Passed today in the Maine Senate...

JOINT RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE PRESIDENT OF

THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS

TO SEEK THE RESIGNATION OF THE UNITED STATES

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

WE, your Memorialists, the Members of the One Hundred and Twenty-first Legislature of the State of Maine now assembled in the Second Special Session, most respectfully present and petition the President of the United States and the United States Congress, as follows:

WHEREAS, the United States Secretary of Education occupies the most sensitive and important position from which to enunciate federal policy with respect to public education; and

WHEREAS, the vast majority of public school educators in the United States have organized into education associations, as is their right in accordance with both federal and state laws; and

WHEREAS, 2,700,000 educators belong to the National Education Association and invest their lives and their pride, as well as their money, to achieve their professional goals and those of their professional association; and

WHEREAS, the National Education Association is a leading voice across this nation on behalf of the interests of both public school educators and America's schoolchildren; and

WHEREAS, the Maine affiliate of the National Education Association and its more than 25,000 members are our friends, our neighbors, our family members and the teachers of our children; and

WHEREAS, as one Maine Education Association member put it, the teachers of our children feed, clothe, hug, nurse, play with, listen to, discipline, teach, dance with, share time and thoughts and feelings with, accept, model and teach acceptance to, respect and demand the same from, and love their students; and

WHEREAS, the current Secretary of Education, Mr. Rod Paige, has called the National Education Association, in public and utterly without justification, a "terrorist organization"; and


WHEREAS, the members of the National Education Association, the Maine Education Association and members of this Legislature know all too well what it means to label a group a "terrorist organization" while our nation wages real war against real terrorism; and

WHEREAS, labeling groups "terrorists" today is reminiscent of how some officials stooped to red-baiting half a century ago; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That We, your Memorialists, on behalf of the people we represent, take this opportunity to condemn the use of the term "terrorist organization" to describe any American organization devoted to the welfare of our children or of working people or, for that matter, of any underprivileged members of our society; and be it further

RESOLVED: That we urge the President of the United States, George W. Bush, and the United States Congress to repudiate this confounding, inappropriate and inflammatory statement, unbefitting any cabinet official, least of all the Secretary of Education, and request that the President require Mr. Paige's resignation; and be it further

RESOLVED: That suitable copies of this resolution, duly authenticated by the Secretary of State, be transmitted to the Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United States; the President of the United States Senate; the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; each Member of the Maine Congressional Delegation; Honorable John E. Baldacci, Governor of Maine; Reg Weaver, President of the National Education Association; and Rob Walker, President of the Maine Education Association.

Woo Hoo!!!

Dirigo!

One question though, what does the term "memorialist" mean in the context of the above resolution? Is it synonymous with representative?

And who can ever forget that brave Maine Son, Joshua Lawrence Chaimberlain, and he he defeated the Busheviks at Gettysburg when they charged Little Round Top!

Mainers are tough and non-nonsense. I like Maine and Mainers! Maine is a great and beautiful state (Ah, Mt. Katahdin) and this only further cements my view of the place!

Bravo, Mainers. You are as Patriotic as ever!

:toast: :toast:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

where he lived. It's a pretty modest house, he never made much money, but what an impressive life he had.

Link:

http://www.curtislibrary.com/pejepscot/jlchouse.htm

nt

That's awesome news!!! I love Maine!

to introduce intelligent resoultions. There's a reason why all the good universities are in your neck of the woods.

You are good Americans!

Thanks -- :toast:

"WHEREAS, the National Education Association is a leading voice across this nation on behalf of the interests of both public school educators and America's schoolchildren;"

This would, I suppose, explain why the NEA, almost every year, in some place in the USA, has some of its members denying schoolchildren the opportunity to be educated.

Is it sarcasm?

Teacher Strikes?

I guess when it comes down to deciding which is more important -- higher salaries and better benefits for teachers, or ensuring that children receive education -- the NEA has no problem deciding that it would rather deny children their teachers for days or even weeks.

It would be one thing if the resolution passed in Maine simply stated that the NEA was concerned about the salaries and benefits of its members -- that would be an honest statement.

