School's out for... protesting?

[Exterous]

I understand what you are attempting to debate with Mono but still, 11% provenience in reading for their grade level is a complete and utter failure. I would honestly expect numbers like that to come from a study of "how smart are kids if they don't go to school at all and play Xbox all day". I do understand the numbers are probably skewed a bit by kids that register but don't go to school, kids that plain don't give a fuck, etc.... However, when the normal 8th grade class has a reading proficiency level of what I would expect from the kids wearing red helmets and riding the short bus to school in "special" classes.

I am not attempting to say it is not a failure. It very obviously is. It is a complete system failure top to bottom. My aggravation is that people are trying to place the blame solely (or even mostly) on teachers and the teacher's union. People who have never once bothered to set foot in an inner city school in this area. The ignorance and stupidity is astounding.

Lets take a closer look at kids not showing up for schools. Ok - so the average proficiency level for large cities is 21%. Detroit is 7% for a difference of 14. Pretty significant right? Now - interestingly enough the difference in attendance (75% vs 96%) is 21. On some days the attendance rate difference is 12.5x as many kids absent as the national average!! Wouldn't you think that with an attendance difference notably greater than the proficiency difference that it most likely weighs heavily on scores?

He gets money for the lousy job that teachers are committing upon children in Michigan, it's as plain and simple as that. They try to shift blame to parents or the administration or Republicans, but union teachers are to blame for the lousy education those children get and they laugh at those poor kids all the way to the bank.

I have never hid the fact that my wife is a teacher or that she chooses to teach in the Detroit Metro Area. In fact I am rather proud of her that she chooses to forgo the notably more financially compensating suburb schools in favor of teaching those who 'have no one else to care for them'. (Despite the added financial frustrations this causes me) There is no doubt that there are bad teachers. I have never said otherwise, although I suspect that you and I differ greatly as to how many.

You seem to be missing a couple of things though. First - in Michigan teachers can be fired (indeed must be fired) for poor performance. This would indicate that poor child performance is not the province of teachers alone. Since administration assigns 'ineffective' if there are any bad teachers left in the system the blame must be shouldered by the administration as they were the ones that chose to keep the teacher by rating them as something other than 'ineffective'. In fact - administrators in the poorest performing schools in Michigan rated 91% of their teachers in the top two categories for teacher performance. So - the administration thinks they are doing a great job.

Since the administration thinks they are doing a great job I would like to pose a question or two to you:
Is the administration correct that they are doing a great job?
If no then shouldn't the administration share a good part of the blame for not correctly rating and getting rid of the teachers?

Second - with over 6x as many kids skipping school as the national average how is it fair to compare teachers to the national average without weighting the scores by attendance? Or do you really intend to hold teachers accountable for teaching students that aren't even there (ie - that parents don't make go to school)

Third - you have provided no proof that teachers are solely to blame. All you have is a report of scores. Maybe you don't have kids but if you think that a teacher is the only one responsible for a child's education you are quite mistaken. I have taken time to provide proof showing that teachers are not the only culprits here. Do you have any proof to show otherwise?

 

[Ausm]

So people should be financially obligated to pay for a service they never requested nor authorized?

What's stopping them from getting a different job?

 

[Ichigo]

So people should be financially obligated to pay for a service they never requested nor authorized?

I'm sure some people don't want their income taxes going towards the defence budget too.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

What's stopping them from getting a different job?

Nothing, but unions limit their CHOICE and freedom to work for the employer of their choice.

 

[Darwin333]

He gets money for the lousy job that teachers are committing upon children in Michigan, it's as plain and simple as that. They try to shift blame to parents or the administration or Republicans, but union teachers are to blame for the lousy education those children get and they laugh at those poor kids all the way to the bank.

Frankly, I don't think the unions are to blame for lousy education and teachers. They might contribute a small amount but nowhere near the level you wish to attribute to them. Parents probably play a more important role than teachers when it comes to education. If a parent doesn't give a fuck the best teacher in the world usually can't get good results.

As far as shitty teachers, a poster above me put it fairly well. "Its easy to become a teacher"......

 

[Darwin333]

What's stopping them from getting a different job?

Not the question I asked.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm sure some people don't want their income taxes going towards the defence budget too.

So you are saying that unions and the government have, and should have, relatively equal power to tax people at will (as long as they are employed at XYZ company)?


