Questions for all of you about unions, from a FORMER TEACHER.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

(1) Are all of you on board that unions are what brought us worker protections?

(2) Is there ANYONE HERE that doesn't understand the reasons why REPUBLICANS fight tooth and nail to destroy unions?

(3) Is there ANYONE HERE who thinks that the more concessions we give corporations the better off we'll be?

(4) Is there ANYONE HERE that is unaware that despite the constant eroding of unions (by request of corporations), and the tax breaks galore that corporations have been enjoying for decades, that the way they paid us WAS BY REMOVING JOBS FROM OUR COUNTRY AND MOVING THEM ABROAD, where they can pay almost nothing for labor?

(5) Does ANYONE HERE doubt that it's adding insult to injury that corporations have removed jobs to take them to countries where labor costs are almost nil, and then we are FORCED to buy the products manufactured abroad because NOTHING is manufactured here?

I would really like to hear some opinions on this.

I'm a former teacher, and have watched, HEARTBROKEN, the way that REPUBLICANS have gone after MY unions like piranhas after a piece of fresh meat.

[msongs]

1. I know teachers who hate the union but they take the raises anyway = hypocrite scum lol nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. I'm sure! I know Republicans that hate welfare and ARE ON IT. Republicans are born stupid

We need to 'out' these hypocrites for the hypocrites they are.

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. They won't be happy until "school" consists of kids logging into

a website hosted in India for their "lessons".

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. True! Who are these people who believe this tho? Are there any LIBS that are against unions?

Unions are what brought us from the Middle Ages of work, without protections. We NEED unions.

[OHdem10]

3. Just as we permitted Republicans to destroy the word Liberal

we are watching them go after Unions by smearing and
demonization. They have rendered Liberals Irrelavent.
I hope they do not destroy Unions. They are hell bent
on it. Democrats are not fighting back too much.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. Yes, we are, and I, for one, would like to know WHY we are permitting this.

Why are we throwing our entire country under the bus????

[Whiskeytide]

5. You're preaching to the choir here...

...but in answer to your questions:

Yes, No, No, No, and No. The three prong plan has been to weaken unions, trial lawyers (tort reform) and government regulation. Any organization seen as a threat to corporate autonomy has been targeted, and it has worked beautifully. "Union corruption", "Greedy Trial Lawyers " and "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" have become dogma for the right wing machine. Its depressing.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. We have to unite in this, and fight them at every turn. I have a boyfriend that is against the 3:

Unions, trial lawyers (tort reform) and government regulation. Because these are so crucial to the majority of Americans, our relationship is on its last leg. I can't accept the unreasonableness of someone beliefs that are detrimental to the majority of Americans.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. To control the message of young minds.

You don't want critical thinking and knowledge that will make participating citizens.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. True. My sister is making sure her kids aren't influenced by Republican bullshit

But it's a battle. There are too many sheeple out there.

[DainBramaged]

11. If you had named the thread Charlie Sheen, it would be over 100 responses now.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. Isn't it sad how SHALLOW we have become? We even allow ourselves to be thrown under the bus.

I shouldn't say 'we.' I should say SOME people, really.

[Snotcicles]

33. Not nearly as good as republican boy friends threads. nt

[LWolf]

12. Answers from a CURRENT teacher:

1. Yes. Unions brought us worker protections.

2. I understand the reasons why NEOLIBERALS, Republican and Democrat, fight tooth and nail to destroy unions.

3. No. I don't think corporations need concessions; they need regulating. We need better, and better-enforced, anti-trust laws. We need stronger labor protections. We need to get rid of NAFTA/CAFTA.

4. I am aware. As I said...abolish NAFTA/CAFTA. We need trade based on high labor and environmental standards.

5. No doubt here. It's hard to find things manufactured in the U.S. any longer.

What's most heartbreaking is to hear many DEMOCRATS going after unions, and MY union, like piranhas after a piece of fresh meat. :(

When both parties gang up on us, I lose hope.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. I get you completely. 100%. I don't 'get' the liberals against unions.

I'd like to speak to them and find out what their problem is.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. Of course, I'm not hearing any of the anti-union liberals stick their neck out here.

I wish they'd be honest and say whatever it is they think. I'd like to hear it.

[LWolf]

19. Kind of like their commander-in-chief,

they have to be careful not to be too blatantly anti-democratic and anti-Democratic. A few have bashed teachers' unions in particular here on a regular basis, but most people claiming to be Democrats will use the vague talking points that try to sound supportive while working against unions that are handed down by "Democratic" neoliberals.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. That's because they're too stupid to realize that their lives are at stake if unions die

That's all it is. Stupidity and a false feeling of being in a protected bubble.

