Being a teacher, it seems that everyone wants to screw us. We have one of the most important jobs on the planet, and most people barely clear 35k per year as a starting salary. Not to mention, our legal needs are important. Especially as a male teacher, I know that one bad grade to a female student and she can attempt to frame me for sexual assault or something.

 

 

 

Here in Ontario teachers are paid high salaries (50-80k, principals make ~100k) and they still manage to strike for raises every 3 years or so.

 

 

 

You also pay 5 times more taxes than we do.

 

 

 

People here don't want payraises for teachers because it means their civic taxes will raise in order to pay for us.

1. By only using wikipedia as the only source he or she has completely discredited himself/herself as being capable to debate in this topic. Just because this is the internet does notn mean that this debate is any less meaningful to the future of unions and he/she does not seem to understand that.

 

 

 

You lost all credibility when you failed to learn to read!

 

 

 

I'm a she.

 

 

 

And I'm not looking to get rid of the unions entirely but rather for some reform where they have a little less power.

You also pay 5 times more taxes than we do.

 

 

 

People here don't want payraises for teachers because it means their civic taxes will raise in order to pay for us.

 

 

 

Yeah but my point was that even though teachers are making really good money, they still strike for more. That's where I see the union as unfair.

 

 

 

EDIT: I just looked up income taxes between Canada and the United States, and it appears that Americans pay slightly more income tax than Canadians. Although you are correct in that you may much less sales taxes than we do.

Liberal propaganda is affecting you son

 

 

 

Liberal? You got that backwards.

 

 

 

In a completely free market unions are an integral part of keeping everything nice. We aren't in a completely free market though so I don't really have an opinion.

It's the Liberals, here in Australia, who spread anti-union propoganda so antaonwhy got it the right way around :P

 

 

 

Oh, two different uses of the word then. Here in America the conservatives are anti-union and the liberals are pro-union.

 

Outside America, Liberals are those who support Economic, and not Social Liberalism.

You also pay 5 times more taxes than we do.

 

 

 

People here don't want payraises for teachers because it means their civic taxes will raise in order to pay for us.

 

 

 

Yeah but my point was that even though teachers are making really good money, they still strike for more. That's where I see the union as unfair.

 

 

 

EDIT: I just looked up income taxes between Canada and the United States, and it appears that Americans pay slightly more income tax than Canadians. Although you are correct in that you may much less sales taxes than we do.

 

 

 

You don't pay school taxes though. These are on the civil level.

1. By only using wikipedia as the only source he or she has completely discredited himself/herself as being capable to debate in this topic. Just because this is the internet does notn mean that this debate is any less meaningful to the future of unions and he/she does not seem to understand that.

 

 

 

You lost all credibility when you failed to learn to read!

 

 

 

I'm a she.

 

 

 

And I'm not looking to get rid of the unions entirely but rather for some reform where they have a little less power.

 

 

 

 

 

If you are going to quote me then quote me in entirety, otherwise you are twisting my words.

 

 

 

We still do not know which article you used for that first post.

my mom's in the CWA, she works for AT&T and I give her [cabbage] about it all the time. she knows I'm right too, because of all the corruption. There are many problems with Unions, and I'm sure there are some good things, but I never hear about them.

 

 

 

Also, striking does NOT help anyone!!! The one time her union actually did go on strike it hurt our family more than helped us. The lost wages from the weeks of being on strike was worse than the (barely) benefits that came as a result of the strike. (this was a long time ago so i don't remember details exactly, just her complaining about it)

 

 

 

There are so many people in her workplace that are totally useless, if not detrimental to the company, people who abuse the union's support to slack off, endanger co-workers, even listen to people's phone conversations(yes there is someone there who actually does that for fun) without getting fired. so before you go saying that unions are all great and help the poor working man, you need to look at the whole story.

 

 

 

I will never work with or for a union. =; at least until something is done to get rid of the corruption.

Outside America, Liberals are those who support Economic, and not Social Liberalism.

 

Really? Many would call me an extreme Liberal, yet I don't support a strong economy over social liberalism... :-k

1. By only using wikipedia as the only source he or she has completely discredited himself/herself as being capable to debate in this topic. Just because this is the internet does notn mean that this debate is any less meaningful to the future of unions and he/she does not seem to understand that.

 

 

 

You lost all credibility when you failed to learn to read!

 

 

 

I'm a she.

 

 

 

And I'm not looking to get rid of the unions entirely but rather for some reform where they have a little less power.

 

 

 

 

 

If you are going to quote me then quote me in entirety, otherwise you are twisting my words.

 

 

 

We still do not know which article you used for that first post.

 

 

 

That was the only part of your post that pertained ti Wiki...how is that twisting your post?

 

 

 

Also, I thought it was fairly obvious what wiki pages I was looking at. Hint: type in labor/trade unions....

1. By only using wikipedia as the only source he or she has completely discredited himself/herself as being capable to debate in this topic. Just because this is the internet does notn mean that this debate is any less meaningful to the future of unions and he/she does not seem to understand that.