But when it says that the NEA is concerned about schoolchildren, I think it should have pointed out that schoolchildren take second place tro teachers and their concerns, according to the NEA.

and deserved. For all the good my kids' teachers are doing for them, I believe they are entitled to good pay and benefits. Every one of my son's teachers have paid out of their own pockets for classroom supplies. Parents are encouraged to donate supplies, which we often do. There's a reason the pentagon doesn't have bake sales.

Perhaps teachers strikes are rare, but it does seem to me that I can always hear every fall a news story that teachers in some large city or another are on strike. What that really means is that the school children in that large city will not be in school receiving an education while the teachers withhold their labor in order for the teachers to recieve whatever it is they are striking about.

I think that teachers (and, for that matter, every worker) are entitled to god pay and benefits.

Why is it that the Pentgon doesn't have bake sales? Do you think that if the Pentagon had bake sales, fewer bases would have to be closed down?

We were on strike in Anchorage back in '96. The three days we were on strike were made up on days reserved for "bad weather" days. A majority of the people who drove by our lines honked in support.

I guess that the schoolchildren of Anchorage were lucky in 1996. Lucky that there was not too much bad weather. Otherwise, I suppose, theywould have been unable to make up the days when the their teachers thought that their own issues were more important than providing instruction to the students.

I respectfully disagree with you.

why don't you tell us all why you'd have backed the criminals at the helm of the school district in Anchorage during the 90's. Why don't you spell out the "issues" we were fighting for?

"why don't you tell us all why you'd have backed the criminals at the helm of the school district in Anchorage during the 90's. Why don't you spell out the "issues" we were fighting for?"

How dare you suggest that I would have backed criminals! Just who do you think you are that you presume to tell me that I would have backed criminals?!! What in the hell gives you the right to make such an unfounded and malicious accusation against me?!

And why in the world do you think that I would know what the "issues" were that you were fighting for? I'm sure they were very important -- so important that the members of the NEA said "OK, it's time to put ourselves first and tell the people of Anchorage that unless we get what we want, their kids get no education from us". I would hope that the issues weren't trivial.

you know what it's like to have your black and white rhetoric thrown back in your face. Goodnight.

I'm sorry, but I really missed the point of your last post.

sleep well, outin.

and pleasant dreams to you, too, callo.

:boring:

I am a retired teacher. I have been on strike. Let me amend that. I was one of the leaders of our strike. There comes a time when teachers have to stand up for themselves and their families. I was put in a position of taking a pay cut in one of the lowest paying districts in our area. Ironically it was also the most wealthy district in the area.

This meant taking away from my own family so that the local citizens living in homes three times bigger and better than mine would not have to raise their taxes. I was already spending hundreds of dollars on basic materials for my classroom. Unfortunately, a strike was the only way to wake people up to the problems in the district. It was not entered into lightly. It was necessary and I would do it again if the same conditions arose.

That's why unions exist. So that their members can stand up for themselves and their families and have their interests represented.

I have no quibble with you or any other teacher standing up for yourself or your family. Even if it means telling peoplee, "Either agree to raise your taxes or your kids don't get no education".

What I do have a quibble with is unions like the NEA mouthing pieties like they are concerned about schoolchildren.

I think the NEA, as a union, has its priorities right: teachers' interests and teachers' concerns always come first, and if forced to pick between the concerns/interests of teachers and the concerns/interests of schoolchildren or their parents, teachers are more important.

if government officials would bargain in good faith when negotiating with teachers about salaries, benefits, class sizes, and other factors during contract costs. I can present example after example of government officials lying to the public as well as teachers concerning available resources to aid in educating the children.

But you would still be missing my point.

The resolution passed in Maine says that the NEA "is a leading voice across this nation on behalf of the interests of both public school educators and America's schoolchildren"

I have no quibble with the Senate of Maine saying that the NEA does what all unions do -- represent the interests of their members.

It's just that the NEA's members are teachers, and not schoolchildren.

And, when the NEA needs to decide which is more important - the interests of teachers and the interest of schoolchildren -- the NEA has no difficulty remembering who pays the union dues and who its members are.

They are, I think, to be congratulated for being so skilled at using schoolchildren as mere pawns in their collective bargaining process. The NEA realizes how effective a "give us more money -- even if you have to raise your taxes -- or the kids don't get no education from us" strategy is. And they use it quite well.

By the way, does anyone here know whether or not it is indeed the case that many NEA members sent their own children to private schools?

