Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FUNKED1 on October 30, 2005, 07:01:28 PM
-
This is amazing. Proponents (even some misinformed (or should I say disinformed...) people on this forum) are saying that it gives us the right to tell our unions whether they can use our dues for political purposes. But we already have that right! It's already provided for in existing law and there is a very clear Supreme Court ruling that has upheld it.
What 75 is really is doing is violating our privacy, and restricting our political freedom. They are trying to sell it as granting us new rights, but it's just the opposite. Basically the state is trying to control the political activities of all public workers in California, even for people not employeed by the State. If you live in California, please read the fine print very carefully on this one, and vote HELL NO ON 75.
-
And I bet the opposing view has some very interesting facts of their own the contradict the union propaganda that you posted
-
From the state ballot pamphlet:
Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement. Initiative Statute.
• Prohibits the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on a specified written form.
• Restriction does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefi tting the public employee.
• Requires public employee labor organizations to maintain and submit records to Fair Political Practices Commission concerning individual public employees’ and organizations’ political contributions.
For:
PROPOSITION 75 PROTECTS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FROM HAVING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TAKEN AND USED WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.
There’s a FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS IN CALIFORNIA:
• Hundreds of thousands of public employee union members are forced to contribute their hard earned money to political candidates or issues they may oppose.
• Powerful and politically connected union leaders—a small handful of people—can make unilateral decisions with these “forced contributions” to fund political campaigns without their members’ consent. The workers have
no choice—money is automatically deducted from their dues.
Against:
PROPONENTS ARE ONLY PRETENDING TO PROTECT WORKERS.
Prop. 75’s sponsor, Lewis Uhler, told the San Francisco Chronicle on June 8th that he designed 75 to target public employees because of their “greed” and “arrogance.” Uhler and the big corporations funding 75 aren’t trying to protect workers—they’re trying to silence them.
WORKERS ALREADY ARE PROTECTED
The U.S. Supreme Court says no public employee can be forced to join a union and contribute dues to politics. Union members already elect their own leaders and participate in internal decisions. Of course, not every
member agrees with every decision of the group. That’s democracy.
It seems that an individual worker can have his dues used against his wishes if he is in the union's minority. 75 would change that. That's the way I read it.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
And I bet the opposing view has some very interesting facts of their own the contradict the union propaganda that you posted
Just telling you the truth. The 75 proponents are simply lying.
-
It seems that an individual worker can have his dues used against his wishes if he is in the union's minority.
False. Communications Workers v. Beck, 1988, US Supreme court. Union members already have the right to opt out. The idea that we don't is a result of pro-75 disinformation campaign.
You'll hear the commercials about how the evil teachers union (CTA) uses dues against the will of teachers. Except they don't tell you that on the membership form for the CTA, there is a whole section where you get to stipulate how your dues get used. Not only can you deny them use of your dues for politics, you can also prevent them from sending any portion of your dues to the NEA.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It seems that an individual worker can have his dues used against his wishes if he is in the union's minority. 75 would change that. That's the way I read it.
The Federal (and State) Goverment can use an individual's "dues" (i.e. taxes) against their wishes. Why would a Union need to meet a higher standard?
-
Originally posted by Pei
Why would a Union need to meet a higher standard?
Easy answer. The state wants to restrict the political freedoms of workers.
-
Wait Funked. If this is already a federal law, then why does it matter if it gets passed or not?
If it does get passed, it won't change anything will it?
Oh by the way, you got a little something on your chin.
Nevermind, that's just your bias showing.
-
Man this place is gonna suck when Funked, Boroda, and Estel are all on the same team
;)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Just telling you the truth. The 75 proponents are simply lying.
And they simply say the same thing about your position Funky. Seriously the partys in favor of and against these props says the exact same thing about their opponents.
-
What's really funny to me is how the people who are against these new props are the people who complain the most about how corrupt or govt/state are. They always remind me of spoiled children who hate their parents because they didn't buy them a candy bar.
-
Hmm, not quite :)
Wife works for the State, unions contribute to the Anti 75 campaign while She Supports 75. Her money is still taken out and used to promote the opposite of what she wants.