Should all employers have this sort of broad power as well? If an employer starts taking 5% out of every employees check for political donations to candidates that the owner chooses, is that ok? Hell, since he is also negotiating the employees wages he can call the fee the same thing the union does.

The comparison is absurd.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Frankly, I don't think the unions are to blame for lousy education and teachers. They might contribute a small amount but nowhere near the level you wish to attribute to them. Parents probably play a more important role than teachers when it comes to education. If a parent doesn't give a fuck the best teacher in the world usually can't get good results.

As far as shitty teachers, a poster above me put it fairly well. "Its easy to become a teacher"......

This. I don't fully blame teachers for shitty results of the students as some kids just don't have the capacity to learn and/or their family life sucks.

HOWEVER, I also don't buy that teachers have it as hard as some of them claim.

 

[GamingDaemon]

I am not attempting to say it is not a failure. It very obviously is. It is a complete system failure top to bottom. My aggravation is that people are trying to place the blame solely (or even mostly) on teachers and the teacher's union. People who have never once bothered to set foot in an inner city school in this area. The ignorance and stupidity is astounding.

Lets take a closer look at kids not showing up for schools. Ok - so the average proficiency level for large cities is 21%. Detroit is 7% for a difference of 14. Pretty significant right? Now - interestingly enough the difference in attendance (75% vs 96%) is 21. On some days the attendance rate difference is 12.5x as many kids absent as the national average!! Wouldn't you think that with an attendance difference notably greater than the proficiency difference that it most likely weighs heavily on scores?



I have never hid the fact that my wife is a teacher or that she chooses to teach in the Detroit Metro Area. In fact I am rather proud of her that she chooses to forgo the notably more financially compensating suburb schools in favor of teaching those who 'have no one else to care for them'. (Despite the added financial frustrations this causes me) There is no doubt that there are bad teachers. I have never said otherwise, although I suspect that you and I differ greatly as to how many.

You seem to be missing a couple of things though. First - in Michigan teachers can be fired (indeed must be fired) for poor performance. This would indicate that poor child performance is not the province of teachers alone. Since administration assigns 'ineffective' if there are any bad teachers left in the system the blame must be shouldered by the administration as they were the ones that chose to keep the teacher by rating them as something other than 'ineffective'. In fact - administrators in the poorest performing schools in Michigan rated 91% of their teachers in the top two categories for teacher performance. So - the administration thinks they are doing a great job.

Since the administration thinks they are doing a great job I would like to pose a question or two to you:
Is the administration correct that they are doing a great job?
If no then shouldn't the administration share a good part of the blame for not correctly rating and getting rid of the teachers?

Second - with over 6x as many kids skipping school as the national average how is it fair to compare teachers to the national average without weighting the scores by attendance? Or do you really intend to hold teachers accountable for teaching students that aren't even there (ie - that parents don't make go to school)

Third - you have provided no proof that teachers are solely to blame. All you have is a report of scores. Maybe you don't have kids but if you think that a teacher is the only one responsible for a child's education you are quite mistaken. I have taken time to provide proof showing that teachers are not the only culprits here. Do you have any proof to show otherwise?

My perception, and apparently the perception of others on this thread, was that you were putting for those 11% numbers as if they were indicative of quality teaching. Hence my gentle, probing post as to what you were trying to say.

I do blame teachers, as it is their job, so they must share in the credit or blame, as it goes. But I do not blame them entirely. I also blame the parents, and I can say this because I am one. But neither teachers nor parents take the lion's share of the blame. Mostly, I blame the Dept. of Ed., and the Teachers Union. Together, they represent the largest impediment to competitive acquisition of quality teachers. That's it. Period. Yes, the Dept. of Ed. wastes more money that a Democrat in a Latin American country, but they also have no interest in getting the best teachers butts in our most needy classrooms. Same with the union. Personally, I think both should be demolished by some left over F-22 Raptors.

Everyone, have a good day.

 

[Pulsar]

Because RTW is all about ending unions and lowering workers wages and benefits.

My god, do you even THINK before you post?

Unions are a "Good Thing" (tm). FORCING people to pay for them when they don't want to is a "Bad Thing" (tm).

Nothing says the Union has to represent a non-union member. Speaking from experience, they won't.

