RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

servantforuse -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 12:26:20 PM)
In Wisconsin, teachers unions didn't negotiate with the state, they negotiated their contract with local school boards. In most cases there was no incentive for these boards to get the best deal for the people paying for them, the taxpayers. They had an open check book to give the teachers pretty much what they wanted. That is no longer the case here.

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 1:12:46 PM)
Unions often bargain for special privileges for their officials and agents, too. This includes “superseniority” for union agents, see Pasadena Area Cmty. Coll. Dist., 7 PERC ¶ 14205, 1983 WL 862747, *6 (PERB July 26, 1983), and paid “release time” for union agents to engage in union representational activities, see Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 3543.1(c), 3569, 3569.5; JA 172, 243-44 (release time agreements); 5 U.S.C. § 7131 (federal release time statute). In fiscal year 2012 alone, the federal government granted union agents 3,439,449 hours of paid time to perform union business, which cost taxpayers about $157,196,468.7

Musicmystery -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 1:15:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TwistedBindWeed To my way of thinking (true)negotiation is a 2 way process - not quick and labourisous but at least should lead to an outcome that both sides can agree to and be committed . The negotiation itself with the state takes months. Lots of input all the way around.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 2:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse In Wisconsin, teachers unions didn't negotiate with the state, they negotiated their contract with local school boards. In most cases there was no incentive for these boards to get the best deal for the people paying for them, the taxpayers. They had an open check book to give the teachers pretty much what they wanted. That is no longer the case here. That is the way it's done in Ohio, too. Interesting to note: The UAW negotiates a contract with Ford, and the UAW locals will negotiate with the local Ford plants they represent. So, just because Ford and the UAW come to a contract agreement doesn't mean that one plant's UAW workers won't go on strike. This was almost the case at the KC auto plant where the local UAW was on the verge of striking there as part of their negotiating stance, even though the UAW and Ford (Corporate levels) had come to an agreement. Where I work, we supply Ford with flooring for the F-150's, and KC trucks were being cancelled left and right, while the Dearborn facility wasn't cancelling much at all. ETA: The Ford-UAW anecdote was related only to show that locals negotiate with their own plants, like each local teacher union will negotiate with each school district. It was not used to imply that the UAW is acting as a public union; the UAW is a private union. It is also not to be misconstrued that I support barring a private union from striking during negotiations (which I do support for public unions).

thompsonx -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 2:41:08 PM)
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux What public benefit do teachers unions convey? They clearly failed with you.

thompsonx -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 2:52:03 PM)
ORIGINAL: servantforuse In Wisconsin, teachers unions didn't negotiate with the state, they negotiated their contract with local school boards. In most cases there was no incentive for these boards to get the best deal for the people paying for them, the taxpayers. They had an open check book to give the teachers pretty much what they wanted. That is no longer the case here. Wisconsin is pretty high up now lets see where they wind up after these changes.

thompsonx -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 2:54:53 PM)
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Unions often bargain for special privileges for their officials and agents, too. This includes “superseniority” for union agents, see Pasadena Area Cmty. Coll. Dist., 7 PERC ¶ 14205, 1983 WL 862747, 6 (PERB July 26, 1983), and paid “release time” for union agents to engage in union representational activities, see Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 3543.1(c), 3569, 3569.5; JA 172, 243-44 (release time agreements); 5 U.S.C. § 7131 (federal release time statute). In fiscal year 2012 alone, the federal government granted union agents 3,439,449 hours of paid time to perform union business, which cost taxpayers about $157,196,468.7 Why do you have a problem with $35 an hour for educateded people? Do you think they should work for free?*

bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 3:32:38 PM)
a couple of things--one is, the dollar amount divided by the hours is 45, not 35. secondly, there's no presumption anywhere that anyone is educated, or at what level, nor that the work they are engaging in requires education of any particular level such that 20 dollars an hour isnt more appropriate. but most importantly, you seemingly think its morally appropriate for union members to get paid in this instance, not for doing the jobs specifically for which they are hired, but rather, for doing "union business?" to put that in perspective--the taxpayers are paying union leaders to bargain & lobby, hold meetings, do union training, etc, all the while not doing their ACTUAL jobs while they are engaged in those activities. its a liberal scam.