Now, here is a simple solution. Pass 75, then every one of you keep contributing to the causes you support.
That is the fear. Many of the Union Members I know pay their dues, then contribute Larger Sums against campaigns that are funded BY their dues. That's just wrong.
If you want to fund your campaign, then fund it, but you can't use my wifes money to do it.
Union Dues are supposed to fund her work specific issues, not the top unions agenda.
And you wonder why Unions are Losing ground at a most rapid rate.
California elected Arny to clean up the mess out here. Of course people are going to be upset, especially those who Caused the mess.
The amount that the Unions are putting forward to defeat this initiative is Staggering. It Clearly is a huge issue with them, it's about the Funding! No one is saying you cannot vote, or get your message out. No One! No one tells me what campaign I can fund, nothing is stopping you from funding each and every campaign the unions put forward. The ONLY difference is they can't use someones money if they don't want it used. That's a Bad Thing? Is there That much fear that the majority of the Union Members DON'T agree?? If their message is solid this should have no bearing on their campaigns one bit.
This issue I "know" first hand, and am not basing my views on any soundbite, but from direct union negotiations and discussions. Unions are flat out Panicked by this initiative. I't doesn't stifle any individuals voice one bit, it clearly gives that individuals voice Back to it's rightful owner.
-
Funky, Funky the teachers union members got to you - perfectly undersatandable tho.... ;)
Anyway here is a nice summary of the thing which California voters should read..
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/entire75.pdf
-
Originally posted by Seraphim
What's really funny to me is how the people who are against these new props are the people who complain the most about how corrupt or govt/state are. They always remind me of spoiled children who hate their parents because they didn't buy them a candy bar.
I saw an add that was against the redistricting plan. There position.....giving three retired judges the power to draw the district lines was too much.
Seriously I don't know how californians actually listen to these commercials. Very few of them actually state facts.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wait Funked. If this is already a federal law, then why does it matter if it gets passed or not?
If it does get passed, it won't change anything will it?
Oh by the way, you got a little something on your chin.
Nevermind, that's just your bias showing.
Read the prop. And stow the Ad Hominem crap, kid.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
And they simply say the same thing about your position Funky. Seriously the partys in favor of and against these props says the exact same thing about their opponents.
Except my position is demonstrably true. Do you want a copy of my CTA membership form showing the boxes I checked to deny them use of my dues for NEA or political campaigns?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Funky, Funky the teachers union members got to you - perfectly undersatandable tho.... ;)
That's a silly thing to say. The reason I'm informed on this issue is specifically because I disagree with the CTA and NEA politics and have exercised my right to control what my dues go for.
-
Originally posted by Seraphim
What's really funny to me is how the people who are against these new props are the people who complain the most about how corrupt or govt/state are. They always remind me of spoiled children who hate their parents because they didn't buy them a candy bar.
What's really funny to me is how people who don't know anything about an issue will make nonsensical comments. They remind me of children who sniffed too much glue.
-
Here is the key, difference I think..
From an LA Times article - traditional mouthpiece of the anti labor right of course ..
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-labor10oct10,1,6529410.story?coll=la-headlines-california
(Current law does allow union members to block the use of their dues for political campaigns; the measure would require unions to ask approval in advance.)
Full article, also makes great reading to see split between union leaders (all political hacks of democratic party) and individual union members...
Prop. 75 Worries Union Leaders
# Many in the rank and file could support the measure, which would limit use of members' dues. Opponents have been slow to rally.
By Michael Finnegan, Times Staff Writer
With thousands of Californians already voting by mail, leaders of organized labor are increasingly anxious about the strength of their push to mobilize union members against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's November ballot measures.
Their chief worries are that many won't vote and that many of those who do will support Proposition 75, a measure fiercely opposed by labor leaders yet alluring to many in the rank and file.
ADVERTISEMENT
The measure, backed by Schwarzenegger, would bar government employee unions from spending members' dues on political campaigns without prior consent. Labor leaders fear it would sharply diminish their ability to make campaign donations, tilting the balance of political power in California toward business interests.
