On Milton teachers take action
Posted on November 17 at 4:28 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Well, that's partly my point: Left to their own devices, managment is going to 'give' anything they can't squeeze out. We have those very laws you cite because of what management did in the past--in response to what management did in the past. (And, today, OSHA has been so gutted in terms of penalties, it's often cheaper to pay the fines, than make the required changes.). But that's not my main point. My main point is, we are so busy complaining that the 'we don't get, so the other guy shouldn't either', we play right into managements' long term strategy of lowering the standards for everyone. As just ONE example, look what's happened to pensions in the last decade: Those that still have them have gone from defined benefit to defined contribution. That hurts all workers.
On Milton teachers take action
Posted on November 17 at 4:01 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Creative--I look back at how workers were treated before unions were allowed--wasn't pretty. And, while I agree that wages/benefits for workers at G.M. became an issue, let's face it: Management was part of that 'tango'. But I still think it smacks of sour grapes when one group of workers doesn't get what they should get, and in turn, get ticked off at those who do.
On Milton teachers take action
Posted on November 17 at 1:40 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
It really sucks to NOT be the one with a job, or NOT be the one who gets a raise, or NOT be the one that has a job with benefits. But, the arguments on this blog that offer scorn to those who do should realize this: This is the first time in our history that our children will likely NOT have it better than we do. Yeah, maybe the teacher's union will get a raise. Or better health insurance. Or something else. But the more unions that are successful in getting their employees a better financial package, the more that the 'financial/benefits floor' becomes becomes better for everyone. We can't keep supporting the concept of working DOWN the ladder of success.
On Panel recommends dismissing case against justice
Posted on November 13 at 10:45 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
RAF--Well, we both agree on your point about truth in advertising. And, blame for that must be placed square at the feet of "N.Y. Times v. Sullivan" Imagine how different elections would be if a candidate actually had to tell the truth? PanamaRed--that was a GREAT analogy about loopholes! I'd offer a high five, but, instead, let's see if we can get Mr. T. started again, so--here's a fist-bump. The State of Oregon has had some notable success in local political races being all publicially financed. Might be something to look into for the supremes' races, if we still keep them 'elected'. Can you all imagine the chaos in elections if the U.S. Supremes rule in favor of Citizens United?
On Panel recommends dismissing case against justice
Posted on November 12 at 4:59 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Mr. T--You make me think that perhaps we need to bring back poll tests--make them legitimate this time (not like the past)--but require people to show some version of an I.Q. before letting them vote.
On Shoplifting
Posted on November 12 at 4:48 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I noticed at least one common denominator--the 'lessons' to be learned were from parents who were available to see that something had been stolen, and willing to teach their child a value. Having the 'system' take care of it teaches a consequence to avoid, not a value to learn. There is a relatively short time period--age wise--that a child will 'learn' this way.
On Panel recommends dismissing case against justice
Posted on November 12 at 4:20 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Mr. Twain--As the saying goes, 'Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Perhaps you will enlighten us with the FACTS that somehow got past the Judicial Commission, resulting in these 'trumped up' charges?
On Panel recommends dismissing case against justice
Posted on November 12 at 3:06 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Apparently for the panel it is.
On Panel recommends dismissing case against justice
Posted on November 12 at 12:56 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Note to self: Try to maintain a straight face when you get to the part about 'judicial ethics' in the full decision.
Page 1 of 31 | Next
On Milton teachers take action
Posted on November 19 at 12:40 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Rossnmeg--You raise some good points. One thing I wanted to add about the 'new teachers getting screwed'--you mentioned that THAT is bargained for, and I think that's important to explain a bit more. I have seen other unions bargain for just the opposite, where the front end is loaded, so that teachers get to the upper end of the scale more quickly. So, it's their choice, in a way, and there are pro's and con's for each. One other thing for readers to realize, is that there is also the issue of 'topping out'--when teachers reach the top 'step' of the pay scale. In some contracts, that means the only raise those teachers get is IF any of the overall 'package' is alloted to 'cost of living' increases. Some don't, especially if the raise is front loaded, as discussed. I'm not sure what the WEA does. And, I'm not advocating which way is right or wrong, just adding some additional info.