Romney: We have too many teachers, cops, and firemen. Fire them!

Unabogie said:
Pensions are deferred salary. So the retired workers already took their pay cut when they negotiated lower pay for better retirement. They were offered that deal and they honored it, and they ALREADY gave up money. These retired Americans did their work at the lower pay and expected that retirement would be taken care of. Now you want to renege on the deal.
Click to expand...

In ordinary salary negotiations, the person paying the salary is on one side of the negotiating table. If they can't afford to pay the demanded salary, then they won't accept the deal. But with these public employee pensions, the people paying the pensions weren't at the negotiating table, not even through elected representatives. Yes, it's not fair to reduce pensions that have already been negotiated. But it's not fair that people who can't afford it and never had a say in it have such payment obligations either. Unions demanded and politicians found politically expedient to accept contracts which never should have been signed. But appealing to fairness alone doesn't suffice to resolve the conflict, because unfairness is now unavoidable.
 
Ziggurat said:
In ordinary salary negotiations, the person paying the salary is on one side of the negotiating table. If they can't afford to pay the demanded salary, then they won't accept the deal. But with these public employee pensions, the people paying the pensions weren't at the negotiating table, not even through elected representatives. Yes, it's not fair to reduce pensions that have already been negotiated. But it's not fair that people who can't afford it and never had a say in it have such payment obligations either. Unions demanded and politicians found politically expedient to accept contracts which never should have been signed. But appealing to fairness alone doesn't suffice to resolve the conflict, because unfairness is now unavoidable.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah screw the unions rhetorhic.
 
Hey lookie here, Wildcat. A guy from your neck of the woods is furious over that wasted money!

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/05/pentagon-restricts-f22-flights-safety-concern

Oh, wait, no, he wants to keep the F22 going, even though it's outmoded and kills pilots.

How much is that plane costing us?

Hmm, 187 x $190 million each. By my napkin math, that's $35 billion dollars, or almost a billion dollars that could be just gifted to each state to cover shortfalls.

But your GOP Defender of the Ronaldus Magnus legacy, just thinks it needs a little tinkering, huh? Maybe we could just ask teachers in Chicago to work longer?

Oh, wait, yep.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505244_162-57451360/90-percent-of-chicago-teachers-authorize-strike/

But as long as we have those F22s, it's all good.

But why stop here?

Let's go back to the Iraq war, which virtually all Republicans supported. At one point, that war was costing us $12 billion PER MONTH. Completely unpaid for. Just tack that on to the deficit and carry it on month after month, year after year, staying the course. Imagine if $12 billion per month were spent on rail projects or new bridges or upgrading the energy grid?

Nah, can't let that madman Saddam keep taunting us.

Wait, where were we? Oh, yeah. The deficit. And how we can't keep running this debt up and we must fire those teachers, cops, and firemen.
 
DavidJames said:
It does get old, although the hypocrisy is amusing. Free market, when it comes to benefiting labor, seems to not be in much favor with Republicans.
Click to expand...
Dunno 'bout "Republicans" but some free marketeers favor relaxation of regulation of labor markets (e.g., repeal of minimum wage laws) and repeal of union exemptions from laws against extortion and anti-trust.
 
BenBurch said:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
DavidJames said:
It does get old, although the hypocrisy is amusing. Free market, when it comes to benefiting labor, seems to not be in much favor with Republicans.
Click to expand...
Dunno 'bout "Republicans" but some free marketeers favor relaxation of regulation of labor markets (e.g., repeal of minimum wage laws) and repeal of union exemptions from laws against extortion and anti-trust.
Click to expand...
They also seem to not have a problem with indentured servitude.
Click to expand...
Here's Merriam Webster on "indentured servant":
: a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance.
Click to expand...
Here's Merriam Webster on "indenture":
a (1) : a document or a section of a document that is indented (2) : a formal or official document usually executed in two or more copies (3) : a contract binding one person to work for another for a given period of time —often used in plural.
Click to expand...
If you live among people, there are basically three ways to make a living: (1) you can beg, (2) you can steal, or (3) you can trade goods and services for other people's goods and services. Labor contracts for a specified span of time (indentures) are no worse in principle than contracts for a specified amount of product, seems to me. So long as the contract language is clear and non-performance penalties are no worse than other sorts of labor conttracts, I don't see the problem. Perhaps Ben can explain.
 
Last edited:
I beg to differ! There aren't enough teachers! I also fear a future where teachers will end up being paid the same wages as a burger flipper at Miccy-D's! Teachers should be paid a lot more than the chicken feed they get now!
 
dc1971 said:
I beg to differ! There aren't enough teachers! I also fear a future where teachers will end up being paid the same wages as a burger flipper at Miccy-D's! Teachers should be paid a lot more than the chicken feed they get now!
Click to expand...
This is an empirical question. Evidence is against this. Typically, high-performing Asian countries operate with higher student:teacher ratios. If legislatures redefine "education" to include on-the-job training or expanded credit-by-exam options, States could get away with fewer schools and fewer school teachers. In the US, parochial school teachers receive smaller compensation that government school teachers and do a better job.
"What works?" is an empirical question which a market will aswer with greater accuracy and prescision than will a State-monopoly enterprise.
 
dc1971 said:
I beg to differ! There aren't enough teachers! I also fear a future where teachers will end up being paid the same wages as a burger flipper at Miccy-D's! Teachers should be paid a lot more than the chicken feed they get now!
Click to expand...