"We're not winning on this thing, and we've got to step it up," Steven Neal, a Los Angeles County Federation of Labor official, told scores of union leaders at a campaign breakfast last week in downtown Los Angeles. He likened the battle against Proposition 75 to a "sinking ship" in need of rescue.
The gathering, called by the labor federation, was designed to arouse a sense of urgency among union political operatives in fighting Schwarzenegger's agenda in the Nov. 8 election.
But the event also showcased the nervousness among union leaders, who fear that the Republican governor could pull off a victory with Proposition 75. Polls have found most voters support the measure, one of four Schwarzenegger is campaigning to get passed.
Passage of Proposition 75 would be a major setback to the nation's fractured labor movement. Unions representing more than 5 million workers have bolted the AFL-CIO this year, a rupture that has distracted the national leadership from labor's high-stakes clash with Schwarzenegger.
Within California, the split has not kept unions aligned with both national factions from working closely against Schwarzenegger. But Art Pulaski, leader of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, told union leaders at the breakfast not to expect the vast resources that national unions sent in 1998 to defeat then-Gov. Pete Wilson's campaign for a similar measure.
"The AFL-CIO and your national unions sent out carloads and planeloads of people here to help us do that campaign," he said. "That's not happening this year. They're busy with other things. They're relying on us."
The 1998 measure would have applied to all California unions; Proposition 75 covers only those for government workers. But more than half of the state's 2.4 million union members are public employees.
In an interview, Pulaski acknowledged that unions had been relatively late in starting to rally members against Proposition 75 and, most important, slow to start direct campaigning in workplaces.
After the breakfast, the county labor federation distributed thousands of fliers as well as wall charts for leaders of union locals to use in making workplace presentations opposing Schwarzenegger's ballot measures. Labor strategists say workplace campaigning is the most effective tool for solidifying the union vote.
The limited reach of such efforts was apparent last week at the Kaiser Permanente medical complex in Los Feliz.
Deidre Brown, 43, a medical records clerk wheeling a metal cart of files through the corridors, said she had heard nothing about Proposition 75 from leaders of her union, Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers-West. She said she trusted her union to spend her dues wisely but understood the appeal of getting members' consent for political spending.
"It makes sense to ask permission," she said.
"It sounds like a good idea," added Malcolm Drake, 59, another medical records clerk who said he had heard nothing about Proposition 75 from the union.
Both said they were undecided on Proposition 75. But their openness to voting for it illustrates the danger union leaders face: Their own members could defy them and nudge Proposition 75 into law.
Union leaders say members have been almost evenly split on the measure. Strategists say labor risks losing the campaign if support for Proposition 75 among union members fails to drop to 30% or lower.
In their first radio ad promoting the measure, the Yes on 75 campaign featured union members, mimicking labor's tactic against Schwarzenegger. "I've been a sheriff's deputy for 10 years," a man says in the ad. "I want the right to choose not to have my dues spent on a political campaign I disagree with." (Current law does allow union members to block the use of their dues for political campaigns; the measure would require unions to ask approval in advance.)
Lew Uhler, the conservative anti-tax advocate who led the drive to put Proposition 75 on the ballot, said the campaign would use "precisely the same approach" in upcoming TV ads. "A powerful way to present the message," he said, is to have "abused public employee union members" tell their stories.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Seriously I don't know how californians actually listen to these commercials. Very few of them actually state facts.
Well based on the posts on this board, a lot of Californians listen and believe. It's amazing.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
That's a silly thing to say. The reason I'm informed on this issue is specifically because I disagree with the CTA and NEA politics and have exercised my right to control what my dues go for.
It was meant to be silly, I even wanted to track town a picture of some zombies to put in the post but was too lazy.. Cool down. :)
Can you highlight the text sections of prop 75 that you find objectinable?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Current law does allow union members to block the use of their dues for political campaigns
Which is what the pro 75 people have been lying about repeatedly.
the measure would require unions to ask approval in advance.)
There's also a creepy government monitoring attached to the proposition.
