Since our current President was sworn in, you keep hearing from his followers, and that includes the few on here about how important things like the stimulus bill were.

I have maintained that the "stimulus" bill was loaded with a lot of little "traps" but we are just learning more and more about the relationship of this President and unions...

"...he included special restrictions on much of the economic-stimulus funds, requiring that large portions of the $787 billion be used only on projects involving unionized workers. The stimulus also included “Buy American” clauses that infuriated our trading partners. Though Obama was said to oppose adding trade restrictions to the bill, that didn’t stop him from signing it.

This article from Bloomberg goes into much of this President's love affair with unions and is one more example of where this is going...

"President Barack Obama’s union with labor unions has become a marriage made in hell. If he wants to save his presidency, and his party, he should seek a divorce.

When Obama met with House Republicans last month, he chastised them for mischaracterizing his health-care agenda. “You’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot,” he said. It’s not, of course, but Republicans can be forgiven for observing the truth that this president has been more in the tank for the labor movement than any U.S. president since World War II.

It certainly has made great financial sense for the president to align himself with the unions. After all, organized labor spent more than $100 million in the last election supporting Democrats. And for unions, the investment looks like a good one. Since taking office, Obama has doggedly pursued their agenda".

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aJarhKRzqHqY


And by the way, wouldnt it be great if our President held a news conference ?

In a town in Rhode Island, they asked the teachers to work a few minute more a day to help students and they refused. They average $78,000-80,000 while the average worker in the town makes $22,000.

They fired all the teachers. Hooray!!!!!!!!!
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...of-them-2010-2

Late 70's and early 80's employment was over 20,000. Early 21st century...2000-2005 employment was 6,000.....today there is only administration left around 2000.
Very strong, unyielding union, very highly paid members = thousands with no jobs and the loss of a manufacturing dynasty to off shore facilities.
We used to proudly brag that with all the "stuff" going off shore you can still buy GE major appliances made in the good old USA....until the unions drove a stake in the heart of the business.
Unions and high cost, plus spineless management = loss of USA manufacturing and the related jobs to offshore. Pick an industry that relies on manufacturing. Check out the employment losses over the last 50 years.
When you find the number of jobs lost is in the millions you may begin to understand the country needs manufacturing based businesses to get the country back on track.
ANother comment about the management of theses companies: they decimated manufacturing in the USA to lower costs, hence increase profitability....right? And the after all the manufacturing is off shore and costs are lower, using automotive as the example this time.....they go bankrupt......unions with selfish high paid leadership in conjunction with selfish high paid management, supported and complimented by a selfish and high do nothing government both local and federal = the problem we have today. There is no mystery. And Bush didn't do it. It has been in the works under every POTUS for the last 50 years.

So when I personally see and hear the alignment of Obama and the unions there is absolutely no good that can come from such affinity.....and there will CERTAINLY be no return of lost or new manufacturing under such a relationship. Only votes!!!!

btk

Obama has surrounded himself with public sector hacks. Most of cabinet and Czars have never worked in the private sector. Is it any wonder we are losing millions of jobs and have created absolutely zero new private sector jobs? Hurry 2012.

If it's any consolation, the millions of dollars of stimulus money that NH got to speed up a major road project (Manchester Airport connector highway linking the airport to the Everett Turnpike to get the traffic off local roads) is NOT being spent on union workers.

I have to control my temper and emotions when unions are brought into a discussion.

I have personally met Richard Trumka in a professional manner back when he was the president of the United Mine Workers of America. My then husband was breaking his back as a steelworker and member of the UMWA while Trumka stepped on him and other union workers to rise to his present -day position as president of the AFL-CIO - making more than $238,975 in annual salary (not to mention benefits and perks and his hefty promise of retirement benefits).

We paid union dues even though my exhusband drove hundreds of miles and spent weeks away from home to work at non-union jobs. His loyalty to the union was well bred and well intended, although I doubt he'll ever have enough hours working union jobs to get any benefits from paying the weekly dues.

The history of the labor union where I grewup, the UMWA, was paved with the best intentions for the safety, health and well fair of good, decent, honest, hard workers. It's turned into a greed infested cesspool of double talking suits with offices in DC. Sorry, but that felt sorta' good.

