You may say you do not have an issue with unions, but you are definatly anti-union. That is why I called you a liar.
Tom
Another Very Sad Day for the USA
- Thread starter Rodger Tellefson
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
You may say you do not have an issue with unions, but you are definatly anti-union. That is why I called you a liar.
Tom
Les
Well-Known Member
Tom, actually it does, and your experience speaks volumes of your pro-union stance.
Unnecessary...
Regarding this statement, many of us are not anti-union, but we are against the limitations utilized by unions to exist. There are only 22 "right-to-work" states. As I've said before, people should be free to choose to be a union member, not forced.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen said:
I guess if you are prone to using labels for things and think in more black and white terms, then yes, I guess I can see how you are confused by my statements. If you must label things then I guess am more on the "anti-union" side, than the "pro-union" side. Still, that is the problem with labels, IMHO. I think that the constant use of such labels (liberal vs conservative; pro-choice vs pro-life, etc) are part of the reason why this country can't come to terms on issues. Such labels make no place for a "middle ground." Labels like that instantly categorize thoughts, and place people and ideas on opposite sides. Labels aren't helpful.
Am I critical of unions? Yes. Do I *hate* unions? No. As I've said here before, I don't think there is really anything that I have encountered, or dealt with, whether it be people, organizations, or things that I would say I hate. But, even though I am critical of unions, I do recognize their past value, and I recognize their current value to some, for some industries.
So, yes, I'm not a poster child for union support. But, neither am I some douche bag, blowhard that just likes to spout off uninformed, half-baked jabs against unions. I have union membership experience, and I can both articulate and appreciate all of the benefits of unions that proponents showcase.
So, I will restate: Do I have any "real issues" with unions? Nope. To me, a "real issue" is some fundamental issue that makes one dislike them at their very core. A non-starter. I applaud unions and what they have done for this country. Key words there, however, for me, is "have done". I'm critical of what their value is today, and will be, ongoing, especially for certain sectors. If in your mind that makes me "anti-union" and you feel comfort in that label, then by all means, continue to use it. However, I will continue to consider myself neither pro, nor anti-union, but simply union-critical.
Even unions supports should be critical. Heck, any organization should be critical of itself and constantly challenge its own value proposition.
Please, don't call me a liar. If you THINK I am saying something false, ask for a clarification. I will be happy to oblige.
There you go. A thoughtful, well articulated, unemotional, adult discussion on the fact that I do NOT HATE unions, and do not consider myself "anti-union" as the label would define me.
TJR
I guess if you are prone to using labels for things and think in more black and white terms, then yes, I guess I can see how you are confused by my statements. If you must label things then I guess am more on the "anti-union" side, than the "pro-union" side. Still, that is the problem with labels, IMHO. I think that the constant use of such labels (liberal vs conservative; pro-choice vs pro-life, etc) are part of the reason why this country can't come to terms on issues. Such labels make no place for a "middle ground." Labels like that instantly categorize thoughts, and place people and ideas on opposite sides. Labels aren't helpful.
Am I critical of unions? Yes. Do I *hate* unions? No. As I've said here before, I don't think there is really anything that I have encountered, or dealt with, whether it be people, organizations, or things that I would say I hate. But, even though I am critical of unions, I do recognize their past value, and I recognize their current value to some, for some industries.
So, yes, I'm not a poster child for union support. But, neither am I some douche bag, blowhard that just likes to spout off uninformed, half-baked jabs against unions. I have union membership experience, and I can both articulate and appreciate all of the benefits of unions that proponents showcase.
So, I will restate: Do I have any "real issues" with unions? Nope. To me, a "real issue" is some fundamental issue that makes one dislike them at their very core. A non-starter. I applaud unions and what they have done for this country. Key words there, however, for me, is "have done". I'm critical of what their value is today, and will be, ongoing, especially for certain sectors. If in your mind that makes me "anti-union" and you feel comfort in that label, then by all means, continue to use it. However, I will continue to consider myself neither pro, nor anti-union, but simply union-critical.
Even unions supports should be critical. Heck, any organization should be critical of itself and constantly challenge its own value proposition.
Please, don't call me a liar. If you THINK I am saying something false, ask for a clarification. I will be happy to oblige.