The biggest problem with what's happening here in Michigan is how the law is going through. The pro-Union folks lost a pretty big vote when people chose not to put collective bargaining in the state constitution during the last election. The lame-duck session of our state congress and house decided that they would push this law through. And push they DID. Almost no on in the state heard about this law before it went through both the house and the senate. It went from proposal to on Snyder's desk with almost no media coverage.

That's what most bothers me. The republicans who put this through intentionally tried to fly it under the radar. That was silly. It still probably would have passed even with a longer review session. In addition, they could have made the unions look stupid by waiting for them to start protesting and KEEP protesting long term.

The law should have gone through differently.

 

[Pulsar]

You seem to be missing a couple of things though. First - in Michigan teachers can be fired (indeed must be fired) for poor performance. This would indicate that poor child performance is not the province of teachers alone. Since administration assigns 'ineffective' if there are any bad teachers left in the system the blame must be shouldered by the administration as they were the ones that chose to keep the teacher by rating them as something other than 'ineffective'. In fact - administrators in the poorest performing schools in Michigan rated 91% of their teachers in the top two categories for teacher performance. So - the administration thinks they are doing a great job.

Bullshit. Total and utter horse shit. As a married partner of a teacher, you KNOW that's bullshit. I can't stress enough what total bullshit that is.

I'm a parent of 3, and I work VERY closely with a couple dozen teachers through some programs that help high school kids. Poor teachers are not fired in Michigan. They are not fired unless they are so hideously horrible that there is a general uprising.

I have an 11 year old who goes to a local 'academy'. The academy is a combination of 6 local highschools. To get in, you have to have a B or better average.

He currently has a teacher who has an entire GOOGLE GROUP devoted to trying to figure out what she wants! She doesn't use a textbook, doesn't send home project requirements, and expects the kids to be able to figure out what she's thinking. The google group of parents (she is unaware it exists) trades information to try to piecemeal together what she wants from the students. Each parent emails her and tries to get a straight answer.

The teacher should have been fired long ago. She's an arrogant bitch who has no interest teaching children. The superintendent has even been added to the group distribution list so he can witness what's been happening. Multiple straight-A students are failing the class.

This is not an isolated incident. Fully 1/3 of the teachers I've dealt with have been problematic. I'm not a helicopter parent either. I am, however, an involved parent. When I ask my sons to explain projects and they can't, so I ask them to show me the rubrics and they can't, then I ask them to show me their textbooks and they can't (they don't have textbooks), something is very wrong.

Yet, because most parents only see a teacher for 1 year, the teachers are allowed to get off scott free. No parent is going to pursue getting a teacher fired: it's easier just to get their kid through that one year and move on. No administrator is going to take up the fight - they're non-union and the last thing they need is to try to get someone fired and have the union against them.

Don't try to feed people this line of bullshit that 'poor teachers' must be fired in Michigan. I deal with the system, and I know it isn't true.

 

[Pulsar]

Frankly, I don't think the unions are to blame for lousy education and teachers. They might contribute a small amount but nowhere near the level you wish to attribute to them. Parents probably play a more important role than teachers when it comes to education. If a parent doesn't give a fuck the best teacher in the world usually can't get good results.

As far as shitty teachers, a poster above me put it fairly well. "Its easy to become a teacher"......

Yep. It's more the parents than the kids. Unfortunately, the teacher problem isn't addressed either. It's very hard to stick a metric on a teacher that truly defines how 'good' or 'bad' they are.

 

[Exterous]

Bullshit. Total and utter horse shit. As a married partner of a teacher, you KNOW that's bullshit. I can't stress enough what total bullshit that is.

It is not bullshit - it is the law. Three ineffective ratings and you are out regardless of tenure, contract etc. It cannot be argued that teachers can't be fired as it is on official government record that they can be. Whether or not the administration chooses to rate teachers in such a way to necessitate their removal under the law is another matter entirely.

Don't try to feed people this line of bullshit that 'poor teachers' must be fired in Michigan. I deal with the system, and I know it isn't true.

A teacher rated ineffective on three consecutive evaluations shall be dismissed from employment. This provision does not limit the ability of a district to dismiss an ineffective teacher even in the absence of three negative evaluations.

Either the administration has not rated the teacher as ineffective three times or the administration is ignoring this provision of the law.