 

 

 

You lost all credibility when you failed to learn to read!

 

 

 

I'm a she.

 

 

 

And I'm not looking to get rid of the unions entirely but rather for some reform where they have a little less power.

 

 

 

 

 

If you are going to quote me then quote me in entirety, otherwise you are twisting my words.

 

 

 

We still do not know which article you used for that first post.

 

 

 

That was the only part of your post that pertained ti Wiki...how is that twisting your post?

 

 

 

Also, I thought it was fairly obvious what wiki pages I was looking at. Hint: type in labor/trade unions....

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I can type those in all day , labor/trade unions, but that does not mean I will end up looking at the specific articles you ended up looking at.

 

 

 

Is a link to the specific articles you used too much to ask?

Outside America, Liberals are those who support Economic, and not Social Liberalism.

 

Really? Many would call me an extreme Liberal, yet I don't support a strong economy over social liberalism... :-k

 

 

 

It's an American thing. For some stupid reason we are all idiots and think that Conservative and Liberal terms are social ones. However, they are supposed to be economic, since that's the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

There are the ones I mainly used:

 

Washington Post

 

Wikipedia.

 

 

 

 

 

Herald Tribune.

 

"This is a huge corporation," Gettelfinger said. "They are paying out dividends, their equity in their stock is up a lot, they have a lot of cash on hand, they've stated that they have no intentions of going into bankruptcy."

 

Great, milk em till they are dead. The union wont start to actually cooperate with the company unless it's bankrupt!

There are the ones I mainly used:

 

Washington Post

 

Wikipedia.

 

 

 

 

 

Herald Tribune.

 

"This is a huge corporation," Gettelfinger said. "They are paying out dividends, their equity in their stock is up a lot, they have a lot of cash on hand, they've stated that they have no intentions of going into bankruptcy."

 

Great, milk em till they are dead. The union wont start to actually cooperate with the company unless it's bankrupt!

 

 

 

 

 

Now that I have a general Idea of where you are coming from on this topic we can really begin to discuss the topic here.

 

 

 

That wikipedia article is so negative there is no room to laugh even if it is true. This is considering that the article itself has been through over 10 revisions since it was put up and it still is only covering the basic things that "trade unions" are mainly used for. In all, it really should not be a summary of all the other sources that it cites and instead should cover what could possibly be 20-30 pages on written paper.

 

 

 

Looking at "The Washington Post" article I can clearly see where you get the corruption factor now. Yes, for the most part that is the only thing unions serve now and have become just like the things they have so dearly fought against. What must be realized and was said in a previous post is that if the CEOs("Corporate Executive Officers" for those who don't know) of all these companies were to cut back on their salaries, there would be no need to cut-back on retirees benefits in the slightest. This last sentence is assuming both sides can get over their "ego's" anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

 

What we need to have these days is unions that specialize in specific skill areas in order to better negotiate the needs of the people they represent. yes, I do realize that this would bring us back to the days of the guilds, but when you think about it it allows for more leeway in matters of negotiation in todays "North American" societies.

There are the ones I mainly used:

 

Washington Post

 

Wikipedia.

 

 

 

 

 

Herald Tribune.

 

"This is a huge corporation," Gettelfinger said. "They are paying out dividends, their equity in their stock is up a lot, they have a lot of cash on hand, they've stated that they have no intentions of going into bankruptcy."

 

Great, milk em till they are dead. The union wont start to actually cooperate with the company unless it's bankrupt!

 

 

 

 

 

Now that I have a general Idea of where you are coming from on this topic we can really begin to discuss the topic here.

 

 

 

That wikipedia article is so negative there is no room to laugh even if it is true. This is considering that the article itself has been through over 10 revisions since it was put up and it still is only covering the basic things that "trade unions" are mainly used for. In all, it really should not be a summary of all the other sources that it cites and instead should cover what could possibly be 20-30 pages on written paper.

 

 

 

Looking at "The Washington Post" article I can clearly see where you get the corruption factor now. Yes, for the most part that is the only thing unions serve now and have become just like the things they have so dearly fought against. What must be realized and was said in a previous post is that if the CEOs("Corporate Executive Officers" for those who don't know) of all these companies were to cut back on their salaries, there would be no need to cut-back on retirees benefits in the slightest. This last sentence is assuming both sides can get over their "ego's" anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

 

What we need to have these days is unions that specialize in specific skill areas in order to better negotiate the needs of the people they represent. yes, I do realize that this would bring us back to the days of the guilds, but when you think about it it allows for more leeway in matters of negotiation in todays "North American" societies.

 

 

 

So you agree there needs to be reforms?

 

 

 

I'm not saying we should totally get rid of these unions but we need to make it so they aren't hurting companies so badly!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any suggestions.

 

 

 

/disucss

The most extreme thing I can think of is to entirely rework all of the currently existing laws on both sides of the spectrum.

 

 

 

If that is not a feasible idea I would suggest a scrapping all existing laws inplace and to start off from scratch so as all the laws will be up-to-date with todays times.

what sort of laws do you suggest?