Root cause of issues at MOCO schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Calling people freeloaders just because they exercise their freedom of choice is calling them a name. For example you can say "people who don't join the union" and have a more adult argument.

What term would you use for people who receive a benefit that other people pay for?

Tax evaders

Actually, free riders. That's the definition of "free rider" - someone who uses resources, public goods, or services but does not pay for them. If you benefit from being part of the bargaining unit but you are not a member, then you are a free rider.

In the MCPS example, people who chose not to join a dysfunctional union are just exercising our individual rights. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Calling people freeloaders just because they exercise their freedom of choice is calling them a name. For example you can say "people who don't join the union" and have a more adult argument.

What term would you use for people who receive a benefit that other people pay for?

Tax evaders

Actually, free riders. That's the definition of "free rider" - someone who uses resources, public goods, or services but does not pay for them. If you benefit from being part of the bargaining unit but you are not a member, then you are a free rider.

In the MCPS example, people who chose not to join a dysfunctional union are just exercising our individual rights. Get over it.

Yes, you are, I guess -- AND you're also free riders. I don't understand why you're arguing about it. It's not an insult or pejorative, it's the economic term for people who choose to do what you are choosing to do.

[Anonymous]

MCPS - Great place to work with people like this.

[Anonymous]

When did society in general become so polarizing that people just can agree to disagree and they have to belittle one another to make their point?

Great example for our kids. You are why MCPS is in the toilet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Calling people freeloaders just because they exercise their freedom of choice is calling them a name. For example you can say "people who don't join the union" and have a more adult argument.

What term would you use for people who receive a benefit that other people pay for?

Tax evaders

Actually, free riders. That's the definition of "free rider" - someone who uses resources, public goods, or services but does not pay for them. If you benefit from being part of the bargaining unit but you are not a member, then you are a free rider.

In the MCPS example, people who chose not to join a dysfunctional union are just exercising our individual rights. Get over it.

Yes, you are, I guess -- AND you're also free riders. I don't understand why you're arguing about it. It's not an insult or pejorative, it's the economic term for people who choose to do what you are choosing to do.

Yes, free rider. That’s the term I should have used rather than freeloader. I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

[Anonymous]

Another example of MCPS at it's best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another example of MCPS at it's best.

Must not point out ironic placement of apostrophe! Must not! Must! Not!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Calling people freeloaders just because they exercise their freedom of choice is calling them a name. For example you can say "people who don't join the union" and have a more adult argument.

What term would you use for people who receive a benefit that other people pay for?

Tax evaders

Actually, free riders. That's the definition of "free rider" - someone who uses resources, public goods, or services but does not pay for them. If you benefit from being part of the bargaining unit but you are not a member[i][u], then you are a free rider.

I am guessing a lot of the people who you would call a free rider don't actually believe they are benefiting from being part of the bargaining unit. They may believe - perhaps correctly - that they would be better off without the union bargaining on their behalf.

[Anonymous]

What would happen if the union didn't exist anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Calling people freeloaders just because they exercise their freedom of choice is calling them a name. For example you can say "people who don't join the union" and have a more adult argument.

What term would you use for people who receive a benefit that other people pay for?

Tax evaders

Actually, free riders. That's the definition of "free rider" - someone who uses resources, public goods, or services but does not pay for them. If you benefit from being part of the bargaining unit but you are not a member[i][u], then you are a free rider.

I am guessing a lot of the people who you would call a free rider don't actually believe they are benefiting from being part of the bargaining unit. They may believe - perhaps correctly - that they would be better off without the union bargaining on their behalf.

Just because someone doesn’t believe they benefit does not mean that they actually don’t benefit. If that’s your logic, I wonder if you vaccinate your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What would happen if the union didn't exist anymore?

Teachers would make much less and not get benefits. In fact, MCPS might do what many universities do: stop offering FT positions and just hire PT positions. It would be cheaper to hire 2-3 teachers to split one position. Good teachers would leave for privates, other school systems, and other professions.

[Anonymous]

Salaries wouldn't grow (already lower than private sector, yes, even when you include summers, etc., off);
The excellent benefits, which were traded for lower salaries, would slowly diminish;
Professional development, already marginal, would become non-existant;
Very few bright people would go into teaching;
Many excellent tea here would leave for greener pastures.

That last one is the kicker, because it's the great benefits that keep many in the profession. That goes, and you will see teachers leaving in droves. And then the public schools will dramatically decrease in value (they are supposed to be the great equalizer), and anyone who can afford it will send kids to private. That will leave the public schools in even more of a disastrous situation. Oh but wait, that's what the GOP wants, everyone for themself, sticking up for them self only, instead of looking out for one another. The government is supposed to do what individuals cannot, for the greater good. Who does it serve to completely sink public schools?

[Anonymous]

Montgomery County will be like Detroit, PG County, or West Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Montgomery County will be like Detroit, PG County, or West Virginia.

Good assessment. I have a decade and a half left. I just don’t know if I can hang in there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Salaries wouldn't grow (already lower than private sector, yes, even when you include summers, etc., off);
The excellent benefits, which were traded for lower salaries, would slowly diminish;
Professional development, already marginal, would become non-existant;
Very few bright people would go into teaching;
Many excellent tea here would leave for greener pastures.

That last one is the kicker, because it's the great benefits that keep many in the profession. That goes, and you will see teachers leaving in droves. And then the public schools will dramatically decrease in value (they are supposed to be the great equalizer), and anyone who can afford it will send kids to private. That will leave the public schools in even more of a disastrous situation. Oh but wait, that's what the GOP wants, everyone for themself, sticking up for them self only, instead of looking out for one another. The government is supposed to do what individuals cannot, for the greater good. Who does it serve to completely sink public schools?

This is what DeVos doesn’t want parents to realize.