|
|
| What are you willing to do? |
| Something |
|
58% |
[ 7 ] |
| Anything |
|
41% |
[ 5 ] |
| Nothing |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:35 pm
RubyAshes A side note on the education issue. Have you seen some of the textbook selection processes, especially in larger states, and their results? I recently found out that an old edition of my school's history text had its entire section on the New Deal pulled because a group of private citizens opposed the book's stand on FDR. It had to be amended according to their specifications or it would have been rejected by the committee. This is exactly the problem I have! We don't teach the same thing, in classes with the same name. There is no reason that Children in California learn about the Civil War, and children in Missouri learn a very different tale of the War Between the States. The same holds true for many subjects, History is the most prominent however. I'm just saying that Pre-calc in Maine should be the same class as Pre-cal in Washington. The wide gulf between curriculums leads to students not propperly prepared for other areas, and quite possibly ignorant that there are other views on the matter. Also, it isn't just testing that needs to come into line... it's the actual classes. Students are taught different things, in different school districts, and taught these wildly varying morsels as tho they were fact and all else fiction.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:02 pm
Well in that case, the first thing we need to worry about is the teachers. I think a wage increase is in order, as this is a very important job, but often unrewarding. But besides just promoting the good ones, we need to eliminate the bad ones. There are some people today who really don't deserve their teaching license. They hardly know their own subject. I think teachers should be evualated annually to see if their performance is any good. And I fully support testing of teachers from time to time, because there's always some undeserving people who cheat their way into a job. If we don't have quality teachers, we won't have quality students.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:33 pm
Katane Well in that case, the first thing we need to worry about is the teachers. I think a wage increase is in order, as this is a very important job, but often unrewarding. But besides just promoting the good ones, we need to eliminate the bad ones. There are some people today who really don't deserve their teaching license. They hardly know their own subject. I think teachers should be evualated annually to see if their performance is any good. And I fully support testing of teachers from time to time, because there's always some undeserving people who cheat their way into a job. If we don't have quality teachers, we won't have quality students. Woot! I've had too many teachers that were horrible. It's so hard to fire them, that should change. It's hard to prove incompetance to people who are never in the classroom. Tenure is not so good. I understand that job security is important, but when some teachers get their tenure they slack off and forget that their primary duty is to their students. They should be given the security of a steady job, with anice wage, but still be subject to reviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 8:37 am
Keep in mind, anything that threatens tenures is going to come under heavey fire from labour organizations. We are not going to have many allies in this matter... as the people who normally would applaud the efforts to keep teachers more heavily accountable (and firable) are also the people we will be trying to take the reins of power from.
*sips at his drink*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:13 am
Corrupt labor organizations are also a bad thing for our nation. I myself am interested in how the UAW relates to the falling status of the Big 3 auto-makers, and whether or not the parasite will fall with the prey. And if the UAW does fall, will the other unions, such as the Food Services one, shape up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:48 am
Arcadian, I have a special quarrel with some facets of organized labour.
I have seen unskilled labour make $20/hr, with full medical, dental and 401k...
And we wonder why business take their jobs elsewhere. rolleyes
Labour unions arose due to the vile practices of some of the earliest industrialist robber-barons. And share many of the protections that corporate identity brings, as a workers organization.
Ultimately, if there were sufficient labour laws in place, and a more standardized economy nationwide, there would be no need for organized labour to hold any legal status.
Union privileges seem to be a good canidate for the chopping block, right next to corporate identity.
Now, I'm not saying that workers should be forbidden from organizing, merely that they have no special legal protection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:33 pm
If you wanted to bring manufacturing jobs and the like back to the US, you'd have to do a lot more than just eliminate the unions. American workers just aren't wage-competitive with workers from the developing world and to make them competitive would be absolutely unacceptable. Earning a couple of dollars a day will allow you to scrape by in other countries, but given the cost of just about everything in this country -- especially health care -- it would be next to useless for a single worker, let alone one with a family.
Of course, we could always just put up tariffs, but the World Bank would probably find that unacceptable and open us up to retaliatory tariffs from other nations. And then there's the fact that we'd be pissing off China. Not a good idea when that country's bankrolling our debt. Additionally, I think we all remember how much certain US citizens loved it last time we had tariffs protecting domestic industries from cheaper foreign imports.
*coughnullificationcrisiscoughcough*
Labor unions and whether or not they go defunct will have a lot less of an impact on American employment than education and keeping this nation on technological forefront (the latter being rather a function of the former).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:35 pm
Goddamned quote button. All I wanted was to edit my post, but apparently I mis-clicked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:36 pm
Fiddlers Green Now, I'm not saying that workers should be forbidden from organizing, merely that they have no special legal protection. Same here, naturally. But I think we're starting to follow the trail back to the root, I'm just worried we're going to end up in a circle. For instance, how educated are the leaders of these unions? So in order to cleanse unions, what must be done?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:00 pm
I don't mean it will be a fix to remove unions, it would just be a step in bringing everything to a more equal tabling.