In Detroit, the teachers were told for four years that there was not enough money to give them raises. For those four years, the teachers worked without either a contract or a raise because no one knew it was a lie at the time. At the beginning of the fifth year, the teachers found out that they had been lied to for the previous four years and went out on strike after two months into the school year because the city was still saying that they did not have the money for raises when everyone knew that the city did. They got the raises and contracts they sought. For years I have watched municipalities lie about not having enough funds to pay teachers or give them raises and then spend the non existent funds on new offices, buildings, and cronies when the teachers believed the officials. It was always amazing how the money almost always appeared after the teachers went on strike. If the municipalities were honest, then we would not need the NEA or any other union representing the teachers. Of course, these same officials rely on people such as yourself to generate outrage at teachers instead of officials; but, then you appear to be good at that. As to where teachers send their children, every one that I have talked to as of late has their children in the public school system. By the way, I am not a teacher.

Which is, apparently, that it is perfectly OK for the NEA (or, as you put it, any other union representing teachers) to use schoolchildren as mere pawns in their struggle to get higher pay. It's "Give Us What We Want, When We Want It, or No Education for YOur Kids".

Since you raised the issue of how money is spent, I might point out that here in the District of Columbia, the union representing teachers in the DC school system was recently found to have high level officials that took money, in the form of dues, and used it to buy things like fur coats and expensive cars and jewels. Things were so bad that the national office of the union had to step in and take over the finances of the local union. And I think the officials of the local are under some sort of criminal charges. Cronyism at its best, I'd say.

that you wish the working class to be at a disadvantage in negotiations when trying to raise their standard of living and remain a downtrodden class within a capitalistic society (teachers in particular). My point is that the only leverage to get anything (salaries are not the only thing the teachers are fighting for; but, the example here) is by striking to deprive of a service (this service being teaching). This is true throughout all of capitalism where everyone is trying to gain an advantage over everyone else. From my perspective, you and those like you are willing to use school children in your argument to deprive teachers of a means for gain which puts you in the same box as the NEA you so malign. While I am not a fan of unions, I feel that they are a necessary evil against the ruling class since I do not see any progress in the capitalistic attitude towards a common good. As a result, this is how it will remain until attitudes change. Evolution states that what breeds in an environment is what best survives in that environment; therefore, to change what breeds, the environment must change.

Thank you for today's lesson in Marxism. The only problem is that public schools are not truly capitalistic. They are government-run and funded through tax dollars, which everyone must pay.

So it is just a bit disingenuous to speak as though strikes by school teachers are the same things as strikes by auto workers.

I can choose to buy a car or not -- and if I choose to buy a car, I can choose which car to buy. But that is not true of public schools. I have to pay my taxes.

So if the workers at a GM plant go on strike, the only thing that happens is that fewer GM cars get produced. No biggie, because I can always choose to buy no car, or to buy a Ford.

But if the teachers go out on strike, no children get educated. BIG difference. There is no place else for the kids to go.

I really have no problem with workers using collective bargaining.

But I do wish that the NEA would be just a bit more honest. It cares little for schoolchildren. You yourself say as much, I think. You say, I think, that the NEA would withhold its service (teachinng schoolchildren) if doing so meant that it could gain an advantage by doing so.

And please note that I really have no desire to "deprive teachers of a means for gain". If teachers want to strike, fine.

All I suggesting is that teachers (and their Unions) be honest about their priorities and stop trying to tell us that they are concerned about the schoolchildren. They are not. They are concerned about themselves.

Teachers and their unions are as honest as the officials who govern over them. Both claim to have the children's interest at heart and each side uses the children as pressure against the other.
Actually, the nation's school system is capitalistic consisting of private and public schools in competition with each other. One just happens to be non-profit in the public sector as oppose to being non-profit in the private sector. Parents have the choice to send their children to a private school if they so choose and if they can afford to just as before public school systems where the rich sent their children to a private school and the poor did not. There is no law that states you have to send your child to a public school, only that you have to send your child to school. You send them where you can afford to just as you buy the automobile you can afford to.
Save the argument about opting out for I would agree that you do not have the option to withhold funds from the public school system; but, then that is the price for living in a society that has decided that the poor should have access to an education along with the rich. Options to opt out does not change the dynamics. I pay and I do not have nor have ever had children in the public school system. There are a lot of other government funded things I would rather opt out from first; but, cannot.
As to your automotive example, the UAW consciously does not strike all the auto manufacturers at once (which is why they have staggered contracts) so as to have producing auto makers as added pressure to meet the union demands. It is a union pressure tactic available when there is more than one manufacturer of a product. That is why you have a choice to buy another model if you so choose.
As an aside, it will be interesting to watch what Boeing and Boeing's unions do now that Boeing is the sole commercial airplane manufacturer in this country and that the only competition is AirBus.