[kctim]

20. You aren't hearing from them

because they aren't "anti-union," they are pro-choice.

That and they are probably Democrats, not liberals.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. Pro-choice? How does that relate to unions?

Republicans have made me dislike churches and the whole entire FAKE anti-abortion bullshit.

Pardon my French.

[kctim]

27. We are talking Democrats, not Republicans

and the biggest beef I have heard is that they want employees to have a choice on whether to join the union or not.
They aren't anti-union, they are pro-choice.

That is why it pays to listen to people if you really wish to understand their view.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. Fine, but a Democrat that thinks that way, is an idiot who doesn't know which end is up

And thinks himself immune, when in reality he's risking turning his country fully fascist through his stupidity.

[kctim]

32. So be it

Personally, I respect their view of being pro-choice as much as I respect the views of those who wish to join a union. Of course, I am very pro-choice, not hypocritical about it one bit, so I am probably a little biased on the subject.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

37. So you want to tell me what to do with my uterus? What if I wanted to tell you what to do with your

prostate? Wouldn't be nice, would it?

[nomb]

38. You may wish to re-read the post, I think you may have responded to something that is not there.

I believe the poster said, "I am very pro-choice".

[Sarah Ibarruri]

40. Ok, my bad. Sorry to the poster. nt

[sense]

36. I've stuck my neck out several times on teacher's

unions, not the rest of the unions, just the teacher's unions and the teachers and former teachers here pretend that my concerns aren't valid. I'm pro-union in all but one case. I would be for teacher's unions IF they were required to consider the affect their practices have on the children first. The teacher's unions are only interested in preserving teachers jobs and benefits. They are solely for the protection of adults and are not interested in the harm that comes to children when they put adults first.

The teacher's unions are the only unions that protects adults at the expense of children. Not ok, never going to be ok. There should not be a union who's only purpose is to protect the jobs of adults, while those adults have unfettered access to our children. I'm not saying that teachers are any worse, as a group, than any other group. You cannot judge anyone by the group they identify with or are unwittingly a part of, must be a part of for any reason..... you cannot discriminate in that way. That said. Teachers have total control, influence and power over our children 6 hours a day (or more), 5 days a week, for 12 years. There are abusive and/or ignorant teachers who should not be in the profession who continue unabated because the unions protect them. That is my only beef.

My child was abused and bullied by more than one teacher, with witnesses, and we were forced to remove him from public school in order to protect him and educate him. We were advised to remove him from the toxic (not my word) environment because the teachers were tenured and no one was willing to fight that battle for my son. In this state public schools are required to teach each student at their rate and level of learning and when we insisted that must be done, our child was bullied and abused unmercifully by teachers who wanted only to teach the curriculum, not the children. They refused to consider that children are individuals and that their rates and levels of learning are not determined by something so completely irrelevant as age.

This doesn't mean that I'm against public schools or teachers. I think public schools are absolutely necessary and what's going on now to try to replace them with Charter and/or private schools is evil.

That doesn't mean that adults should be protected by unions at the expense of children. Fix that problem and I'm for all unions, all the time.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

39. I appreciate you getting out there. You are FAR FAR braver than most who are anti-union

But are hiding, afraid of my post, terrified of what I might respond to them.

Here are my questions and comments in response to what you said.


#1: Unions are not there to defend your child. I’m not entirely sure you understand what a union is. You’re wanting unions to take on roles and responsibilities that they do not have. Do you do that with other organizations?

#2: How was your child bullied, and what was the issue about?

#3: Teachers do NOT have total control. I’ve taught in Spain and I’ve taught here, and teachers have nil control here, compared to what they have in Spain, and kids are far happier in Spain. The number of differences between schooling here and schooling in Spain are tremendous, yet I find that kids are happier there. Why? First, they have family members delivering them to school, picking them up from school, and a family member is always at home. They are not latchkey kids. They are not abandoned to video games, being alone, and families are very close-knit. The country has a family-centered society, and that's far happier.

I taught in Spain and I taught here, and I have had a chance to compare.

Kids here come to school with HUGE problems. They come from broken homes and no other family members to pick up the space left by the parent that is missing. They come from poverty or chaotic homes. Distances here are huge, and there's no cohesive society of neighbors always helping neighbors and public transport. There's job security there but not here, and here, when someone loses a job, they could have one foot on the street. Parents here are stressed beyond anyone's wild imagination and that's transferred to the kids. Here, TV is on all evening until kids go to sleep, they're on the computer all day till they go to sleep, they're doing video games all day till they go to sleep.

