Another School Shooting (Wrong Narrative Though)

[BjornP]

He’s certainly beating down straw men. I pointed out that more money for a wasteful institution clearly isn’t an answer. He immediately launched in to “what if everyone better than you has public unions and education?”

“Well, what if they do?”

“THEN THAT’S NOT THE PROBLEM”.

Is that really a brilliant argument, or is it a talking point important to Bjorn? A point relying on the hypothetical supposition that all nations performing better than us are using systems Bjorn agrees with?

Hardly the “gotcha” of the century, from my perspective.

You're right, it's not a brilliant argument. Wasn't meant to be a "brilliant argument" or a gotcha moment. My post was directed at you, not at trying to wow GCF, after all. There is no need to be talk of "hypothetical supposition" when your stats destroy the argument of "public education/public teachers union = poor education system".

I am not countering points you haven't made. You are against public sector unions, including teachers union and have, very recently in fact, argued that it shouldn't be possible to unionize if you're a public employee, and in the post of yours that I quoted to begin with, you blame public educators for the poor quality of education. So what was my strawman, then?

You waste money in public education? Ok. And who's responsible for oversight, for rules, basic criteria, standards, on public education, again? The teachers?

[DBTrek]

In King County (Seattle), teachers cannot be evaluated based on their students test performance.

Think about that. Their sole job is to educate students, and we’re forbidden by law to judge them on their actual performance.

So teachers may not be 100% of the problem, but I have to ask what percent of the solution you think they are, being completely shielded from the logical repercussions of poor work performance.

Where is our $14k+ per student going, and why is no one ultimately held responsible for greater funding not correlating to greater performance?

Can we all just take a step back from the reactionary urge to defend teachers and maybe try some actual root-cause analysis here?

[DBTrek]

There is no need to be talk of "hypothetical supposition" when your stats destroy the argument of "public education/public teachers union = poor education system".

I am not countering points you haven't made. You are against public sector unions, including teachers union and have, very recently in fact, argued that it shouldn't be possible to unionize if you're a public employee, and in the post of yours that I quoted to begin with, you blame public educators for the poor quality of education. So what was my strawman, then?

You waste money in public education? Ok. And who's responsible for oversight, for rules, basic criteria, standards, on public education, again? The teachers?

Even better.

You caught me (in another thread) advocating against allowing the incompetent and inefficient public educators (in this thread) to collectively bargain against the US taxpayer. Bravo.

What you failed to do is make a case for why the incompetent and inefficient public employees should be able to leverage the (questionable) education of our children into bigger paychecks for themselves. Especially when they can’t show us any returns on our investments, and when they actively seek legislation prohibiting us from holding them accountable for their results.

Maybe explain all that to the rest of us, and then I’ll applaud your contribution to the conversation.

[BjornP]

There is no need to be talk of "hypothetical supposition" when your stats destroy the argument of "public education/public teachers union = poor education system".

I am not countering points you haven't made. You are against public sector unions, including teachers union and have, very recently in fact, argued that it shouldn't be possible to unionize if you're a public employee, and in the post of yours that I quoted to begin with, you blame public educators for the poor quality of education. So what was my strawman, then?

You waste money in public education? Ok. And who's responsible for oversight, for rules, basic criteria, standards, on public education, again? The teachers?

Even better.

You caught me (in another thread) advocating against allowing the incompetent and inefficient public educators (in this thread) to collectively bargain against the US taxpayer. Bravo.

What you failed to do is make a case for why the incompetent and inefficient public employees should be able to leverage the (questionable) education of our children into bigger paychecks for themselves. Especially when they can’t show us any returns on our investments, and when they actively seek legislation prohibiting us from holding them accountable for their results.

Maybe explain all that to the rest of us, and then I’ll applaud your contribution to the conversation.

That case is simple. You have the liberty to organize your labor, and therefore they should have the same liberty. The only legitimate argument against denying freedom, is if it comes into conflict with someone elses freedoms. Your liberty is not impeded by a public union worker seeking higher wages. You may be economically inconvenienced, and they may be "show a return of investment", but you don't deny liberty that you yourself enjoy to your fellow citizens simply because it costs you money.

I hope "the rest of you", by which I naturally assume you meant all the component atoms of the person known as Dan, is currently clapping.

[DBTrek]

My liberty is impeded when workers that I neither elected, nor can vote out of their position, can collectively bargain to take more money from me. Especially when I have zero representation, and zero advocates defending my paycheck in these “negotiations”.

In what twisted definition of the word “liberty”, does “group of people take more of your income, you have no direct recourse” apply?

[SuburbanFarmer]

My liberty is impeded when workers that I neither elected, nor can vote out of their position, can collectively bargain to take more money from me. Especially when I have zero representation, and zero advocates defending my paycheck in these “negotiations”.

In what twisted definition of the word “liberty”, does “group of people take more of your income, you have no direct recourse” apply?

I don't see a difference between that, and representative democracy, tbh...

[DBTrek]

I can vote my representatives out of a job.
Public employees, I cannot.

When the teachers I’ve neither hired nor elected stage a walkout until I come up with more funds to pay them, what is my recourse?

They can directly take my money by claiming more of the “tax pie”. I can’t directly respond. I’m just the guy stuck paying whatever they demand with no representation or recourse. Apparently in Denmark being a financial hostage to your public employees is called “liberty”.
/shrug

[SuburbanFarmer]

I can vote my representatives out of a job.
Public employees, I cannot.

Oxymoron?

90% re-election rate. Suck it, pleb.

[BjornP]

My liberty is impeded when workers that I neither elected, nor can vote out of their position, can collectively bargain to take more money from me. Especially when I have zero representation, and zero advocates defending my paycheck in these “negotiations”.

In what twisted definition of the word “liberty”, does “group of people take more of your income, you have no direct recourse” apply?

You utterly fail to understand what liberty means.

Paying more, even if it's more wasteful, dollars in taxes isn't your fellow citizen denying you liberty. They are not taking away your liberty to unionize by them unionizing, they aren't denying you a constitutional right that only they enjoy. Liberty is individual. You are advocating denying a fellow individual citizen the same liberty you have, the liberty of unionizing, because it may make you pay more in taxes. What the fuck kind of view of liberty is that supposed to be?

I have no issue with you firing every single teacher in the public sector, hell lockout the lot of them with no pay untill they either give or you get new employees, and if your laws don't allow that make those laws. To repeat, supporting the right to unionize does not mean that they must enjoy a right to win. Only that they can try. Choice. Freedom. Liberty. "Even" when it's economically inconvenient for you.

[BjornP]

Apparently in Denmark being a financial hostage to your public employees is called “liberty”.
/shrug

Apparantly in America, public employees aren't fellow citizens who ought to enjoy the same liberties. /meh