Twitter Users Wish Death on Scott Walker
- Thread starter Bacon Boy
- Start date
OHGOD OPINIONS
BECAUSE OURS DIFFER, YOU MUST BE IGNORANT
In pretty much every post towards me you make in such a thread begins with an insult.
And I never stated I did not think the exploitation of labor does not exist in 2011. There you go with assumptions.
Example: It's fine if teachers want to get a raise of salary or better job compensation. It's not fine, however, when they refuse to work. That hurts the kids they're teaching.
Another thing, teachers really don't get paid a lot. They get paid enough to live on, but you're not going to become a multi-millionaire by just becoming a teacher. If they want to make an large amount of money, then they should find a new line of work. It's like becoming a camp councilor. You certainly don't do it for the money.
I know, I'm only talking about teachers here.
And there are a couple of exceptions to my above statement. Some unions would be beneficial. If a job has terrible working conditions with excruciatingly long hours and little pay, then yes, they need some way to improve those conditions and an organized way to get their point across.
![[Nook]](/data/avatars/m/1/1990.jpg?1585850325){kind=avatar}
No, it doesn't.
"...I know, I'm only talking about teachers here."
You could say that TEACHER labor unions are whatever you initially described them to be, but how about everyone else? Unions are downright essential for jobs in the medical field, especially for nurses.
Also, your example for teachers is really, really bad. Who are you talking about? High school teachers? Because there are certainly many university professors who make a VERY good living doing what they do.
Finally, I don't see the problem with refusing to work if your employer is being a prick. You work with the expectation of receiving certain wages and benefits. If your arguing point is "THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!", then that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. We're not talking about children, we're talking about fair working conditions.
"...I know, I'm only talking about teachers here."
You could say that TEACHER labor unions are whatever you initially described them to be, but how about everyone else? Unions are downright essential for jobs in the medical field, especially for nurses.
Also, your example for teachers is really, really bad. Who are you talking about? High school teachers? Because there are certainly many university professors who make a VERY good living doing what they do.
Finally, I don't see the problem with refusing to work if your employer is being a prick. You work with the expectation of receiving certain wages and benefits. If your arguing point is "THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!", then that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. We're not talking about children, we're talking about fair working conditions.
Last edited:
OK, and? I bet they were subject to unfair working conditions. If you're going to tell them to find a different line of work because they're being treated unfairly, then why would you even have a problem with teachers not doing their job? If you're OK with them finding a different job, then logically you'd be OK with there not being any teachers in the first place. I don't see the problem. I'm not saying that unions are in the right 100% of the time, but I tend to side with them more often than not. There are definitely issues concerning the constriction of private sector jobs, but I don't think you're talking about stuff like that.
I can see when I'm wrong, and in this instance, I was. However, the teachers had pretty good working conditions at my school, they just wanted more pay.
I don't support violence in any case. You can feel free to take random people's words and contort them into the general opinion of so-called liberals, but you would be doing a disservice to conservatives by falling victim to their usual talking points (like the guy in your "interesting comment" is doing). Violence is wrong and it doesn't matter what one's political affiliation is. There are morons on both sides of the aisle.
You mean government employees, right?
Yes. The ones complaining about not getting enough money and benefits from people who don't want to pay them (taxpayers). It's like what if I protested in your yard and said you have an obligation to give me a job with high wages and good benefits. I was reading a post somewhere on the internet that was comparing WI to Egypt. That makes no sense whatsoever. They are complete opposites. Egypt protests are against government power. WI protests are in favor of government power.
It's not quite that simple, though. I agree that government workers are out of line when they ask for increased benefits/higher wages, especially in view of the economy, but consider the situation in general. This would impact all unions in the state, which means that teachers and nurses are out of luck. Those two professions, especially nursing, almost require unions. Otherwise -- and I've seen this happen with my mom, who works as a nurse -- employers will run with it and subject employees to insane conditions. If this situation was solely about government worker unions, I'd be totally on the Republican side of things...
Jumping in again. Purely inquisitive, but aren't there work condition laws? Why not make sure they're enforced and make sure employers don't go all crazy with their conditions.
I'm not an expert on the matter, but I'm pretty sure there are certain aspects of teaching/nursing jobs that are not regulated. To again return to nursing, there have been a lot of complaints about nurse-patient ratios in Minnesota. In fact, a lot of nurses went on strike until the matter was resolved. Aside from that, I don't know...
If they do not exist, [the government] should be create them. Complex problem with a simple solution. Then we really wouldn't need worker's unions. If we resolved the issue of bad working conditions, then we could solve a lot of problems.