-
BYO said it best,.................."We're gona 'sink with california when it falls into the sea'" chant 3x fast and you got the beat! say good by cali.......:O
-
(Current law does allow union members to block the use of their dues for political campaigns; the measure would require unions to ask approval in advance.)
So why be bothered about the change Funked? If the above statement is correct, the only change would be one of timing.
-
Grun:
5.9 d) and e) are what concerns me most. Basically the government gets a list of politically active union members. Invasion of privacy.
Also Sec 2a is misleading and 2d, 2e, 2f, and 3 are technically true but are describing situations that aren't happening and are already illegal under current law.
-
I've got a question!
Do I email McCarthy or Hoover? Which government body do I report crossdressing commies too! :D
-
The governor's other initiatives are real peachy too. More great education reform from the geniuses who brought us NCLB.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I've got a question!
Do I email McCarthy or Hoover? Which government body do I report crossdressing commies too! :D
The FDB.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Well based on the posts on this board, a lot of Californians listen and believe. It's amazing.
no no no no, I'm talking about TV commercials that state blatent lies....from both sides. It's funny to watch who pays for these commercials as well. Really how can you have two opposing views stating aleged facts on somthing that are completly opposite of eachother?
-
If you don't want me to insult your motives then don't openly wear them on your shirt.
The problem here is they are very very easy to pick out. You assume that people are lazy, and rightfully so most of the time.
The current law says that to have your dues not go to Political Campaigns you have to go out of your way to make it so.
This new law says that to have your dues go to Political Campaigns (and specific ones at that), the union leaders have to go out of their way to make it so.
You like the old law. Because most union members don't care enough or aren't outraged enough to actually go out to say that their money can't do so and so.
Unions openly support Democratic people. And since you do not support this bill, you show yourself as a Democrat. You show your bias and you show your bull**** here on this board.
You dread the day when your Democratic congressmen won't be getting free checks in the mail.
-
ROFL, he just called funked a democrat!
-
LOL, Funky the Democrat. You should quit the mind-reading gig, Laser, and find a different line of work.
-
Though, you must admit that funky is doing his best "Tom Tuttle from Tacoma" impersonation right now. It's as if the union has trapped him in the jungles and re-programmed him.
Otherwise he'd be cosidering if it's a matter of the state reviewing who has/hasn't "registered" or if it's a matter of following up on individual complaints.
Something like this is as simply as setting up a tiered dues system as opposed to the complete and total honor system the unions currently use. I don't know why anyone wouldn't trust the honor system.
-
hey funky... show me the boxes where I am suppossed to check to opt out of having my dues money go to your commie candidates..
I called my frigging public employees union and there is no way right now that I can opt out of supporting diane finestein or boxer... they told me that my "choice" was that I get to pick a union rep from the parade of commies.
I am only in the union because my crew is and it seems fair to support since they are the only barganing unit.
If prop 75 does not pass then I will simply opt out and quit the union. I can no longer support the commies that they give my money to.
prop 75 would allow every union member to continue to support your socialist buddies like finestein and ted kennedy if the union member so chose..
there is nothing in the prop that is a lie. To say that we allready have choice is a lie...
and... if some, like you do... why not pass it so that everyone has the same choice.... please tell me how 75 would be in the least unfair. How is giving people choice on supporting political causes with their own money unfair?
lazs
-
and... I support all the govs inititives.
vote yes on 73-77 and no on 78 79
unless you are a commie buddy of ted kennedy and diane finestein.
lazs
-
lazs2, can you really opt out of your union? Here if the 'shop' is union (not all though), you still have to pay union dues and have NO SAY in any union business.
-
yep... we can opt out... it is rare but ours allows it... it was part of the deal when we changed unions..
here is another hint for you union guys.... ALLWAYS drop your current union a year before negotiations... the new union will try their best at negotiations to impress you... the old one will allmost allways sit on their fat butt or sell you down the river... unions only try for the first year or so.
lazs
-
That's too bad you belong to an illegal union. You guys should wise up and consult law enforcement or an attorney. But I guess you guys are too busy failing (http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/uscities/pdf/whatsontap_ca.pdf) in your duties to the public. I think it's time to privatize all water treatment. You socialists are threatening our precious bodily fluids.