What we have here is a chaotic society, chaotic families, and kids that end up emotionally unable to cope with school systems. I'll bet if we transferred kids to Spanish schools (if those schools were held in English), American kids would not be able to tolerate it. They're hyper, they're nervous, their lives are a mess.

And always, always, teachers are blamed (BY REPUBLICANS) for the mess causing kids here to fail not only scholastically, but socially and in so many other areas.

In Spain, parents are delighted with all teachers, no matter what. Here? Teachers are blamed for the problems the kids are suffering as a result of the mess we've all turned this country into.

[sense]

64. #1 I'm fully aware

that unions are not there to defend children. However, they defend adults who are only employed due to our children needing an education and we're expected to turn our children over to union teachers for a very large portion of their lives and there really are no safeguards in place to protect our children, just safeguards to defend the offenders.

My son entered school at 5. He had already learned math through elementary level and was ready for algebra. He taught himself to read at 3, we think, but may have been reading before that. He clearly needed an education at his level and rate of learning, not the level and rate being taught. He started college at 16 already speaking 5 languages. He was abused because he was different. We are all individuals and should be treated as such. Unfortunately, in this country, so many of the people who go into teaching are not at his end of the spectrum and resent children who learn more quickly than they do. They act out against children and the unions protect them.

#2 My child was bullied because he expected an education and the teachers didn't want to teach him. He's extremely gifted and they only wanted to teach what they planned or a more dumbed down version. One teacher was told by another child that mine wasn't singing when he was supposed to (very quiet child) so on the word of that one child she stood him in front of the entire class and made him sing while encouraging the other children to laugh at him until he cried. There was, of course, an entire classroom full of witnesses and she later admitted she did it. She was not disciplined in any way and in fact is still "teaching" if you can call it that. Just one example that year of her methods of ensuring that all the children were uniform. (Japanese native in an immersion school teaching in the Japanese way instead of allowing children to be who they are).

Another teacher (third grade) refused to teach him any math beyond addition and subtraction (because she didn't know any) and forced him to do timed worksheets every day of only that because he wasn't able to write fast enough to get through writing the answers to 25 problems in less than 2 minutes, so he clearly (according to her) just needed more practice. She wrote a scathing letter that was put in his file that he was ruining her marriage because he required so much more work than the other children. She forced him to complete the incredibly dumbed down homework in order to even be considered for work somewhat closer to his level (dribbled out erratically and sparingly, instead of as his IEP required). She was also the playground monitor and when children beat him up she would threaten him with detention for asking for help from her. She never stopped them, only instructed him to conform his behavior to the immature behavior of the others. He wanted to follow the rules (not cheat and/or play his position). In games with rules, he followed them. In games with positions (basketball, baseball, soccer) he wanted the children to play their positions like he was, as a team, as opposed to the big ball of children gathered in one spot with whatever ball it was.

#3 He was in school for 4 miserable years. He had 10 teachers (due to language immersion and skipping two grades). Four of those teachers did no harm, (if you could call their apathy, no harm) but failed to teach him anything he didn't already know; four were good teachers who did the best they could in what you know to be a chaotic system, and two were abusive. There was no excuse for the abuse, but it became so bad and he became so depressed and angry because he just wanted to learn, that we had to remove him. There were witnesses, the principal agreed there was abuse. The gifted counselor we brought in from the local university advised that the environment was toxic for him and that removing him was our only option due to the onerous process we'd have to endure for an extended period of time if we wished to ensure that the worst of the teachers couldn't continue to abuse children. We didn't want to remove him, we wanted to remove the teachers for our child and the others we knew they were punishing for being bright. Weighing the options, we removed our child. We unschooled, facilitated an education in the community (home schooled, but didn't bring home the "school model").

I absolutely agree that the situation in this country is appalling. Many other countries do so much better than we do with so much less. I would love for our system to be different and there's plenty of blame to go around. The teacher's unions are a part of the problem only because the leaders of those unions are concerned only with the adults (which is their job) and in being only concerned with protecting the jobs of adults, they allow abuse to continue.

We had so many witnesses, yet the union was seen as so strong that no one was willing to fight for an 8 year old. The abuse wasn't sexual, just discriminatory. It didn't involve a child at the other end of the spectrum (popular), but a bright child (seen as already having an advantage) so there wasn't the support for a battle.

In the end, we clearly won, as our child is educated and happy. Unfortunately many others are still losing the battle for an education at the hands of those protected, tenured teachers.

