....but it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to improve the
education process in Washington DC.

http://tinyurl.com/yls4e3l

Good on her.
--

John H

John H wrote:
...but it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to improve the
education process in Washington DC.

http://tinyurl.com/yls4e3l

Good on her.

There really is a god looking after us.

Black eye for the unions, putting their members before education. Shame
on them.

Jim wrote:
John H wrote:
...but it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to improve the
education process in Washington DC.
http://tinyurl.com/yls4e3l

Good on her.

There really is a god looking after us.

Black eye for the unions, putting their members before education. Shame
on them.

Just like UAW didn't care about GMs existance. After all, it was always
the plan to get the taxpayers on the hook.

Gene wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:59:52 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
...but it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to improve the
education process in Washington DC.

http://tinyurl.com/yls4e3l

Good on her.
There really is a god looking after us.

Black eye for the unions, putting their members before education. Shame
on them.

Amen, brother! Fire the rest of those teachers, free up the budget,
and let the little *******s teach themselves. Clearly the only way for
one interested in "actually trying to improve the education process in
Washington DC."
The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?

I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?

I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.
Might be as you say but I thought this particular layoff was due to
budget cuts. Ethics doesn't play a big part in modern day life. School
boards must realize that they sometimes need to take drastic measures to
prevent unions from running their school systems. Fight fire with fire,
if you will. I mean no disrespect to your wife, but I do not have
empathy for or support unions.

Gene wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:49:43 -0500, Jim wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?
I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.
Might be as you say but I thought this particular layoff was due to
budget cuts. Ethics doesn't play a big part in modern day life. School
boards must realize that they sometimes need to take drastic measures to
prevent unions from running their school systems. Fight fire with fire,
if you will. I mean no disrespect to your wife, but I do not have
empathy for or support unions.

Not only is Tom entirely correct, I'll add another very great truth.
Most local educational agencies are *VERY* top heavy (and becoming
more so with every year). If you are going to make cuts, you don't
send away the teachers and screw the students... you send away
superflous administrators... they don't teach ANYBODY and, well, isn't
teaching the whole idea?

Think about it.... ever heard a news report of: we dumped "X" amount
of teachers and "Y" amount of administrators that were, subsequently,
no longer needed?


One thing more...labor unions exist to promote and protect the rights of
their members, typically in the areas of wages, hours, working
conditions, et cetera. While both national teachers' unions are involved
in every aspect of promoting decent education for all kids, such is not
their primary purpose.

As it is the nature of employers to screw their employers, it is the
nature of unions to try to prevent that screwing.

As Woody Guthrie wrote in Tom Joad:


"I preached for the Lord a mighty long time
Preached about the rich and the poor.
Us workin' folks got to all get together,
Cause we ain't got a chance anymore.
We ain't got a chance anymore."

.. . .

"Ever'body might be just one big soul
Well it looks that a way to me.
Everywhere that you look in the day or night
That's where I'm gonna be, Ma,
That's where I'm gonna be.

Wherever little children are hungry and cry
Wherever people ain't free.
Wherever men are fightin' for their rights
That's where I'm gonna be, Ma.
That's where I'm a gonna be.



Of course, such thoughts are anathema to the conservatives.


--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet, or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?

I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.

I think anything that breaks the chain of union destruction, is good for
industry.. Nothing personal..

I am Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?
I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.

I think anything that breaks the chain of union destruction, is good for
industry.. Nothing personal..


Hehehe...this from a schmuck who couldn't hold down a unionized job as a
warehouse worker.


--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet, or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:18:50 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:59:52 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
...but it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to improve the
education process in Washington DC.

http://tinyurl.com/yls4e3l

Good on her.

There really is a god looking after us.

Black eye for the unions, putting their members before education. Shame
on them.

Amen, brother! Fire the rest of those teachers, free up the budget,
and let the little *******s teach themselves. Clearly the only way for
one interested in "actually trying to improve the education process in
Washington DC."

???
--

John H