The rich always have more options than the poor. It's sad, isn't it? Tell me, does the NEA have any locals that represent the teachers in private schools, or is it only teachers in public schools -- the ones where people who are not rich enough to send their children to private schools have to send their kids -- that the NEA represents teachers?

I understand the nature of strikes. If the UAW members decide to strike, what I hear them really saying is "We care more about our wagees, pensions, or other benefits than we do about you having a new car." That's fine. The workers of the UAW or any other union that has the right to strike should use every tool at their disposal to get the benefits they can.

When teachers strike, what I hear them saying is "We care more about our pensions, wages, and benefits than we do about educating children". ANd that's fine too. But it strikes me as very dishonest to then read that the NEA is concerned about schoolchildren. If they truly were, in my view, then schoolchildren's education would be first and foremost to everything else the teachers stand for. When they strike, teachers of the NEA put themselves first.

Why is it we have to give up everything to educate the children of this nation, including putting a roof over our own families' heads?

Yes, teacher strikes and sick-outs cause major chain reaction issues which affect the children we care for, and personally I don't think we should go that route for that reason. But does that mean teachers aren't entitled to fair compensation for their work? Should they not have a pension and instead after a lifetime of working retire and take up another job? Should they never own their own home? Should they, as people who prize education, not be able to afford to send their own kids to college?

Teaches having to "give up everything" -- including "putting a roof over" their "own families' heads" in order to educate the children of this nation?

Where? I nwhat city has that actually happened? Teachers and their families forced out onto the streets so that the children of that city could receive an education?

Of course teachers should receive all the things you say. And they should (and, in some cities, I think, do) make enough money to be able, as people who prize education, to send their own children to the best schools in the area. And I think the NEA has done a very effective job of seeing that teachers get all those things.

But my beef is with the NEA when it says that it is concerned about the schoolchildren of America.

As your post correctly points out, I think, the NEA is concerned -- first and foremost -- with fair compensation for their members' work, with pensions for their members so that their members will not, after a lifetime of working, retire and have to take up another job with making sure that their members should be able to own their own homes, and with ensuring that their members, as people who prize education, be able to afford to send their own kids to the best schools in the area, and ultimately to college?

I think you have correctly stated what the NEA is concerned with. I note that your post did not mention schoolchildren once.

"Yes, teacher strikes and sick-outs cause major chain reaction issues which affect the children we care for, and personally I don't think we should go that route for that reason."

I did mention the kids.

And yeah, when my husband was teaching he was making about $26,000 a year. Not enough to buy a home or send our kids to college. Heck, we're still paying off his student loans from a decade ago.

I am in no way saying that teachers are being singled out. I think every American should be making more money at their jobs. I think home ownership and college educations should be in the reach of every American.

But what is wrong, really, with having the NEA stand up for the teachers? Yes, of course they should stand up for the kids as well, but I think that generally they do. (It sounds to me like you think they were meant only to advocate for the children? Nothing wrong with that, but if there was no one advocating for the teachers too, the children would ultimately suffer. If freepers had their way and only paid teachers $10,000 a year, the kids wouldn't be getting decent education would they?)

with the NEA standing up for teachers.

I think I have made that point clear. The NEA does a very good job at standing up for teachers. Heck, I even understand that the NEA does such a good job that some teachers that the NEA represents become wealthy enough to send their own children to private schools!

My beef with the NEA is when it says that it cares for the schoolchildren. Perhaps somewherer on its list os "must attend to" items the NEA has something about schoolkids.

But it seems to me that the NEA is much more concerned about the interests and needs of its membership, none of whom are schoolchildren.

In fact, when it comes down to a choice between providing education to schoolchildren and striking for higher pay and better benefits, the NEA chooses strikes.

That's fine -- that's what unions are for, and that's what unions do.

