Another School Shooting (Wrong Narrative Though)

[DBTrek]

Again, they collectively bargain against taxpayers who have no representation or advocates at the bargaining table - and the best Bjorn can offer is “Well, just because they bargain doesn’t mean they have the right to win!”



Denmark Liberty- strangers can collectivize to leverage money directly out of your wallet, your options are to 1. Take it, or 2. Take it.

Thanks for the Civics lesson, comrade.

[BjornP]

Again, they collectively bargain against taxpayers who have no representation or advocates at the bargaining table - and the best Bjorn can offer is “Well, just because they bargain doesn’t mean they have the right to win!”



Denmark Liberty- strangers can collectivize to leverage money directly out of your wallet, your options are to 1. Take it, or 2. Take it.

Thanks for the Civics lesson, comrade.

No, the only argument is that allowing them to collectively bargain grants them the same liberty you have. Arguing against that right is arguing against the notion that all citizens enjoy the same constitutional liberties.

Them collectively bargaining "against taxpayers" (which they don't, but let's accept your premise), means they should not enjoy the same liberties you do? So, because they hurt the size of your wallet, you think it's proportionate and just to deny them the same constitutional right you enjoy? You paying maybe a quarter of a dollar more in taxes is just cause for denying someone the same liberties you enjoy?

[DBTrek]

I'm surprised you don't see the difference.

Private sector union - labor organizes collectively to extract concessions from the employer, who is also the paymaster. The employer has a direct interest in either defending his business as is, or making some concessions to maintain the current workforce.

Public sector union - labor organizes collectively against the non-elected government bureaucracy (employer), and against their paymaster (the taxpayers). Management, the non-elected government bureaucrats running state and federal departments, have no direct stake in "the business". Nor are they beholden to some kind of "bottom line", profit margin, or shareholder expectations to keep their budgets in the black. Neither their livelihood nor the continued existence of their organization is at stake. The taxpayers, ultimately on the hook for all financial concessions, have no representation at the bargaining table at all.

But you know, it's all about liberty . . for the government employee.
Not so much for the taxpayer.

/shrug

[BjornP]

I'm surprised you don't see the difference.

Private sector union - labor organizes collectively to extract concessions from the employer, who is also the paymaster. The employer has a direct interest in either defending his business as is, or making some concessions to maintain the current workforce.

Public sector union - labor organizes collectively against the non-elected government bureaucracy (employer), and against their paymaster (the taxpayers). Management, the non-elected government bureaucrats running state and federal departments, have no direct stake in "the business". Nor are they beholden to some kind of "bottom line", profit margin, or shareholder expectations to keep their budgets in the black. Neither their livelihood nor the continued existence of their organization is at stake. The taxpayers, ultimately on the hook for all financial concessions, have no representation at the bargaining table at all.

But you know, it's all about liberty . . for the government employee.
Not so much for the taxpayer.

/shrug

In terms of liberty, there isn't any difference. Just like your right to unionize in a private sector job is not meant to hinge on wether or not your employeer can afford your wages or not, it is not cost that determines wether a public sector employee has a right to unionize.

You are being absurd when you're seriously trying to portray me as arguing that all citizens should have the same right to unionize, as "you only want liberty for the government employee"! You were saying what about strawmen? You're the one arguing for denying people liberty you enjoy yourself. You as a taxpayer are simply not being denied any constitutional liberties by another citizen, a citizen who is a public employee, organizing into a union and demanding higher pay or better working conditions. You know perfectly well that I'm correct about this. You may not like paying more in taxes, but paying more taxes because some public employee wants more wages, isn't an attack on your liberties : It's an affirmation of your fellow citizen's. Feeling entitled to other peoples' liberty because it economically inconveniences you, is just thoroughly shitty.

[DBTrek]

You’ve made your feelings clear.

That does nothing to change the fact that it is folly to erroneously apply a system that works to mitigate disputes between employers and employees in the private sector to the public sector.

A business needs to remain profitable, competitive, and solvent or the employees will go down with the company. A business needs to make payroll on a limited bank account, or again, everyone on the ship goes down together. These factors all play a huge role in balancing employee demands by limiting them to what is possible within the reality of the marketplace.

Government organizations have none of these balancing limitations. It’s just a free-for-all for the taxpayers dime. The DoE doesn’t have to stay in the black. They don’t even have to worry about where extra funds to meet demands will come from. The taxpayers will pay whatever, and if we can’t take it from them today just tack it on to our $20trillion debt.

So you passions aside, it’s clear you’re trying to misapply a power dynamic that is balanced for the private market to the public sector - and that’s unwise.

[Okeefenokee]

This is a table of nations ranked by average IQ:



Compare that to the chart provided by DB on education attainment.

What the hell is this, Malaysia?

[Speaker to Animals]

They are the king snake of nations.

[Okeefenokee]

[Fife]

This is a table of nations ranked by average IQ:



Compare that to the chart provided by DB on education attainment.

What the hell is this, Malaysia?

It's interesting to see which way the tails thin out on that list. Anybody have the standard deviation calculated or as part of some list?

[Okeefenokee]

The nearly uniform finding from this research is that students benefit academically when they attend private school, rather than the public school that they would otherwise have attended. Some disagreement persists about how large the private schools' impact is and about whether it affects all students or only those from particular backgrounds—but not even the harshest critics claim that attending a private school harms students.

Of particular interest to budget-strapped state and local governments is that the cost of the vouchers in these studies—and even the total tuition charged by the private schools, if it's greater than the cost of the voucher—is well below what the public schools would spend to educate the same child. For instance, economist Robert Costrell found that by paying tuition to send 18,500 public school kids to private schools, Milwaukee saved taxpayers $31.9 million in 2008.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 3242379036