Comments on: “Mutual matching” off the table in Oakland

By: Jim Mordecai

Jim Mordecai — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:12:03 +0000

J.R.

Thanks for reminding me about cronyism. When I think of cronyism I think of charter schools that put on their corporate governance board friends and relatives an action sometimes referred to as nepotism.

Jim Mordecai

By: J.R.

J.R. — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:47:26 +0000

Jim,
I threw in the political cronyism just to show you that politically minded people and organizations(including unions) cannot be trusted to do what is right, only to do what is best for their own financial gain. Parents and taxpayers must stand up for themselves and do what is right for their children because no one else will.

By: J.R.

J.R. — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:37:33 +0000

Jim,
You speak of “unfairness, and unreliable method of personnel evaluation”, but the truth is that very few teachers who are substandard are ever shown the door. Every substandard teacher cost dozens of students educational quality every year, how fair is that to the children(you know them, the little people who are entrusted to you and years to teach)? This corrupt system has been in place for decades, and change is past due(even many democrats know that there is no excuse for this mediocrity).

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/teacher_dismissal.html

By: Jim Mordecai

Jim Mordecai — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:29:59 +0000

J.R.

But, you are forced to pay for charter schools that turn part of that payment into money that pays for lobbying. You are also forced to pay for public schools that turns some portion of that money into paying for lobbying by some school boards. Oakland pays for lobbyist in both Sacramento and Washington D.C.

I read your reference but what you provided had nothing to do with unions but as you stated “conyism at it’s finest.”

While unions have been traditionally aligned with the Democrat Party, that relationship has often in practice been of little advantage when it has come to fighitng off anti-labor corporate agenda of privatizing of government service sector. President Obama has promoted charter schools with taxpayers dollars providing California with $300 million to pay for new charter schools. New York has taken Obama dollars and made student test scores a part of teacher and principal evaluations–an unfair and unreliable method of personnel evaluation. These actions of a Democratic President were not the action of an education union friendly politican. And, the National Education Association just gave President Obama an early endorsement at the union’s annual meeting last summer. I voted against that endorsement. I continue to pay my dues although I believe majority is wrong to endorse someone that has done more to privatize public education than any other President.

Jim Mordecai

By: J.R.

J.R. — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:09:01 +0000

Jim,
I am not a supporter of charter schools per se, but I do support the idea of not being forced to participate in a failing(school,district) system if and when appropriate. I also like the idea of being free to discipline students who are troublesome and disrupt the learning environment.Teachers who are not effective can be dealt with just like any other job in this country(except for fed.judges, we are stuck with them for life).There are many good public schools, and of course mostly good teachers(although I would not hazard a guess as to the percentage). The big problem is the education system-wide lack of purpose,direction and the will to do better on behalf of our students(and yes parents are partly to blame for this).The system is not set up to reward or encourage people to be their best, only to be there the longest(and there can be a massive amount of difference between the two quality-wise).The union’s insist upon stacking the deck of protection and privilege(through law and contract), and they believe all teachers should be paid as if they were the same quality(the sole determining factor being time served).The Democratic politicians are owned by the union’s, and the proof will be when everyone’s taxes are raised. None of the frivolous, useless boards,commissions or departments will be touched(except for the phony unfilled positions).

read what are friends for about halfway down the page on this link.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/05/BA311N2U5G.DTL

Cronyism at it’s finest.

By: Jim Mordecai

Jim Mordecai — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 06:25:35 +0000

J.R.

I agree with your following quote:
“Taking money in order to fulfill obvious obligations is one thing(of course that goes without saying), but taking money(other peoples tax money) to create a taxpayer funded special interest lobbying group is quite another.”

Only we are looking at different things. I am looking at your quote in reference to the fact that many corporate charter schools advance their interest by paying charter school association dues. These dues in part pay for lobbying charter school special interest in Sacramento and Washington. There is no law against charter schools using public education dollars for that lobbying. Nor is there a law against school boards paying for K Street lobbying.

I believe both school boards and charter schools shouldn’t be allowed to use public education dollars for their special interest lobbying. Actually, I believe all government agencies should not be allowed to lobby for their interest using public funds. But, since charter schools are according to their supporters, such as yourself, public schools you likely would be against restrictions on using public funding to pay for lobbying.

Jim Mordecai

By: Classified Employee

Classified Employee — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:00:54 +0000

J.R.

I’m not sure what you find so troubling in the first link. Was it the special assessment? If so, it seems your second link seems to list various ways one need not pay those, if they object. Was it that unions might be involved in politics? In light of Citizen’s United, that seems laughable.

Your second link seems to list many ways to get out of paying the dues (or most of it) should one desire. Doesn’t that seem to undercut your concerns a bit?

Nextset:

Theft is immoral.

Government taking money from those who earn it, to award that money to parasites who are politically favored – is theft. And gifts of public funds.

You must be talking about all of those no-bid Haliburton contracts and $400 toilet seats, right?

And, how is any of this taxpayer money? Union dues comes from my post-tax income, so it isn’t being subsidized by the public at all. Once I pay my taxes on it, it isn’t taxpayer money, it is this taxpayer’s money. Do you consider your post-tax income to be your employer’s money?

Regardless, the weekend calls…Some of us ne’er-do-well union members still get those….for now. Enjoy!

By: J.R.

J.R. — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:44:50 +0000

Nextset,
That’s correct, but believe it or not there are people who wish to obfuscate truth for their own benefit.

By: Nextset

Nextset — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:25:53 +0000

Theft is immoral.

Government taking money from those who earn it, to award that money to parasites who are politically favored – is theft. And gifts of public funds.

By: J.R.

J.R. — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:22:43 +0000

Classified,
Time will tell, and so will the money. All that voters need to do is follow the money trail.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/01/teachers-union-head-says-no-dues-surcharge-this-time.html

BTW I am very familiar with the process of dues/tax money extraction.

http://www.nrtw.org/special-legal-notice-california-teachers-how-get-least-300-refund-cta-nonbargaining-expenses