[quote]ZEB wrote:
Currently the teachers have the “freedom” to place their interests above and beyond the students, and they do so on a regular basis.[/quote]
Without a doubt.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Currently the teachers have the “freedom” to place their interests above and beyond the students, and they do so on a regular basis.[/quote]
How so?
You wouldn’t expect your doctor or lawyer to put your interests above their own. Should a doctor sacrifice their child’s education to pay for your liver transplant? Should a lawyer turn down a case where they could pay off their own mortgage, to defend a penniless bum in court?
You know, the old saw about teachers ‘shouldn’t be in it for the money’ doesn’t fix the transmission, put a replacement roof on the house, or fund one’s retirement.
Nope. It surely doesn’t.
Funny how everyone is supposed to have their self-interest at heart, but not teachers.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Currently the teachers have the “freedom” to place their interests above and beyond the students, and they do so on a regular basis.[/quote]
Without a doubt.[/quote]
Thinking is good, Irish.
HH, why do you believe – if you actually do – that school districts who may wish to hire non-union teachers who wish to work for them should not be completely free to do so, without government interference or union thuggery?
Why do you believe, if you do, schools should be forced into a situation where they cannot fire bad teachers? E.g., NYC’s situation where they have to maintain a “rubber room” to keep the teachers that simply can’t be allowed to be with students.
Probably every school district in America has the problem of union teachers that are known to be awful but cannot be fired.
I thought you were a free market guy. Why doesn’t this apply to teachers?
If teachers are being fired because of their age that is age discrimination and no allowed in the US. It the districs are firing older teachers and hiring young teachers then I think we could find a lawyer to take this case.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Currently the teachers have the “freedom” to place their interests above and beyond the students, and they do so on a regular basis.[/quote]
How so?
You wouldn’t expect your doctor or lawyer to put your interests above their own. Should a doctor sacrifice their child’s education to pay for your liver transplant? Should a lawyer turn down a case where they could pay off their own mortgage, to defend a penniless bum in court?
[/quote]
But WHEN, my semi-retarded friend, do these people actually run around SAYING “We’re doing this alllll for you!”
No. It’s understood that they’re providing a service, and get paid accordingly.
But the teachers, as soon as they don’t get what they want, they cry, “But WE are doing this for the CHILDREN! Don’t forget about the CHILDREN!”
A member of the UAW is not putting leaf springs on cars for the common good- he’s putting them on cause that’s what he does. He still doesn’t deserve 100k a year for it, but at least they don’t run around pretending all they care about is the welfare of the individual cars rolling off the line.
LOL, you fucking hypocrite you. I’m never, ever going to let you live this down, your final breakdown and admittance that your ideas are only right when they don’t apply to you!
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I thought you were a free market guy. Why doesn’t this apply to teachers?
[/quote]
Because HE IS A TEACHER!
And like most of them, he will strike and picket even though he sits with Rand on his lap cursing socialists and collectivists from his chair!
Ridiculous!
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
HH, why do you believe – if you actually do – that school districts who may wish to hire non-union teachers who wish to work for them should not be completely free to do so, without government interference or union thuggery?
Why do you believe, if you do, schools should be forced into a situation where they cannot fire bad teachers? E.g., NYC’s situation where they have to maintain a “rubber room” to keep the teachers that simply can’t be allowed to be with students.
Probably every school district in America has the problem of union teachers that are known to be awful but cannot be fired.
I thought you were a free market guy. Why doesn’t this apply to teachers?
[/quote]
I am. The district is free to sign a contract with the union or not.
As for the rest of this: ask a cop if he likes protecting the rights of child molestors. If you do something, there’s always some attendent shit. That’s part of life.
I have to admit that this thread has taken a fascinatingly bizzarro turn in that HH is actually a rabid collectivist and Irish is taking the vehemently anti-union position.
Well done! LMAO!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I posted this in another thread, but do discuss would really pull the other off topic. It really deserves its own thread. It illustrates the unwillingness of the Teachers Union to give an inch, and the attitude of teachers who are partly to blame for some of the worst test scores in RI
RI school district to fire high school teachers
CENTRAL FALLS, R.I. - The superintendent of the Central Falls schools says she will fire every teacher at the high school after they refused to accept a reform plan.