I just wish the NEA would spare me their rhetoric about how much they care for schoolchildren.

Have you written to them to say so? Of course, you know how it is, the further up the chain you get the greater the disconnect from the bottom.

It's a rare gem of a leader who can remember where (s)he came from.

is what you want to hear and what you see is what you want to see. The fact that all you see when workers strike (regardless of employment) is wages, pensions, and benefits speaks volumes to a limited vision of reality. While those items are included, they are but a part of why workers go out on strike. There are other issues such as safety issues, working environment issues, training issues, hiring/firing issues, and job requirement issues to name a few. These not only help the worker; but, help to produce a better product by creating a better environment to work in.
During the 40's and 50's, the auto unions were accused of fighting against industrial automation when the reality was that the driving force against automation was cheap manual labor. What the unions were fighting for was retraining to use the automation when it was installed.
When the ATC controllers when on strike in the early 80's, it was not to get a pay increase; but, , it was because a law existed that made it illegal for a government employee to be paid more than a Senator in a single year. Because of the shortage of ATC controllers due to budgetary shenanigans, the controllers would hit the cap in September with overtime pay; therefore, worked for free Oct, Nov, and Dec. This went on for three years until a strike shut down the ATC system and the law was repealed. It cost many of them their jobs; but, as long as the controllers did not go on strike, the repeal legislation remained stuck in Congress.
Do not get the wrong impression that I feel that labor unions are a paragon of good for they are not. There are examples of union abuses which is why I say that they are a necessary evil.
I know of two teacher strikes that were for smaller class sizes which not only benefitted the teacher; but, the student as well by allowing for more individual attention where needed.
As to unionized private school teachers, I really do not know. An interesting question that may be worth looking into. If not why not for it would seem that the NEA would wish to include these teachers as well unless the NEA is only a public employee's union. There may be a different one for private schools depending on contract agreements.
I remember talking to a Northwest pilot who just came off strike complaining about not being able to fly because the machinists being on strike. I remember that salary was the big issue in the headlines and a less noted secondary issue about the number of crew in the flight cabin. Wage was the headlines for the machinist strike as well and I know there were other less noted issues regarding working conditions. The pilot had the attitude that he was better than the machinist and when I disputed that, he said "would you like just anyone off the street flying the aircraft?" to which I replied, "and would you like just anyone off the street maintaining the aircraft?". Conversation was over.

Since you raised the issue of how money is spent, I might point out that here in the District of
Columbia, the union representing teachers in the DC school system was recently found to have high
level officials that took money, in the form of dues, and used it to buy things like fur coats and
expensive cars and jewels. Things were so bad that the national office of the union had to step in and
take over the finances of the local union.

So because the union in DC is corrupt, you are against all the chapters throughout the whole nation? Because of one?

You yourself said that the national office stepped in and is working to resolve the problems.

No institution is perfect. Heck, the Democratic party is far from perfect! But when problems come up, they are addressed.

Please do not assume that all unions are bad because one group messed up.

When I was teaching it turned out that the treasurer of my school's PTA made off with all the PTA funds, which happened to be several thousand dollars. Does that mean that all PTAs are bad? I don't think so.

Let's be fair about this.

Please point out where it is, exactly, that I have said that I am "against all the chapters throughout the whole nation".

I think I have said, over and over and over again, that the NEA does a very good and admirable job doing what unions do. And I think I have also said that teachers deserve whatever they are able to get through the collective bargaining process, using whatever tactics they and their unions think will get them the best results.

I really do not see how that translates into being being "against all the chapters throughout the whole nation."

Nor do I think I have said that I think unions are bad. Far from it. I have said that the NEA, as well as the UAW, the AFGE, and the NTEU all do fine jobs.

To repeat what I have said -- the NEA -- a union of teachers -- reprsents the interests of its membership very, very well. It has done such a good job that when it must decide between the interests of its members and the interests of schoolchildren, it always decides in favor of its membership. And it is, in my view, niot really accurate for the NEA to say that it is concerned about schoolchildren. They are not part of its membership. They pay no dues. And they take a backseat to teachers' interest if the union decides it must strike.

