Right to Work

[PraxicalExcercise]

Right to work laws help the employee too. Who makes more? The union guy who is unemployed and has no unemployment benefits or the guy in the right to work state who still has a job? In right to work states the employee does not have to give notice if quitting. No 2 week notice, you quit and walk and there aint a goddamned thing they can do about it. Right to work states have better employment numbers.

Got a breakdown of those numbers? Everything I've seen indicates that Right to Work states may have 'better employment numbers', in some cases, but far more people who're 'employed' at multiple part time McJobs. On the other hand, workers in union states make about $5K more per annum.

Your example about quitting has nothing, necessarily, to do with being in a union. That's part of the employment contract. Anyone, anywhere, can leave any job with no notice. However, as part of an employee's contract, they may have agreed to penalties for doing so. Of course, this tends to be something in contracts in union jobs -- because they've been negotiated with the employer. There's generally a whole lot more in there to protect the employee from things like arbitrary termination. So -- it might take a little longer to leave a job if you're bound by a contract, but it's also a lot harder for your boss to fire you because he doesn't like the music you listen to or something.

 

[PraxicalExcercise]

I'm fairly conservative so I'm for right to work. Over here there was a bill restricting the powers of public unions (government unions). I listened to both sides and realized unions were purposely misleading union members into believing it would effect private sector unions. On top of that, I sort of realized these people were out of touch with reality (especially teachers, in this state on average a single teacher makes more then the median household income without even including benefits).

So?

Everyone denigrates teachers and says that they're paid too much. The profession seems to be looked at as something one step up from a day-care provider. In reality, teaching is an extremely tough job, places high demands upon the teacher's time (grading papers, etc, at home, and don't talk about their summer 'vacation', as quite a lot of that gets eaten up by prep work,) and, increasingly, teachers are being expected to pay out of their own pockets for basic things to keep their classrooms running. That teacher's union most likely also negotiated for lower class sizes, which is better for the kids. Class size is almost directly linked to the quality of education received, and it's an inverse relationship.

Teachers -should- make more than average; their job is more important than average. They provide the fundamental basis for maintaining and expanding our democracy and our economy.

I don't disagree that -some- unions have gotten out-of-control, but on the whole, teachers should get more, and so should the students.

I think with that said, private sector unions have too much control over a company. They seem to have too much control in politics.

LOL. Private sector unions have relatively little control over politics -- they can barely manage to maintain status quo -- and they're not even managing to do that, with the widespread assault on workers' rights in this country. They have very little ability to contribute to politics at anything except the lower levels; they just don't have the money. Look at figures for political donations and expenditures for unions versus those of corporations. Unions are a drop in the bucket.

Also, what you're saying when you say that 'unions have too much control over politics' is that 'the people have too much control over politics.' You've bought into the whole 'democracy is the problem, not the solution' fallacy that's poisoning this country.

I don't really blame them, lawyers picked up on a fantastic scam to make a ton of money and blame corporations for having a bottom line.

If you look through the past two hundred years of history, you'll realize that powerful corporations are one of the greatest evils ever created -- at least, since they've been unbound from charters and given rights. Again and again corporations have gotten out of control and had to have smacked back and broken up with regulation, and then they manage to buy some politicians and weaken that regulation, and then they fuck up again, then they get regulated again ... the whole cycle repeats.

Think about this: the net worth of today's large corporations is astronomical. They can piss out billions of dollars on anything they like just by dipping into on-hand cash reserves. They can flood markets with advertising, buy media time -- hell, buy the media -- to flood the informationscape with lies and misinformation. How are people who make a few tens of thousands of dollars, if that, supposed to control them and negotiate with them when the corporations have all the power? How do you sue a corporation over a civil matter when you can't afford an attorney and the corporation has a whole division of them? That's what unions are for -- to focus the collective power of people with very little power to oppose those with much, much more.