I accept that most of the manual labour is destined to move elsewhere, where a low American wage is a fortune.
I just think that we should aim at elevating our citizens to the point where unskilled labour is a thing of the past, as we are already moving in that direction, it is time to accept the inevitable, and prepare for transition. Prepare our citizens for taking up roles that will be needed, rather than ones which are dwindling. We will always need a large service sector, and we will always need field level technicians, such as mechanics and AC repair persons. We should focus on those positions, and yes, improving education is important to this.
As things stand there is no way we can economically isolate ourselves, perish the thought, I consider competition healthy, usually.
We do need to place ourselves at the forefront of technology... however, (and I'm a paranoid conspiracy buff) so long as there are those who profit greatly from the current technology level, there will be resistance. Heavey resistance... fossil fuels are an excellent example.
*Produces a pipe, filling it with tobacco, strikes a match and lights it*
neutral
*puffs out a rich, faintly vanilla, smelling cloud*
As far as the leadership in unions... from my personal experience, they are the most ambitious and charismatic members of the work force... usually cunning, if not far-sighted. My famly is fairly wealthy from several of the events that happen in the background of unions.
The root of the labour unions was intollerable work conditions... propper legislation would address these concerns...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:07 pm
Arcadian So in order to cleanse unions, what must be done? I'm not entirely sure that I'm up for cleansing anything, frankly; I'm more of a reform-minded sort. Labor unions work just fine when they act as sources of information and advice for workers (on disadvantageous contracts or employers, etc) or when they use collective bargaining to improve poor working conditions (a la the unions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries). What needs to be prevented is when unions start working to fix wages, limiting competition, artificially limiting the labor supply, or protecting workers who should otherwise be fired (teachers' unions are especially adept at that last variety of economic meddling). Some of what unions do is beneficial and some harmful, and that fact has to be taken into account before we start eliminating anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:13 pm
Fiddlers Green We do need to place ourselves at the forefront of technology... however, (and I'm a paranoid conspiracy buff) so long as there are those who profit greatly from the current technology level, there will be resistance. Heavey resistance... fossil fuels are an excellent example. You realize, of course, that that''s less a conspiracy theory than a simple statement of fact. *lights yet another cigarette and takes a brief drink*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:25 pm
Thank you, Mr. Blue... stare
I need people to balance my paranoia and unrealistic assumptions, not reinforce them.
*sigh*
* drains the tumbler of it's remaining contents, and pours another drink... *
So I'm not just jumping at shadows on this matter...
Which makes this a rather pertinent matter.
What can be done to prevent the with-holding of new technologies?
I actually have considered this, and the way we currently structure intellectual property, there is little that can be done, short of founding a new company specifically for the new tech... and that could be disasterous in any number of ways, assuming it even was noticed.
*puffs on the pipe not unlike an antiquated train, billowing puffs of smoke at a regular interval.*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:30 pm
Tangled Up In Blue Arcadian So in order to cleanse unions, what must be done? I''m not entirely sure that I''m up for cleansing anything, frankly; I''m more of a reform-minded sort. Labor unions work just fine when they act as sources of information and advice for workers (on disadvantageous contracts or employers, etc) or when they use collective bargaining to improve poor working conditions (a la the unions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries). What needs to be prevented is when unions start working to fix wages, limiting competition, artificially limiting the labor supply, or protecting workers who should otherwise be fired (teachers'' unions are especially adept at that last variety of economic meddling). Some of what unions do is beneficial and some harmful, and that fact has to be taken into account before we start eliminating anything. I don''t know if this is the case for every field, but in education, many workers are bullied into joining unions. My mom who recently accepted a job as a teacher at a public school was pressured into joining a very strong union. It is a sign that the unions have too much power when membership is not completely optional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:35 pm
Fiddlers Green Thank you, Mr. Blue... stare I need people to balance my paranoia and unrealistic assumptions, not reinforce them. Don't blame me for speaking the truth. Rest assured though, I'll be more than willing to balance your paranoia if you start in on Majestic 12 or the Illuminati or... well you get the idea. Suffice it to say, being paranoid about the oil conglomerate blocking new technology is one of those 'just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that people aren't out to get me' scenarios. Fiddlers Green What can be done to prevent the with-holding of new technologies? I actually have considered this, and the way we currently structure intellectual property, there is little that can be done, short of founding a new company specifically for the new tech... and that could be disasterous in any number of ways, assuming it even was noticed. Well I think that the most basic thing would be to stop giving these oil companies ******** tax breaks. That seems like a good start. This may be one of the most important issues that we're looking at though because if we don't have a viable alternative energy source by the time we run out of oil reserves our entire economy will collapse. On the plus side, Wal-Mart would be utterly destroyed, but that hardly offsets the otherwise catastrophic economic implications. Anyone have some more ideas on how to fix the problem, 'cause this is one that's had me stumped for a while now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