It shouldn't matter how long the parents have the teacher as it is the administration that rates the teacher. Theoretically the administration should have more than 1 year of experience with the teacher. (Assuming this is not the teacher's first year at the school)

(Sidenote: Textbooks being unavailable is usually not the fault of the teacher)

It seems that administrators are not too keen on rating teachers as ineffective:

Out of over 95,000 Michigan teachers, more than 97 percent were rated “highly effective” or “effective” by their administrators.

Only 0.8 percent were rated "ineffective."

Schools are also supposed to prioritize layoffs by effectiveness as well as send a letter to parents notifying them when a teacher has been rated as 'ineffective'

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17987

So - either administrators are satisfied with the vast majority of teachers or they are unwilling to use the means provided by state law to remove the bad ones

 

[Exterous]

Now 7% seems pretty damn bad. And it is - don't get me wrong. DPS sucks and no one in their right mind would work there or have their kids attend there.

My perception, and apparently the perception of others on this thread, was that you were putting for those 11% numbers as if they were indicative of quality teaching.

Granted thats for the 7% But given how close 11% is to 7% and 7% = 'pretty damn bad' and 'DPS sucks' and 'no one in their right mind would work there or have their kids attend there' I would think it would be pretty clear cut that I don't think any of this is indicative of a quality learning environment in any regards.

 

[werepossum]

I am not attempting to say it is not a failure. It very obviously is. It is a complete system failure top to bottom. My aggravation is that people are trying to place the blame solely (or even mostly) on teachers and the teacher's union. People who have never once bothered to set foot in an inner city school in this area. The ignorance and stupidity is astounding.

Lets take a closer look at kids not showing up for schools. Ok - so the average proficiency level for large cities is 21%. Detroit is 7% for a difference of 14. Pretty significant right? Now - interestingly enough the difference in attendance (75% vs 96%) is 21. On some days the attendance rate difference is 12.5x as many kids absent as the national average!! Wouldn't you think that with an attendance difference notably greater than the proficiency difference that it most likely weighs heavily on scores?

SNIP

Third - you have provided no proof that teachers are solely to blame. All you have is a report of scores. Maybe you don't have kids but if you think that a teacher is the only one responsible for a child's education you are quite mistaken. I have taken time to provide proof showing that teachers are not the only culprits here. Do you have any proof to show otherwise?

You do raise a good point. Teachers and administrators MUST be held accountable, yet how to do that isn't at all clear. As a local teacher said, "These kids come in here unable to read and you're going to evaluate me on how well I teach them chemistry?"

Because of its very high dependency rate, urban Detroit in some ways would be easier to fix than most - your kid doesn't show up for school, your check is cut next month. Your kid has one job - getting an education. You have one job - making sure that kid gets an education.

As far as the administrators being satisfied with the teachers, why wouldn't they be? Public education is a business, and quality education is not one of its products. In fact, it's often just the opposite - low test scores mean more federal dollars.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You do raise a good point. Teachers and administrators MUST be held accountable, yet how to do that isn't at all clear. As a local teacher said, "These kids come in here unable to read and you're going to evaluate me on how well I teach them chemistry?"

Because of its very high dependency rate, urban Detroit in some ways would be easier to fix than most - your kid doesn't show up for school, your check is cut next month. Your kid has one job - getting an education. You have one job - making sure that kid gets an education.

As far as the administrators being satisfied with the teachers, why wouldn't they be? Public education is a business, and quality education is not one of its products. In fact, it's often just the opposite - low test scores mean more federal dollars.

Totally different subject but there is a fix for this. Unfortunately the NEA (union) doesn't like the solution for these problems. They seem stuck on the idea that each 9 year olds should be the same. If an outcome based(yes I know it's been a dirty word in the Education world) education was in place we wouldn't have kids trying to learn complex subjects until they learned the simple ones. But again, that's really a whole different subject.

 

[werepossum]

Totally different subject but there is a fix for this. Unfortunately the NEA (union) doesn't like the solution for these problems. They seem stuck on the idea that each 9 year olds should be the same. If an outcome based(yes I know it's been a dirty word in the Education world) education was in place we wouldn't have kids trying to learn complex subjects until they learned the simple ones. But again, that's really a whole different subject.