At the core, the union is a force for good, and something extremely American -- it's democracy in action. I don't deny that some unions have gotten out of hand or corrupt, but for the most part, they answer to their members.

 

[PraxicalExcercise]

Reminds me of an article in reason magazine evaluating public unions that came out this month. A janitor in the private sector gets a salary of around $27,000 and one paid by uncle Sam $30,000 (probably excluding benefits). The general evaluation basically pointed out the income discrepancy between public and private which public workers being consistently paid more. The whole thing about public workers being more educated than private was also worked over pretty well, the numbers show that people with a high school diploma (and no high school diploma... now that is a mind fuck) were still getting paid more then their private sector counter parts.

Private sector employees with the least amount of education do tend to make more than their peers. However, once you get into college educated employees, the trend reverses itself, with the public sector employees making less than the private sector employees, when you compensate for the amount of time that the employee has been at the job -- their experience level -- and at the high end, public employees tend to make much, much less than their peers in equivalent jobs do. I should also note that the difference between public and private sector pay -- the private sector wages have been declining while the public sector wages have been declining slightly less -- can be correlated with the fact that union membership tends to be higher in public sector jobs, while the private sector unions have been decimated. Graphing union membership versus inflation-adjusted wage is illuminating.

 

[PraxicalExcercise]

Yes, god forbid that an employer can actually FIRE his employees. /sarcasm

Unions create lazy fuckwads that grift off of the employer and government because they are too stupid to compete in the real marketplace.

Bullshit. Workers in union shops can be fired, it's just a bit harder and you actually have to document why you're firing the person. Even tenured teachers can be fired. You just can't fire someone for no reason without severance, in most contracts.

Also, while union workers aren't necessarily more productive than non-union members, they -are not- less productive. http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2007/02/unions-effect-on-productivity.html I'd like to note that this is from a respected and conservative author.

 

[PraxicalExcercise]

I show up every day, do a great job. This has never been a issue for me. Oh back to the "southern states are not enlighten bullshit". From my standards I would rather have 2 southerners then 10 northerners, and i will tell you why. We take care of everything ourselves, plumbing leak.... run to the hardware store and make the repair. Water pump out on our vehicle, run to the automotive parts store, pick one up and install it. Truly live in the south for a few years, and you will get it. Drive through the south and you will come up with absurd conclusions.

...Mostly because you're so fucking much poorer, on average, than workers in the North. You can't pay someone else to do it for you, so you -have- to do it yourself. I've been there. I'm proficient at basic plumbing, electrical, automotive, carpentry, and general jury-rigging work. I've replaced water pumps, sensors, alternators, driveshafts, brake pads, oil filters, spark plugs, and even clutches in my cars. But you can bet your ass that if I can afford the luxury, I'm gonna pay someone else to do it for me, particularly if the job involves grease up to my elbows or finicky work on my back or dropping the engine or something. And I'm yankee as hell. Us northerners have traditions of self-reliance, too.

 

[PraxicalExcercise]

You're one of the few, and I appreciate it. I am sitting on the side of voting for it but I really wanted to get more reasons why I shouldn't before I settled on a decision. I've heard all of the partisan rhetoric and I don't think it's only serving to make people decide blindly.

I liked PraxicalExcercise's point about non-union members getting the benefits of the unions without the dues. However, I don't think that is valid for an argument to vote against right to work. It more creates an argument as to why is there a federal law forcing unions to provide the contracts for non union members?

I think that it's generally because it's easier for an employer to get everyone under the same contract rather than having some people under one contract and others under another.

The main thing, though, is that it comes down to the fact that right-to-work laws weaken unions, which reduces the voice of Labor in politics -- and in the workplace. Without opposition corporations will always drive a race to the bottom as far as wages, benefits, and working conditions go.

Your response makes sense about people being fired for any reason the company deems necessary providing it doesn't violate the civil rights laws on the books. However, when you guys got drawn on a tangent about what color shirt it made me think about how I would get fired for not wearing a tie to work. Companies can have dress codes and employees should be required to follow them. Also, you can quit for absolutely any reason you want, and even under right to work an employer can't fire you for absolutely any reason. So in reality, the law favors the employee still.

