Originally Posted By Darkbeer So why can't the Teachers in the Teachers Union TEACH??? >>Nearly 100,000 California 12th graders — or about 20% of this year's senior class — have failed the state's graduation exam, potentially jeopardizing their chances of earning diplomas, according to the most definitive report on the mandatory test, released Friday. Students in the class of 2006, the first group to face the graduation requirement, must pass both the English and math sections of the test by June. The exit exam — which has come under criticism by some educators, legislators and civil rights advocates — is geared to an eighth-grade level in math and to ninth- and 10th-grade levels in English. "It's important to keep one core principle front and center: awarding a student a diploma without the skills and knowledge to back it up does the student a disservice," said O'Connell, who added that his staff would study the options outlined in the report. Students get several opportunities to pass the exam in high school, and they have to correctly answer only a little more than half of the questions to succeed.<<
Originally Posted By monorailblue <<Sense of entitlement my behind!>> Obviously, I was quite mistaken. My bad. It is clear that, as our gentle poster typifies all public employees, there is no entitlement sense at all among the rank and file state employees. Thank you for clarifying that for me and all the rest of us out here in the 'public.'
Originally Posted By cmpaley Snarky answer, mono. Are there some public employees who have a 'sense of entitlement?' Sure. Does that mean ALL of them do (as you implied)? Absolutely NOT! I found your post offensive in the extreme, so you'll forgive me if I came off a little strong. I tend to get a little angry when I am calumniated by persons such as yourself who think they know how things work in civil service. So, again I'll be crystal clear. MOST public employees want to provide the service they do provide in the best manner possible. In many cases, they cannot provide the assistance requested because they don't have the legal authority to do so. Many members of the public take it out on the public employee trying to assist them by cursing, shouting, threatening and otherwise carrying on cranky. Most public employees take it graciously. Yet we're the ones with the "sense of entitlement" because we'd like a little raise from time to time or to be able to retire when we get old. Gotcha. :-\
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I tend to get a little angry when I am calumniated by persons such as yourself" Couldn't you just use "maligned" so the group knows what you're saying?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/04/BAGVPF28LB1.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/04/BAGVPF28LB1.DTL</a> >>Uhler noted that the turmoil in the AFL-CIO, given the disaffiliation from the federation this summer by the Service Employees International Union, the Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers and Unite Here, proves the point of Prop. 75 proponents: the dissident unions said the AFL-CIO leadership had spent too much money on politics, with poor to mixed results, and not enough on organizing. Karen Hanretty, the spokeswoman for the California Republican Party, cited what she believes are examples of union expenditures inconsistent with members' choices at the polls: Unions spent $88,000 (public employee unions' share was $68,000) in opposing Proposition 22, a 2000 initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman; a Los Angeles Times exit poll found that 58 percent of union households had voted yes on Prop. 22 and 42 percent had voted no. Unions spent $32.7 million (public employee unions' share was $25.7 million) to oppose the recall of former Gov. Gray Davis, yet exit polls found half of union members casting ballots voted for the recall and 56 percent voted for a Republican candidate to replace him -- 43 percent for Schwarzenegger and 13 percent for Tom McClintock. The overwhelming beneficiaries of public employee campaign contributions are Democrats. According to the Montana-based Institute on Money in State Politics, public sector unions gave $18.4 million to Democrats running for the Legislature or statewide office in 2002. Republican candidates received $900,000. <<
Originally Posted By cmpaley LOL! The enemies of working people are going to be telling them what their unions are up to. That's a good one.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://polski3.blogspot.com/2005/09/yes-on-proposition-75.html" target="_blank">http://polski3.blogspot.com/20 05/09/yes-on-proposition-75.html</a> >>"I would like to inform the general public about public school teachers and CTA in response to Mr. Malcolm Carmichael's letter to the editor (Union-Tribune, Saturday, 24 Sept. 2005, page B7). In his letter, Mr. Carmichael said "Persons not wanting their union dues or a portion .....used to help elect lawmakers and lobby.....should not belong to a union." Mr. Carmichael and others, you should know that when I became a public school teacher in California 18 years ago, I HAD NO CHOICE regarding "union" membership. It is court mandated that public school teachers will be in either CTA/NEA or CFT/AFT, whichever union has bargaining rights in the school district. As a member of CTA/NEA, I have very little say in anything; I cannot vote for my state union officers, nor do I have a say in who represents me at the local Uniserv office. CTA has the power to raise my dues whenever they wish, give my dues money to any political office candidate who tells them what they want to hear, and spend money to support any proposition or social cause they wish. I personally do not support the political candidates they spend my money to endorse. I am in favor of Proposition 75. CTA and other public service unions should have members permission before spending our hard earned money on political office candidates. <<
Originally Posted By cmpaley ^^^ Sounds like that's an internal union problem. Why should all other union members suffer because one union isn't democratic? Or could it be that he is a fair share fee payer doesn't want to become a full dues-paying member who CAN vote and have influence in the operation of his union? We'll never know because the smokescreen is up: the Right Wing, who controls political talk in this country, has put out the talking points that unions are evil and they must be eliminated. Very interesting idea in light of this: "When we speak of the reform of institutions, the State comes chiefly to mind, not as if universal well-being were to be expected from its activity, but because things have come to such a pass through the evil of what we have termed "individualism" that, following upon the overthrow and near extinction of that rich social life which was once highly developed through associations of various kinds, there remain virtually only invididuals and the State." Quadragesimo Anno 78
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/homepage/article_703969.php" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/ocre gister/opinion/homepage/article_703969.php</a> >>What's a fair share that a union member should gladly pay? I was a union member for 18 years. I chose to exercise my Beck rights and insist that my union not use my dues for political action. I was labeled as disloyal, told not to attend the union meetings because they couldn't 'ensure' my safety, and then after my attorney found that over 30 percent of my dues were spent on politics, they had the audacity to offer me dues-free membership if I would just drop the case. I said no way - I'm not anti - union, but it's wrong to cancel out my vote using my own money to do it. Proposition 75 is long overdue. A large percentage of union members vote the opposite of their leadership, but they are kept ignorant of their rights by unions that have become big businesses themselves. Just look at the billions spent attacking the governor month after month. Private businesses don't force their employees to subsidize the political whims of their owners, and neither should public unions. Shane Borgess Anaheim<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley I'm beginning to doubt these "teachers and union members" being foisted upon us by the pro-corporate, anti-working person, already-rich backers of Proposition 75.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer So the polls that show over half the union members with an opinion are FOR Prop. 75 are also being backed by these so called "anti-working" folks, when the actual working folks want the unions to spend less in politics... Give me a break....
