Still Hating America.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
I am not sure that I disagree. But I don't expect teachers unions to agree with you.

On what possible basis? There is no moral, ethical or legal grounds on which anyone can assert he has a "right" to be employed. It's exactly that malignant entitelment mentality that makes this issue impossible.

The strain between people who'll work their way out of trouble and people who believe they have a right to be secured from being placed under economic strain is the heart of every political dispute raging in this country. I was raised to believe you can't depend on the govt or your employer and that life was tough and you're owed nothing. I have friends who were raised to believe the govt or employers somehow "owe" us certain economic safeties. We get drunk and argue much as the people on this board do. But I don't think we'll ever bridge our differences, and I think their position is offensive. I also think its detrimental to our country and is making us a nation of softheaded idiots. I understand why liberals feel as they do. Its compfortable, nice and it probably feels right. It's also unaffordable.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by andViolins
You never did any employment law work did you? If you think its that easy, you're nuts. And all the plaintiffs-side employment lawyers are rolling on the floor laughing at that statement. Show me a shlub who got fired, and I'll come up with six ways to Sunday to slot em into a protected class. No review? right.

aV

My understanding of Adder is he's white male around 30. Find me a class that fits in.

Yes, I have dealt with employment and discrimination law. I'd rather have a body cavity search.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
On what possible basis? There is no moral, ethical or legal grounds on which anyone can assert he has a "right" to be employed. It's exactly that malignant entitelment mentality that makes this issue impossible.

The strain between people who'll work their way out of trouble and people who believe they have a right to be secured from being placed under economic strain is the heart of every political dispute raging in this country. I was raised to believe you can't depend on the govt or your employer and that life was tough and you're owed nothing. I have friends who were raised to believe the govt or employers somehow "owe" us certain economic safeties. We get drunk and argue much as the people on this board do. But I don't think we'll ever bridge our differences, and I think their position is offensive. I also think its detrimental to our country and is making us a nation of softheaded idiots. I understand why liberals feel as they do. Its compfortable, nice and it probably feels right. It's also unaffordable.

I most often witness the sense of entitlement among the wealthy, particular those with inherited backrolls sufficient to sustain them.

Just to make sure we're slurring all classes equally.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
My understanding of Adder is he's white male around 30. Find me a class that fits in.

Yes, I have dealt with employment and discrimination law. I'd rather have a body cavity search.

I also live and work in DC. Trust me, it wouldn't be that hard to find a class.

But that isn't the point. Your were talking about the types of post-termination job protections provided by union contracts. They are not the same as post-termination employment discrimination suits.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I most often witness the sense of entitlement among the wealthy, particular those with inherited backrolls sufficient to sustain them.

Just to make sure we're slurring all classes equally.

Agreed. I know some of the same people. The difference is they sustain themselves with that bankroll. The people who don't have it sustain themselves by demanding society bankroll them.

In fairness, I will say it is fucking disgusting to hear a shithead like Bob Nardelli justify his unjustifiable severance package. That is a flaw in the marketplace. I put him on the same continuum with the entitlement junkie teachers.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
My understanding of Adder is he's white male around 30. Find me a class that fits in.

Yes, I have dealt with employment and discrimination law. I'd rather have a body cavity search.

'

Please. Maybe we all make jokes about Adder cuz he's slow [i'm not really saying you're slow Adder]. Perceived disability? ADA baby. Hey, maybe there are lots of women where Adder works. Adder sez they talk all sexy like and created a "charged sexual atmosphere. He complains about all these hotties making jokes and throwing themselves at him and is fired. Reverse sex discrimination, my friend! Perhaps they make lots of Irish jokes where Adder works [again, for the record, I have no idea as to whether Adder is Irish]. National origin discrimination, baby!

I'm not saying its right. This is the bullshit that I come up against every day.

aV

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did I ever say business in America was perfect? Are you saying that because there are some absurd severence packages that it is OK that the schools in CA suck? Are you saying that a business could ever succeed in this country if it had a tenure system?

You said: "Most business can't afford to have employees that don't do anything, or don't accomplish their job assignments. If they do, a more efficient business, that doesn't have idle employees, undercuts their price, provides better service for the same price, or both.

A business would never institute a policy like "tenure"."



I was pointing out that, in fact, many businesses have instituted the far worse policy of paying failed executives massive amounts of money.

If your intention was to say that the California public schools are run much more efficiently and intelligently than most businesses, then I withdraw the comment.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
\

IN the spirit of bipartisanship, I can agree with this.

Gosh, that gets funnier every time.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sometimes the solutions to policy problems are not easy.

You would never know this from reading your posts.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think the volume probelm is kids who are hopeless because they come from homes where parents aren't/can't be involved in making sure they get education. I remember in law school learning about consumer rights laws that were really great and had real teeth- the problem was I had never heard of them until I went to LS. Point is these laws wouldn't help the people they were intended to help since those people never learned of the law.

A lot of the "different" stuff requires a parent to weigh and choose. Certainly options help when there is a parent- but in many schools there are not many parents who would do that. Hell, most of those kids/parents may not have any more knowledge of the options than they do of the consumer rights laws.

That is where standards come in. At least it attempts to make sure we aren't throwing kids into the world who can't read or do basic math.

I'm sure that if we issue vouchers, it will wake those couch potatoes up.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I was pointing out that, in fact, many businesses have instituted the far worse policy of paying failed executives massive amounts of money.

The blame for this idiocy is the exec compensation consultants and bar. They've created this silly bidding war for talent, as though these CEOs are pro athletes. I think the better framework for all CEOs is the framework used in Chapter 11s or some distressed financing deals - the CEO gets paid a handsome salary, but all bonuses above that are strictly goal oriented.

But shit... the real problem at the base of this issue is that all these execs do is try to prop the stock to meet goals, grab the huge bonus and leave. Some poor shmuck eventually ends up losing in that musical chairs. Its kind of like Presidents - the guy before you is as much to blame for your success or failure as you are.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
You have this all wrong. Your defense of the Teachers Unions is based on ideological bias. I have seen lots of hearings on social promotion, and I still can't believe anyone ever thought it was a good idea. I am perfectly willing to criticize my own party, or some standard conservative sentiments when they are wrong (like no birth control) but this is one area where liberals and the Teachers Unions have really screwed up.

Listen, dipshit -- I wasn't defending the Teachers Unions. I was pointing out that "social promotion" was not some half-wit idea that someone pulled from their ass -- or some product of the liberal cabal thinking of ways to exploit government largesse. I was pointing out that your knee-jerk response -- "hold kids back!" -- also has unintended, negative consequences. That is especially true when there is no funding (yes, funding -- sometimes money is needed) to provide tutoring, extended school hours, home visits, or the other things that problem kids need to succeed.

If a kid doesn't learn Algebra I -- or basic reading -- this year, what makes you think he'll learn it next year, in the same class, with the same teaching? Do you think that it's easy when a kid is 2-3 years older than his classmates -- easy for him, for his classmates, or for his teachers? Ever seen a 10-year old in a class designed for 8-year olds? Do you think ensuring that the "dumb kid" is going to be the biggest, most alienated, most insecure, most embarassed kid does not engender any difficulties, that put strain on the system?

Once again, the full extent of your thinking is "social promotion, bad and stupid (i.e., "liberal"), retention, good." I'm pointing out that it isn't that simple -- and the experience of school districts that eliminated all social promotion, and then brought it back because the problems with retention were worse, bears me out. When a kid fails, that's a difficult problem without a simple solution.

But you can't see past your ideology. The teachers unions are all evil. They support social promotion (probably because they don't have the resources or ability to deal with the kid who keeps getting left back). Therefore, social promotion is all bad. The world is black and white. There are no consequences to eliminating it. And the real-world experience of those who've done exactly this, well, that's irrelevant because they weren't as smart as Republicans.

And thus, we have the thought process of the neocon.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
They should have none. They should subject to the same at will firing I am.

Nobody deserves "job protection." The notion a person should have that makes a mockery of the "Capitalism" we pretend to observe.

Don't be a moron. They don't get job protections because some legislator somewhere thought they "should" have it. They get it because their union negotiates a contract -- you know, like they do in "Capitalism" -- and bargains for it. Those job rules are the product of a market, not an affront to it.

eta: And I can think of good reasons why public-school teachers are more likely to ask and receive these protections than others in the workforce. For one, it's hard to supervise and evaluate teachers. If their students do poorly, is it the students, their parents, the curriculum, the teacher, etc? It's much harder to assess their output than it is with other jobs. For two, they're being supervised by public-school administrators, who are not necessarily the pilot lights with the brightest flames. So it seems pretty clear to me that public-school teachers are going to be particularly likely to forego salary increases for job protections, and correspondingly it seems pretty obvious that school boards, relative to other employers, are going to be relatively happy to extend those protections as opposed to paying more money.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by andViolins
'

Please. Maybe we all make jokes about Adder cuz he's slow [i'm not really saying you're slow Adder]. Perceived disability? ADA baby. Hey, maybe there are lots of women where Adder works. Adder sez they talk all sexy like and created a "charged sexual atmosphere. He complains about all these hotties making jokes and throwing themselves at him and is fired. Reverse sex discrimination, my friend! Perhaps they make lots of Irish jokes where Adder works [again, for the record, I have no idea as to whether Adder is Irish]. National origin discrimination, baby!

I'm not saying its right. This is the bullshit that I come up against every day.

aV

We make fun of Adder because he started posting to the GA boards when he was in junior high school. He was really cute, somewhat awkward, overly earnest, and mind-numbingly prolific.

I'm pretty sure he got his first boner on The First Ever TM Breasticle Day.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't be a moron. They don't get job protections because some legislator somewhere thought they "should" have it. They get it because their union negotiates a contract -- you know, like they do in "Capitalism" -- and bargains for it. Those job rules are the product of a market, not an affront to it.

Yep. Just like GAs negotiate a bonus for working just a teensy bit harder than the minimum expected of them. Plus a raise because Skadden gave one.

Fuckers.