Honestly, it comes down to fairness. It's perfectly fair to fire an employee for not adhering to a dress code that was made plain to them as a condition of their employment. It's utterly unfair to fire someone because they came in to work one day all wearing orange and you got paranoid and shat pink-slips. These employees didn't violate any rule at their workplace that they were made aware of, so it was fundamentally unfair to fire them. It didn't save the company money, it wasn't because of their work performance -- it was arbitrary and capricious. When someone loses their job, it often screws over their life -- and even if it's doesn't, it's a stressful, major disruption. They may lose rights to pensions -- many firings come suspiciously shortly before an employee is due to retire in RTW states. They may not be able to find an equivalent job anywhere near their last level of pay, particularly if they've been in it a long time and are now old. They may not be able to find any job at all; McDonald's isn't a charity and can't employ -everyone-.

Anyways, I expect that right to work's enforcement could very well result in lower wages. However, lower wages doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing. Lower wages could still equal a perfectly livable wage while including greater employment. However, there is always incentive for employers to pay their employees more. Higher wages while still maintaining a competitive work environment (something that unions stifle) can mean a huge boost in production which can in turn help the economy greatly.

I hate to put it this way, because it sounds so partisan, but you've bought into a right-wing talking point with absolutely no basis in fact. Large corporations don't hire more people because they save some money -- all of that saved money will go towards bonuses and dividends -- pure profit. During this recession, corporations have been sitting on MASSIVE amounts of cash, but they're not hiring, because there's no demand, because so many people are unemployed and have no money. Large corporations nowadays try to keep exactly the number of employees they need to do the work they have, or fewer, driven harder. It takes a rare person to pull a Ford and pay more to drive demand for your product up -- nowadays, most corporations only look into the future as far as their next quarter's numbers, unless absolutely forced to.

Unionization doesn't affect real small businesses, because most small businesses aren't unionized. (Most small businesses also tend to be more responsive to and fair to their employees, in my experience.) It's really only major employers that have to deal with unions -- organizations with thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of employees. Mind, some of those businesses -- which net millions of dollars and have hundreds or thousands of employees -- are technically small businesses because of the way that they're organized. Whether or not a business is a 'small business' generally doesn't depend on its actual size, just the legal fiction that it's been organized around.

Regardless, when a company wants to hire an employee it should be between the employer and the employee as to what the terms of employment are. I'm not convinced the government, or a union (unless opted into), has much of a reason to be involved in that.

I personally think that government's primary function is to promote the welfare of its constituents and to protect their rights. This is an absolute necessity in today's corporate age -- there's no one else with the power to do so. Without protections against the depredations of corporate greed, we'd have Triangle Shirtwaists every year. Consider the fact that a corporation is legally mandated to maximize the profits of its investors. Corporations are literally legally bound to be sociopaths. They can only do as much public good as they can justify a return on -- and this is why we have only seen corporations start to go green recently, as a result of massive public pressure.

You like being able to get up and take a leak at least once every two hours, right? And have some time to eat something sometime during your 8-hour work day? There's a reason that there're laws out there that force employers to let you do so -- because given the choice, they'd rather have you in your seat 8+ hours a day.

...Okay, I think I've got like a whole page of replies all myself, I think it's time to stop. %)

 

[stoneyfockbrook]

Fact is Unions are attacked becuase Republicans get paid to do so.
Why do Unions support Democratic Candidates?
Where are the pro labor Republicans?

