Tom,
Rick,
If true, I don't see how that would make many of us feel better
about our bridges.
It would me. Unions are good for one thing, and it ain't building
bridges or teaching children.
However, the specific statement concerned
legislation and they indeed have significant influence along with
other related organizations.
They influence how bridges are built? in what way? do the union
bosses supervise the construction? do they legislate on what
materials are used to construct roads? If the IUOE didn't exist,
would there be a rash of buildings collapsing?
> to compare them with the NEA, the most powerful union in the nation,
> and their legislative agenda, is just a bit silly, don't you think?
No, not since the comparison is appropriate. And it was only one
example in a list that could have extended to perhaps every career
area where legislation and/or regulation is involved.
I still don't see an apt comparison. The only similarity between the
NEA and IUOE might be certification. If the only extra-labor actions
the NEA did was certifying their members, I would have no problem.
But they have influence over funding, materials, philosophy,
direction, and they are more interested in liberal indoctrination at
an early age than in the 3 Rs. And I don't believe they speak for the
entirety of the rank and file.
I suggest that a more direct link is:
http://www.nea.org/lac/priorities.html
However, how much of anything on the pages you pointed to or on the
legislative priorities pages seemed outside of reason to you? I
found little to be disturbed about. On balance, it looked very good
to me. Where was the problem?
would they be apt to provide fresh meat for critics on their web page?
probably not.
A particular element that concerned me was the one concerning
universal health care. I can't quite come to grips with it yet, but
I can't come to grips with the sheer exorbitant cost of a lot of
health care today either. And because we're currently speaking in
terms of "union" and teachers are hardly seen as being regularly
overpaid, I can forgive some expression of support for health care
cost relief.
> the power they wield is enormous, and 95% of their political
> contributions go to democrats.
>
> don't republicans have children too?
Sure, I'm married to one. But what sparks your thought that
Republicans make the lives of teachers better in general? Clearly,
teachers overall seem to feel differently. Perhaps they have reasons.
I'm really not interested in whether the NEA makes life better for
teachers. I want them to have less involvement in how they influence
the education of children, and to better reflect what those children's
parents want. again, if they just dealt with teachers issues, that
would be fine. they don't. they influence every part of education.
Nevertheless, why shouldn't they have power? They represent
"teachers". Teachers choose their representatives. We have a hundred
million children, so there's little reason to think there won't be a
lot of teachers. With a lot of 'anybody', there will be a lot of power.
But, what power are you concerned about?
then it's your position that 95% of teachers are democrats and agree
with the NEA agenda? Are 95% of parents? Shouldn't the agenda and
political contributions of the NEA more directly reflect the makeup of
it's members, or the constituency they pretend to serve?
My concern is their undeserved influence over children. Regardless of
your views on the following subjects, is it a labor union's
responsibility and duty to set the agenda on same-sex marriage,
feminism, globalism, home schooling, nationalized health care,
federally funded abortion, "family planning clinics" in schools (read
PP right next to the councilor's offices), gay and sexuality studies
as early as middle school (not sex ed, but sexuality ed), etc.
They're a labor union for cripe's sake. and they throw around
hundreds of millions a year in political contributions, virtually all
of it to liberal democrats.
