Union Jobs vs. Children's Lives

www.reason.tv...

In politics everyone claims to be on the side of the children, but who really is? Pat DeLorenzo is a parent whose daughter suffers from epilepsy. Like roughly 10,000 other epileptic schoolchildren in California, eight-year-old Gianna suffers from the type of prolonged seizures that, without immediate attention, can result in brain damage or death. After witnessing the response of teachers and school nurses to one of his daughter's life-threatening seizures, Pat DeLorenzo now believes that teachers and nurses care more about protecting union jobs than saving epileptic children.

Unions care about their monthly dues to pay their lobbyists. Unions have been screwing Americans for decades, and they are now targeting children. This story goes WAY beyond just this one drug.

Any drug that can be administered via syringe is easy to give quickly (with training), and the ones that most often need to be given when even minutes can mean the difference between life and death are even easier, e.g. epinephrine. It can take 10 minutes for a school nurse to get supplies and run to a classroom.

If teachers were trained for giving simple care immediately it could better the lives of thousands of children. But the unions get in the way.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Quaght]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Quaght]

You are wrong. The unions wanted trained medical personnel to handle administering the epileptic drug instead of volunteer school nurses.

Unions have protected workers from unsafe working conditions and stood up against companies overworking it's employees for decades. Thanks to unions we have:

Minimum wage
40 hour work week
Overtime pay
Paid vacations
No child labor
Safety standards
Pensions
Better health coverage

www.epi.org...
www.aflcio.org...
wiki.answers.com...

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip


I second everything this guy said.

OP, what are you smoking? You've got it all backwards.

Reminds me of Mr. Shanker:

“When school children start paying union dues, that 's when I'll start representing the interests of school children.”

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Quaght

Ummm...why not bring back school nurses? Seems to me that dumping the nurses was a ploy brought to you by those same folks that decreed catsup to be a vegetable, for the purposes of school lunches.

How about a headline that says "Tax cuts for the rich more important than school nurses"?

If it wasn't for unions, you'd be working from the age of 8, from dawn until dusk, no breaks, and horrible pay with deplorable conditions and rat infestations.

I agree with 12guage.

Now, that's not saying there aren't flaws in the unions...
I think that some union workers take advantage of things. (personal experience)
I especially hate the fact that I can work twice as hard as another union member and still get paid the same.
No matter how much he sleeps...he still gets the same pay as me.

That grinds my gears.

Back to the OP:
If there was adequate coverage and more money to pay for the actual nurses (more than just one), to take care of the children, this wouldn't happen.
But then again, this story doesnt even remind me of a conspiracy.
So....


:up

Originally posted by havok
If it wasn't for unions, you'd be working from the age of 8, from dawn until dusk, no breaks, and horrible pay with deplorable conditions and rat infestations.

Now corporations are moving their jobs overseas where people are working from the age of 8, from dawn until dusk, no breaks, and horrible pay with deplorable conditions and rat infestations.

On top of that government unions, are sucking in so much money that future generations are going to be working from the age of 8, from dawn until dusk, no breaks, and horrible pay with deplorable conditions and rat infestations.

Unions might have started out for noble causes but times have changed. What unions are doing now is acting like vultures trying to squeeze whatever is left out of an already dying U.S.

Originally posted by wutone
Unions might have started out for noble causes but times have changed. What unions are doing now is acting like vultures trying to squeeze whatever is left out of an already dying U.S.

No company gets a union that doesn't deserve one. And what are they doing now? Actually, going overseas to raise the bar in those countries where workers are every bit as exploited as they would be here.

Unions raise the bar for every worker...unionised or not. Blame the corporations that send their labour overseas...they are now paying pennies instead of dollars, but are YOU, the consumer, seeing the difference?

No! It is being sucked up by Wall Street. Sorry...you have it all wrong.

I agree that way back when unions paved the way for better jobs, working conditions and pay. But their time is over. They've gotten too big and too greedy. A well-timed strike gets them what they want at the expense of the American public. Not to mention the fact that while they are picketing they aren't getting paid, and if anyone decides their family is more important than walking in a circle they are threatened with violence or, worse, actually harmed.

I've never worked at a job with a union. I got good pay, good benefits, time off, clean working conditions, treated fairly. It's been working for me for over 25 years. Never needed a union, never knew anyone that did.

“When school children start paying union dues, that 's when I'll start representing the interests of school children.”

Exactly this.

/Q

Originally posted by Quaght
I've never worked at a job with a union. I got good pay, good benefits, time off, clean working conditions, treated fairly. It's been working for me for over 25 years. Never needed a union, never knew anyone that did.

Then you are fortunate...many are not so and when that happens, they organise. Like I did. And as a former chief steward I can tell you that even the most progressive employers can try to get away with crap.

You forget that a collective agreement is a contract signed by both parties, and it falls to the union to police that contract along with HR. The fact that withdrawal of labour is the only real power the worker has is unfortunate...nobody likes to strike. But management doesn't like going to binding arbitration, and can you guess why? Because arbitrators generally side with the unions.

What does that tell you?

The cheap labor conservatives have been on a smear campaign of the unions for years, and this thread is another bullet that has been fired by them, by a poor sap who has bought into their scam. Why are cheap labor conservatives at war with unions? Because they want cheap labor so they have more money. Duh!

Unions have always fought for fair wages and good working conditions. Corporations hate paying the peasant a fair wage so they use the conservatives, and republicans, via Fox News, Rush, etc to rail against the unions daily and demonize them. As a result, union membership has been on the decline in recent years, and wages have stagnated.

It is really sad when you see a minimum wage earner repeating some of the Rush and Fox diarrhea on unions. It's like seeing sheep screaming at the farmer to quit killing wolves.