The plan was offered under a state mandate to fix the school, which has among Rhode Island�?�¢??s worst test scores and graduation rates.
The plan included six conditions such as adding 25 minutes to the day and providing tutoring outside school hours.
The added work didn’t come with much extra pay and the teachers union refused to accept it.
[/quote]
Hmmmm…come out of school 50 or 100k in debt, take a job paying 35k pre-tax, teaching kids who have the manners of wild animals, and work pretty much every waking hour…
…so some governor can balance his budget on your back and scapegoat you.
Okay, that’s pretty stupid.
[/quote]
Bullshit.
Those teachers are making over 70K…in an area that averages less than 30. They work from 8am to 2:30…for 180 days a year…with built in personal improvment days and tons of bennies…
My mother in law retired with 4 FULL YEARS of sick time. FOUR YEARS. 720 DAYS of SICK TIME.
Thats insane.
Teacher is one of the most bullshit, blow off jobs of all time. Once they have lesson plans in place they coast for 40 years and cash out.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I thought you were a free market guy. Why doesn’t this apply to teachers?
[/quote]
Because HE IS A TEACHER!
And like most of them, he will strike and picket even though he sits with Rand on his lap cursing socialists and collectivists from his chair!
Ridiculous!
[/quote]
I don’t teach for the benefit of my students. I teach because I, me, myself, ENJOY doing so. I’m glad if someone benefits from my teaching (they do, thousands) but those people and their well-being is most definitely NOT my primary motivation.
My teaching, done my way.
I don’t take orders. I don’t compromise. I live and work for myself. And because of this, because I love what I do passionately, I produce top quality graduates.
Until you understand this and understand how grieviously you are infected with altruism, we are speaking different languages.
My work, done my way…or not at all.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
HH, why do you believe – if you actually do – that school districts who may wish to hire non-union teachers who wish to work for them should not be completely free to do so, without government interference or union thuggery?
Why do you believe, if you do, schools should be forced into a situation where they cannot fire bad teachers? E.g., NYC’s situation where they have to maintain a “rubber room” to keep the teachers that simply can’t be allowed to be with students.
Probably every school district in America has the problem of union teachers that are known to be awful but cannot be fired.
I thought you were a free market guy. Why doesn’t this apply to teachers?
[/quote]
I am. The district is free to sign a contract with the union or not.
As for the rest of this: ask a cop if he likes protecting the rights of child molestors. If you do something, there’s always some attendent shit. That’s part of life.
[/quote]
You are right they dont have to sign the contract, and if the district goes out to find teachers who want to teach the Union will do crap to their cars, and threaten to kill them. My Dad worked in Construction for years in managment, and when he said I am done with unions I am going to find workers who want to work, what did the Unions do. They had a couple of thugs threaten to kill him and his family when he left work one night. They also threatened to hurt the people that went to work at his company. May father had to have Police escort him from home to work every day for a couple of months because we kept getting phone calls and crap all the time. We were not rich we were a family of 5 living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house. We all know Union Thugs pull this crap all the time. You can see it on TV at pickett lines through out the country. They block the ways into the building and throw crap at people who want to work. The union even dehumanizes the people and calls them scabs.
Yeah right the district can not sign a union contract. You live in fantasy land.
This has become a very interesting thread to watch.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
HH, why do you believe – if you actually do – that school districts who may wish to hire non-union teachers who wish to work for them should not be completely free to do so, without government interference or union thuggery?
Why do you believe, if you do, schools should be forced into a situation where they cannot fire bad teachers? E.g., NYC’s situation where they have to maintain a “rubber room” to keep the teachers that simply can’t be allowed to be with students.
Probably every school district in America has the problem of union teachers that are known to be awful but cannot be fired.
I thought you were a free market guy. Why doesn’t this apply to teachers?
[/quote]
I am. The district is free to sign a contract with the union or not.
As for the rest of this: ask a cop if he likes protecting the rights of child molestors. If you do something, there’s always some attendent shit. That’s part of life.
[/quote]
You are right they dont have to sign the contract, and if the district goes out to find teachers who want to teach the Union will do crap to their cars, and threaten to kill them. My Dad worked in Construction for years in managment, and when he said I am done with unions I am going to find workers who want to work, what did the Unions do. They had a couple of thugs threaten to kill him and his family when he left work one night. They also threatened to hurt the people that went to work at his company. May father had to have Police escort him from home to work every day for a couple of months because we kept getting phone calls and crap all the time. We were not rich we were a family of 5 living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house. We all know Union Thugs pull this crap all the time. You can see it on TV at pickett lines through out the country. They block the ways into the building and throw crap at people who want to work. The union even dehumanizes the people and calls them scabs.