 

[sync0s]

I hate to put it this way, because it sounds so partisan, but you've bought into a right-wing talking point with absolutely no basis in fact. Large corporations don't hire more people because they save some money -- all of that saved money will go towards bonuses and dividends -- pure profit. During this recession, corporations have been sitting on MASSIVE amounts of cash, but they're not hiring, because there's no demand, because so many people are unemployed and have no money. Large corporations nowadays try to keep exactly the number of employees they need to do the work they have, or fewer, driven harder. It takes a rare person to pull a Ford and pay more to drive demand for your product up -- nowadays, most corporations only look into the future as far as their next quarter's numbers, unless absolutely forced to.

I haven't bought into anything. Notice my emphasis on the words "could." However, more employees = more production. The employee targets you speak of are merely employee cost targets.

I personally think that government's primary function is to promote the welfare of its constituents and to protect their rights. This is an absolute necessity in today's corporate age -- there's no one else with the power to do so. Without protections against the depredations of corporate greed, we'd have Triangle Shirtwaists every year. Consider the fact that a corporation is legally mandated to maximize the profits of its investors. Corporations are literally legally bound to be sociopaths. They can only do as much public good as they can justify a return on -- and this is why we have only seen corporations start to go green recently, as a result of massive public pressure.

I'm not a corporations are people kind of guy, but those who represent the corporations are their constituents as well. Regardless, it isn't the governments job to step in to this at all, and that isn't even the reason I started this thread. One minute we're protecting the citizens from "corporate greed," next we're providing personal safety bubbles for everyone. The only organization that is responsible for these kinds of things are unions. The decision that needs to be made is whether or not it's right for unions to force all employees of a particular company into paying their fees with the aid of government legislation.

 

[merkzilla]

I don't ...a link would help. Right now it sounds like bullshit.

Not posting an article that will :

A) Tells you the area I'm from B) Can probably give you my general age based on when it occurred and C) Gives you the high school I attended.

 

[londonfog]

Not posting an article that will :

A) Tells you the area I'm from B) Can probably give you my general age based on when it occurred and C) Gives you the high school I attended.

Dude I'm so off this and could really care less about A B and C. I already made my mind up that this is BS...Now moving on

 

[merkzilla]

So?

Everyone denigrates teachers and says that they're paid too much. The profession seems to be looked at as something one step up from a day-care provider. In reality, teaching is an extremely tough job, places high demands upon the teacher's time (grading papers, etc, at home, and don't talk about their summer 'vacation', as quite a lot of that gets eaten up by prep work,) and, increasingly, teachers are being expected to pay out of their own pockets for basic things to keep their classrooms running. That teacher's union most likely also negotiated for lower class sizes, which is better for the kids. Class size is almost directly linked to the quality of education received, and it's an inverse relationship.

Teachers -should- make more than average; their job is more important than average. They provide the fundamental basis for maintaining and expanding our democracy and our economy.

I don't disagree that -some- unions have gotten out-of-control, but on the whole, teachers should get more, and so should the students.



LOL. Private sector unions have relatively little control over politics -- they can barely manage to maintain status quo -- and they're not even managing to do that, with the widespread assault on workers' rights in this country. They have very little ability to contribute to politics at anything except the lower levels; they just don't have the money. Look at figures for political donations and expenditures for unions versus those of corporations. Unions are a drop in the bucket.

Also, what you're saying when you say that 'unions have too much control over politics' is that 'the people have too much control over politics.' You've bought into the whole 'democracy is the problem, not the solution' fallacy that's poisoning this country.




If you look through the past two hundred years of history, you'll realize that powerful corporations are one of the greatest evils ever created -- at least, since they've been unbound from charters and given rights. Again and again corporations have gotten out of control and had to have smacked back and broken up with regulation, and then they manage to buy some politicians and weaken that regulation, and then they fuck up again, then they get regulated again ... the whole cycle repeats.

Think about this: the net worth of today's large corporations is astronomical. They can piss out billions of dollars on anything they like just by dipping into on-hand cash reserves. They can flood markets with advertising, buy media time -- hell, buy the media -- to flood the informationscape with lies and misinformation. How are people who make a few tens of thousands of dollars, if that, supposed to control them and negotiate with them when the corporations have all the power? How do you sue a corporation over a civil matter when you can't afford an attorney and the corporation has a whole division of them? That's what unions are for -- to focus the collective power of people with very little power to oppose those with much, much more.