The number of union members has dropped so dramatically that the union leaders are fighting in other countries, IMHO not to help workers but to help themselves keep positions of influence and keep large salaries.

Sorry, but that felt sorta' good. Now, if you wanna know how I really feel about unions in New England....

Wow Donna,might there be a little "spin" in your post?
I am not defending the teachers or the superintendent for what happened in R.I. I am however going to give the facts of the case.Thisis what teachers were TOLD they had to do:
Add 25 minutes to the school day
private tutoring before and after school
eating lunch with students once a week
submitting to more rigorous evaluation
attending weekly after school planning sessions
participating in 2 weeks of training in the summer
As for the salaries.....I thought thet were a little high...with a doctorate degree and 10 years teaching $70,190....starting salary..$33,815 and average salary for a R.I. teacher...$54,730. These figures are from the R.I. State Board of Ed. I think your figures might have been fudged a little.
I also might add that I'm a little disappointed in your reaction to 100 people losing their jobs. I would imagine that many of them have families to support.

Here is the story Donna was referring to:

http://www.projo.com/news/content/Pr...5.3a633af.html

To me, it isn't a matter of wanting to see someone "lose" their job; it's a matter of wanting to keep your job. If you see the economy taking a turn in a downward position, collective bargaining agreements or not; what do you do when your job may be on the line because there isn't enough tax payer money coming in to support your position at the current pay level with benefits.

I'm not calling teachers mobsters by any stretch of the imagination. I have nothing but admiration and respect for good teachers. But let's face it, part of Rhode Island's union problems historically stem from the background on this story on the front page of today's Providence Journal:

http://newsblog.projo.com/2010/02/bo...ed-for-pa.html

this really has very little to do with money. The teachers are not asking for raises. This has more to do with" No Child Left Behind" and the complete collapse of parenting in America. If theres a lot of crime do we fire all the policemen and women? If there are lots of fires(California)should we fire all the fireffighters? There are really 2 things going on here. I have already mentioned the horrible parenting going on(almost everyday in the newspaper there is a story) and as more of a hidden agenda the elimination of collective bargaining not just for teachers but for everyone else.
And I hope cunningham is not saying that contracts that are collectively bargained should be ignored because the times aren't as good as they were.

Originally Posted by waynet

Wow Donna,might there be a little "spin" in your post?
I am not defending the teachers or the superintendent for what happened in R.I. I am however going to give the facts of the case.Thisis what teachers were TOLD they had to do:
Add 25 minutes to the school day
private tutoring before and after school
eating lunch with students once a week
submitting to more rigorous evaluation
attending weekly after school planning sessions
participating in 2 weeks of training in the summer
As for the salaries.....I thought thet were a little high...with a doctorate degree and 10 years teaching $70,190....starting salary..$33,815 and average salary for a R.I. teacher...$54,730. These figures are from the R.I. State Board of Ed. I think your figures might have been fudged a little.
I also might add that I'm a little disappointed in your reaction to 100 people losing their jobs. I would imagine that many of them have families to support.

I am a bit confused WAYNET.....


I read the link supplied by DONNA2.....Your response adds a bit and subtracts a bit WITH NO CREDIBLE LINK !

Could you please supply the source of YOUR EXTRA INFORMATION ?

Thanks

Bucco, if Waynet will allow me, here is a link to the six conditions presented to the union AFTER they refused a list of four other offers included in the state's "Transformational Model Intervention" at Central Falls High School by school superintendent Frances Gallo. The union refused these final conditions because the teachers would not receive additional pay.

http://www.projo.com/ri/centralfalls...1094bb3d0.html

Here is a little of the background that led to firing 74 teachers:

http://www.projo.com/ri/centralfalls...2.398afed.html

From PROJO: Money was a sticking point. The superintendent (Central Falls School Supt. Frances Gallo) said she could not pay teachers for all the extra work she expected of them.

Gallo said she offered to pay teachers $30 an hour for two additional weeks of training in the summer. Gallo also said she would try to find grant money to pay teachers for 90 minutes a week of after-school planning time, also at $30 an hour.

But she says she has no extra money to pay for other changes she is pushing for, including lengthening the instructional day by 25 minutes, so teachers work 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. instead of 7:50 a.m. to 2:25 p.m. She wants teachers to formalize a rotating tutoring schedule, so a teacher is available to help students for an hour before or after school, and she wants teachers to have lunch with students one day a week.