There you go. A thoughtful, well articulated, unemotional, adult discussion on the fact that I do NOT HATE unions, and do not consider myself "anti-union" as the label would define me.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Vince Coshenet
Active Member
The only taxpayers that pay for unions are union members. It breaks down like this...
The State collects taxes.
The State pays it's employees from those taxes.
Before paycheck is given, taxes are taken out.
What is left is then paid to the employee which is now employee money.
Therefore, money contributed to unions is not state money anymore.
The arguement saying otherwise is the same as saying that if I buy a car from someone and they go and buy drugs with the money, then I support drug dealers. Not the case.
The State collects taxes.
The State pays it's employees from those taxes.
Before paycheck is given, taxes are taken out.
What is left is then paid to the employee which is now employee money.
Therefore, money contributed to unions is not state money anymore.
The arguement saying otherwise is the same as saying that if I buy a car from someone and they go and buy drugs with the money, then I support drug dealers. Not the case.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Vince,
I never said that taxpayer pay for unions.
What I said was that taxpayers pay for civil servant's salaries and benefits. Likewise, taxpayers more often than not have no direct say or choice in whether or not they pay for, or otherwise even use the services provided by civil servants. Likewise, taxpayers don't get a choice in who provides the services that civil servants provide; the taxpayer can't shop around. The govt and its agencies are a monopoly.
So, when you add all that together, there is a disparity between unions serving the public sector and the private sector. In the private sector, I as a consumer can pick and choose the company I buy my goods and services from. If I don't like the price, or the service, or I think it is too inflated, or the service too poor, I can go somewhere else. Likewise, because of the fact that I can go somewhere else, companies in the private sector have an innate incentive to price their products and services competitively (read: as low as possible, competitive in a price war, etc), and to provide services and products that are as good as, if not better than, the competition.
But, for public sector agencies, I, the taxpayer, who consumes those services (sometimes, sometimes not...but I do pay for them, regardless), have no choice. And, due to the monopoliostic nature of the public sector there is no innate need, nor desire to keep prices down, or service quality high. I submit that common sense would dictate that if you toss an organization into the mix, and organization that's vested interest is in maximizing salaries and benefits for its employees, such an organization working within the confines of the public sector will increase the costs of services in a potentially unchecked fashion. Meaning, that the costs of services in that sector will be inflated due to the unions. Further meaning, that in the public sector, the taxpayer IS paying for unions.
How do we solve that rising, inflated cost of services issue in the public sector AND help to eleviate the monopoly?
1, we start with smaller government. Fewer services, fewer agencies, fewer employees.
2. we start with reducing the prevalence of unions in the public sector, thereby opening those jobs up to people currently in the private sector.
3. we consider opening up several of these agencies to contract employees, not permanent employees.
Those are my ideas, that is why I feel that taxpayer are at a disadvantage with the status quo. The ones I think that are in favor of the status quo are those that simply feel that unions are good in all their various forms, and for all sectors, and probably most civil servants themselves, especially the lackluster ones.
Also, Vince, your analogy seems to not be the best fit for what I am saying.
A better analogy is that there are cars that are for sale, and they are ONLY sold by a company that is forced into paying protection money to drug dealers. I can only buy cars from that company. I don't have a choice in buying a car, at any other price, from anyone else. If I buy a car, then I am benefiting drug dealers, and I am most probably am paying more for the car than I would if I bought it from a company not having to pay that protection money. And, to make the analogy 100% applicable, this car in question I have to buy as my government is forcing me to buy it.
Now, I just re-used your drug dealer reference because you did. But from the way I characterized things, my analogy seems more fitting.
Do we taxpayers pay (partially) for unions and otherwise pay more for public sector goods and services due to unionization? I can't see how anyone would think otherwise.
My belief is that:
Monopoly + Forced to Purchase + Union = Inflated, potentially Unchecked Costs and Prices
I don't see what is irrational, or what is controversial in the above.
TJR
I never said that taxpayer pay for unions.
What I said was that taxpayers pay for civil servant's salaries and benefits. Likewise, taxpayers more often than not have no direct say or choice in whether or not they pay for, or otherwise even use the services provided by civil servants. Likewise, taxpayers don't get a choice in who provides the services that civil servants provide; the taxpayer can't shop around. The govt and its agencies are a monopoly.