Agreed, but I don't think that's being driven by the NEA which doesn't care what it teaches to whom as long as it's easy work, secure, and well-paid. I think that's driven by parents and by administrators and politicians. Parents often care more about their child not being singled out, punished, held back from advancing with his peers, than about whether or not their child is getting a quality education. This is particularly true among inner city minorities who are not convinced that actually mastering the material will help their child get ahead in life; they see skin color, connections, and the actual diplomas as far more consequential to one's career success than actual mastery (or lack thereof) of the material studied. Administrators and politicians often care more about whether the parents are happy (or rather, not making waves that cost votes) than about whether the children are getting a quality education. Thus there's a huge amount of pressure on teachers to pass students regardless of whether they have mastered the material; I think that dwarfs the effects of the NEA protecting bad teachers.

Should we develop the societal will to demand actual mastery of material to move up, teachers' jobs would arguably get easier, at last in some ways. Although poor teachers and lazy teachers would certainly have a harder time delivering that mastery, better teachers would have an easier time since the foundation would be strong. Teachers' jobs would certainly be more rewarding than is the case today, and I suspect most would be happy to get on board with that. For that matter, perhaps we'd see significant numbers of lazy teachers re-energized and bad teachers more interested in developing needed job skills if they had a better grade of student. The flip side of that, teachers' collective fight against being evaluated, would then be a problem as there is no way to demand actual mastery of material without evaluating (and rewarding/punishing based on those analyses) those responsible for teaching the material. But unless and until we develop the societal will to demand actual mastery of material to move up, I don't think we can really blame its lack on the NEA.

I'm all in favor of evaluating teachers, holding them accountable, and getting rid of the ones who do not perform. I just think that until we're ready to revamp our expectations, it's difficult to do well and with much positive results.

 

[Nemesis 1]

You do raise a good point. Teachers and administrators MUST be held accountable, yet how to do that isn't at all clear. As a local teacher said, "These kids come in here unable to read and you're going to evaluate me on how well I teach them chemistry?"

Well I went threw this myself . I was unteachable because I had no interest . I got lucky . 1 teacher reached out to me and succedded. Read our class a book . I loved the story and decided this reading thing is good and I been a reading machine ever since. The things that interested me I really good at . History religion Science. Things I didn't like . I failed at . Its that simple. I get banged on all the time for my grammer spelling . Whats funny about this is . My real life talking . I use basicly 4 letter words on people in real life . I have meet maybe 5 people in my life That I look up to . The Greatest of these was MLK. But the rest of the people I see them as Grammer and spelling . Worthless in my life work.

 

[fskimospy]

Nothing, but unions limit their CHOICE and freedom to work for the employer of their choice.

And RTW laws remove the CHOICE that unions and employees have as to how to structure their workplace. What's your point?

 

[fskimospy]

You do raise a good point. Teachers and administrators MUST be held accountable, yet how to do that isn't at all clear. As a local teacher said, "These kids come in here unable to read and you're going to evaluate me on how well I teach them chemistry?"

Because of its very high dependency rate, urban Detroit in some ways would be easier to fix than most - your kid doesn't show up for school, your check is cut next month. Your kid has one job - getting an education. You have one job - making sure that kid gets an education.

As far as the administrators being satisfied with the teachers, why wouldn't they be? Public education is a business, and quality education is not one of its products. In fact, it's often just the opposite - low test scores mean more federal dollars.

Low scores often mean the school is closed.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

And RTW laws remove the CHOICE that unions and employees have as to how to structure their workplace. What's your point?

yeah, it removes the choice for them to remove the choice from others.

I support freedom, you?

 

[fskimospy]

yeah, it removes the choice for them to remove the choice from others.

I support freedom, you?

You clearly don't. All workers and employers negotiate shared rules for employment at every business. This law uses the power of the state to prevent employers and employees from agreeing to this particular stipulation.

Color me shocked that the guy who doesn't like government interference in business is advocating for it so long as it attacks his political enemies.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And RTW laws remove the CHOICE that unions and employees have as to how to structure their workplace. What's your point?

Choice? George Will wrote an excellent article which addresses this subject. I've bolded the part regarding the choices union members are making when given the opportunity.

http://cjonline.com/opinion/2012-12-18/george-will-unions-picked-wrong-fight

Unions picked wrong fight
By George Will

Rick Snyder, who is hardly a human cactus, warned Michigan’s labor leaders. The state’s mild-mannered Republican governor has rarely been accused of being a fire-breathing conservative. When unions put on Michigan’s November ballot two measures that would have entrenched collective bargaining rights in the state Constitution, Snyder told them they were picking a fight they might regret.