thompsonx -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 4:00:06 PM)
ORIGINAL: bounty44 a couple of things--one is, the dollar amount divided by the hours is 45, not 35. You are right I stand corrected....Why do you have a problem with $45 an hour for educateded people? Do you think they should work for free? secondly, there's no presumption anywhere that anyone is educated, or at what level, nor that the work they are engaging in requires education of any particular level such that 20 dollars an hour isnt more appropriate. Why do you believe that school teachers are uneducated or that they would be represented by those who are not educated? The last time I worked for $20 an hour was 1972. My niece teaches junior high in southern california and her starting sallary in 1995 was $55k @ year with a ba and a teaching credential she now has two masters to add to that and she gets$85k per year. Gasoline runs between 3 and 4 dollars + per gallon, a cheap toyota is 25k, houses cost a quarter of a million. Bread is no longer .19 cents a loaf and eggs no longer cost .25 cents a dozen. Get a grip and come into the 21 century. but most importantly, you seemingly think its morally appropriate for union members to get paid in this instance, not for doing the jobs specifically for which they are hired, but rather, for doing "union business?" You, comrade think people should work for free. to put that in perspective--the taxpayers are paying union leaders to bargain & lobby, hold meetings, do union training, etc, all the while not doing their ACTUAL jobs while they are engaged in those activities. Wrong again, the taxpayers are not paying a phoquing thing...the school board is paying. Once you pay your taxes to run the government that money is the govt's to spend not yours. its a liberal scam. As uasual comrade, you want slaves to work for you for free.

vincentML -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 4:06:29 PM)
~FR~ Florida is very much a rtw state. In all the many years I taught in Miami I was not obliged to pay union dues. However I benefited from whatever pay increases and working condition improvements were negotiated between the union (all former teachers) and the district administration. I coulda been a free-loader instead of working on this stinking dock. Of course, the union had no obligation to provide legal counsel to freeloaders whose jobs were in jeopardy. But not to worry. We know how kind administrators, parents, and kids are to their beloved teachers. Never any false accusations. [8\|] Tenure was not vested until after five years passed. During that time teachers were on probation, and could be let go. Administrators had plenty of time to evaluate the teaching skills and attitudes of teachers. The purpose of tenure was job protection, not to sort quality. Being employees of the government teachers are protected by the Bill of Rights free speech clause. And the right to assemble (join organizations) These rights became part of the contract. So, a teacher could not be fired because he expressed an opinion or taught a subject which the administrator found distasteful. Thus, was I able to introduce a section of sex education in my biology classes despite the intense Catholic abstinence doctrine of my administrator, and Planned Parenthood sent me a speaker to demonstrate birth control methods. It is true that each union negotiated with the local district. Miami-Dade County had 250,000 students back in the day. I suppose I coulda gone downtown and demanded my own separate pay scale. [sm=to_clean_smiley7.gif] Even the administrators had their own union. The called it an association. Strikes were unlawful and not one happened in all the decades I was employed there. Education funding was collected by the state and allocated to the various districts on a per student basis, so there was little disparity between big and small districts. The union and district bargained on how to cut up the pie of funds allocated by the state. The system worked. I hope this explanation of my experience puts to rest some of the bullshit misconceptions posted above.

vincentML -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 4:12:47 PM)
quote: to put that in perspective--the taxpayers are paying union leaders to bargain & lobby, hold meetings, do union training, etc, all the while not doing their ACTUAL jobs while they are engaged in those activities. Absolutely horrendous bullshit. Union people were paid by the union, not the district, and worked at their union jobs full time. At no time was class time used. Fucking, ignorant lies.

sloguy02246 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 5:32:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: to put that in perspective--the taxpayers are paying union leaders to bargain & lobby, hold meetings, do union training, etc, all the while not doing their ACTUAL jobs while they are engaged in those activities. Absolutely horrendous bullshit. Union people were paid by the union, not the district, and worked at their union jobs full time. At no time was class time used. Fucking, ignorant lies. That is correct. The union pays their officers and stewards for time spent on union business, including grievance resolution, arbitration, and contract negotiations.

MrRodgers -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 7:01:39 PM)
To me, the whole problem is that it seems both sides really want an all or nothing regime. My problem with any govt. employee union is that they are not negotiating with a for-profit institution, i.e., private money. They are in fact negotiating against the taxpayers. Yes, the taxpayers because it is the taxpayers that fund the state, counties and districts. While I am a firm believer in private unions and collective bargaining, I do believe we need a federal standard for regulating govt. employee unions and because the parties are not negotiating the division of private wealth and funded benefits. I spent most of my adult life in the no. Va. area about 10 miles west of DC. The whole area is dominated by federal govt. employment. Federal employees have received something like 45 raises in 50 years and all you have to do to get them...is show up. There is no way on hell private industry provides such riches. Unions and congressmen...kiss their asses for votes. I am telling you that by comparison, not only do most white collar fed. govt. employees make more than their private industry counterpart, a white collar fed. govt. job is just about the best fucking job...in the world. Plus, this necessarily inflates the salaries of the higher level (usually Bach, often Masters deg) private industry white collar jobs to compete. DC area...3rd highest cost-of-living area in the country for that last 40-50 years. Gee, I wonder why.

