Florida enters Union battle heating up across nation with strong anti-Union bill

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

That is called forced.

In my state, I am free to work in whatever occupation I choose.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

I any state you are free to work in any occupation you choose.

I think you all confuse being forced with the idea of having negative aspects to a job. The only thing you are forced to do is make the decision as to whether or not the benefits outweigh the detriments.

So to be fair, shouldn't corporations operate under the same rules vis-a-vis obtaining permission from shareholders every year?

Shouldn't all the shareholders have a say in how the corporation spends their money? That would mean that prior to a corporation making any political expenditures, they would require written permission from each shareholder with the option being approval of the expenditure for the specified political reasons or the same amount being paid as dividends?

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

www.stopteacherstrikes.org...

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

You are speaking to a teacher, someone who is part of a union, someone who chooses to be part of said union, and someone who is THRILLED to have said union, as they are the ONLY reason that my salary stays livable. I repeat: THE ONLY REASON.

Your anti-union propaganda "source" is biased and slanted, and holds no water here. I could easily come back with pages of pro-union propaganda-doesnt mean it makes a valid point. The cartoons give your "source" away immediately. Sad attempt.

reply to post by tigpoppa


u
r
disgusting.

So when this hunt is over are we going after corporations???

NOPE

corporatists abound

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Really?

Forced unionism employment contracts exist in c. two thirds of all school districts in Pennsylvania, affecting c. 75% of all teachers


I thought you said I can work in any occupation I choose.

Apparently I can't be a teacher in 2/3 of PA.

I can be a teacher in 100% of Texas.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Really?

Forced unionism employment contracts exist in c. two thirds of all school districts in Pennsylvania, affecting c. 75% of all teachers


I thought you said I can work in any occupation I choose.

Apparently I can't be a teacher in 2/3 of PA.

I can be a teacher in 100% of Texas.

Not true. You certainly can be a teacher, you just have to decide whether or not its worth it to you to be a member of a union. You also have the choice to look into that occupation elsewhere. You also have the choice to go to private institutions which dont employ unions.

The choices are abundant. You may not like them, but they are there.

Not having the exact option you wish is not the same as being forced.

Originally posted by apacheman
So to be fair, shouldn't corporations operate under the same rules vis-a-vis obtaining permission from shareholders every year?

Shouldn't all the shareholders have a say in how the corporation spends their money? That would mean that prior to a corporation making any political expenditures, they would require written permission from each shareholder with the option being approval of the expenditure for the specified political reasons or the same amount being paid as dividends?

edit on 22-2-2011 by apacheman because: sp

Nope because our mates here are corporatists in denial... There is no tool in their idea toolbox that is able to
address this larger problem because their ideas protect corporations by proxy.


I will tell you one thing, this just changed the field

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

www.stopteacherstrikes.org...

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

. . .

You are speaking to a teacher, someone who is part of a union, someone who chooses to be part of said union, and someone who is THRILLED to have said union, as they are the ONLY reason that my salary stays livable. I repeat: THE ONLY REASON.

And then?


Your anti-union propaganda "source" is biased and slanted, and holds no water here. I could easily come back

with pages of pro-union propaganda-doesnt mean it makes a valid point. The cartoons give your "source" away immediately. Sad attempt.

Ahh.

The old fall back. Attack the source, instead of the content.

We can play your way then.



--"To compel an individual to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he or she disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."

-Thomas Jefferson--



In 1970 with Act 195, teachers were given the right to collectively bargain and the main state teacher unions (PSEA & PFT) were granted monopoly bargaining rights in school districts. The PSEA are dominant in Pennsylvania via their local affiliates, with just a few districts being represented by the PFT. The PSEA are the largest state affiliate of the NEA, while the PFT are part of the AFT (AFL-CIO). The 1970 law made "dues deduction" and "maintenance of membership" negotiable items in a contract. No teacher can be (legally) forced to join a union, but they are forced into being represented by the one union operating in their school district. Teachers have no choice as to who represents them when receiving an employment contract. In exchange for monopoly bargaining rights, it was deemed appropriate that non-union teachers should not have to pay union dues. It was deemed unreasonable to force representation on teachers and then force them to pay for it.

This changed in 1988 when Pennsylvania enacted Act 84, the so-called "fair share" law which meant that non-union school employees could be forced to pay dues to the union. Pennsylvania enacted Act 15 in 1993 which is the "fare share" law for local and county employees. It was left to each individual public employer to negotiate if they wanted to have such an agency shop agreement. Public employers can agree to agency shop (or not) at their discretion. If an agency shop ('fair share') agreement exists in a school district then non-union teachers are forced into having dues witheld from their paycheck without their permission. If an agency shop agreement does not exist in a school district, then non-union teachers do not have to pay dues to the union. The list of school districts which have an agency shop agreement can be found at the bottom of this page.






