Doctors Providing Protestors with Medical Notes

[lemur]

Perhaps the doctors have realised that, in terms of health, about the worst thing that can happen to you is poverty and the second worst (since it amounts to the same thing ) is a poor education.

Perhaps they were engaging in social medicine; a bit like the ban on smoking in public places.

We don't let you smoke on the train because it's bad for the other people there.

We don't let you cut the salaries of the teachers because it reduces that chances of the next generation getting a proper education.

 

"If I were to do that I would be fired."

Then elect a better government; one that grants you the right to decide whether you work or not..

 

"Why should they get special treatment just because they have a louder voice? "

that's what passes for democracy.

Why do people assume that putting more money into education funding necessarily improves education? Maybe it just attracts more profiteers to the field.

[Pangloss]

Now, according to this, the reason the Democrats fled was to allow the bill more exposure. Now I'm not too familiar with this, but introducing the bill and wanting it passed 4 days later seems a bit rushed compared to the glacial pace the government normally works. I mean, the bill seems to be quite important, but not really urgent. How long would it be reasonable to be discussing the bill? Of course, I'm sure the Democrats are gaining themselves some political capital by allowing for more media coverage of the protests.

 

4 days seems like a small number. 43 hours of debate before there was a closure vote seems like a large number. I guess people have to decide for themselves whether it was reasonably "exposed".

[Mr Skeptic]

4 days seems like a small number. 43 hours of debate before there was a closure vote seems like a large number. I guess people have to decide for themselves whether it was reasonably "exposed".

 

To me, 43 hours seems like roughly 53 less hours than 4 days, but maybe it's just me. And I doubt that those 43 hours were all discussion. And furthermore, it matters what time there is in between since that can be used to study and consider the effects of something individually before discussing it as a group. In short, I'm sorry for having made the amount of time seem larger than it was.

[John Cuthber]

Why do people assume that putting more money into education funding necessarily improves education? Maybe it just attracts more profiteers to the field.

 

 

Perhaps they don't. Perhaps they just assume that putting less money into it won't improve it.

 

On the other hand, when did you last hear a politician saying that politicians' pay should be cut?

It's odd that for bankers, politicians and senior managers you need to pay lots of money to get the "right sort of people" but if you put money into education it goes to profiteers.

 

Incidentally, re

"Walker wants government officials to have authority to reshape public-employee benefits without collective bargaining. Walker wouldn't remove the right of unions to bargain for wages.

 

No, he is not seeking to eliminate unions, though you might get that impression from the heated rhetoric of the employees and even from President Barack Obama, who called this an "assault on unions."

 

Removing the right to collective bargaining on anything is actually an assault on the Unions since collective bargaining is exactly what they are there for.

Obama is right to point this out.

 

"That's one way of putting it. Here's another: The fight is over the attempt to limit the power of non-government organizations to control the budget process. "

Here's a third.

the fight is about the right of the people who do the job to decide the terms under which they do it.

Edited February 24, 2011 by John Cuthber

[lemur]

Perhaps they don't. Perhaps they just assume that putting less money into it won't improve it.

Maybe instead of debating whether or not to throw more money at it, there should be serious content-focussed discussions about what people want to achieve with education and then discuss concrete steps to take and ONLY THEN discuss how money can be used as part of the approach. What's more, the discussion shouldn't be done in a way that attempts to manipulate, emotionally blackmail, or otherwise push for money but should instead always look for less costly approaches as well as reasonably discuss when the wages of teachers and others are too low and why.

 

 

On the other hand, when did you last hear a politician saying that politicians' pay should be cut?

It's odd that for bankers, politicians and senior managers you need to pay lots of money to get the "right sort of people" but if you put money into education it goes to profiteers.

When's the last time you heard any reasonable discussion of pay cuts that didn't involve pointing the finger at someone else?

 

Incidentally, re

"Walker wants government officials to have authority to reshape public-employee benefits without collective bargaining. Walker wouldn't remove the right of unions to bargain for wages.

All these equality-oriented claims do not address the basic issues you are talking about. All they do is shift the focus around to different people and situations. What you should do is formulate a clear stance regarding collective bargaining and then put that forth for critical discussion. What these kinds of statements you're making tend to do is hover around the discussion without ever having it. Do you really think democratic discourse should occur at the intuitive level with all explicit statements designed to emotionalize and relationalize the issues?

 

Removing the right to collective bargaining on anything is actually an assault on the Unions since collective bargaining is exactly what they are there for. Obama is right to point this out.

Well, not everyone thinks collective bargaining is good. To some people, it seems like ganging up on employers to force them to comply with the will of the workers. On the other hand, corporatism is collective bargaining on the part of investors and managers, so maybe the problem is collectivism generally.

 

the fight is about the right of the people who do the job to decide the terms under which they do it.

Have you ever thought about looking at any business as a constituency that includes everyone involved? In that case, would you want "the people who do the job to decide terms under which they do it" unilaterally? Would you want their ability to express their opinions and discuss work-related issues constrained by a structural organization that claims to represent them while, in fact, telling them when their opinion is actually too marginal to be represented as part of "collective interests?" I know that unions are well-loved for their hero-status, but how often do you hear the side of workers whose interests get marginalized? The answer is rarely, if ever, because those people are viewed as antithetic to "the collective good of the workers." Anyone can be suppressed by that logic and who is going to play (independent) ombudsman for a union?