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 9:56:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Unions often bargain for special privileges for their officials and agents, too. This includes “superseniority” for union agents, see Pasadena Area Cmty. Coll. Dist., 7 PERC ¶ 14205, 1983 WL 862747, 6 (PERB July 26, 1983), and paid “release time” for union agents to engage in union representational activities, see Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 3543.1(c), 3569, 3569.5; JA 172, 243-44 (release time agreements); 5 U.S.C. § 7131 (federal release time statute). In fiscal year 2012 alone, the federal government granted union agents 3,439,449 hours of paid time to perform union business, which cost taxpayers about $157,196,468.7 Why do you have a problem with $35 an hour for educateded people? Do you think they should work for free?* I think the workers should pay the union representers whatever they think their representation efforts are worth. I don't think its wise for the tax payer to pay the union to make the taxpayer pay more - do you?

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 10:15:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML ~FR~ The system worked. I hope this explanation of my experience puts to rest some of the bullshit misconceptions posted above. Funny how your definition of "the system working" said nothing about the students. In 1997 the graduation rate was just 53%. Kids reading to grade level were 34.9%. Riots happened in Mays, Edison, Northwestern.. the list goes on. 17% of teachers had their children enrolled in public schools. The reason FCATs & no child left behind passed was because of the abject failure of public schools. No child left behind estanblished standards in some fields and increased teacher accountability. Miami Dade public schools once in the bottom quartile are now in the top 8. Even with that - charter school growth in Miami Dade continues at 15% per year on average, and the percentage of students educated in the public schools declines each year. Parents of charter schools - 70% of them give their schools overall grades of an A. The figure for public schools is 26%. Public schools (2011) received $10,154 per student. Charter schools received $8,047. http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/charter-funding-inequity-expands-fl.pdf And charter schools exceed public schools on standardized tests at EVERY grade level. So, while I realize the union worked for you .. it clearly didn't work for the students or tax payers. Worse results, much lower parental satisfaction, lower standardized scores.

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 10:36:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux No less people than Gompers, Meany, and FDR were against unionizaton of the public sector. The documents filed with the supreme court say strikes are 26x more likely to occur with unionized teachers than rtw teachers. And the durations are longer. In an employee / employer situation the employer has a reason to fight the unions. Our public "servents" rely on votes - and so too often do not have an adversarial relationship. Just the opposite. Before unions, strikes were common -- as many as 26/year. That number dropped dramatically with collective bargaining to 0-2/yr. You are incorrect. Popular "wisdom" but the briefs at the court show exactly the opposite. Strikes at union represented school districts occur 26 times more often than RTW states. If you think I am incorrect - find me a section from the Supreme Court amicus that supports your belief. Sounds like an apples and oranges situation. In New York City, for example, and New York State generally you're wrong. In fact, NY officials are practically begging for the court to uphold current law for this reason. At the very least, you're cherry picking. What a surprise. Democratic city officials and democratic unions both want to give public money to the unions. Are you really suprised their begging. Really?

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 10:39:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: to put that in perspective--the taxpayers are paying union leaders to bargain & lobby, hold meetings, do union training, etc, all the while not doing their ACTUAL jobs while they are engaged in those activities. Absolutely horrendous bullshit. Union people were paid by the union, not the district, and worked at their union jobs full time. At no time was class time used. Fucking, ignorant lies. We're not talking florida vincent. I'm the one that provided the citation. It came from a court case, which is cited above, and those findings were accepted by the court. To put it flatly - you're wrong.

MrRodgers -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/16/2016 11:09:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: to put that in perspective--the taxpayers are paying union leaders to bargain & lobby, hold meetings, do union training, etc, all the while not doing their ACTUAL jobs while they are engaged in those activities. Absolutely horrendous bullshit. Union people were paid by the union, not the district, and worked at their union jobs full time. At no time was class time used. Fucking, ignorant lies. We're not talking florida vincent. I'm the one that provided the citation. It came from a court case, which is cited above, and those findings were accepted by the court. To put it flatly - you're wrong. I will flat out confirm the same thing. Here in Las Vegas and Nevada, the taxpayers pay the union staff for the time spent working on union affairs and that time comes to 10's of thousand$ if not often more, every year. Then in general, you add up state and city retirement benefits, its long since become outlandish. That's how NY, Det. other communities and the city of Berlin...went bankrupt. Well NY and Berlin didn't technically, because they were special, they got a federal bailout.

bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/17/2016 4:07:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: to put that in perspective--the taxpayers are paying union leaders to bargain & lobby, hold meetings, do union training, etc, all the while not doing their ACTUAL jobs while they are engaged in those activities. Absolutely horrendous bullshit. Union people were paid by the union, not the district, and worked at their union jobs full time. At no time was class time used. Fucking, ignorant lies. I don't know if this is the same case/state/ phydeaux had referenced or not, but here it is. http://capitalresearch.org/2013/02/official-time-taxpayers-paying-for-union-work-is-officially-a-scam/ its called "release time" and yeah, you were not only wrong as others have pointed out (and that you should have understood from the very first post on it since it was a court case) but you were also abusively so and need to apologize.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (1/17/2016 8:48:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML ~FR~ Florida is very much a rtw state. In all the many years I taught in Miami I was not obliged to pay union dues. However I benefited from whatever pay increases and working condition improvements were negotiated between the union (all former teachers) and the district administration. I coulda been a free-loader instead of working on this stinking dock. Of course, the union had no obligation to provide legal counsel to freeloaders whose jobs were in jeopardy. But not to worry. We know how kind administrators, parents, and kids are to their beloved teachers. Never any false accusations. [8\|] Tenure was not vested until after five years passed. During that time teachers were on probation, and could be let go. Administrators had plenty of time to evaluate the teaching skills and attitudes of teachers. The purpose of tenure was job protection, not to sort quality. Being employees of the government teachers are protected by the Bill of Rights free speech clause. And the right to assemble (join organizations) These rights became part of the contract. So, a teacher could not be fired because he expressed an opinion or taught a subject which the administrator found distasteful. Thus, was I able to introduce a section of sex education in my biology classes despite the intense Catholic abstinence doctrine of my administrator, and Planned Parenthood sent me a speaker to demonstrate birth control methods. It is true that each union negotiated with the local district. Miami-Dade County had 250,000 students back in the day. I suppose I coulda gone downtown and demanded my own separate pay scale. [sm=to_clean_smiley7.gif] Even the administrators had their own union. The called it an association. Strikes were unlawful and not one happened in all the decades I was employed there. Education funding was collected by the state and allocated to the various districts on a per student basis, so there was little disparity between big and small districts. The union and district bargained on how to cut up the pie of funds allocated by the state. The system worked. I hope this explanation of my experience puts to rest some of the bullshit misconceptions posted above. Thanks for the insight, Vincent! I do enjoy hearing about first-hand experiences to see if a better way can be determined. In Ohio, the state does dole out $$ on a "per student" basis, but local real estate taxes also support the school systems. Thus, a school district located in a far more affluent area has fewer funding issues than a district in a less affluent area. The State takes that into account, and can increase or reduce the per student $$. In the Toledo area, Toledo Public Schools have the second highest per student spend. Ottawa Hills school district has the highest per pupil spend. 2012 School District: per pupil $ (Federal $; State $; Local Residents) 2014 PI score (state ranking system) Ottawa Hills: 13,501 (251; 3,096; 10154) 111.127 Anthony Wayne: 8,960 (356; 2,915; 5689) 106.990 Sylvania City: 10,660 (432; 3,201; 7027) 104.786 Maumee City: 11,232 (596; 3,558; 7078) 102.044 Springfield: 9,118 (740; 2,517; 5861) 99.660 Oregon City: 9,874 (900; 3,966; 5008) 98.247 Washington: 11,225 (931; 4,492; 5802) 96.450 Toledo City: 12,470 (1,782; 6,970; 3718) 82.837 Ottawa Hills is ranked 10th (according to the PI ranking) out of 808 Ohio Public School Districts, while Toledo City is ranked 705th (Top PI score was 113.013; lowest was 72.050). Clearly, per pupil spend isn't the best metric for predicting school performance. (SOURCE) Using per pupil spend for "instructional" purposes (includes teachers, aides, etc.), the $$ get a whole lot closer (in PI rank order): Ottawa Hills: 9,177 (68.0%) Anthony Wayne: 5,243 (58.5%) Sylvania City: 5,804 (54.4%) Maumee City: 6,895 (61.4%) Springfield: 5,903 (64.7%) Oregon City: 5,746 (58.2%) Washington: 6,482 (57.5%) Toledo City: 6,582 (52.8%) Toledo City's spending for instructional purposes only, is just over half their per pupil spend (52.8%), and lowest of the Lucas County public schools. Ottawa Hills instructional spending is tops at 68.0%, but the list doesn't really line up with, most/least, to PI rankings, either. All the school districts other than Toledo Public would be considered "suburban" areas. It might be interesting to see how the State would collect and divvy up the money if the local funding were to be taken out of the equation. I just don't see that happening, though. Another part of the problem is the non-instructional spending. Sure, there will always be administrative spending (Toledo Public is second only to Ottawa Hills in the area), and maintenance spending, but there is also the support spending on "social welfare" programs, like school lunches (and breakfasts, etc.) that Toledo Public has to deal with to a much greater extent than any other district in the area. Many of those programs are/were required by Federal law, but adequate funding wasn't granted. For all those people who don't have kids in school (or pay extra for them to attend a prep school), your local school district still impacts your property values. The better the schools, the more attractive the area is, leading to a higher value on your property. So, you still have some profit from good schools, even if your kids aren't attending.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625