Yeah right the district can not sign a union contract. You live in fantasy land.[/quote]
How does someone doing illegal acts contradict anything I’ve said?
One can only conclude then that you’re saying unions should be outlawed because they may do illegal acts?
Very sound reasoning…
So do you object to this school, if it wishes to do so as it does, firing all the union teachers and hiring non-union, and do you support government action (as if that will happen with Democrats) that will imprison every union thug who attempts to intimidate / harm the employer or new non-union employees?
Do you have threads where you’ve expressed an opinion that the government should crack down on union thuggery? Or if not, would you rather that this occurred?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I don’t teach for the benefit of my students. I teach because I, me, myself, ENJOY doing so. I’m glad if someone benefits from my teaching (they do, thousands) but those people and their well-being is most definitely NOT my primary motivation.
My teaching, done my way.
I don’t take orders. I don’t compromise. I live and work for myself. And because of this, because I love what I do passionately, I produce top quality graduates.
Until you understand this and understand how grieviously you are infected with altruism, we are speaking different languages.
My work, done my way…or not at all.
[/quote]
Please Mr. Rand. Besides having a hardon for one of the ugliest, shittiest “philosophers” in the history of the world, you take your marching orders from a fucking union.
I love it.
There is nothing wrong with unions, they just have a tendency to over reach. Now I do not thinkg that public employees should be able to unionize since they have a contract with the state.
Teachers unions have done more harm then good IMO, tho I have never seen a problem with private school unions.
HH does bring up some good points, if schools are letting the older teachers go so they don’t have to pay them then yes they should have some sort of protection. If the state protects against it then there should be no union.
I am not seeing anything hypocritical out of HH, Irish have you even read Rand or did you just listen to your philosophy teacher when he/she said not to read her?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I don’t teach for the benefit of my students. I teach because I, me, myself, ENJOY doing so. I’m glad if someone benefits from my teaching (they do, thousands) but those people and their well-being is most definitely NOT my primary motivation.
My teaching, done my way.
I don’t take orders. I don’t compromise. I live and work for myself. And because of this, because I love what I do passionately, I produce top quality graduates.
Until you understand this and understand how grieviously you are infected with altruism, we are speaking different languages.
My work, done my way…or not at all.
[/quote]
Please Mr. Rand. Besides having a hardon for one of the ugliest, shittiest “philosophers” in the history of the world, you take your marching orders from a fucking union.
I love it.[/quote]
I don’t belong to any union. But people should be free to join/form unions, for the legal purpose of negotiating better wages, and so forth. Is that what you don’t like?
[quote]John S. wrote:
I am not seeing anything hypocritical out of HH, Irish have you even read Rand or did you just listen to your philosophy teacher when he/she said not to read her?[/quote]
I never thought of that. John, that’s a good point – so many libs do just that. Some lib prof or TV person says something, and the lazy fuckers let someone else do their thinking for them.
Kudos!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
If teachers want to be unionized and have all the benefits that thereby accrue to them - and by which they are protected from the “market” - they have to accept “low pay.” By the way, outside of a market what do we mean by “low” or “high” pay - low/high compared with what?
They can’t have it both ways.
Doctors and lawyers operate in a market. They are not tenured and/or pensioned on public funds.
HH is a fucking hypocrite.
[/quote]
So you don’t believe that people should be free to form unions? People shouldn’t be free to freely unite together for better pay? Even Ms. Rand believed that.
The Nazis closed down the unions. Is that what you’d like?
Tell us more, Hermann.
[/quote]
This thread is hilarious.
WTF are you talking about? Did I say anything about whether people should be free to form unions? As long as there is no force involved, unions are completely legal.
OTOH, schools should feel free to hire “non-union” teachers; because after all, the school is charged with giving our children a good education, not with supporting brain-dead dimwits who have somehow clung on to their job despite being really shitty at it.
Unless you think that the purpose of schools is to provide comfy union jobs?
Tell us more, Butt Hunter.