Both measures lost resoundingly in the state with the fifth highest rate of unionization and, not coincidentally, the sixth highest unemployment rate. Republicans decided to build upon that outcome by striking a blow for individual liberty and against coerced funding of the Democratic Party. Hence the right-to-work laws passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature to prohibit the requirement of paying union dues as a condition of employment.

The unions’ frenzy against this freedom is as understandable as their desire to abolish the right of secret ballots in unionization elections: Freedom is not the unions’ friend. After Colorado in 2001 required public employees unions to have annual votes reauthorizing collection of dues, membership in the Colorado Association of Public Employees declined 70 percent. After Indiana’s government in 2005 stopped collecting dues from unionized public employees, the number of dues-paying members plummeted 90 percent. The Democratic Party’s desperate opposition to the liberation of workers from compulsory membership in unions is because unions are conveyor belts moving coerced dues money into the party.

Nationwide, resentment of union power has been accumulating like steam in a boiler. The Wall Street Journal reports that in the last four years “nearly every state ... has enacted some form of pension changes” clawing back unsustainable benefits promised to unionized government employees. The most conspicuous battle was in Wisconsin, where Republican Gov. Scott Walker survived organized labor’s attempt to recall him as punishment for restricting collective bargaining by unionized government workers. After Walker’s reforms, Indiana under Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels became the 23rd right-to-work state.

By becoming the 24th right-to-work state, Michigan is belatedly becoming serious about what Daniel Boorstin, the late historian and Librarian of Congress, called entrepreneurial federalism. This is the wholesome competition among states to emulate others’ best practices, and to avoid and exploit others’ follies.

Indiana and Wisconsin are, fortunately for them, contiguous to Illinois, where Democratic power is completely unrestrained and spectacularly unsuccessful. Indiana noticed Wisconsin’s competitive advantage in attracting businesses from Illinois and elsewhere. Michigan also has noticed.

If you seek a monument to Michigan’s unions, look at Detroit, where the amount of vacant land is approaching the size of Paris. And where the United Auto Workers, which once had more than 1 million members and now has about 380,000, won contracts that crippled the local industry — and prompted the growth of the non-unionized auto industry that is thriving elsewhere. Detroit’s rapacious and oblivious government employees unions are parasitic off a near-corpse of a city that has lost 25 percent of its population since 2000.

Many liberals who, with solemn self-congratulation, call themselves “pro-choice” become testy when the right to choose is not confined to choosing to kill unborn babies. They say the right to choose is not progressive when it enables parents to choose their children’s schools, or permits workers to choose not to fund unions’ political advocacy.

Democrats who soon will celebrate two of their party’s saints at Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners should jettison either their opposition to right-to-work laws or their reverence for Jefferson, who said: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You clearly don't. All workers and employers negotiate shared rules for employment at every business. This law uses the power of the state to prevent employers and employees from agreeing to this particular stipulation.

Color me shocked that the guy who doesn't like government interference in business is advocating for it so long as it attacks his political enemies.

Wrong, this law does not prevent that agreement. What it does is allow each employee to make a choice and prevents the removal of choice by others.

This is not interference into the situation by the gov't. It's already there - meaning it doesn't add to the gov't interference. If anything it lessens it.

I understand some of you are too blinded by ideology to understand freedom but seriously, it takes a real union asskisser to think that this is more gov't interference and somehow lessens choice. sheesh.

 

[fskimospy]

Wrong, this law does not prevent that agreement. What it does is allow each employee to make a choice and prevents the removal of choice by others.

This is not interference into the situation by the gov't. It's already there - meaning it doesn't add to the gov't interference. If anything it lessens it.

I understand some of you are too blinded by ideology to understand freedom but seriously, it takes a real union asskisser to think that this is more gov't interference and somehow lessens choice. sheesh.

Ummm, its pretty unarguable. This law removes the ability for employers and employees to bargain about a certain aspect of their workplace. Period. The government is now restricting things it was not restricting before.

Its just hypocrites like you that flip out about government, unless you've found a way tobuse it to attack the other political sports team. This is not new information about you, you've always been like this.