-
national resourses defense fund? LOL.... you sure know the lefty sites since you became a teacher... gonna go out on a whale watch with greenpeace too?
hey... I got no problem with privatization... I bid against em all the time... How bout you try to compete against real private schools in a real way with vouchers? I bid why don't you? is it because without the leftist politicos you support and force others to support that you are afraid people would get some choice in who teaches their kids? You are doing a horrible job so naturally you don't want any competition.... I must be doing an ok job since the competion loses the bid....
see how simple it all is? Protecting a job that you are doing badly is evil. but...
You never answered the question (big surprise there)...
What have you got against people haveing the right to choose or.... if you think that they do now.... what have you got against them getting a form to sign one way or the other?
You claim that you have boxes to check... I gurantee that most public employees never get any paperwork...
Why not make what you seem to get the law?
lazs
-
Why not make what you seem to get the law?
It already IS the law. Why don't you guys fix your own union instead of wasting everyone's else time with all this proposition bs and creepy government reporting system?
-
Big difference with this Prop is it makes people Opt IN & requires the union folks to prove it, versus requiring people to Opt OUT. I look at it as a measure to protect against unions illegally, corruptly influencing elections.
-
Funked, I already pointed out the difference between the current law and the new law.
Are you scared that unions will have to make an actual honest effort to find money to give to left candidates?
-
no... it is not the law... there is no law that requires unions to give us the forms to choose if we want contributions to go to the union or not..
And... what government lists? if it is indeed a law now that unions keep track of and remove political contributions from those who would ask tem to do so....
then the government allready has a LIST... if they don't have a list then the law is meaningless.... don't you get it? How does the governement check for compliance currently if there is no requirement to keep lists?
Soooo.... your fear about lists is just so much union fear tactic.
and... who would be afraid to be on a list that listed them as not wishing to contribute to a political candidate picked by someone else?
You do realize that... because you belong to a union that has those checkboxes..... you have put yourself on a "list".... you allready are on one.
no matter what.. the "list" would not say anything more than you did not wish to contribute to any political cause chosen by your union. It simply says that you will use your money for whoever you please.
Sooo... what other thing do you find so bad about giving people choice?
lazs
-
<------(munches popcorn, reflecting on the goodness of Providence, in that he neither lives in Kalifornia nor belongs to a union.)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no... it is not the law...
Communications Workers v. Beck.
And... what government lists?
You didn't even read the proposition, did you.
Why would a rugged individualist as yourself would want to create a redundant law and a redundant layer of bureaucracy to enforce it? .
Hell, you can't even be arsed to read the proposition or learn about the existing law. Is it just laziness? I don't understand people who expect the government to solve all their problems
-
I can think of many reasons why the government needs to Require public employee labor organizations to maintain and submit records to Fair Political Practices Commission concerning individual public employees’ and organizations’ political contributions and none of them are good. I don't understand why this is ok with anyone. This is the real meat of the issue, not the opt-in vs. opt-out of how the unions spend your dues.
g00b
-
I read everything I could about the proposition and the current law..
you are the one not reading it and avoiding answering.
the current law does not say that the union must take out only that portion of your dues that is used for political contributions...
What it really does is allows the unions to charge you for collective barganing... they can make you in affect... not a union member. you are only paying for and recieving the collective barganing.
if you choose this option then you will forfiet any other union benifiets like representation or any others. They are able to punish you if you don't support the candidates you hate. You are in effect not a union member... just someone who they bargin for at collective bargining...
What 75 does is make it fair... you pay for the things the union does for you but you either pay for the politica candidates they choose for you or... say... no thanks... I will pick my own political candidates... other than that, you remain a union member in every way.
and lists... If you are so afraid of lists then why did you put yourself on one?
The union told me that I could opt out of membership but still be part of the collective barganing if I paid a certain ammount to them..