Does caring about schoolchildren mean that one is not allowed to care about one's own family as well? Isn't it possible to care about both at the same time? It seems to me that teachers have already demonstrated a huge commitment to children through their decision to pursue what is arguably one of the most thankless jobs in America. These teachers could just as easily have chosen to work in the private sector, where they would most likely have made a great deal more money. Instead, they've agreed to work for considerably lower wages than those which they could have made elsewhere in order to be a part of the most important work there is: educating our children and the next generation of citizens. Yet if these people choose to protest when they are unfairly treated, you seem to conclude that their sacrifices mean nothing: they're nothing but a bunch of self-serving mercenaries who have no longer have any right to espouse their devotion to the cause of educating children. I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic. Why does commitment to a cause require unquestioning acceptance of any and all mistreatment?

I think that I am correct that if any teacher or group of teachers feel that they are being unfairly treated, they have several options available to seek redress for their grievances. Not all of thenm involve striking.

There are more than 2 million Federal Employees in this country who are just as concerned about their families as teachers are about theirs. And the work that Federal Employees do may not be as important, in your eyes, as the work of public school teachers, but Feds do a wide vairety of things, from controlling the air traffic in US airspace to ensuring that medicines that are marketed are safe to administering student loan programs to administering the social security system.

Not one of those employees is able to strike.

The well-being of the people of the United States -- whether it is people flying in commercial jet airplanes to people who take medicines or people who need student loans ot people who rely on social security -- is more important than anything else. SO when you hear a Fed say that they are concerned about the people they serve, they really mean it.

Does that help?

Canadian public servants at all levels may strike whenever they like.

There are provisions for designating essential workers under the collective agreements, and requirements that essential workers stay on the job, which the unions honour scrupulously. For instance, in the federal department I am most familiar with here, enforcement officers had to be on the job during the last strike, to arrest and detain problematic people, but the other officers were out on the picket lines ... getting coffee and doughnuts from us friendly local lawyers.

If the employees of the US government want to be able to strike, they oughta do something about it. The unfair denial of *their* right to strike, if such it is, is hardly grounds for vilifying others who do have that right and exercise it as they see fit.

That response just begs the old question. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that jazz.

Many of us in Ontario are quite grateful to our teachers' unions for a protracted strike they engaged in a few years ago, in which they took a stand against the right-wing provincial government, which was engaged in gutting many social programs, not just the schools. They were in the position to do that -- nobody would have been much affected by the single mothers on social assistance whose benefits had been slashed going on strike -- and they did it at considerable expense to themselves. (What, did we think that all those teachers on the picket line were getting paid, and just decided to take a few weeks out for their health?)

I have no doubt that my friendly local federal government officers are concerned about the people they serve; I knew many of them quite well. I do not expect them to put their clients' interests above their own every time. I do not blame any union for the intransigence of management, and I do not automatically assume that management's position in a labour dispute is the reasonable one and reflexively portray management as blameless and as the party representing the blameless "victims" of a collective action.

Yup, there are alternatives to striking. Binding arbitration is one. Ask most public sector employers (like school boards) what they think of that one, I'd suggest.

.

I at least understand where you're coming from now. Personally, I agree with iverson that those two million federal workers (whose labors, incidentally, I do also very much respect) should have the right to strike as well. I guess I'm just not very optimistic that the alternative methods of dispute resolution are always going to provide a remedy to labor disputes. I do agree that strikes should be a last resort after less disruptive measures have been tried and proven unsatisfactory, but I think people should have the right to strike when all else as failed. Ultimately, it's the only bargaining chip they have. I mean, it's not like teachers can go to their board of education and threaten to withhold funding for programs or benefits - the control of the pursestrings resides solely in the hands of the board. So unless the board decides to rectify a wrong purely out of the goodness of their hearts - and we all know how well the goodness of people's hearts competes with financial considerations - what leverage do workers have? Standing up and saying "I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to work under these conditions" is the only tool they have at their disposal if the persons or bodies governing their working conditions choose to be uncooperative. If you take that away from them, what recourse will they have left? What incentive would governing bodies have to ever negotiate in the first place? Would it not become only too easy for such bodies to just ignore the demands of workers because, after all, it's not like the workers can do anything about it?

I don't know of a profession where the employee has as much love for their "product" that they work with each day.

I don't know that we've ever had a teacher strike around here but I can see where teachers like any other profession can get pushed to that point.