So, when you add all that together, there is a disparity between unions serving the public sector and the private sector. In the private sector, I as a consumer can pick and choose the company I buy my goods and services from. If I don't like the price, or the service, or I think it is too inflated, or the service too poor, I can go somewhere else. Likewise, because of the fact that I can go somewhere else, companies in the private sector have an innate incentive to price their products and services competitively (read: as low as possible, competitive in a price war, etc), and to provide services and products that are as good as, if not better than, the competition.
But, for public sector agencies, I, the taxpayer, who consumes those services (sometimes, sometimes not...but I do pay for them, regardless), have no choice. And, due to the monopoliostic nature of the public sector there is no innate need, nor desire to keep prices down, or service quality high. I submit that common sense would dictate that if you toss an organization into the mix, and organization that's vested interest is in maximizing salaries and benefits for its employees, such an organization working within the confines of the public sector will increase the costs of services in a potentially unchecked fashion. Meaning, that the costs of services in that sector will be inflated due to the unions. Further meaning, that in the public sector, the taxpayer IS paying for unions.
How do we solve that rising, inflated cost of services issue in the public sector AND help to eleviate the monopoly?
1, we start with smaller government. Fewer services, fewer agencies, fewer employees.
2. we start with reducing the prevalence of unions in the public sector, thereby opening those jobs up to people currently in the private sector.
3. we consider opening up several of these agencies to contract employees, not permanent employees.
Those are my ideas, that is why I feel that taxpayer are at a disadvantage with the status quo. The ones I think that are in favor of the status quo are those that simply feel that unions are good in all their various forms, and for all sectors, and probably most civil servants themselves, especially the lackluster ones.
Also, Vince, your analogy seems to not be the best fit for what I am saying.
A better analogy is that there are cars that are for sale, and they are ONLY sold by a company that is forced into paying protection money to drug dealers. I can only buy cars from that company. I don't have a choice in buying a car, at any other price, from anyone else. If I buy a car, then I am benefiting drug dealers, and I am most probably am paying more for the car than I would if I bought it from a company not having to pay that protection money. And, to make the analogy 100% applicable, this car in question I have to buy as my government is forcing me to buy it.
Now, I just re-used your drug dealer reference because you did. But from the way I characterized things, my analogy seems more fitting.
Do we taxpayers pay (partially) for unions and otherwise pay more for public sector goods and services due to unionization? I can't see how anyone would think otherwise.
My belief is that:
Monopoly + Forced to Purchase + Union = Inflated, potentially Unchecked Costs and Prices
I don't see what is irrational, or what is controversial in the above.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Les
Well-Known Member
Nice spin, great imagination. Your example is for unions dues, not benifits. As a taxpayer I don't pay for the member's dues, but I do contribute to their benefits.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill V
Well-Known Member
Les, as a taxpayer, you'd be paying for benefits even if they weren't in a union.
Nice spin, great imagination. :grin:
Nice spin, great imagination. :grin:
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with you, but choosing to net be part of the union is not fair to those that choose to be part of the union.
For example, Jim (a made up person) starts employment at a shop that is an open shop. Jim gets the same pay and benefits as the union employees. If Jim gets in trouble, he is required to have a union rep represent him during questioning. He gets these benefits without paying union dues.
Another guy, John, is a union worker doing the same job as Jim does. He also gets the same pay and benefits and if he gets into trouble for something, he gets a union rep too. He pays a monthly due.
This is the law in Ohio.
If it were that since Jim is not in the union, he does not get the "same" pay (higher, same, or lower...don't care) and benefits (again, better, same, or worse...don't care) but if he gets into some trouble (this troube is not the guy is a bad worker, but poop happens and we have all been there) he should NOT get any union representation since he did not pay for it.
This is my issue with saying joining the union should be a choice. Don't join the union and fend for yourself or if you get the benefits, you must join the union.
Plain and simple.
Tom
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill V
Well-Known Member
TJR, I can understand some of your points regarding a supposed monopoly for civil employees in some instances. However, I don't see how you can apply that tag to the biggest group of unionized employees affected by this issue--public school teachers. If all children (i.e. customers) were required to go to public schools, then I may be able to concede your point. But they aren't. Kids attend both private and public schools. When a kid goes to a private school, the public school s/he would have otherwise attended gets less funding, and reduces staff accordingly. The number of public schools, the number of staff at those schools, and thus the cost to the taxpayers is directly impacted by the fact that students/parents have these options.
