11-15-2013 08:18 PM
419 ... 1112131415 ...
tools
  1. qxr's Avatar
    Then you must have been in favor of the Bush proposal to eliminate overtime correct? Anti-Teacher Union..etc...?
    Are you for the same pay for a teacher that does a good job versus those who do not. The teachers union is a horrible union. They have made it near impossible to fire bad teachers. Money spent on education has skyrocketed but results for students has not. The teachers union just votes lockstep for dems.

    Sent from my SCH-I545 using AC Forums mobile app
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    09-25-2013 01:53 PM
  2. bclinger#IM's Avatar
    Reads like you are in Hawaii.

    Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4
    09-25-2013 01:58 PM
  3. llamabreath's Avatar
    Then you must have been in favor of the Bush proposal to eliminate overtime correct? Anti-Teacher Union..etc...?
    No.

    I'm not a politician's robot.

    I don't blindly support each and every one of my party's agendas, nor talking points.

    *Funny you mention the teacher's union. My brother belongs to it back in N.Y.

    palandri, qxr and cdmjlt369 like this.
    09-25-2013 02:01 PM
  4. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Then you must have been in favor of the Bush proposal to eliminate overtime correct? Anti-Teacher Union..etc...?
    My wife is a teacher and her and i both would love nothing more than the unions to be abolished.
    qxr and cdmjlt369 like this.
    09-25-2013 02:05 PM
  5. palandri's Avatar
    Actually after you give it to them it's their money and you have no right to know anything about it.....
    You are telling I don't, but I am telling you I do. If a company is using "my money" to produce their product at a child sweatshop in Bangladesh. I have a right to know so I can make an educated decision not to patronize them.
    qxr, msndrstood and Fairclough like this.
    09-25-2013 02:12 PM
  6. NoYankees44's Avatar
    You are telling I don't, but I am telling you I do. If a company is using "my money" to produce their product at a child sweatshop in Bangladesh. I have a right to know so I can make an educated decision not to patronize them.
    So your employer has the right to not pay you if give your money to political candidates they dont like? They are paying you for a service, so it is still "their money"(edit: by your logic)

    Yes you have the right to choose whether or not patronize a business based on whatever information you have on them(from where ever you got it), but they are in no way obligated to give you any information about their operations or expenditures unless you are an owner/investor. Taking it upon yourself to find out such information is a completely unrelated topic.
    qxr and cdmjlt369 like this.
    09-25-2013 02:23 PM
  7. palandri's Avatar
    Are you for the same pay for a teacher that does a good job versus those who do not. The teachers union is a horrible union. They have made it near impossible to fire bad teachers. Money spent on education has skyrocketed but results for students has not. The teachers union just votes lockstep for dems.

    Sent from my SCH-I545 using AC Forums mobile app
    First off, not all teachers are in a union. If a teacher is doing a bad job, it's not impossible to get rid of them with "facts", but you have to have "facts".

    What I think the teachers union should do is what my union did years ago. Number one is eliminate seniority, my union did this years ago, and it totally eliminated contractors complaining they can't get rid of or lay someone off because they have seniority. Number two is sign a no strike agreement, my union did this years ago, but it has to be agreed to by both sides. Any conflicts or disagreements on a contract go to binding arbitration with an arbitrator both sides agree is fair. We win about half of the disagreements/conflicts. It couldn't be fairer and it eliminates work stoppage.
    qxr, msndrstood and Fairclough like this.
    09-25-2013 02:25 PM
  8. palandri's Avatar
    So your employer has the right to not pay you if give your money to political candidates they dont like? They are paying you for a service, so it is still "their money"(edit: by your logic)

    Yes you have the right to choose whether or not patronize a business based on whatever information you have on them(from where ever you got it), but they are in no way obligated to give you any information about their operations or expenditures unless you are an owner/investor. Taking it upon yourself to find out such information is a completely unrelated topic.
    LOL! We are so far apart ideologically, it's like trying to get two repealing magnets to come together.

    I said nothing about not paying the employee. Most people have no contract with their employer, It's termination at will. The employer can say good bye to you when ever they want and the employee can say good bye to the employer when ever they want. I am sure you have read some of the Facebook/Twitter firings, correct?
    msndrstood and Fairclough like this.
    09-25-2013 02:39 PM
  9. NoYankees44's Avatar
    First off, not all teachers are in a union. If a teacher is doing a bad job, it's not impossible to get rid of them with "facts", but you have to have "facts".

    What I think the teachers union should do is what my union did years ago. Number one is eliminate seniority, my union did this years ago, and it totally eliminated contractors complaining they can't get rid of or lay someone off because they have seniority. Number two is sign a no strike agreement, my union did this years ago, but it has to be agreed to by both sides. Any conflicts or disagreements on a contract go to binding arbitration with an arbitrator both sides agree is fair. We win about half of the disagreements/conflicts. It couldn't be fairer and it eliminates work stoppage.
    "Facts" on teacher effectiveness have yet to be developed just like an effective gauge learning has not yet been found. Tests are horrible judges of both. The problem lies in tenure. Tenure was introduced to give teachers job security that they did not have compared to other professions. However how they have more job security that anyone else. My boss can walk in this afternoon and tell me that he does not like my work and i am fired. There is nothing i can do about that, so i tend to do good work.

    My wife and i recently moved for a state where union membership was required to work. That was completely unacceptable.

    I would much rather barter for my own pay and compete for my position instead of someone else telling me they did a good job for me, but that's just me.
    qxr likes this.
    09-25-2013 02:41 PM
  10. NoYankees44's Avatar
    LOL! We are so far apart ideologically, it's like trying to get two repealing magnets to come together.

    I said nothing about not paying the employee. Most people have no contract with their employer, It's termination at will. The employer can say good bye to you when ever they want and the employee can say good bye to the employer when ever they want. I am sure you have read some of the Facebook/Twitter firings, correct?
    Actually they cant legally. Just like they cant fire someone for religion or race. The lawsuits(and possibly legal fine depending on the state) that would ensue would crazy.

    My point being, after someone is paid for a good or service(the relationship is the same whether employer to employee or patron to business), the exchanged money is not longer in any way tied to the person that originally owned it.

    If I sell you a coconut for 20$, that 20$ is mine to do with as i please and I have no obligation to tell you what i do with it.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    09-25-2013 02:47 PM
  11. msndrstood's Avatar
    We are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, and we'll never agree. No use debating about it. I am simply a blue collar, working class, union electrician that thinks, "we" rather than "me" and puts people before profits.
    Thank you! Sympatico.

    Sent via Note II
    palandri likes this.
    09-25-2013 03:33 PM
  12. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Even the unions are asking to be exempt from obamacare

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-25-2013 03:50 PM
  13. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Obamacare is like a sinking ship:
    Captain...Obama
    Navigator...congress
    1st class passengers...unions and federals employees.
    All of the above have jumped ship. That leaves the "people" all wet so to speak. Once again, if these people are jumping off the sinking ship, why would you stay aboard? They are all but telling you its terrible.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    qxr likes this.
    09-25-2013 03:59 PM
  14. Aquila's Avatar
    They're already covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan... there was no need for them to "opt in" or try to be exempt. The talking point about them being exempt stems from Sen. Grassley (R-my state) who urged the senate to pass a law removing congress from the federal system and thus forcing them into exchanges. Just like with most existing healthcare plans, if you already have insurance, you don't have to sign up for exchange insurance. However, due to the 2009 maneuvering by Grassley, which democrats ended up supporting, members of the house, senate and the majority of their staffers will be removed from the federal plan and they will be joining the exchanges or otherwise purchasing their own insurance plans. However, despite the inanity of forcing an employer to drop existing insurance coverage, the federal government will continue to contribute to the financing of insurance (through the exchange) for those evicted employees.
    msndrstood and Fairclough like this.
    09-25-2013 04:11 PM
  15. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    They're already covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan... there was no need for them to "opt in" or try to be exempt. The talking point about them being exempt stems from Sen. Grassley (R-my state) who urged the senate to pass a law removing congress from the federal system and thus forcing them into exchanges. Just like with most existing healthcare plans, if you already have insurance, you don't have to sign up for exchange insurance. However, due to the 2009 maneuvering by Grassley, which democrats ended up supporting, members of the house, senate and the majority of their staffers will be removed from the federal plan and they will be joining the exchanges or otherwise purchasing their own insurance plans. However, despite the inanity of forcing an employer to drop existing insurance coverage, the federal government will continue to contribute to the financing of insurance (through the exchange) for those evicted employees.
    And yet congress still wants language put in that would exempt them.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-25-2013 05:15 PM
  16. llamabreath's Avatar
    And yet congress still wants language put in that would exempt them.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Apparently, what's good for the sheeple is NOT good for the goose.