[roxiejules]

73. This is not a good reason to bust unions

Sounds like a Principal problem, rather than teacher.

Gifted children are protected under ADA. If a teacher does not have the tools and the school isn’t providing support, what can they do? They cannot sit and tutor one and leave the others behind all day. And if you are in a Japanese immersion school, you should probably expect Japanese style teaching.

Why did he have an IEP?

[sense]

74. I hope that you're just naive.

Gifted children are protected? Not a chance. The principal was the one who ensured that he got a two year grade skip and the one who knew that it wasn't sufficient. She encouraged us to home school due to the nature of the the fight we were about to embark on to try to get him an education in the public system.

He had an IEP because he is extremely gifted, as an attempt to force them to teach him at his rate and level of learning, as required by law. You cannot force anyone to teach when they are not capable of doing that so that didn't work. He was a sweet, polite, patient, cooperative child when we enrolled him. The IEP had nothing to do with expecting preferential treatment or something more than the others received. The majority (including and especially those at the other end of the spectrum) were being taught at their rate and level of learning. Every child is entitled to a public education and we were told that we couldn't have that for our child. There are laws in place that state all children must be taught at their rate and level of learning. The laws are routinely broken and teachers are routinely protected by their unions when they refuse. There have been many lawsuits won in this state against districts who do not provide children who have above average IQs with an appropriate education. The districts continue to provide lip service only and the lawsuits continue. It's simple discrimination.

All of the Japanese teachers were well aware that they were expected to teach in the American style and slightly more than 3/4 of them succeeded in doing so, at his school.

[socialist_n_TN]

62. Some people who claim to be "liberal" aren't

is the simplest answer. Oh, there might be one or two issues that they side with the left on, but in general, they're NOT ACTUALLY LIBERAL. And certainly not leftist.

[Iggo]

15. UNION YES.

Edited to add: That should be the overall easiest call to make here at DU. If we are who we say we are, I can't even imagine why it might ever have less than 100% approval.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. I agree. I think that an anti-union person is NOT a liberal. nt

[sense]

72. Your opinion is invalid and

just as bigoted as someone who "believes" that brown people are not ___________ (fill in the blanks). You discriminate when you judge all people as one for any one thing they do, think, say or are.

[NNN0LHI]

17. No one is forced to purchase a car without a UAW Union label on it

Doing that is a conscious decision when someone does it.

Do you agree?

Don

[shanti]

21. not a teacher

but i was a union member for 21 years before retiring. it's sickening to watch the destruction of unions.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. It is. We can thank Reagan for that. nt

[Romulox]

24. Several of the Teachers' Union posters here on DU admit to driving Toyotas, Hyundais, etc.

How does that figure in?

[nomb]

25. It's a very real issue. n't

[Sarah Ibarruri]

45. Another anti-union. nt

[SlimJimmy]

60. How is hoping that union members buy union made cars anti-union?

I would think that would be a pretty easy decision to make. As for me, I drive a general motors vehicle.

[Robb]

28. Short-sightedness, and fear.

There was a time when a plumbing shop would close up to go walk with machinists. Not so today.

Real solidarity means risk. There is little tolerance for it in the current job climate -- ironically precisely when such courage is required.

[Romulox]

29. Consumer Reports notwithstanding, buying a Chevy isn't a "risk"

It's a basic expression of the concept of "solidarity".

[Robb]

30. LOL

Agreed. Although I'd hope for a touch more, you're right, it would be the least one could do.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

47. Another? nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

46. We've allowed all this to happen. First, by being friendly to Reagan

Then by not fighting the anti-union a-holes.

[Robb]

54. Agreed. When Reagan fired the air traffic controllers

...every union should have stood with them.

To our shame we did not. And the damage has been very hard to undo.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

57. I agree. Is it too late, tho. That's the question. Can we salvage something still?

Hopefully, we can.

[socialist_n_TN]

63. Well it means risk because most strikes are illegal

In your example, that would be an illegal strike by the plumbers.

Speaking of unions, here's something about the Longshore union: http://www.workerspower.net/ilwu-battling-back-on-longview-ports

[DainBramaged]

34. They figure the teacher's Union gives them a lifetime pass to buy foreign shit

There was a day when we (the UAW) made shitty products because the bean-counters controlled manufacturing. Not so today. I am and forever will be a GM buyer, more so now than in the past. We aren't ashamed of our cars anymore. The new Equinox and Cruze AREN'T coming into the shop for repairs, the Malibu's and Impalas RARELY, we don't sell a lot of Colorado's so who cares, and the new Traverse, excluding timing chain failures due to people going WAY beyond recommend oil change intervals, are super reliable.

