Peter_Puget

Who cares about politics when catchers and pitchers report next week!!!!!

I came here to catch up an the latest election year news and its sadly missing!

Sorry OW. Oddly the first singer for Airplane , Signe Anderson, died the same Day.

Of course! What an awesome show. Let's catch the ranger game earlier in the evening. A SODO pub club

[video:youtube]

Wasn't it originally "Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood or Death" In any event if France hadn't occupied the Ruhr perhaps the Maginot line's effrectivenss would have been a moot point.

I agree Oly. There should be plenty of money to ensure costs are covered. So Jim I checked out your link and do wonder what you think about foxes prior claims regarding breast cancer: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/experts-fracking-critics-bad-science-161628123--finance.html Or how he represented flaming faucets

A perfect case of government fuck up and a great case for private ownership. Here's another interesting link http://www.nber.org/papers/w21624

he seems to be missing the basic point, and I'm stumped as to how to make it simpler about 2$ a month is deducted from my paycheck and goes to a state-based organization called WEA-PAC - they use that to pay lobbyists, interview candidates, issue recommendations (political action as commonly understood) - I have no access to that money and limited ability to say what it'll be used for. about 14$ goes to my local union. I have complete access to that money (as a member of our executive board) and can do a great many things with it, non of which involve political action as it would commonly be understand. it funds scholarships, pays officer stipends, buys snacks for rep council meetings, pays for social events, etc. none of that 14$ gets punted up to the state-level. Ivan I assume youre on the lookout for double entry bookkeeping. Keep up the good work.

Ok I've been busy but I am back. Apparently Ive been a bit unclear as well. That said you are very clearly saying that I am claiming there is double-entry book keeping going on. (Kinda like the teamsters!?!?!?!?) That reinforces the fact that I have not been simple enough. Here is the definition of double entry bookkeeping: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double-entry.asp Peace

maybe I am missing something but I did as you requested. for comparison I used a $71K AGI and the tax tables from the 1040 2008 taxes paid for single - about $14K taxes paid for married file jointly about $10.4K 2014 taxes paid for single $13.6K taxes paid for single $9.7K Looks to me like your taxes went down during our socialist muslim prez term! Your analysis shows a $400 reduction (for a single) 2014 TO 2008 but I think you've swallowed the Koolaid and frankly I am surprised Mr. science didnt pick up on your error. CPI All Cities Average = 644. CPI 2014 average = 709.

Well several actually - 1) The subsidy reduces the dues required to support the local leaving those with strong union proclivities with more money to finance political activities. This occurs even if you believe the fairy tale that there is a strong firewall between political and non political union activities. 2) Go back several posts and you will see the following: Peter said – A post or so later Ivan appeared to agree with everything but #5. The local was voting for a “fake” strike. The strike was fake in large part due to #2 in bold above. As I mentioned earlier politics is all pervasive.

again, that's simply wrong - agency shop fees go to my local union (only 400 members) b/c we're the one that actually negotiate the contract and work to ensure it's followed our local union's budget doesn't cover anything traditionally considered political - it's doesn't pay for political advertising, contribute to political campaigns, tell the membership how to vote, etc. local members who want to opt-in to that action have to join WEA-PAC. We can go one and on but my position is simply “Anything supporting more than the marginal costs supports other activities.” This seems so self-evident that further discussion is just chatter. My guess is that the fees are not less than the marginal expense resulting from a new agency teacher to the extent they are over the agency teachers subsidize the other members.

Was this a response to my use of “supply & demand”? If so I was suggesting that if there was an unmet demand for teachers (IE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTOF VACANIES) then we would have as strong case for districts paying under market. Of course you may argue that the wage is below the level required for quality teachers. In that case I wonder why the union hasn’t been actively pointing this out and trying to help identify the bad teachers. I wasnt making this arguement. I have heard the number of substitutes has been going down

not true, for several reasons: 1. no one has to be part of the union if they don't want to, they can "opt out" - my district has several "agency fee payers" who pay no dues, but do have to pay a yearly fee for the contract negotiation we do on their behalf. Ah but agency fees are mandated and they are paid to the union. So they are compelled by law to support the union. 2.most of what a local union does is non-political (at least as it is commonly understood) - we negotiate a contract - we oversee the implementation of the contract - we deal with issues between members and management - we run a scholarship program for kids - we have social events - we put on professional trainings Not sure what your who this relates to my claim 3. the political part of the union (called WEA-PAC) is an "opt in" situation - this is the part that hires lobbyists, puts out political ads, interviews candidates for elections, and issues recommendations to voters on how to vote - folks who don't to be in the union at all don't pay for the politics part - members who don't want to be involved politically don't pay - just members who choose to be involved are part of WEA-PAC (about 75% of my 400 members) Just wondering if the costs associated with the strike are considered non-political. Again this doesnt refute my claim The idea that agency fees doesnt help support political activities is absurd. Anything supporting more than the marginl costs supports other activites. Further in the politicized enviroment in which we pooperate (ie one where union support of elected officials buys their freedom to break laws) the political is all pervasive. By the way check out the Davenport case for grins. Here's a link. Note how fast thelaws change when you, like the WEA, have the $$$$: http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/dues-and-donts-wea-pays-1-7-million-in-states-biggest-campaign-violation-case/