That's not a monopoly.
If anything, it's the exact opposite--as private schools don't need to accept every student (i.e. customer) who desires to attend their school. Within the obvious legal constraints (illegal discrimination, etc.), they can cherry pick. Kids who have emotional or behavioral problems can be rejected. Kids who don't have the family structure to support them (emotionally, financially, intellectually, etc.) can be rejected. The public schools can't do that. They have to take them all, regardless of how counterproductive doing so is, and try to make a reasonable educational environment from that for everyone.
In a monopoly, there's only one seller, and if you want the product, you need to go through them--and they set not only the price, but even whether to do business with you. That's not what's going on here. Here, there are multiple options where customers can take their business, and even if none of those work out, there's still one seller that has to sell to do business with them, whether the seller wants to or not, at a price (tax funds)which isn't set by the seller. I don't know what the proper term for this situation would be--but it most certainly isn't "monopoly".
That's not a monopoly.
If anything, it's the exact opposite--as private schools don't need to accept every student (i.e. customer) who desires to attend their school. Within the obvious legal constraints (illegal discrimination, etc.), they can cherry pick. Kids who have emotional or behavioral problems can be rejected. Kids who don't have the family structure to support them (emotionally, financially, intellectually, etc.) can be rejected. The public schools can't do that. They have to take them all, regardless of how counterproductive doing so is, and try to make a reasonable educational environment from that for everyone.
In a monopoly, there's only one seller, and if you want the product, you need to go through them--and they set not only the price, but even whether to do business with you. That's not what's going on here. Here, there are multiple options where customers can take their business, and even if none of those work out, there's still one seller that has to sell to do business with them, whether the seller wants to or not, at a price (tax funds)which isn't set by the seller. I don't know what the proper term for this situation would be--but it most certainly isn't "monopoly".
Last edited by a moderator:
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Well, Frank, one thing's for certain: You never cease to disappoint me. You're nothing if not consistent and predictable. As always, you refrain from directly responding in a civil, rational, mature manner to questions or other comments posted here by myself and others. Instead, you make some attempt to deflect from the topic at hand, just like a child who doesn't want to talk about something with which they're uncomfortable; whether it's weak attempts at jokes that nobody else finds amusing, or most recently, personal attacks against TJR, which was really low this time, Frank, because it was a one-two punch. Are you that insecure that you felt it necessary to challenge TJR's "manhood" by claiming he's never "got dirty"? Is someone only a "real man" if they've "gotten dirty" or been a member of a union? Please! Then, when he rebutted, you actually called him a liar with no basis for said accusation whatsoever. Big talk from behind a computer screen, "son".
Lighten up, Francis, :cheeky: and try for once to calmly, rationally, intelligently engage in discussions with others without insulting them just because they happen to disagree with you.
Lighten up, Francis, :cheeky: and try for once to calmly, rationally, intelligently engage in discussions with others without insulting them just because they happen to disagree with you.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Bill V,
Fair enough, monopoly may be too strong a word, but many of the restrictions that are inherent in a monopoly are still at play with public schools. A monopoly limits choices. Public schools, as currently funded, limit choices.
The monopoly-like and forced payment situation regarding public schools teachers is such that without vouchers (which largely don't exist) and with the current prevalence of paying school taxes through real estate taxes, there really are no choices for how your tax money gets spent.
So, if I own real estate and I pay real estate taxes, then there certainly is a monopoly on which school I as a taxpayer fund. There is only one. I can choose to not own lands, I guess, then I don't pay. But, if I want to own land, then I have no choice, and I have to pay into that public school monopoly. The only real loop-hole to this is Charter Schools, and they don't exist everywhere. Vouchers don't exist in most school systems throughout the country. Of course, I can choose to home school, or send to private school, but as a taxpayer, I still pay into that monopoly...no other choice.
The fact that public schools get less funding when a kid goes to a private school does not negate the fact that I as a parent landowner still pay into that school. It is very often that the amount one pays in taxes is very dispproportionate to the amount budgeted for educating a single student. Likewise, we all know there is a certain burden of running a school, the brick and mortar, utilities, minimal staff, etc, that cost has to be paid even if a few less students are enrolled due to public schools. Put simply, the fact that I might choose to send my kid to public school doesn't save me, the taxpayer anything, it actually just costs me more.