And "deny children their teachers for days or weeks"? How about the denying of wage increases and benefits to teachers--many who will work without a contract while talks go on,meanwhile paying for some class supplies out of their pocket? This swings both ways.

So..if you belong to any other union you can strike but don't even think about it if your in the teachers union?? LOL,whats the point of the UNION??

David

I might be inclined to wonder whether the people who instructed you in English grammar were members of the NEA or not.

"So..if you belong to any other union you can strike but don't even think about it if your in the teachers union?? LOL,whats the point of the UNION??"

Ever hear of PATCO? NO what happened to them when they struck?

Ever hear of AFGE? Most of its members are in jobs which cannot be struck.

Ever hear of NTEU? No strikes for most of its members also.

Of course members of PATCO were replaced,the idiots signed a wavier saying they wouldn't strike. That makes that Union a joke,but teachers do have the right to strike and every once in awhile they exercise that right.They didn't sign their rights away on piece of paper like the PATCO ATC did.

David

that all of the more than 2 million employees of the Federal Government (most of whom, as a condition of employment, sign a promise not to strike against the Government) are "idiots"?

And you are also saying, I guess, that unions such as the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union -- unions which represent Federal Workers -- are mere "jokes".

I think you are really demeaning a large group of workers and their unions.

Yeah,I think you are an idiot if you have union representation,pay dues,elect officers but in the end you really can't do a damn thing about your job situation but quit. Again,whats the point of the Union? You have representation but no power,you pay dues but have no power. Your no better off as a organized group than a load of Walmart workers.

You go years without a raise,increased benefits. So you demand some and the boss tell you to shove it because you've signed a document stating you'll never walk out. Back to work you go so you can afford those weekly dues you pay in.

I've been in the union twice in my life,we sure as HELL had the right to strike if it came to that. We never did because we had that power. Teachers also have that but rarely need to use it because of the bargining power they have. Thats my point.....

David

Where am I demeaning teachers?

It seems to me that you are demeaning more than 2 million Federal Employees, a good portion of them dues-paying members of Unions that do anm admirable job of representing them. And it also seems to me that you are demeaning the employees of WalMart. I would think that your venom towards WalMart would be directed at its ownership and managemet.

I hope the next time you have to transact business with a Federal employee, you let them know that you think they are an idiot.

... take care of their membership.

Excuse me, but the electrician's union is not working for the customers of the electricians. The plumber's union is not working for the customers of the plumbers. The auto worker's union most certainly is not working for the people who buy cars. Why on earth would anyone think that the teacher's union would work for the students? Or their parents? Or the politicians that set the educational standards for the schools?

If you want good teachers, pay them a top-notch salary.

Every day, almost, I see senior year education students lured out of state by higher pay and better working conditions. They can get an extra $5000. in Pennsylvania and an extra $7000. in New Jersey when they're just starting out. That translates into the better graduates accepting job offers out of state, while the mediocre students fill the jobs here.

In Delaware we have a corporate mentality that works against unions. Our teachers see the layoffs and downsizing and they tend to be glad they have a job at all. Some of them have to support families because their spouses are out of work. They are scared to go on strike.

If that's what you want for your state... to watch the good teachers who have the freedom to leave do just that... then by all means, pay your teachers as little as possible and work them as much as you can. OTOH, if you want your children competitive in the job markets of the future, get them the best teachers you can find and pay those teachers as much as you can possibly afford. Give them the textbooks and materials they need to do a good job, and don't expect them to buy everything out of their own money. Give them opportunities to have a say in what's taught at each grade level instead of imposing it from on high, and don't expect them to monitor the lunch room and ride the school bus to keep the kids in their seats on the way home.

The NEA understands that students learn best from the best teachers, and the best teachers go after the best jobs. Like most everything else in life, you get what you pay for. Now, it's up to the public to decide whether they put more value on their children's education or on a third trip to WalMart this week.

Thanks for your lecture about the nature of unions.

To repeat what I have said before -- the NEA does a very good job of representing the needs and interests of its dues-paying members. In fact, in some places, the salaries of NEA-represented teachers are high enough that those teachers are able to send their own children to private schools. So, Hip-Hip-Hoorey for the NEA! They most certainly understand that they do not work for the politicians that set the educational standards or for the parents of students. And they certainly understand that they do not work for the schools students?

I certainly agree with your observation about getting what you pay for. Many NEA teachers have observed that their own children would be better off in expensive, private schools. THEY certainly understand that you get what you pay for.

It's good to know that the children of Pennsylvania and New Jersey are among the best educated kids in your area of the country. I guess since Pennsylvania and New Jersey both pay their teachers more than Delaware, that the ranking of children's educational achievements would be Pa, NJ, and then Delaware. Am I correct?

The bit from Maine Mary's post that you quote:

WHEREAS, the National Education Association is a leading voice across this nation on behalf of the interests of both public school educators and America's schoolchildren; ...

was written by the Maine Senate, not by any teacher's union.

And yet off you go, bashing the teacher's union for allegedly claiming to be acting in schoolchildren's interests ...

As if people who pay for the supplies used in their work out of their own pockets and want better pay and working conditions aren't kinda prima facie acting in their students' best interests ...

When was the last time you bought the materials that your clients need, in order to achieve whatever it is you are helping them do, out of your own pocket, friend?

Do social workers ever go on strike, leaving their clients unserved? If so (and I know of it happening), may I infer that social workers do not have their clients' interests at heart? How 'bout nurses? Just in it for the money, I guess.

Social workers, nurses, teachers ... all people who should never act in their own interests at anyone else's expense, even for a moment, I must presume; who must be content with their lot for fear of being represented as only in it for the money, no matter how ludicrous such a claim might be. Odd how they tend to be women more often than not, too.

.

...(formerly of PA) I am always very proud of my adopted home and think that I moved to the greatest place on Earth.

Thanks, on Maine's behalf for your praises.

By the way, if you have any cash to spare for a House tace, our freshman Rep. Mike Michaud, is a BIG target of the rethuglicans this year, as is the electoral vote of his district. He told us on caucus day (in Waterville, Maine) that the rethuglicans only regret about the negative campaign against him in '02 is that it wasn't nasty enough.

Hopefully it will backfire against them again, but we'll need help defending that seat!

I don't know what it is, but there's been the most peculiar stench in the air here in DC for the past three years, it just doesn't seem to go away. I'd love to move to Maine, just not sure what kind of work I, as a public policy analyst, could hope to find there. It kind of seems like the economy's mostly oriented around tourism and agriculture, or have I got that wrong? :shrug:

for Boton. North of Augusta, it's pretty rural, though.

Interesting, where I live, we lost a major business, Dexter Shoe. But property values are increasing as there is a surge of new buyers coming into the area. Telecommuting seems to be on the increase here.

Now, how about calling on der Shrubbenfuhrer to step down? And take the rest of his homies with him?

That cheater has to go.

They should have asked for Bush*'s resignation as well. Anyway at least there are some true Americans left. That the entire US Congress didn't do this is quite telling.

I wish I were there to buy you and your fellow Maine legislators a beer, Mary! Way to go, outstanding work!
:toast:

excellent move. Thanks MM.

would have more important things to concern themselves with.

But I guess resolutions such as this are important to certain special interest groups.

beautiful people!

:loveya:

says WOOO HOOOO!!!!!!!

I've never been there, but I love it! Maine rocks! :yourock:

Brother of Massachusetts. And hello to my bro up there! The civil war has begun...

and all the people in it. It is a most beautiful state. Indeed we are independant.

You know, Massachusetts was once a part of Maine.

LOL

Actually Maine was once a part of Massachusetts and petitioned for it's independance in 1820 and won statehood. They just got tired of the lack of communication and the wait for information coming out of Massachusetts, and having to go over the border of New Hampshire to boot to get to Massachusetts.

Maine is a wonderful and beautiful state. It is down to earth and simple and not inclinded toward anything shallow or glitzy. I love this state.

It is so full of history and fishermens lore. The Atlantic here on the rocky coast is romantic, fearsome and awesome.

We just bought forty pounds of shrimp right off the dock to pick and freeze. The shrimp were still alive when we brought them home. The fishermen have kept this industry within their families and there are great traditions here--and they mean something too.

Seems that the principles of our Founding Fathers is alive and well only in the North East. :yourock: Let's get our legislative bodies to join with them!

Maine leads the way that we all should follow!

:D

We know from Summer People.

To them, we're The Help.

Remember, Junta Boy's father finished third in '92 up here.