SO have at it.

Argue the facts.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh



Ahh.

The old fall back. Attack the source, instead of the content.

We can play your way then.



--"To compel an individual to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he or she disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."

-Thomas Jefferson--



In 1970 with Act 195, teachers were given the right to collectively bargain and the main state teacher unions (PSEA & PFT) were granted monopoly bargaining rights in school districts. The PSEA are dominant in Pennsylvania via their local affiliates, with just a few districts being represented by the PFT. The PSEA are the largest state affiliate of the NEA, while the PFT are part of the AFT (AFL-CIO). The 1970 law made "dues deduction" and "maintenance of membership" negotiable items in a contract.

No teacher can be (legally) forced to join a union, but they are forced into being represented by the one union operating in their school district

. Teachers have no choice as to who represents them when receiving an employment contract. In exchange for monopoly bargaining rights, it was deemed appropriate that non-union teachers should not have to pay union dues. It was deemed unreasonable to force representation on teachers and then force them to pay for it.

This changed in 1988 when Pennsylvania enacted Act 84, the so-called "fair share" law which meant that non-union school employees could be forced to pay dues to the union. Pennsylvania enacted Act 15 in 1993 which is the "fare share" law for local and county employees. It was left to each individual public employer to negotiate if they wanted to have such an agency shop agreement. Public employers can agree to agency shop (or not) at their discretion. If an agency shop ('fair share') agreement exists in a school district then non-union teachers are forced into having dues witheld from their paycheck without their permission. If an agency shop agreement does not exist in a school district, then non-union teachers do not have to pay dues to the union. The list of school districts which have an agency shop agreement can be found at the bottom of this page.






SO have at it.

Argue the facts.

1)When said source boasts its bias in the very headline of the article, then yeah, i do throw it out, as its useless. I didnt attack it, I laughed at it. Try bringing a relevant source.

2)You are still missing the point, which I do not care to explain again. They have a choice. They are not forced.



Your argument-------->out the window.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I can be a teacher in Dallas, Houston, El Paso, San Antonio. Anywhere I want in Texas, even if I do not want to be pay a Union.

In Pennsylvania, if I do not want to pay a Union, I am not free to work in 2/3 of the state.




Two horses are on a farm. They both want to eat grass wherever it happens to be more green.. The farmer puts one on the open range to feed. The farmer puts the other in the a corral.

Which horse is more free?

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by apacheman
So to be fair, shouldn't corporations operate under the same rules vis-a-vis obtaining permission from shareholders every year?

Shouldn't all the shareholders have a say in how the corporation spends their money? That would mean that prior to a corporation making any political expenditures, they would require written permission from each shareholder with the option being approval of the expenditure for the specified political reasons or the same amount being paid as dividends?

edit on 22-2-2011 by apacheman because: sp

Nope because our mates here are corporatists in denial... There is no tool in their idea toolbox that is able to
address this larger problem because their ideas protect corporations by proxy.


I will tell you one thing, this just changed the field

edit on 22-2-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

What are you talking about? Teachers don't work for a corporation. You are the one in denial.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

1)When said source boasts its bias in the very headline of the article, then yeah, i do throw it out, as its useless. Try bringing a relevant source.

Again . . . I put forth a quote by Thomas Jefferson (one of freedom's greatest advocates), and the PA law. Hardly biased

2)You are still missing the point, which I do not care to explain again. They have a choice. They are not forced. Your argument-------->out the window.

You won't bother because you are being obtuse.

YOu can't defend your position.

In regards to the financial crisis: If sacrifice must be made, and indeed it needs to be, let it start with the leaders who have led us down this path. Let those who call out for the people to reduce and accept their standard of living to do so first. Cut your pay and standard of living and health and retirement benefits in half until this country is profitable. Tax across the board in a PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.... IN RELATIONSHIP TO INCOME. I.E. 15 % FLAT TAX ON 40,000.00 YR.INCOME. FOR EVERYTHING PURCHASED .........SO IF I MAKE 40,000.00 A YEAR AND BUY 100.00 IN GAS TO FILL MY TANK I PAY AN ADDITIONAL 60.00 TAX BASED ON MY INCOME. NOW, IF SOMEONE MAKES 80,000.00 A YEAR AND BUYS THAT SAME 100.00 THEY PAY 120.00 ADDITIONAL IN TAX FOR THAT SAME TANK OF GAS. SIMPLE. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. BASED ON INCOME=PR=1.618.....OTHERWISE KNOW AS THE GOLDEN RULE........LETS SEE HOW MUCH CAKE THERE IS TO GO AROUND.......LEAD BY EXAMPLE FROM THE TOP DOWN...NOT THE BOTTOM UP.......LET THERE BE TRUE LEADERSHIP AND SACRIFICE ...........STARTING WITH OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS............ARE YOU WITH ME HERE?...........