So, from that point of view, when there is only one choice (e.g., no choice) in where my school tax dollars go, then I think the term monopoly is appropriate.
TJR
Fair enough, monopoly may be too strong a word, but many of the restrictions that are inherent in a monopoly are still at play with public schools. A monopoly limits choices. Public schools, as currently funded, limit choices.
The monopoly-like and forced payment situation regarding public schools teachers is such that without vouchers (which largely don't exist) and with the current prevalence of paying school taxes through real estate taxes, there really are no choices for how your tax money gets spent.
So, if I own real estate and I pay real estate taxes, then there certainly is a monopoly on which school I as a taxpayer fund. There is only one. I can choose to not own lands, I guess, then I don't pay. But, if I want to own land, then I have no choice, and I have to pay into that public school monopoly. The only real loop-hole to this is Charter Schools, and they don't exist everywhere. Vouchers don't exist in most school systems throughout the country. Of course, I can choose to home school, or send to private school, but as a taxpayer, I still pay into that monopoly...no other choice.
The fact that public schools get less funding when a kid goes to a private school does not negate the fact that I as a parent landowner still pay into that school. It is very often that the amount one pays in taxes is very dispproportionate to the amount budgeted for educating a single student. Likewise, we all know there is a certain burden of running a school, the brick and mortar, utilities, minimal staff, etc, that cost has to be paid even if a few less students are enrolled due to public schools. Put simply, the fact that I might choose to send my kid to public school doesn't save me, the taxpayer anything, it actually just costs me more.
So, from that point of view, when there is only one choice (e.g., no choice) in where my school tax dollars go, then I think the term monopoly is appropriate.
TJR
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
TrainTrac,
Thanks. A pet-peeve of mine is people that present their opinions and assumptions as fact, especially those that are so very blatant about it. I'm so sensitive about it that I try to NEVER do that myself.
It is even more of an insult when someone claims to know something about me, or (re)states what they think I said in a manner that suits them, and claim either as FACT. I especially get ticked off when the person doing that isn't very flattering about it.
Put simply, and I have said this again, this world would be so much nicer if people would simply:
Say what they mean, mean what they say, and only say those things which they can back up with some rational reasoning.
For those that know me here, I live by the above, both online and in my "real" life. If you think I have said something contrary to what you believe, or what I have stated in the past; or if you think I am not being factual, just reconsider the above and ask for a clarification or a discussion. I'd be happy to oblige.
Lastly, to everyone...
If we don't see eye to eye, it's probably because we aren't looking at things the same way. I'm not saying that I can change the way you look at things, but I am willing to explain in detail WHY I SEE things the way I do. In the process, you might see things differently, or not, but I guarantee if you listen and discuss with an open mind you will AT LEAST understand and appreciate my POV.
TJR
Thanks. A pet-peeve of mine is people that present their opinions and assumptions as fact, especially those that are so very blatant about it. I'm so sensitive about it that I try to NEVER do that myself.
It is even more of an insult when someone claims to know something about me, or (re)states what they think I said in a manner that suits them, and claim either as FACT. I especially get ticked off when the person doing that isn't very flattering about it.
Put simply, and I have said this again, this world would be so much nicer if people would simply:
Say what they mean, mean what they say, and only say those things which they can back up with some rational reasoning.
For those that know me here, I live by the above, both online and in my "real" life. If you think I have said something contrary to what you believe, or what I have stated in the past; or if you think I am not being factual, just reconsider the above and ask for a clarification or a discussion. I'd be happy to oblige.
Lastly, to everyone...
If we don't see eye to eye, it's probably because we aren't looking at things the same way. I'm not saying that I can change the way you look at things, but I am willing to explain in detail WHY I SEE things the way I do. In the process, you might see things differently, or not, but I guarantee if you listen and discuss with an open mind you will AT LEAST understand and appreciate my POV.
TJR
Bill V
Well-Known Member
Not true. If enrollment goes down in a district (be it because of an increased percentage of kids attending private schools, or a reduction in either the youth population or the general population), school districts will consistently reduce the number of buildings and staff they have accordingly. Schools will close, buildings will consolidate, etc. And thus the brick-and-mortar, utilities, staff, etc., costs, do adjust to reflect private school enrollment--which directly impacts the cost to taxpayers.