When I said "no, I want to not pay the portion that goes to contribute to political parties and you can keep the money to go to widows and orphans fund or.... send it to the republican party for me every year." They told me that they could not do that. When I told them that they had taken away my right to choose what politics I supported they told me that I was wrong because I had the choice to elect a union member to vote for me and that I could pick him from the parade of commies that they gave me to choose from..
sooo.... you are missrepresenting what choice we have now. You are also not correct in saying that additional lists will be kept... It is being kept now.
There is no sensible reason to not vote for 75 and give people an easier chance to make a choice.
lazs
-
goob.... the lists are being kept now. under the current law and...
There is no list that tells who individuals contribute to in prop75..
Have either of you read the actual text of the prop that shows what the form would be? it simply asks if you would like your union to choose what political party your money goes to.
It does not say that you will or won't contribute to any party or person in any way. It just lets them use your money or it lets you use your money... what you do with your money is as secret as you keep it.
lazs
-
Here you don't have to pay union dues and they still must represent you, or you can sue the union. The one that gets you 4 weeks paid vacation, a decent wage, 9 paid holidays, and a decent pension(that won't get raided by corporate ceo's).
Damn unions
-
well i alrigthed voted by absentee..
voted yes on prop 75..screw thsoe unions
BUT...Lazs..I voted NO on teachers thing....It says in the text if its passed teachers can be fired WITH NO HEARING
I say No..
They LIE and say Teachers cant be FIRED right nOW..THAT is a LIE..they can and DO get fired...After a hearing
Arnold Sucks Diq....Im pissed that bch passed the 50 cal law..what a horror..He makes me sick...the politicans make me sick..makes me angry..Why doesn he Expose all there CRAP..and wasting money..Becuase hes pretty much one of them now...
-
I am not sure I understand the teacher one... I thought that "performance evaluation" meant that the performance of the teacher was evaluated. If that is the case then getting two bad evaluations should get you on the road to being fired..
The "gray" area here is that someone told me that "performance evaluations" in this case (no other I know of) meant that teachers were responsible for how the students did... that is not right to me.... If the teacher presents all the material and gives all the tests then how the students do is up to them.
so...I am sure that funky can straighten this out. which is it? I will vote according to what the answer is.
lazs
-
The official evaluations only look at how you teach. Does your course material comply with the curriculum standards and district and school policies? And are you doing an effective job of teaching that material?
There's a paper part (where you set goals in Q1 and have to show you accomplished them by Q4) and a subjective part where the evaluator (principal or vice principal) watches you teach and critiques you. If you fail in any of those phases you have to make an improvement plan, and if you fail at that then you start looking at disciplinary action or termination.
But, even if you did great on your official evaluation, but all your students were failing and parents were complaining, you can be sure that the next evaluation would magically not go so well.
Likewise it's unlikely you could pass the subjective part of the evaluation and be a total failure as an instructor.
However it's not like those evaluations are the only way you are evaluated. Those are just the only ones that say "Evaluation" on them.
There is a lot of stuff spelled out in the contract that you have to do, and there is a lot of unofficial stuff too.
Anyways to answer the question, the performance of your students is not an official part of teachers' evaluations, at least in my district. If there are low test scores or other low performance indicators, its the principals who take the heat.
-
What part of CA u from funked?
-
funked... then based on that and knowing how public employment works.... I would have to say that I would vote yes.
Evaluations are the only means of getting rid of an employee on the public role. All people who give performance evaluations are required to go to seminars to show them how to do them.... all public employees that I know of can protest their evaluations and have them reviewed by a department head/administrator. I do evaluations ... to get rid of someone I had better have some real viable and well documented data.
If your school has poor evaluation process then this prop would probly force them to take a look at doing fair evaluations.
gonna have to vote yes... this just seems like another area where teachers should not get a pass.
lazs
-
ok..the reason I voted NO
1) It takes away a hearing and ONLY relies on "evaluations"
2) When You move from one District to another ..you start all over with...and have to start over to get "tenure"
-
This is why my Mom, who had her masters degree and taught elementary school for 40 years wouldn't set foot in a public school for all the money in the world.
It was not uncommon for her to devise a test she knew most of the class would fail... just to get their attention. Try that in a public school.
-
The current system is fine with me, but 74 doesn't really bother me.