We haven't had a single Camaro back for drivetrain related warranty work in nearly two years since they were delivered. And Corvettes, except when the owners beat the crap out of them (and brag about it on YouTube) and then come back in for warranty work because of a blown trans or rear, don't come back, period.


We make good shit, and one day those that think their foreign iron is better will learn the hard way. It's OK for us to stand with them, but when it comes to car choices, they tell us to go fuck ourselves, rant over. :rant:

[nomb]

35. It's a very real issue. And it should be underlined. (BTW - OP, what do you drive?) n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

41. You? nt

[nomb]

71. Ford, Chevy, Buick, Jeep.

I guess I'm price sensitive to a certain extent. I can't say any of them had any problems. The 2001 Jeep Cherokee (in 2 door with only 2 wheel drive) was, and remains, my only new car.

I am lucky though, I have always worked both here and in Europe within walking distance of public transportation and I used to ride a bike daily throughout the year to get around.

I now no longer take my bike in inclement weather - gone are the days I would push it through snow in order that I might have it to ride back on. (I have pushed it both ways on occasion. :)

[DainBramaged]

70. 2007 Chevy Cobalt SS

Except for a single Ford, I have owned and driven Pontiac, Oldsmobile and PRIMARILY Chevy's all of my life.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

42. You think American products were shitty? Like what? I think all we buy from China now is pure shit

I disagree with you that American products were ever bad.

Our product quality began to drop the moment jobs began to be transferred abroad.

[REP]

49. Many US cars of the 70s and early 80s were of poor quality due to management demands/designs

Not the workers' fault. They didn't design the ugly, break-down prone things they were forced to build.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

50. Yeah? I had American cars and they weren't shitty. What were you driving?

And what was better than the American cars you were driving?

[REP]

58. I didn't have a license until 1994; I drove a 1986 Pontiac 6000LE then until 2004

The design quality of US-made cars of the 70s and early 80s is not much disputed by anyone. The workers who built those cars are NOT the ones responsible for their poor design and performance.

I owned three Pontiacs and loved them; I would be driving a fourth if the design had made it out of prototype (I may still buy a Solstice anyway, even though convertibles are not a practical choice for someone who is literally allergic to sunlight).

[Sarah Ibarruri]

43. Finally an anti-union one shows up. nt

[Romulox]

52. You calling me anti-union for pointing out the truth?

Aren't the "Should I buy a Prius?" types anti-UAW? :shrug:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

53. And what exactly is 'the truth' as you view it? nt

[Romulox]

55. My first post to this thread, to which you responded.

I have no interest in playing games with you. Nothing I've said here is "anti-union".

[Sarah Ibarruri]

56. I asked a question, and you became defensive. nt

[Romulox]

59. You began this exchange with namecalling!

:shrug:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

61. Really? Where? Point it out. I think you really need to stop accusing others of namecalling.

I don't about others, but I don't appreciate it.

[Romulox]

66. You don't remember typing "Finally an anti-union one shows up. nt"?

Uh, OK. :shrug:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

69. And that's an insult? That's not a question? nt

[LeftyMom]

65. Doing what they can on the salaries they get?

My kid sister has a teaching degree (and no teaching job, because California schools can't afford to keep the teachers they have) and her daily driver is a Honda, because she needed to get a more reliable car than her prior (GM) mini-ute, which was a POS. I'm sure she'd be happy to get a newer domestic, but for the age of used car that was in her budget, the Honda was a better bet.

I'm not a union member but I bought a Subaru for the same reason: because it was the best, most reliable car that met my needs in my price range, and because I can't afford to deal with higher cost of ownership to make a political statement. My previous car was a Saturn, and I loved it, but they discontinued that model and there wasn't a similar domestic wagon of acceptable quality at the time I was car shopping.

[Romulox]

67. Finally an anti-union one shows up. nt

:rofl:

[msanthrope]

68. "Union for Me, But not for Thee."

I've never understood why one should entrust one's child to union members, but not one's consumer purchases....

[DainBramaged]

26. CHARLIE SHEEN LOVES BREAST FEEDING NARWHALS THAT SMOKE AND DRINK DECAFFEINATED SODA

:evilgrin:

[REP]

48. Pro-union, member of TIU, former member of CWA

Remember, when asking to speak with a customer service rep in the US, especially with a telcom, you are supporting Union workers (At$T and Verizon CSRs are Union).

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. Good idea. I hadn't thought of that. Why don't you make that an original post?

That's something we all should be doing.