“Right now, they have no duties,” Gallo said. “But I don’t want them to see lunch as a duty. I want them to establish true relationships with not a few students, but all students.”

The average teacher’s salary at the high school ranges between $72,000 and $78,000 a year, because most are at the district’s top step, Gallo said. Union officials have been pushing for $90 per hour and want the district to pay for more of the additional responsibilities."

Originally Posted by waynet

this really has very little to do with money. The teachers are not asking for raises. This has more to do with" No Child Left Behind" and the complete collapse of parenting in America. If theres a lot of crime do we fire all the policemen and women? If there are lots of fires(California)should we fire all the fireffighters? There are really 2 things going on here. I have already mentioned the horrible parenting going on(almost everyday in the newspaper there is a story) and as more of a hidden agenda the elimination of collective bargaining not just for teachers but for everyone else.
And I hope cunningham is not saying that contracts that are collectively bargained should be ignored because the times aren't as good as they were.

When people making alot less money in the private sector are asked to multi-task and go above and beyond to keep their jobs, I do not think it is asking too much for public employees to give a little more too.
These "teachers" are making two to three times what the average private sector job pays.
And remember, public employees are payed by,we the taxpayers, which, by the way, are the employers.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

Bucco, if Waynet will allow me, here is a link to the six conditions presented to the union AFTER they refused a list of four other offers included in the state's "Transformational Model Intervention" at Central Falls High School by school superintendent Frances Gallo. The union refused these final conditions because the teachers would not receive additional pay.

http://www.projo.com/ri/centralfalls...1094bb3d0.html

Here is a little of the background that led to firing 74 teachers:

http://www.projo.com/ri/centralfalls...2.398afed.html

From PROJO: Money was a sticking point. The superintendent (Central Falls School Supt. Frances Gallo) said she could not pay teachers for all the extra work she expected of them.

Gallo said she offered to pay teachers $30 an hour for two additional weeks of training in the summer. Gallo also said she would try to find grant money to pay teachers for 90 minutes a week of after-school planning time, also at $30 an hour.

But she says she has no extra money to pay for other changes she is pushing for, including lengthening the instructional day by 25 minutes, so teachers work 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. instead of 7:50 a.m. to 2:25 p.m. She wants teachers to formalize a rotating tutoring schedule, so a teacher is available to help students for an hour before or after school, and she wants teachers to have lunch with students one day a week.

“Right now, they have no duties,” Gallo said. “But I don’t want them to see lunch as a duty. I want them to establish true relationships with not a few students, but all students.”

The average teacher’s salary at the high school ranges between $72,000 and $78,000 a year, because most are at the district’s top step, Gallo said. Union officials have been pushing for $90 per hour and want the district to pay for more of the additional responsibilities."

Thanks BK...I am married to a gal who taught for about 35 years and thus had interest in this, and just wanted to keep it into perspective ! Not questioning the veracity of Wayne, but links are important ESPECIALLY with localized stories !

Thanks again.....gotta tell you...my wife has been retired for about 15 years and never even got close to those salaries (wonder where Wayne got his)....but most of those duties were commonplace for her with no extra pay !

You are welcome Bucco. I have nothing but respect for good teachers. Those salaries don't reflect all of the pay either. Those figures are just basic steps and don't include extra pay for extra degrees and so forth. But remember, this is Rhode Island. The state requires monitors on elementary school buses. These monitors, who are union members, get off of the bus at stops and assure there are no children in the bus' path. When I lived in RI three years ago, these monitors in one town made $45 an hour and were guaranteed four hours of pay per day, five days a week. This at a cost of $11.7 million annually. I'd wager a bet that your wife didn't make that kind of money.

http://www.projo.com/opinion/editori...4.401fd50.html

http://www.teacher-world.com/teacher...y/rhode-island is the link for their salaries. If this doesn't work just google teacher salaries rhode island. I think the numbers are a bit high because Rhode Island is ranked I believe 15th in salaries.
As for the 6 points I don't think I added or subtracted anything from them.

But Donna the average salary in R.I. is $54,730 and thats with a B.S.degree and a Masters. Do you really think that that's 2-3 times more than the private sector?

As I said in my first post I am not defending either side but at least lets be fair.