Further, schools are at least partially funded through the state. (I honestly don't know if this is the case nationwide--but it is in those states I'm familiar with.) And that funding is calculated straight per-pupil. If a kid doesn't attend public school in that district, the district doesn't get the money. And if the state doesn't pay that money, that's a direct savings to the taxpayer.
And on top of that--thanks to school choice programs, kids don't even need to attend public schools within their own districts. They can attend public schools in neighboring districts--in which case, the money goes to that school. Even more choice. Which means that the public schools are competing with each other for students--not only competing with private schools, but with one another. That's competition--not a monopoly.
And least we forget--in a monopoly, the entity holding the monopoly sets the price. But who is setting the price that is paid per student to the individual schools? The schools themselves? Hardly. That's being determined by the government, both local and state--i.e. the taxpayers. How many monopolies do you know of where the customer sets the price, and the seller is required to accept that price? Sure, the school districts provide input into it--but in the end, the price is determined by the elected representatives of the people--not the schools, and definitely not the teachers.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Bill V said:
It is true, you just aren't understanding what I am saying!
I agree with what you say above after you state what I said is not true. Granted, if there are enough kids that move out of the public school into private schools, THEN, at some certain threshold or set of thresholds, buildings can be closed, teachers can be let go, etc. But there are thresholds. All I was saying was that I, as an individual, if I wish to not send my kid to a private school, then my taxes aren't going to go down. Not one bit. It would take a considerable movement for me to be able to essentially lower my taxes, and everyone elses, through my choice...and it would have to be MORE than just my choices, a large "collective" of parents would have to do the same. No real individual choice, individual abilities in that scenario.
Also, check out Merriam Webster definitions for monopoly. One in particular seems appropriate:
Like I said, IF a public school, in a public school district isn't a monopoly by that definition, then I guess we have very different of opinions or different viewpoints. Sure, there are other school choices, but there is only ONE public school choice, and there is only one public school that I as the landowner and forced to pay taxes for.
I don't want to get all wrapped up on the term, and granted, monopoly may not be the best choice of a term. But, at a certain point, if I don't have a choice, if I have to pay, and there is only one place my money goes, well, then... walks and talks like a duck.
But, if it makes you happier, I will say: "monopoly-like", to indicate that there are "shades" of a monopoly at play.
P.S. Regarding "school choice", not all schools districts have that, and for those that do, and for funding based on enrollment and drops in enrollment due to public and charter schools, there still is not this what I pay for is what I get. Again, we are talking about scenarios in which I as a parent send my kid somewhere else. Well, what about those that pay that don't have kids in school? They have no choice in who they pay, they have no way to act to reduce what they pay, they just have to pay into this single entity, for a service that they may or may not want or need.
BTW, I do think that paying for school through real estate taxes is fair. I am sure when I am a retiree, I will reconsider that notion.
TJR
It is true, you just aren't understanding what I am saying!
I agree with what you say above after you state what I said is not true. Granted, if there are enough kids that move out of the public school into private schools, THEN, at some certain threshold or set of thresholds, buildings can be closed, teachers can be let go, etc. But there are thresholds. All I was saying was that I, as an individual, if I wish to not send my kid to a private school, then my taxes aren't going to go down. Not one bit. It would take a considerable movement for me to be able to essentially lower my taxes, and everyone elses, through my choice...and it would have to be MORE than just my choices, a large "collective" of parents would have to do the same. No real individual choice, individual abilities in that scenario.
Also, check out Merriam Webster definitions for monopoly. One in particular seems appropriate:
Like I said, IF a public school, in a public school district isn't a monopoly by that definition, then I guess we have very different of opinions or different viewpoints. Sure, there are other school choices, but there is only ONE public school choice, and there is only one public school that I as the landowner and forced to pay taxes for.
I don't want to get all wrapped up on the term, and granted, monopoly may not be the best choice of a term. But, at a certain point, if I don't have a choice, if I have to pay, and there is only one place my money goes, well, then... walks and talks like a duck.
But, if it makes you happier, I will say: "monopoly-like", to indicate that there are "shades" of a monopoly at play.
