government by grievance groups.
He favors school choice, he opposes bilingual education that confines students to linguistic ghettos and he ended the ``open admissions'' policy that degraded City University, once an effective instrument of upward mobility. The suggestion that 9/11 required city tax increases triggered from Giuliani four adjectives: ``dumb, stupid, idiotic and moronic.''
Conservatism comes in many flavors. None seems perfect for every conservative's palate; most should be satisfactory to most conservatives.
Will is a Washington Post columnist.