Public Employee Unions Must Be Crushed !

[999969999]

Comrade Macky will like this...


"Great news. A Maricopa County Superior Court has ruled that spending taxpayer money for union activity must stop.



Judge Katherine Cooper issued a preliminary injunction June 5 halting Phoenix’s practice of paying union leaders to do union work, rather than their city jobs, on the taxpayers’clock.



I’ve believed the “release time” practice by Phoenix is illegal, a violation of the state’s Gift Clause. Giving taxpayer money to unions to do union activity does not benefit taxpayers. In fact, it hurts the taxpayer.



The ruling is the result of a suitby the Goldwater Institute against Phoenix and the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, or PLEA. Phoenix gives the police union about $1 million ayear in release time payments with no description or auditing of what Phoenixgets in return.



All told, Phoenix gives multiple city unions about $3.7 million in release time. The suit only included the police union.



Click here to see the ruling.



http://goldwaterinstitute.org/sites/...s/m5273505.pdf



Click here for the Goldwater Instituteinvestigation into Phoenix’s release time



http://goldwaterinstitute.org/articl...ill-union-work



Contact: Phoenix Councilman Sal DiCiccio,District 6"

[mjmacky]

I was always of the mind that union members should pay their own union fees.

[j2k4]

You have a socialist Obama, but he's only as effective as Socialism can make him, y'know? :wink:

[j2k4]

I was always of the mind that union members should pay their own union fees.

Oh, they absolutely should pay dues - they should also have the option of not joining the union.

Ideological freedom demands it.

[mjmacky]

I was always of the mind that union members should pay their own union fees.

Oh, they absolutely should pay dues - they should also have the option of not joining the union.

Ideological freedom demands it.

Though, that's also a tricky one. Do they get the same benefits as union members? Do they not get hired, or would the be overwhelmingly preferred since it's far easier to exploit their labor? Can an employer discriminate based on union affiliation? It works so differently state-to-state, industry-to-industry, that I can't really address it in a couple of sentences.

Both myself and my wife are in unions, as ineffectual as they can be, just because we believe in the causes they fight sissy slap for and the dues are dirt cheap. Mine is a graduate instructional union, and hers is the aforementioned ineffectual teacher's union. Mine managed to do some things during my time there to give us access to health coverage (while before our access was equivalent to being unemployed). The thing is, joining and paying dues is voluntary, but everyone (membership or not) gets the reward. I don't particularly mind since the cost is low. My wife's union has not achieved anything for as long as she's been a teacher (maybe not enough people pay in?).

[j2k4]

They might rather just have the money than the debatable value of union membership.

What of the "benefits"?

Just another choice.

As to the rest, take 100% of the work force, give me the top 20% and the bottom 20%, you take the middle 40%, put us in the same business, and I will kick your ass all over the joint - not because My 40% is better than your 40%, but because my top 20% is better than your 40%.

Let them find their own "benefits" - I'll pay them more to relieve me of the headache of doing it for them.

[mjmacky]

They might rather just have the money than the debatable value of union membership.

What of the "benefits"?

Just another choice.

As to the rest, take 100% of the work force, give me the top 20% and the bottom 20%, you take the middle 40%, put us in the same business, and I will kick your ass all over the joint - not because My 40% is better than your 40%, but because my top 20% is better than your 40%.

Let them find their own "benefits" - I'll pay them more to relieve me of the headache of doing it for them.

Well with all of their traditional powers long castrated, they still have some things they're fighting for. Florida (as I imagine some other states as well) has become a standardized test state. That is, the entire focus of secondary education revolves around the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test), and not a single teacher has ever had any praise for it that I've heard. It's designed to distribute money to the schools that have better test scores, while lowering funds for schools in which they do poorly. This creates a frantic race to put out test takers instead of students.

Now, there's been a new law put into place that intends to affect teacher's pay based on the the same system. Which means, if you want to earn a decent wage as a Florida teacher, you must teach the test as pretty much your entire curriculum. Teachers want to see this state of testing education ebb, so the Florida teacher's union is fighting this by way of a lawsuit. I actually asked my wife how much the dues were, and she said $600 a year, and I can see how several teachers might not be able to afford it, say if they're the only income earner.

On the second part, why don't I just hire the people that seem most fit for the job?

[999969999]

Both myself and my wife are in unions

What a surprise!!!

[999969999]

Speaking of which, when are we going to get a socialist Obama, I've been waiting 3.5 years.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/repo...ft-new-party/#

[j2k4]

They might rather just have the money than the debatable value of union membership.

What of the "benefits"?

Just another choice.

As to the rest, take 100% of the work force, give me the top 20% and the bottom 20%, you take the middle 40%, put us in the same business, and I will kick your ass all over the joint - not because My 40% is better than your 40%, but because my top 20% is better than your 40%.

Let them find their own "benefits" - I'll pay them more to relieve me of the headache of doing it for them.

Well with all of their traditional powers long castrated, they still have some things they're fighting for. Florida (as I imagine some other states as well) has become a standardized test state. That is, the entire focus of secondary education revolves around the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test), and not a single teacher has ever had any praise for it that I've heard. It's designed to distribute money to the schools that have better test scores, while lowering funds for schools in which they do poorly. This creates a frantic race to put out test takers instead of students.

Now, there's been a new law put into place that intends to affect teacher's pay based on the the same system. Which means, if you want to earn a decent wage as a Florida teacher, you must teach the test as pretty much your entire curriculum. Teachers want to see this state of testing education ebb, so the Florida teacher's union is fighting this by way of a lawsuit. I actually asked my wife how much the dues were, and she said $600 a year, and I can see how several teachers might not be able to afford it, say if they're the only income earner.

On the second part, why don't I just hire the people that seem most fit for the job?

That last made it too easy - if (and this happens, there is no refuting it), teaching degree in hand, our young pilgrim discovers he or she isn't so suited to the profession as previously thought, and performance is less than absolutely sterling by performance standards...standards arrived at without the assistance of any teacher's union, by the way - they should be Gone, Gone, Gone, just like the song, and the public doesn't owe them a rehabilitative stint in another educational milieu.

Give me three teaching candidates and I'm interested in the best one only, sorry.