P.S. Regarding "school choice", not all schools districts have that, and for those that do, and for funding based on enrollment and drops in enrollment due to public and charter schools, there still is not this what I pay for is what I get. Again, we are talking about scenarios in which I as a parent send my kid somewhere else. Well, what about those that pay that don't have kids in school? They have no choice in who they pay, they have no way to act to reduce what they pay, they just have to pay into this single entity, for a service that they may or may not want or need.
BTW, I do think that paying for school through real estate taxes is fair. I am sure when I am a retiree, I will reconsider that notion.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill V
Well-Known Member
OK, now I see what you mean. And yes, now I see that both our points are valid, depending on the scale you're viewing.
They do here. Not only within districts, but between districts. I believe it's required by state law.
You're absolutely right there--we must have very different viewpoints if you think that public schools or public school districts are monopolies by that definition. The school does not have exclusive control of which kids will attend their schools instead of private schools, or schools in other districts. They do not have exclusive possession of the educational resources available in the community. They do not have control over how much funding they will receive. They do not have control over which kids will be accepted to their schools. One set of customers (the students and their parents) controls how many 'sales' they have, and another set of customers (the taxpayers, through their elected representatives) controls how much they get paid for those services.
Based on that, it would seem that you're saying that highway construction companies are also monopolies, and by extrapolation, that their employees should also not be allowed to have unions. After all, you have no choice in who builds your roads, and no way to reduce what you pay for highway construction taxes, even if you don't drive. (Yes, I know that some funding is done through things like gas tax, which is paid by those who use the roads, but that's akin to how some paid teaching positions in many schools are paid for by the local PTA.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Vince Coshenet
Active Member
@TJR- I was not commenting on your post. Yours just happened to be the last one before I commented.
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Vince,
If you're referring to public service unions in states where the employees are by law compelled to join a union & pay dues without having a choice in the matter, you either omitted or forgot some key points in that process:
The State collects taxes. From every taxpaying citizen, not just those who belong to unions.
The State pays it's employees from those taxes.
Before paycheck is given, taxes are taken out, along with union dues, because said employees don't have a choice in the matter under the law
What is left is then paid to the employee which is now employee money.
Therefore, money contributed to unions is not state money anymore.
If it were the case that union members actually stroked a check themselves to pay dues form their net/take-home pay, then yes, it could be said that was these employees' money that was going to the unions, because said public service union members/state employees would be making the conscious choice themselves to join the union & pay dues.
But in the non-right to work states, public employees don't have that choice. They're compelled by law to join the union, and the dues are taken from their gross pay by force with no say in the matter by the state. So it seems to me that it actually is state money that's going to the unions and not the individual members.
Why is it this way, and why don't employees have a choice whether or not to join a union and pay dues themselves? Are unions afraid that their membership and dues revenue would drop dramatically if folks were given a free choice in the matter?
Last edited by a moderator:
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
TJR said:
BTW, I do think that paying for school through real estate taxes is fair. I am sure when I am a retiree, I will reconsider that notion.
What about those families that rent? Aren't they then essentially putting their kids in school for free, since they pay no property tax on their residence?
A few years ago my county here in IL passed a 1% sales tax specifcally to generate revenue for the school districts in the county. Property taxes didn't go away, but the school districts came up with the idea as a way to generate funds for capital projects to make up for Federal and State funds that had dwindled/dried up in recent years. I thought it was an excellent idea, because then all the renters would then be contributing to the schools via their consumer spending. Not only that, but there are ~40,000 students at here at the University of Illinois that will contribute to our local schools every time they shop. The student population wasn't too thrilled when this referendum passed, but c'est la vie.
I also thought it was a great idea, because much like the Fair Tax, this allows folks much more freedom to determine how much they pay in taxes to the schools by their choices in consumer spending.
Last edited by a moderator:
Les
Well-Known Member
Not true, they pay rent and the landlord pays property taxes. Renters may not pay directly, but they still pay.
Bill V
Well-Known Member
FYI--a judge has put a restraining order in place, preventing the law from taking effect. Has to do with the lack of notice on the meetings held while passing the legislation. Judge made clear, however, that if they reconvene and properly meet the notice regulations, it'll then be fine. Although the Republicans are saying that they won't do that--they'd rather fight the judge's ruling in court. Can't say I understand why they'd go the hard way when the easy way has been declared open--but either way, it sounds like this should only be a minor speed bump, not a long-term encumbrance...