It puts more power in the hands of local government (school board), which is something I think we need in every aspect of government.
The only part I don't like about it is the state government dictating local hiring and firing standards. School districts and employees should be free to negotiate terms of employment without state interference.
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
BUT...Lazs..I voted NO on teachers thing....It says in the text if its passed teachers can be fired WITH NO HEARING
I say No..
They LIE and say Teachers cant be FIRED right nOW..THAT is a LIE..they can and DO get fired...After a hearing
wow. Why can't i be 18 yet? Ok let me try to get this through your head. Some teachers just need to go away quick. And let someone more capable do their job. A perfect example is my physics teacher. Ok here are notes. And then he just rambles on and in really we come out knowing nonthing. Then we do the lab and everyone ask questions and we fall very far behind the other class because their teachers explain stuff. Now i think why should be teaching when he does. All he does is grade. There should be no hearing, he should just go and quickly.
ok rant done.
-
A hearing? How is that more fair than the evaluation process?
I don't know how their evaluations work but if someone does not agree with my evaluation then they are allowed to discuss it with me and another department head where my evidense of what I say is true is brought out.
If I don't have enough documented evidence then the evaluation is changed..
what bothers me is that teachers seem to be living in some lala land where there are no rules. It works both ways...
they claim that tho... they are part time workers getting full time pay.... they really work a lot more hours than you and I and the rest of the unwashwed out there so deserve all kinds of concessions in pay... (like a zillion hollidays)
I say... prove it... if you need more time to do your work... ask for it and do it after your day is over AT THE FACILITY and getting overtime pay....
If you have a crappy evaluation system then lets get it out in the open instead of simply saying it is not good so we need to offer some sort of blanket protection for the likes of B17's physics teacher.. he don't sound like he is worth a protectionist program.
If evaluations were done in a legal manner it would be impossible for a good, or even adequate, teacher to getr two bad ones in a row.
lazs
-
and funked.... if you are a monopoly.... like teaching and public schools and you are funded by taxpayers money that can't be used by those it is extorted from for other schools (vouchers) then you had damn well better be regulated by some form of central government (the state).
You are asking that we be forced to support the public schools and that you will also self govern how they are run (programs, hireing fireing). If there were vouchers.... then you would have a point.
so long as you are the only game in town then there should be some clear cut rules that you follow that are the same from district to district.
this would include some sort of fair evaluation process so that everyone was on the same page and everything was out in the open. If the evaluation process needed to be modified (too harsh too lenient) then the modification would be universal across the state. out in the open.
lazs
-
I see what you mean, but I'd rather see the power in the hands of the local officials (school board). That's democracy.
-
that may be democracy... in the same way that 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner is "democracy"
I think you see my point.. if public schools are a monopoly then they need to be centrally regulated...
I am against both central regulation of enterprise (schools SHOULD be an enterprise/business) and monopolies but... like I said... if you are a monoply you need to be regulated.. imagine if you bought a home and you knew the school rules at the time... you don't even get your first tax payment sent off tho before the district goes off on some whacko binge that is at odds with every other public school in kalifornia... how right is that?
it may be democracy but.... who really want's a true democracy without protection of individual rights... I don't
If the way teachers were treated was out in the open and regulated then good and bad could be hammered out... now... it is just a mess with good teachers being fired and bad ones being protected depending on who is running that little fiefedom.
lazs
-
Lazs as a Libertarian I believe private is always better than public and if government must be involved then local is better than state or federal. Corruption is proportional to the square of the distance between the government and the governed. If I have to put my trust in an elected official I prefer a person I can meet and talk to, elected by my neighbors, over some rich fat cat off in a capitol building somewhere, elected by TV ads and corporate sponsors.
On that note, 74 does give more power to school boards and superintendents, so I will vote for it.
-
funked... as a person with libertarian leanings.... I don't want to give power to a small bunch of monopolistic governments... if I have to be governed... I want it to be across the board.. I want to fight only one devil not a myriad of em or... in this case... a new one every time I move.
In your case... you will encounter varying standards for the same exact monopoly that you are part of. If you think about it... any power you have to fight will be diluted.
lazs