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>So the polls that show over half the union members with an opinion are FOR Prop. 75 are also being backed by these so called "anti-working" folks, when the actual working folks want the unions to spend less in politics...<< Who are they polling? I don't buy this generic "union members" moniker. It's PUBLIC EMPLOYEES that are under attack, not general "union members."
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=2acfd89d-dd50-4a58-a207-dc3e0eb76038" target="_blank">http://www.surveyusa.com/clien t/PollReport.aspx?g=2acfd89d-dd50-4a58-a207-dc3e0eb76038</a> Union Members - Yes - 50%, No- 46%, Undecided 4% Non-Union Members - Yes - 66%, No -32%, Undecided - 2%
Originally Posted By cmpaley WHAT union members? That's the question. Are they polling right-wing radio talk show hosts (who are all members of the radio union), teamsters, police protective league members? The thing that the Right is failing to mention is whether public employee union members are feeling the way they claim by confusing the issue with the generic "union members." Looking at that poll question, I see that it also fails to mention many of the true affects that these initiatives will have. For example: Next, Proposition 75. Proposition 75 prohibits public employee unions from using union dues for political purposes without the written consent of union members. If the special election were today, would you vote Yes on Proposition 75? Or would you vote no? The explanation was obviously written by a Schwarzenegger spinster. Try this: Next, Proposition 75. Current law allows public employees from opting out of having their union dues used for political purposes. Proposition 75 prohibits public employee unions from using union dues for political purposes without the written consent of union members. That would be more accurate...and it's something that Schwarzenegger's buddies don't want you to know. Also, on Prop 76, again, obviously biased: Proposition 76 limits growth in state spending so that it does not exceed recent growth in state revenues. If the special election were today, would you vote Yes on Proposition 76? Or would you vote no? Oh, but that's not all it does: Proposition 76 limits growth in state spending so that it does not exceed recent growth in state revenues. The Governor would be granted unlimited power to cut any items or items of the budget he wishes, including contracts, if revenues fall short of his own projected numbers. If the special election were today, would you vote Yes on Proposition 76? Or would you vote no? Funny how the Schwarzenegger's boosters never mentions that the Governor can abrogate contracts signed in good faith by vendors or employee organizations and refuse to pay if revenues fall short of his own projection (all he has to do is overestimate by a mere 1.5% and he get unlimited and unchecked authority to do anything he wishes to the budget). Kinda makes one wonder who would do business with the state if they could do that.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Latest Poll Numbers on the Reform Ballot KABC/Survery USA of “likely†voters Prop 74. Yes 55%, No 44% Prop 75. Yes 60%, No 37% Prop 76. Yes 58%, No 36% Prop 77. Yes 59%, No 36%
Originally Posted By cmpaley And once again, the questions are asked in a way that doesn't give the complete picture of what the propositions do.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-svorny12oct12" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/op inion/commentary/la-oe-svorny12oct12</a>,0,6687389.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions >>In 2003-2004, the California Teachers Assn. reported political contributions that totaled $15.9 million, according to the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a Washington state think tank. Of the CTA funds spent on partisan elections, 89% went to Democratic candidates. In California, nearly 45% of voters chose President Bush in 2004, and only 43% of voters are registered Democrats. Even if union members are considered to be disproportionately liberal, 89% shows extremely lopsided support of Democratic causes. The CTA has accused Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of trying to stifle the voices of union members, and one of its mailings shows five union members with duct tape covering their mouths. Just the opposite is true. The union's leaders are spending members' money to oppose a proposition that would give members more say over the group's political agenda. The union's strong opposition to Proposition 75 indicates that its leaders fear a significant drop in funding if the initiative passes. Evidence from other states corroborates the expectation that, when given the choice, members will not support the type of political contributions we have seen in California. <<
Originally Posted By cmpaley Please note that the above is an op-ed piece, not a news article. The truth is, Prop 75 is about shutting working public employees up so they cannot stand up for quality public services.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Please note that the above is an op-ed piece, not a news article.> Are any of the numbers given in it wrong?