    09-25-2013 05:27 PM
  17. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Thank you! Sympatico.

    Sent via Note II
    So you don't respond to any of the contradictions to your previous post but instead just quote someone else about agreeing to disagree. Which I can respect, but it's also why there is no understanding and so much hostility in political discussions. Everyone just screams their opinion without any intention of discussion. They just want everyone to know that they believe something and don't have any desire to attempt to understand or acknowledge anything else.

    I have singled you out on this, but don't take it personally. It is just a good example of something that really bothers me. Maybe you just didn't want to take the time to respond. Idk. The last couple of pages have been pretty civil, so I don't think hostility would be a reason.
    09-25-2013 05:37 PM
  18. Aquila's Avatar
    And yet congress still wants language put in that would exempt them.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Congress and an Exemption from ‘Obamacare’?

    I know some people don't trust factcheck, but this has been widely and repeatedly reported on by everyone from CNN to Anonymous and many radio, YouTube and internet publications over the past 3 years, and especially in the last 6 weeks since the proposed rule from the OPM (referenced at the bottom) that brought this back to a front-burner.
    msndrstood and Fairclough like this.
    09-25-2013 05:40 PM
  19. msndrstood's Avatar
    I respond when I feel like it. Palandri said it well enough for me. There is nothing I can say that would change anyone's mind.

    I've spent a lot of time on other threads stating my position on a subject, posted valid 'conservative' links for those so inclined to read them and for all of that I was called names and made fun of. So you'll excuse me if my responses aren't long, thought out and detailed, because I have seen them repeatedly fall upon deaf ears. The responses to my last post just reaffirmed that for me.

    I really wish I could delete these threads from Tapatalk so I wouldn't be tempted to even reply, admittedly, that is definitely my weakness. If it weren't for some people that I have become good friends with on AC, and I support them whenever I can in their threads, I would delete my account. Some people are just toxic.

    Sent via Note II
    qxr and palandri like this.
    09-25-2013 06:28 PM
  20. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    I respond when I feel like it. Palandri said it well enough for me. There is nothing I can say that would change anyone's mind.

    I've spent a lot of time on other threads stating my position on a subject, posted valid 'conservative' links for those so inclined to read them and for all of that I was called names and made fun of. So you'll excuse me if my responses aren't long, thought out and detailed, because I have seen them repeatedly fall upon deaf ears. The responses to my last post just reaffirmed that for me.

    I really wish I could delete these threads from Tapatalk so I wouldn't be tempted to even reply, admittedly, that is definitely my weakness. If it weren't for some people that I have become good friends with on AC, and I support them whenever I can in their threads, I would delete my account. Some people are just toxic.

    Sent via Note II
    The bottom line: if the politicians, federal employees, and unions want to be listed as exempt, that's a clue. They are saying I don't trust this thing.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-25-2013 06:45 PM
  21. llamabreath's Avatar
    I respond when I feel like it. Palandri said it well enough for me. There is nothing I can say that would change anyone's mind.