Umm yea...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

I was thinking of the strike as a "strike" whether it was illegal and to a lesser extent to myself how these two factor would effect my view of my teachers - especially those who were sticklers for following the rules. Jim got me thinking of other things. For example complaints about school funding. I think schools have had increases in real spending and the link to student performance is almost nonexistent. Here a study published a decade ago. It doesnt study school funding but it does offer some interesting conclusions. Check out table three. In particular after controlling for family and child background, time in school and studying barely helped student performance. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/73393/j.1741-3737.2001.00295?sequence=1

Wow Jim no repsect to Ivan or me. Ivan thought it important to post and I offered my comments as part of a discussion. You just offer snide comments.

Estimates vary but here's one saying salaried workers work on average 49 per week (no summer vacation!) http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/salaried-workers-spend-49-hours-a-week-at-work-1739/ A few months every year I end up working seven days a week. Sure I'd like more money as I am sure your wife would. Aprearently your wife prefers her current situation to an alternative. Her low effective wage simply indicates how great the non money benefits must be for her. You do not indicate she is looked for other employment so logic seems to dictate that she stays in her current job because she is better off than she would be at other types of employment she has considered or experienced.

Wanting words used correctly is hardly word play.

Well - I'm only married to a teacher. Because they miss a day of school, and there are required numbers of teaching days - this is treated as a snow day - so they get their standard two week paycheck but then have to make it up with an extra day at the end of the year w/o pay. Interestingly - another cutback of recent years is to cut back on coordination days. These are days between quarters where the kids either have a full or half day off - and the teachers then get their grading into the system for distribution AND quickly coordinate with the other teachers regarding the next week's new quarter of classes. The state, looking to cutback, has chipped away at these so I think there is now one instead of four - but the teachers come in anyway as they have to get the work done and be prepared - so a 3 day pay cut essentially. Just tellin' ya. Hmm so you agree they aren't losing pay due to the strike and then bring in an outside issue to confuse everyone. Many compnaies operate in industrieswhere increasing productivity year over year is essential. I work in a labor intensive industry where we plan on an average of 3% improvements in productivity every year. Thats life. Nothing inherently unfair in it. Nothing unique to education except that despite all the phd and education programs teachers claseem unable to agree on productivity measurements.

Thanks for the clarification. It seems tho that your distiction republican and demoractic intistitution is incorrect. A republican system is not the same as representative councils. A republican government is one in which the political authority comes from the people. You seem to be refering to a representative government wich is a form of democratic approach. Assuming your definitions are correct you are rally creating a disctinction without a difference. The "Republicans" seem to be consistently outvoted by the "Democrats." THe union doesn't reflect their views and they are often compelled by law to help fund the union.

I dont think this comment was directed at me but since you brought up republican membership in the union can you give us any data on the number of republicans in WA and your area in particular. I think polling data from the 2003 National Education Study indicate only 25 % identify as Republican. A Harris Interactive poll from 2003 showed that 83 percent of Republican teachers union members felt that the union was more liberal than they were. These are national number so I would be surprised if WA republican membership was this high.

Any parent who had to use PTO for day care paid a cost that isn't offset in the future. Second you have no way of knowing anyone finances and child care situation so any "hey it just offset later" is simply bullshit. There certainly is a impact on people lives - that was part of the intention. To say there was "No effect" can only be considered either mindless babble or an outright misstatement of fact. I have talked to parent irritated with having to deal with the impact. This irritation is an expressed purpose of the "strike" otherwise it would pass without notice. The impact might not be huge but is exists.

Ha I was thinking how incredibly pompous it was to call it a strike. I imagine many of the teachers saying we are following in this grand tradition. Back then strikers: 1) Gave up pay 2) face politicians bought by the evil company owner 3) company production stopped 4) strikers often got their ass kicked and lost jobs Today: 1) Dont lose pay despite breaking their contract 2) workers have paid off the elected government via campaign donations 3) production doesnt stop 4) workers go back and all is good at work 5) The lowest paid families using the school system face the highest cost of the strike