At the core, the union is a force for good, and something extremely American -- it's democracy in action. I don't deny that some unions have gotten out of hand or corrupt, but for the most part, they answer to their members.

Heres a break down, please tell me what I'm getting wrong here about the demands of teachers.


"In Illinois, the average teacher makes $61,402. By the way, the average administrator makes $106,217.00! Illinois teachers work around 176 days, 300 minutes, or 5 hours, per day. On average, they make $348.88 per day, $1.16 per minute, or $69.60 per hour guaranteed.

Is that what they really make? Because they have a defined benefit pension package, they actually make significantly more. The average pension per year for an Illinois teacher is $43,164. Most Illinois teachers work for 12 years. That 43k is a 2010 figure. Every year after, there is a 3% cost of living raise, compounded annually, included in the defined benefit. If you take the net present value the cash flows of that over the average lifespan, and then amortize and add it into the average salary, you will get a better picture of how much teachers are really working for per year.

In order to do this fairly and accurately, there are some assumptions. Assume an average lifespan to age 78, and also assume that they don’t collect the pension until they are age 55. That’s 23 years of a defined benefit pension that increases at 3% compounded annually. Assume also that they have to wait from the age of 34 to get the payments, or 21 years. We discount back to find out the value of the stream of cash. Using a conservative discount factor of 5%, the total stream of payments is worth $290,756. Amortizing them over the 12 years an average teacher works, you get an extra $24,229.67 per year. So, in actuality their salary really is $85,631.67. This number ignores health benefits, which are also paid for. If you wanted to figure in health benefits, a low deductible gold plated plan costs around $20,000 per year for a family of four. That brings their salary up to $105,631.67, or $120 bucks an hour."

http://pointsandfigures.com/2010/10/05/how-much-does-a-teacher-really-make/

That's just teachers, honestly I really don't feel like arguing about the union stuff because I just got home and need start watering.

 

[londonfog]

Heres a break down, please tell me what I'm getting wrong here about the demands of teachers.


"In Illinois, the average teacher makes $61,402. By the way, the average administrator makes $106,217.00! Illinois teachers work around 176 days, 300 minutes, or 5 hours, per day. On average, they make $348.88 per day, $1.16 per minute, or $69.60 per hour guaranteed.

Is that what they really make? Because they have a defined benefit pension package, they actually make significantly more. The average pension per year for an Illinois teacher is $43,164. Most Illinois teachers work for 12 years. That 43k is a 2010 figure. Every year after, there is a 3% cost of living raise, compounded annually, included in the defined benefit. If you take the net present value the cash flows of that over the average lifespan, and then amortize and add it into the average salary, you will get a better picture of how much teachers are really working for per year.

In order to do this fairly and accurately, there are some assumptions. Assume an average lifespan to age 78, and also assume that they don’t collect the pension until they are age 55. That’s 23 years of a defined benefit pension that increases at 3% compounded annually. Assume also that they have to wait from the age of 34 to get the payments, or 21 years. We discount back to find out the value of the stream of cash. Using a conservative discount factor of 5%, the total stream of payments is worth $290,756. Amortizing them over the 12 years an average teacher works, you get an extra $24,229.67 per year. So, in actuality their salary really is $85,631.67. This number ignores health benefits, which are also paid for. If you wanted to figure in health benefits, a low deductible gold plated plan costs around $20,000 per year for a family of four. That brings their salary up to $105,631.67, or $120 bucks an hour."

http://pointsandfigures.com/2010/10/05/how-much-does-a-teacher-really-make/

That's just teachers, honestly I really don't feel like arguing about the union stuff because I just got home and need start watering.

This article is so flawed..First how does he figure teachers only work about 5 hour a day.. I come from a family of teachers. With grading papers, lesson planning, and the fact that school hours most time last longer then 5 hours, I say this writer distorted facts to perhaps support his point of view.

Next I also see that he has the average pay for teachers in Ill. at $61,402... My findings say say its more at 58,686, but I guess we can say close enough. Now starting pay in Ill. is more in the 37,000 dollar range http://www.teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state. You also must understand that Ill. actually pays its teachers rather well compared to others. While your RTW states like ND and SD the average salary is 34,000-37,000 and the starting salary is 24,000-26,000 ( ouchhh). IMO all teachers should be paid well if they are doing what they are suppose to be doing. If not they should be forced to seek another profession

 

[merkzilla]

This article is so flawed..First how does he figure teachers only work about 5 hour a day.. I come from a family of teachers. With grading papers, lesson planning, and the fact that school hours most time last longer then 5 hours, I say this writer distorted facts to perhaps support his point of view.

Next I also see that he has the average pay for teachers in Ill. at $61,402... My findings say say its more at 58,686, but I guess we can say close enough. Now starting pay in Ill. is more in the 37,000 dollar range http://www.teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state. You also must understand that Ill. actually pays its teachers rather well compared to others. While your RTW states like ND and SD the average salary is 34,000-37,000 and the starting salary is 24,000-26,000 ( ouchhh). IMO all teachers should be paid well if they are doing what they are suppose to be doing. If not they should be forced to seek another profession

Article is from 2010, which could probably explain the discrepancies, he hyperlinks to sources but they're dead links now. You still have to include a few things including cost of living, benefits, salary increases over time all of which turns into a major cluster fuck trying to figure it out. The starting salary is usually what the state says is the lowest a district can pay a teacher. The starting salary here is $31k basically (excluding benefits), but the local district here pays more then that (little under $40k).

 

[Justin00]

I have never really understood modern unions, i'm from the south where there is no such thing. Down here all i ever hear about unions is how they tax the ppl and drive up prices, cause tons of weird rules and regulations, and limit the production of companies. but like i said thats just what you hear around here, i know almost nothing factual about them, but i'm curious.

 

[stoneyfockbrook]

Article is from 2010, which could probably explain the discrepancies, he hyperlinks to sources but they're dead links now. You still have to include a few things including cost of living, benefits, salary increases over time all of which turns into a major cluster fuck trying to figure it out. The starting salary is usually what the state says is the lowest a district can pay a teacher. The starting salary here is $31k basically (excluding benefits), but the local district here pays more then that (little under $40k).

30 kids a class 5 classes
150 homework assignements to grade
Yeah 5 hours a day my ass

And really you think someone who spends a total of 5 years in college for a teaching degree with continuing education doesnt deserve 61 k?
wtf honestly where do you people come from?

 

[Mr Neutron]

As someone who has worked in union jobs and non union jobs and has worked in the north (PA) and the south (TX,OK), I can say from experience that the non union jobs I had were much better working environments. Especially for people that do not need constant supervision, care about doing the job right and want to help the company to be successful. In union jobs, most will only do the bare minimum to keep their job, they bitch constantly about how terrible management is and will lie, cheat and steal at a much higher rate than non union shops.
What good does higher union wages help if the cost of living is such that you NEED higher wages just to keep living?
Most union workers that I have seen, are overpaid, some, grossly so.
I have been fired from one non union job for no good reason. I don't know why anybody would want to work at a place where they are not wanted. If you have a boss that would fire you for wearing an orange shirt then you should be looking for a different job.
I have been fired/let go from two union jobs for the following reasons:
1) The first time I lost my union job was when I put my name in to bid on another job within the same plant. The union rep told me to be considered for the new position, I would have resign my old position. Yeah, I fell for it, I was only 19 at the time and didn't know that union reps lie. I gave up my old job and was promptly told that the new position was "taken down" meaning that the new job no longer existed. Thank you United Electrical Workers.
2) The second union job to fire me for no good reason was the Teamsters. While driving a company vehicle, I was run into. The company sent me for a drug test. I was overheard by a union rep that I was concerned about passing the test, even though, under the contract at the time, I could not be fired for failing a drug test if I volunteered to go to rehab. Anyway, the union rep went to the boss and the next day I was fired. Oh by the way, my test results were negative. The union gave me the run around for nine months then called me to offer my job back at 75% of my old wage and another 90 day probation period where you CAN be fired for any reason or no reason. Can you guess what I told them?
3) The non union job I got fired from was not nearly as underhanded and chicken shit as the treatment I received from the unions. A company hired my associate and I to objectively investigate the company's financial situation, pinpoint problem areas and make suggestions as to where and how to apply remedies. As it happens many times in these scenarios, the owners did not like what we had to say, so they fired us. They were out of business within 6 months.
4) I have been a member in good standing with 5 unions. UEW, Teamsters, Boilermakers, Iron Workers and the Steelworkers. In all of these jobs, all I have seen is a bunch of union thugs protecting their incompetent buddies while throwing anyone else under the bus when convenient.
5) Even though my experiences with unions has been negative, I still believe it is up to the people of each state to decide whether or not to be RTW or not. I would obviously choose RTW.
6) The only objection I have is unions for public employees because there is a clear conflict of interests.
I think people should negotiate their own contracts with employers. If I am better at a job than another, I should be compensated better. In union shops you hear "slow down, you're making us all look bad" a lot.
If you are so incompetent that you NEED a union to stay employed, you probably should find a different kind of work.
I have also witnessed dangerous conditions that union reps hide in order to prevent someone from getting fired.

 

[NoDrama]

I wonder how many good employees were fired in RTW states for listening to the wrong music on their own time or wearing a orange shirt to work. Anyone got some numbers cuz I bet the statistics will show NOT A SINGLE ONE.

 

[NoDrama]

30 kids a class 5 classes
150 homework assignements to grade
Yeah 5 hours a day my ass

And really you think someone who spends a total of 5 years in college for a teaching degree with continuing education doesnt deserve 61 k?
wtf honestly where do you people come from?

Do teachers really grade all the papers themselves? I remember when we would just hand them to the person behind us and we would grade each others. I did that all the way til College. Did they ban that practice or something?

 

[londonfog]

Here are some very interesting things I ran across..Can these be disproved ??

Working Families in States with “Right to Work” Laws Earn Lower Wages

• On average, workers in states with “Right to Work” law earn $5,538 a year less than workers in states without these laws.

“Right to Work” States Spend Less on Education

• Right-to-Work states spend $2,671 less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than free-bargaining states.

“Right to Work” States Have Higher Workplace Fatality Rates

• According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 52.9% higher in states with Right-to-Work laws.

“Right to Work” Laws Don’t Improve Living Standards – Unions Improve Living Standards

• Overall, union members earn 28 percent ($198.00 more per week than nonunion workers. Hispanic union members earn 50 percent ($258.00 more each week than nonunion Hispanics and African Americans earn 29 percent ($168.00 more each week if they are union members.
• 78 percent of private sector union workers have access to medical insurance through their jobs, compared with 51 percent of nonunion workers. And 77 percent of private sector union workers have access to a guaranteed (defined benefit) retirement plan through their jobs, compared with just 20 percent of nonunion workers.
• Only 2.9 percent of union workers are uninsured, compared with 14.2 percent of nonunion workers.

 

[cannabineer]

Do teachers really grade all the papers themselves? I remember when we would just hand them to the person behind us and we would grade each others. I did that all the way til College. Did they ban that practice or something?

This is only one person's experience, but from elementary through postgrad (eastern USA), i have never seen students grading students.

A relative-by-divorce worked as an art teacher in central CA, and the output of her students' written stuff was so appalling that i wouldn't trust them to grade homework, a cut of beef or a driveway. cn