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I can be a teacher in Dallas, Houston, El Paso, San Antonio. Anywhere I want in Texas, even if I do not want to be pay a Union.

In Pennsylvania, if I do not want to pay a Union, I am not free to work in 2/3 of the state.




Two horses are on a farm. They both want to eat grass wherever it happens to be more green.. The farmer puts one on the open range to feed. The farmer puts the other in the a corral.

Which horse is more free?

You are almost there, keep going.

In Penn, you have more to consider when CHOOSING to enter this profession. You are free to work all you want, but you must adhere to the rules of the state.

Again, you are still confusing the term 'forced' with the idea of not liking your choices. BIG difference.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

1)When said source boasts its bias in the very headline of the article, then yeah, i do throw it out, as its useless. Try bringing a relevant source.

Again . . . I put forth a quote by Thomas Jefferson (one of freedom's greatest advocates), and the PA law. Hardly biased

2)You are still missing the point, which I do not care to explain again. They have a choice. They are not forced. Your argument-------->out the window.

You won't bother because you are being obtuse.

YOu can't defend your position.

What does your Thomas Jefferson quote have to do with the current situation? Please elaborate, as jefferson was speaking in terms of freedom of religion, and had nothing to do with unions. As for being one of freedoms great advocates....nevermind, not even going to go there.

I have explained multiple times, and do not care to repeat myself again. If you cannot grasp the difference between being forced and not liking your choices, there is nothing more that I can do for you. Call it obtuse all you wish.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh




Two horses are on a farm. They both want to eat grass wherever it happens to be more green.. The farmer puts one on the open range to feed. The farmer puts the other in the a corral.

Which horse is more free?

Neither, they are both at the whim of the farmer. Oops...didnt consider that part, did ya?

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by apacheman
So to be fair, shouldn't corporations operate under the same rules vis-a-vis obtaining permission from shareholders every year?

Shouldn't all the shareholders have a say in how the corporation spends their money? That would mean that prior to a corporation making any political expenditures, they would require written permission from each shareholder with the option being approval of the expenditure for the specified political reasons or the same amount being paid as dividends?

edit on 22-2-2011 by apacheman because: sp

Nope because our mates here are corporatists in denial... There is no tool in their idea toolbox that is able to
address this larger problem because their ideas protect corporations by proxy.


I will tell you one thing, this just changed the field

edit on 22-2-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

What are you talking about? Teachers don't work for a corporation. You are the one in denial.

No on is forcing you to be a corporatist -

The lot of you are ready and willing to take a meat hammer to folks who work for a living and would also jump in front of a train to make the financial tides easier on the Billionaires who perpetuated this garbage environment in the first place. After the two years of TEA party crap the sum results are Corporations = GOD

... in every case it seems like the goal is to shaft the little guy to protect or engorge the Mega Wealthy or the world. There is no balance, or common sense to this approach - in the Supreme Court, in the Senate, in the House, at the state level it is all corporation all the time. Slash one side and add to the other, its budgetary leap frog with a Bentley. Adams Smiths premise on morality should also be applied to wannabe aristocratic voting base, it's bent so far to the right you are never able to sit down again, Amen

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
as they are the ONLY reason that my salary stays livable. I repeat: THE ONLY REASON.

So, let's say your state had no teacher's union. By your argument, your salary would absolutely be unlivable. Even though it is highly likely that schools would begin to do what those evil things called "businesses" do: they would begin to compete with each other trying to hire good teachers by offering them just about anything they wanted. One could probably make more money that way. Unless they were a rotten teacher, I guess. But rotten teachers are protected by unions if they have tenure, aren't they? Ah well, keep on keeping on. Never let facts get in the way of progress(ivism).

/TOA

reply to post by captaintyinknots


You are right. I did not.


But in the answer you gave, it shows me that you refuse to answer, because . . . again . . . your position is indefensible.