    I've spent a lot of time on other threads stating my position on a subject, posted valid 'conservative' links for those so inclined to read them and for all of that I was called names and made fun of. So you'll excuse me if my responses aren't long, thought out and detailed, because I have seen them repeatedly fall upon deaf ears. The responses to my last post just reaffirmed that for me.

    I really wish I could delete these threads from Tapatalk so I wouldn't be tempted to even reply, admittedly, that is definitely my weakness. If it weren't for some people that I have become good friends with on AC, and I support them whenever I can in their threads, I would delete my account. Some people are just toxic.

    Sent via Note II
    We all love you, Deb.

    It's just a forum with people we will never see in real life. Don't let it affect you too much.

    neonworm, qxr, Wiley_11 and 2 others like this.
    09-25-2013 07:30 PM
  22. llamabreath's Avatar
    I'd like someone to explain why employers should even be involved in our healthcare AT ALL.

    09-25-2013 08:01 PM
  23. Aquila's Avatar
    I'd like someone to explain why employers should even be involved in our healthcare AT ALL.

    ••
    Theoretically it's more efficient and cheaper for one person to negotiate a plan for 10,000 people than for the insurance company to deal with 10,000 individuals. Insurance has always been available ala carte, however it's generally much more expensive, less tailored and companies and insurance agencies seem to have come to a win-win agreement where the insurance companies get more customers and the companies get more productive employees.

    Additionally, since the delta between full cost and the company plan is generally thought of as part of a compensation package, employers can lower their total benefits cost by paying only part of the healthcare costs, rather than paying the entire thing or a larger share in the form of a higher salary. Everyone saves money, gains efficiency and it, a negative... undermines the market by subsidizing the insurers, who otherwise would have to compete for customers.

    In their current paradigm, actuarial types found ways to charge much more for people who were statistically likely to cost the company more money. Going forward, profitability will have to be optimized more on a group level rather than an individual level, though more participants paying in for more years will help offset the obvious losses from having to treat everyone more equally.
    09-25-2013 08:14 PM
  24. llamabreath's Avatar
    Theoretically it's more efficient and cheaper for one person to negotiate a plan for 10,000 people than for the insurance company to deal with 10,000 individuals. Insurance has always been available ala carte, however it's generally much more expensive, less tailored and companies and insurance agencies seem to have come to a win-win agreement where the insurance companies get more customers and the companies get more productive employees.

    Additionally, since the delta between full cost and the company plan is generally thought of as part of a compensation package, employers can lower their total benefits cost by paying only part of the healthcare costs, rather than paying the entire thing or a larger share in the form of a higher salary. Everyone saves money, gains efficiency and it, a negative... undermines the market by subsidizing the insurers, who otherwise would have to compete for customers.

    In their current paradigm, actuarial types found ways to charge much more for people who were statistically likely to cost the company more money. Going forward, profitability will have to be optimized more on a group level rather than an individual level, though more participants paying in for more years will help offset the obvious losses from having to treat everyone more equally.
    Oh.

    Well, your first word was "theoretically".

    How about realistically?

    09-25-2013 08:18 PM
  25. Aquila's Avatar
    Oh.

    ••
    Similar concept to employees getting a discount on wireless phones dependent on their employer. Lower costs to everyone, more customers and happier people = more profit (volume, perhaps not margin, that's complicated) on all sides.
    09-25-2013 08:21 PM
419 ... 1112131415 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Any way to use TMobile LTE on the note?
    By apeterson93 in forum T-Mobile Galaxy Note
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-10-2016, 10:33 AM
  2. The good, the bad...and the brick
    By CarlosSpiceyW in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-18-2013, 03:22 PM
  3. Handcent SMS and other recipients of a message
    By dlfreeland3665 in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-17-2013, 07:37 PM
  4. First Pics and Probable Release Date of New Nexus 7
    By RichardRight in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2012)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2013, 07:01 PM
  5. Loss of connection with no signs of failure?
    By Rcrdude64 in forum Sprint
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2013, 04:11 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD