NEA Terrorists

Gunshy · Post by **Gunshy** » 2004-02-24 07:12pm

So says Education Secretary Rod Paige. Ass. I'm fairly anti-union myself, but this man should be forced to resign. In fact, that's what the NEA thinks.

NEA reply

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-24 07:15pm

They certainly deserve a negative label. Just something less intense.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-02-24 08:12pm

That's what happens when everyone jumps on the bandwagon. If this "War on Terrorism" ever ends the word will probably already have lost its meaning from people abusing the term.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-02-24 09:05pm

Obstructionists. facists. relics. a lot of good labels come to mind for the NEA. Terrorist is a bit steep.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-02-24 09:45pm

Definately harsh..and dumb...an excellent example from the admin.

Trouble for me is I go both ways on the issue of unions. They do some good for teachers, especially as so many states pay them horriblly. Though that could be a sign of how badly they do, it could also be said they keep it from being worse.

But also they can be bad. My dad teaches at a U and is not a part of the union of instructors. When they worked out the last contracts, he got a nice raise and extras, as a long standing and hard working prof, as did most of the professors in the department. But the union stepped in (note their memebership is made up of only a small number of instructors). They gummed up the works and wanted their to be blanket raises for everyone, meaning anyone who got a meaningful raise could kiss it goodbye. I am all for equality, but the job space rewards ought to work on merit, not fraternity. So these hardworking (and underpaid) people had their raises and upgrades frozen for over a semester, while the unions fought "for them". It even asked them to pitch in.

Unions can do good, but they can also botch things up. I think it depends on the environment to see if it is useful. The trouble is they so often seem to become a cliche (bureaucratic conspiracy about getting money and holding sway).

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-02-24 10:30pm

Oddysseus wrote:Definately harsh..and dumb...an excellent example from the admin.

Trouble for me is I go both ways on the issue of unions. They do some good for teachers, especially as so many states pay them horriblly. Though that could be a sign of how badly they do, it could also be said they keep it from being worse.

But also they can be bad. My dad teaches at a U and is not a part of the union of instructors. When they worked out the last contracts, he got a nice raise and extras, as a long standing and hard working prof, as did most of the professors in the department. But the union stepped in (note their memebership is made up of only a small number of instructors). They gummed up the works and wanted their to be blanket raises for everyone, meaning anyone who got a meaningful raise could kiss it goodbye. I am all for equality, but the job space rewards ought to work on merit, not fraternity. So these hardworking (and underpaid) people had their raises and upgrades frozen for over a semester, while the unions fought "for them". It even asked them to pitch in.

Unions can do good, but they can also botch things up. I think it depends on the environment to see if it is useful. The trouble is they so often seem to become a cliche (bureaucratic conspiracy about getting money and holding sway).

fuck. i live in a union stronghold. there are over 25 school districts in Rhode Island. can you imagine that? 25 administrations and 25 seperate teachers unions serving a state of just over a million people. every time movement is made towwards consolidating the districts the unions (all 25 of them) scream bloody fucking murder, call in the teamsters, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME and storm the state house or what ever city or town hall the deem worthy of there ire. You see, every district renews a contract every 3 years. That way the unions can stagger their strikes (there are two or three every year, not conting the secondary service unions: janitors, lunch cooks etc) so not to piss off the entire state or a large chunk at once, securing their stranglehold. And they are all too willing to strike, despite the illegality of strikes by 'critical' municipal employees (police, firefighters, teachers) If there were only a handfull of districts, the people would wig out over prolonged strikes and put an end to the bullshit. One local union did grow a grade a sack of brass balls a few years back. One of the suburban districts went on strike for like 6 weeks. A judge ruled it illegal and actually sent some union leaders to jail until the strike ended. real ugly.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-02-24 10:35pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Oddysseus wrote:Definately harsh..and dumb...an excellent example from the admin.

Trouble for me is I go both ways on the issue of unions. They do some good for teachers, especially as so many states pay them horriblly. Though that could be a sign of how badly they do, it could also be said they keep it from being worse.

But also they can be bad. My dad teaches at a U and is not a part of the union of instructors. When they worked out the last contracts, he got a nice raise and extras, as a long standing and hard working prof, as did most of the professors in the department. But the union stepped in (note their memebership is made up of only a small number of instructors). They gummed up the works and wanted their to be blanket raises for everyone, meaning anyone who got a meaningful raise could kiss it goodbye. I am all for equality, but the job space rewards ought to work on merit, not fraternity. So these hardworking (and underpaid) people had their raises and upgrades frozen for over a semester, while the unions fought "for them". It even asked them to pitch in.

Unions can do good, but they can also botch things up. I think it depends on the environment to see if it is useful. The trouble is they so often seem to become a cliche (bureaucratic conspiracy about getting money and holding sway).
fuck. i live in a union stronghold. there are over 25 school districts in Rhode Island. can you imagine that? 25 administrations and 25 seperate teachers unions serving a state of just over a million people. every time movement is made towwards consolidating the districts the unions (all 25 of them) scream bloody fucking murder, call in the teamsters, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME and storm the state house or what ever city or town hall the deem worthy of there ire. You see, every district renews a contract every 3 years. That way the unions can stagger their strikes (there are two or three every year, not conting the secondary service unions: janitors, lunch cooks etc) so not to piss off the entire state or a large chunk at once, securing their stranglehold. And they are all too willing to strike, despite the illegality of strikes by 'critical' municipal employees (police, firefighters, teachers) If there were only a handfull of districts, the people would wig out over prolonged strikes and put an end to the bullshit. One local union did grow a grade a sack of brass balls a few years back. One of the suburban districts went on strike for like 6 weeks. A judge ruled it illegal and actually sent some union leaders to jail until the strike ended. real ugly.

Yup. This sounds like a bad use of unions. I know it seems likethey have NO place in life. But some people workin jobs where they have no voice and are treated like crap by their bosses (like hotel cleaners). People sometimes have legit grievances. But the last 30 years have offered SO MANY examples of the abuse of the system (like yours), it is hard to see any value to them. ANd for more and more the value is negligible.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-24 11:40pm

My Mom's a teacher, and has been for the last 25 years, and she can't stand the NEA. That should say something about them.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-02-24 11:53pm

1. As much as I hate the NEA, it is not a terrorist organization and the choice of words was poor. The Secretary ought to be dealt with.

2. The NEA fucking sucks. That is all.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-02-25 12:31am

The overuse of the term "terrorist" really bugs me. It buged me when the administration called Iraqi guerilla's firing RPGs at our troops from ambush terrorists, it bugs me when people on call the administration terrorists, and it bugs me when this idiot calls a union terrorists.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-25 12:32am

Symmetry wrote:It buged me when the administration called Iraqi guerilla's firing RPGs at our troops from ambush terrorists,

Why did that bug you? They're terrorists.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-25 12:34am

Rogue 9 wrote:
Symmetry wrote:It buged me when the administration called Iraqi guerilla's firing RPGs at our troops from ambush terrorists,
Why did that bug you? They're terrorists.

No, they're not. They're guerilla fighters firing at military targets. The ones who are blowing up civilian cafes in Baghdad are terrorists.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-25 12:36am

Quite right. If you're mart of a militia attacking military targets you're most certainly not a terrorist (assuming that's all you're doing of course).

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-25 12:37am

I wouldn't put it past them to do both, but since I'm not on the ground over there I have no evidence of this. So I'll shut up now.