There may be enough teachers, but some of the programs have teachers involved in too much one-on-one time which results higher teacher to student ratios. The No Child Left Behind Act can give a school a failing grade (and thus less funding) if just one of all students in the school fails the standardized exam. It expects the most severely handicapped students to meet the same standards as normal children. It's... well... dumb.

There's also other problems. Here in Albuquerque, there is 1 non-teacher employed by the district for every 3 teachers. It's a top-heavy bureaucratic nightmare. We could, as a society, get a whole lot more bang for our buck by relaxing the ridiculous amounts of testing and reporting.
 
Newtons Bit said:
There may be enough teachers, but some of the programs have teachers involved in too much one-on-one time which results higher teacher to student ratios. The No Child Left Behind Act can give a school a failing grade (and thus less funding) if just one of all students in the school fails the standardized exam. It expects the most severely handicapped students to meet the same standards as normal children. It's... well... dumb.

There's also other problems. Here in Albuquerque, there is 1 non-teacher employed by the district for every 3 teachers. It's a top-heavy bureaucratic nightmare. We could, as a society, get a whole lot more bang for our buck by relaxing the ridiculous amounts of testing and reporting.
Click to expand...

The "no child left behind" program is about 30% of that extra burden, BTW.
 
Newtons Bit said:
There may be enough teachers, but some of the programs have teachers involved in too much one-on-one time which results higher teacher to student ratios. The No Child Left Behind Act can give a school a failing grade (and thus less funding) if just one of all students in the school fails the standardized exam. It expects the most severely handicapped students to meet the same standards as normal children. It's... well... dumb.

There's also other problems. Here in Albuquerque, there is 1 non-teacher employed by the district for every 3 teachers. It's a top-heavy bureaucratic nightmare. We could, as a society, get a whole lot more bang for our buck by relaxing the ridiculous amounts of testing and reporting.
Click to expand...

I agree. That is ridiculous.

However, I'm gauging off the rhetoric that teachers make all this money in the course of a school year then get three months off. I have looked high and low and I have yet to find that IDEAL situation.

Most teachers I had in class growing up worked a supplemental part time job to make ends meet. My parents were the exception because they BOTH had teaching jobs.

There's also the added responsibilities to those who become coaches, drama instructors (high school musical directors), and marching band directors. From what I remember, my high school band director had to sacrifice his own time to come in over the summer and direct band camp. He didn't get paid extra for it either. He was a salaried employee, so that extra time figured into his salary.

I also remember my Dad staying up late nights to grade papers when marking period tests were due. He never got paid extra for taking his work home with him.

As for three months off. It's a myth. Factoring in In-Service weeks at the end of the school year and the beginning of the school year and then being mandated to take vacation time to pay for the rest of the summer, there might be a MONTH in there. That month is NOT paid.
 
Ziggurat said:
In ordinary salary negotiations, the person paying the salary is on one side of the negotiating table. If they can't afford to pay the demanded salary, then they won't accept the deal. But with these public employee pensions, the people paying the pensions weren't at the negotiating table, not even through elected representatives. Yes, it's not fair to reduce pensions that have already been negotiated. But it's not fair that people who can't afford it and never had a say in it have such payment obligations either. Unions demanded and politicians found politically expedient to accept contracts which never should have been signed. But appealing to fairness alone doesn't suffice to resolve the conflict, because unfairness is now unavoidable.
Click to expand...

In other words, they shouldn't retire. Don't expect anything when you get old and you can't work anymore.

Hey! Unfairness is now unavoidable! You said it!
 
dc1971 said:
In other words, they shouldn't retire. Don't expect anything when you get old and you can't work anymore.
Click to expand...

Do most teachers who retire at 65 do so because they can't work anymore? That would seem quite the coincidence.
 
Unabogie said:
Hey lookie here, Wildcat. A guy from your neck of the woods is furious over that wasted money!

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/05/pentagon-restricts-f22-flights-safety-concern

Oh, wait, no, he wants to keep the F22 going, even though it's outmoded and kills pilots.

How much is that plane costing us?

Hmm, 187 x $190 million each. By my napkin math, that's $35 billion dollars, or almost a billion dollars that could be just gifted to each state to cover shortfalls.

But your GOP Defender of the Ronaldus Magnus legacy, just thinks it needs a little tinkering, huh? Maybe we could just ask teachers in Chicago to work longer?

Oh, wait, yep.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505244_162-57451360/90-percent-of-chicago-teachers-authorize-strike/

But as long as we have those F22s, it's all good.

But why stop here?

Let's go back to the Iraq war, which virtually all Republicans supported. At one point, that war was costing us $12 billion PER MONTH. Completely unpaid for. Just tack that on to the deficit and carry it on month after month, year after year, staying the course. Imagine if $12 billion per month were spent on rail projects or new bridges or upgrading the energy grid?

Nah, can't let that madman Saddam keep taunting us.

Wait, where were we? Oh, yeah. The deficit. And how we can't keep running this debt up and we must fire those teachers, cops, and firemen.
Click to expand...
All those words, and nothing at all relevant to any of mys posts in this thread.

Hint: Illinois hasn't bought a single F-22, and not one dime of our budget went to the Iraq war effort.

And Chicago teachers already average $75K/year (starting pay is $50K) for working one of the shortest school days in the country, barely more than 5 hours.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
And Chicago teachers already average $75K/year (starting pay is $50K) for working one of the shortest school days in the country, barely more than 5 hours.
Click to expand...

class prep time, grading, curriculum, supplies---all those things teachers can't do during school hours and have to do (no one does it for them)? They shouldn't be paid for that part of the job?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom