ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Rutgers faculty union calls strike

Status
Not open for further replies.
The irony is they claim (falsely in many a case) to have attended RU which is known for being a school that lifts generations academically. A school that gave more than one of them free tuition because their parents were in unions. A school that has lower tuition because the taxpayers of NJ subsidize it.

But that was then. Now that they're old, that is someone else's problem, someone else stands to benefit, and the media they devour tells them to be angry about it.

Even the fraternities at RU are supporting the strike. I guess that's another thing. Admission standards have soared since these people were at RU. The SAT average is a few hundred points better. It explains a lot of the difference.
I don't know the details of why they are striking so I can't comment on how valid I think it is. This, however, does not deter our conservatives, who can always--always--be counted on to be hostile to unions--unless they're police or firefighters, when they can be counted on to never--never--be hostile. It's just more mindless partisanship. Never a bit of sympathy for working people, on any issue.

People on the left do the same: unions are always fighting horrible sweatshops in their minds. France has some of the best working conditions in the world. Try to raise the retirement age because of an aging population and looming insolvency and it's back to sweatshop talk.

However, there is a difference: working people don't have nearly as much money and power as bosses, owners, supervisors. I do have sympathy for such people: They do not have endlessly deep pockets as many liberals seem to think. But in the end, they DO have more of the money and power. It's hard to have the undying sympathy conservatives have for such people given this reality.
 
Because common sense would dictate that giving your money to people (union leaders) who then give it to people (liberal politicians)that work against you and your beliefs is the opposite of helping yourself.

That and the fact that EVERY conservative person I know that works in a union environment has told me they would not pay the political portion of their dues given the choice.
You seem to assume that everyone is either strictly liberal or conservative when, in fact, many people are a mix of both. My neighbors are both socially quite liberal, one is a Democrat and one is a Republican, and fiscally pretty conservative. Many people are actually more nuanced than the rigid partisan online types.
 
Because common sense would dictate that giving your money to people (union leaders) who then give it to people (liberal politicians)that work against you and your beliefs is the opposite of helping yourself.

That and the fact that EVERY conservative person I know that works in a union environment has told me they would not pay the political portion of their dues given the choice.
And I'm sure they would reject the union negotiated wages, benefits & working conditions. Bull s&it they would.
 
The situation can be boiled down to this: either you think something needs to change or you don't. If you don't, you're not bothered enough by constant mass killings that often involve children to take action. Taking the debate to "disarming a population leads to bolshevik Russia" is a cheap way to avoid answering this question.
Let me get this right. If I'm not for the infringement of law abiding citizen's Constitutional rights, I am by default OK with dead kids? That's some Simple Jack kind of logic there.

The crazy liberal a$$hole that ran over the old ladies in the Christmas parade was driving a little SUV. Is BrgRC looking to ban those?

We don't have a gun problem. We have a crazy a$$hole problem. You think limiting law abiding citizen's rights will solve that? Not one chance in hell.

Keep throwing your canned responses out. Harms me not in the least.

My town has handled this issue proactively. If one of these morons gets past the electric door locks & cameras and enters a school here, they will be shot dead by a good guy with a gun. That's how you protect kids. Not posting pipe dreams on a message board.
 
Let me get this right. If I'm not for the infringement of law abiding citizen's Constitutional rights, I am by default OK with dead kids? That's some Simple Jack kind of logic there.

The crazy liberal a$$hole that ran over the old ladies in the Christmas parade was driving a little SUV. Is BrgRC looking to ban those?

We don't have a gun problem. We have a crazy a$$hole problem. You think limiting law abiding citizen's rights will solve that? Not one chance in hell.

Keep throwing your canned responses out. Harms me not in the least.

My town has handled this issue proactively. If one of these morons gets past the electric door locks & cameras and enters a school here, they will be shot dead by a good guy with a gun. That's how you protect kids. Not posting pipe dreams on a message board.
You're a little unhinged. THERE ARE NO UNLIMITED RIGHTS. Things like background checks are not an infringement on people's rights, certainly not compared to other people's right to, you know, not get murdered.

But I have your answer: you find mass killings acceptable. Duly noted.
 
You seem to assume that everyone is either strictly liberal or conservative when, in fact, many people are a mix of both. My neighbors are both socially quite liberal, one is a Democrat and one is a Republican, and fiscally pretty conservative. Many people are actually more nuanced than the rigid partisan online types.
Agreed
Except that I assume nothing about others. I arrive at my conclusions from experience.

My next door neighbor is the biggest tree hugging liberal on the planet (no assumption). We get along swimmingly. He is a true believer and I respect him and his views. He in turn respects mine. When he was in the hospital for cancer surgery guess who was cutting his grass for him? Me

I treat all people as good until they prove otherwise.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
 
You're a little unhinged. THERE ARE NO UNLIMITED RIGHTS. Things like background checks are not an infringement on people's rights, certainly not compared to other people's right to, you know, not get murdered.

But I have your answer: you find mass killings acceptable. Duly noted.
You are projecting biggly brother. Unhinged?😂😂😂
Love the canned talking point response.
"you find mass killings acceptable"😂😂😂.
We can just agree to disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift
You are projecting biggly brother. Unhinged?😂😂😂
Love the canned talking point response.
"you find mass killings acceptable"😂😂😂.
We can just agree to disagree.
You should talk about canned talking points. Straight from the NRA/GOP.
 
It was stated:
'If one of these morons gets past the electric door locks & cameras and enters a school here, they will be shot dead by a good guy with a gun. That's how you protect kids. Not posting pipe dreams on a message board.'

In Nashville a locked door didn't keep the children safe from being massacred in school, and the next 4 examples ( found with quick search of shootings where armed good guys were present to stop anyone from killing kids)
Kentucky’s Marshall County High School; Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School ; Maryland’s Great Mills High School , and Santa Fe High School in Texas — attackers stormed campuses despite the presence of armed guards. In all four of those cases, guards failed to stop the gunman from killing.

Seems like the evidence proves armed guards and locked doors are not the answer, but the you're not going to take my gun crowd much rather fight laws that would keep unstable people from legally obtaining guns, buying guns that make mass killing easier, acting like keeping guns easily obtainable for everyone ( nut jobs included) is better for America than keeping every school child safe from being shot when in school.

Looked doors and armed guards can be a big part of the solution, but the solution begins with gun laws that make weapons of mass murder harder to obtain legal and laws that protect the public's right to own a gun, but in a way the bad guys can't buy one and carry it around with them wherever they please without good reason
 
Let me get this right. If I'm not for the infringement of law abiding citizen's Constitutional rights, I am by default OK with dead kids? That's some Simple Jack kind of logic there.

The crazy liberal a$$hole that ran over the old ladies in the Christmas parade was driving a little SUV. Is BrgRC looking to ban those?

We don't have a gun problem. We have a crazy a$$hole problem. You think limiting law abiding citizen's rights will solve that? Not one chance in hell.

Keep throwing your canned responses out. Harms me not in the least.

My town has handled this issue proactively. If one of these morons gets past the electric door locks & cameras and enters a school here, they will be shot dead by a good guy with a gun. That's how you protect kids. Not posting pipe dreams on a message board.
Nothing like Old West-style shootouts before PE!
 
Classic Rutgers educators who claim to instruct and credibly teach young minds of today. A real looker to boot.
 
And I'm sure they would reject the union negotiated wages, benefits & working conditions. Bull s&it they would.
You missed "the political portion of their dues" part. That portion spent supporting people with whom they are 180 degrees opposed. Never once said Unions don't have a role to play protecting workers. My Mom's and wife's families were all union workers.
 
You missed "the political portion of their dues" part. That portion spent supporting people with whom they are 180 degrees opposed. Never once said Unions don't have a role to play protecting workers. My Mom's and wife's families were all union workers.
They don’t have to pay the political portion.
CWA v Beck

Most unions take a stance that they support politicians that support legislation that the union supports. They don’t care what party they are as long as the legislation is something the union members feel is a priority. Union members vote on the disbursement of these funds.

They also have PACs which are funded by voluntary contributions.
 
Last edited:
It was stated:
'If one of these morons gets past the electric door locks & cameras and enters a school here, they will be shot dead by a good guy with a gun. That's how you protect kids. Not posting pipe dreams on a message board.'

In Nashville a locked door didn't keep the children safe from being massacred in school, and the next 4 examples ( found with quick search of shootings where armed good guys were present to stop anyone from killing kids)
Kentucky’s Marshall County High School; Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School ; Maryland’s Great Mills High School , and Santa Fe High School in Texas — attackers stormed campuses despite the presence of armed guards. In all four of those cases, guards failed to stop the gunman from killing.

Seems like the evidence proves armed guards and locked doors are not the answer, but the you're not going to take my gun crowd much rather fight laws that would keep unstable people from legally obtaining guns, buying guns that make mass killing easier, acting like keeping guns easily obtainable for everyone ( nut jobs included) is better for America than keeping every school child safe from being shot when in school.

Looked doors and armed guards can be a big part of the solution, but the solution begins with gun laws that make weapons of mass murder harder to obtain legal and laws that protect the public's right to own a gun, but in a way the bad guys can't buy one and carry it around with them wherever they please without good reason
I found and read your "source" from Politifarce.
A couple other LOL quotes from same

"Further, when researchers controlled for location and school characteristic factors, “the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater (emphasis added) in schools with an armed guard present.”

Absurd on its face.

"But schools with resource officers also report more suspensions, expulsions, police referrals and student arrests — and those harsher disciplinary punishments disproportionately fall on Black students, male students and students with disabilities." Just a shot in the dark here, but maybe those would be the folks disproportionately CAUSING the disturbances.

Shows the battle the writer is actually waging. A little lesson on the difference between causation and correlation might be in order.

Just because you find something on the internet doesn't make it true.
A quick look at her proud list of "fact checks" written will tell you all you need to know about her impartiality.

Her picture? A thousand words.
 
How in God's name do you know that protestors in Nashville are outside agitators. You are being disingenuous.
How do these ppl, mostly 20 somethings, just show up at a drop of a hat at 1p on a weekday? Do they have jobs? I’m not buying it’s organic. If you do, well we disagree. I highly suspect there may be some financial incentive.
 
Last edited:
You missed "the political portion of their dues" part. That portion spent supporting people with whom they are 180 degrees opposed. Never once said Unions don't have a role to play protecting workers. My Mom's and wife's families were all union workers.
No you seem to have missed the point. You declared that if people you
knew had a choice none of them would belong to the union. And the point is if they weren't in the union they would welcome the union negotiated wages, benefits, & working conditions. I know from personal experience that they would.
 
You missed "the political portion of their dues" part. That portion spent supporting people with whom they are 180 degrees opposed. Never once said Unions don't have a role to play protecting workers. My Mom's and wife's families were all union workers.
Sounds reasonable until you look into what I found that made the belief part of someone's dues were being used for political purposes ( meaning candidates or political parties)
Federal and various state campaign contribution laws prohibit dues dollars being used for political campaign contributions.
>FEC regulations also address the scope of a labor organization's participation in federal elections. Most notably, the regulations restrict those labor union communications directed to the general public and to union participation in voter registration and get-out-the vote-drives from containing express advocacy17 and prohibit coordination with any candidate or political party. The revised regulations permit a labor organization to make registration and get-out-the-vote (GOTV) communications to the general public if such communications: (1) do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or candidates of a clearly identified political party or (2) are not prepared or distributed with the coordination of a candidate or political party (will subsequently be referred to as "coordinated" or "coordination").18 A labor union may also distribute to the general public, official registration and voting information and forms and absentee ballots (if permitted by applicable State law) provided that such distributions do not contain express advocacy and are not coordinated.19 A labor organization may donate funds to State or local government agencies to help defray the costs of printing and distributing these materials.20 Moreover, a labor organization may also prepare and distribute to the general public the voting records of Members of Congress and voter guides, provided that the these materials do not contain express advocacy and that there was no coordination involved.21


FEC regulations also permit a labor organization to support or conduct voter registration or GOTV drives aimed both at employees outside its restricted class22 and the general public, provided that: (1) the labor organization does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or candidates of a clearly identified political party; (2) the labor organization does not coordinate with any candidate or political party; (3) the services are not primarily directed at individuals favored by the labor organization; (4) the services are made without regard to the voter's political preference; (5) the workers conducting such services are not paid only to register or transport voters supporting one or more particular candidates or political party; and (6) at the time these services are provided, the labor organization notifies, in writing, those receiving information or assistance regarding registration or voting of the availability of these services without regard to a potential voter's political preference.23 Finally, a labor organization may donate funds to qualified nonprofit organizations to stage candidate debates.24<

That can be pointed out only pertains to federal elections.
Unless this 2005 law was changed,
New Jersey Prohibits the use of public sector union dues for political activities and requires specific written authorization for such use in the private sector.

To often things that are not true are believed because no one tries to find out if what is being claimed is true or not.

From SEIU local 109 ( found when searching for union dues and political contributions )
Some of the things dues are used for: Negotiating contracts requires research analysts, negotiators, union reps, and field staffers to organize rallies, worksite actions, and press events. Defending members and enforcing contracts requires money for legal help as well as grievance and arbitration expenses.
 
Last edited:
I found and read your "source" from Politifarce.
A couple other LOL quotes from same

"Further, when researchers controlled for location and school characteristic factors, “the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater (emphasis added) in schools with an armed guard present.”

Absurd on its face.

"But schools with resource officers also report more suspensions, expulsions, police referrals and student arrests — and those harsher disciplinary punishments disproportionately fall on Black students, male students and students with disabilities." Just a shot in the dark here, but maybe those would be the folks disproportionately CAUSING the disturbances.

Shows the battle the writer is actually waging. A little lesson on the difference between causation and correlation might be in order.

Just because you find something on the internet doesn't make it true.
A quick look at her proud list of "fact checks" written will tell you all you need to know about her impartiality.

Her picture? A thousand words.
actually seen that but rather than just go by one site I found, double checked and used this one ( link below)for part of my message .
That fact check site you insulted lets people know if what a politician is saying can be beloved.
It was about what Ted Cruz said and pointed out how he spun
here's the whole thing ( for those wo want to see if you can be trusted to tell the truth about what the fact check site said.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ch-armed-campus-police-do-not-prevent-school/

as for me.
I put in the Nashville statement im=n my message the other schools came from this ( which PolitiFact used when checking out what Ted Cruz said)
My source
Ask The Trace
Do Armed Guards Prevent School Shootings?
https://www.thetrace.org/2019/04/guns-armed-guards-school-shootings/

Rant all you want and I know there are many that don't like fact check sites and make insults from their names.
That's because those sites usually prove the things some people believe realy are just lies/misinformation and those people hate having their beliefs shattered.
They even refuse to admit right wing media personalities have been lying to them , even with all the proof they were being released to the public.
Rant on all you want, insult as you please
But at the end of the day what you want to believe will still be false and you'll go to bed believing the lies because you refuse to admit the truth.
I backed up the truth with a source that can be checked out and provided the one you insulted for all to see.
 
Last edited:
Sounds reasonable until you look into what I found that made the belief part of someone's dues were being used for political purposes ( meaning candidates or political parties)
Federal and various state campaign contribution laws prohibit dues dollars being used for political campaign contributions.
>FEC regulations also address the scope of a labor organization's participation in federal elections. Most notably, the regulations restrict those labor union communications directed to the general public and to union participation in voter registration and get-out-the vote-drives from containing express advocacy17 and prohibit coordination with any candidate or political party. The revised regulations permit a labor organization to make registration and get-out-the-vote (GOTV) communications to the general public if such communications: (1) do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or candidates of a clearly identified political party or (2) are not prepared or distributed with the coordination of a candidate or political party (will subsequently be referred to as "coordinated" or "coordination").18 A labor union may also distribute to the general public, official registration and voting information and forms and absentee ballots (if permitted by applicable State law) provided that such distributions do not contain express advocacy and are not coordinated.19 A labor organization may donate funds to State or local government agencies to help defray the costs of printing and distributing these materials.20 Moreover, a labor organization may also prepare and distribute to the general public the voting records of Members of Congress and voter guides, provided that the these materials do not contain express advocacy and that there was no coordination involved.21


FEC regulations also permit a labor organization to support or conduct voter registration or GOTV drives aimed both at employees outside its restricted class22 and the general public, provided that: (1) the labor organization does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or candidates of a clearly identified political party; (2) the labor organization does not coordinate with any candidate or political party; (3) the services are not primarily directed at individuals favored by the labor organization; (4) the services are made without regard to the voter's political preference; (5) the workers conducting such services are not paid only to register or transport voters supporting one or more particular candidates or political party; and (6) at the time these services are provided, the labor organization notifies, in writing, those receiving information or assistance regarding registration or voting of the availability of these services without regard to a potential voter's political preference.23 Finally, a labor organization may donate funds to qualified nonprofit organizations to stage candidate debates.24<

That can be pointed out only pertains to federal elections.
Unless this 2005 law was changed,
New Jersey Prohibits the use of public sector union dues for political activities and requires specific written authorization for such use in the private sector.

To often things that are not true are believed because no one tries to find out if what is being claimed is true or not.

From SEIU local 109 ( found when searching for union dues and political contributions )
Some of the things dues are used for: Negotiating contracts requires research analysts, negotiators, union reps, and field staffers to organize rallies, worksite actions, and press events. Defending members and enforcing contracts requires money for legal help as well as grievance and arbitration expenses.

There is no need to coordinate, they know what side they are on. And they can raise dues to cover any leakage from members opting out. The way to do it is PACs, which is what corporations are limited to.
 
Don’t you have other things going on with your life? So much contempt.
Fire them all, start fresh with a new conservative leadership and new conservative Professors. Costs will go down, academic achievement will go up and Rutgers football and basketball teams will get the support they deserve! Win, win, win!!!
 
It was stated:
'If one of these morons gets past the electric door locks & cameras and enters a school here, they will be shot dead by a good guy with a gun. That's how you protect kids. Not posting pipe dreams on a message board.'

In Nashville a locked door didn't keep the children safe from being massacred in school, and the next 4 examples ( found with quick search of shootings where armed good guys were present to stop anyone from killing kids)
Kentucky’s Marshall County High School; Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School ; Maryland’s Great Mills High School , and Santa Fe High School in Texas — attackers stormed campuses despite the presence of armed guards. In all four of those cases, guards failed to stop the gunman from killing.

Seems like the evidence proves armed guards and locked doors are not the answer, but the you're not going to take my gun crowd much rather fight laws that would keep unstable people from legally obtaining guns, buying guns that make mass killing easier, acting like keeping guns easily obtainable for everyone ( nut jobs included) is better for America than keeping every school child safe from being shot when in school.

Looked doors and armed guards can be a big part of the solution, but the solution begins with gun laws that make weapons of mass murder harder to obtain legal and laws that protect the public's right to own a gun, but in a way the bad guys can't buy one and carry it around with them wherever they please without good reason
So what do we do when a guy with a criminal record is caught with an unregistered gun? What should happen to that person?
 
It’s interesting how everybody is picking on the unions with the lowest pay. I was looking at the police compensation in my town and I see they are averaging about $165-175k a year but I don’t hear any complains about their salaries. I use to say $130k but I guess inflation caught up.

I’m not a fan of unions but it’s amazing how people selectively go after teacher union. I would be pissed at the full time professor union since I’m sure they’re are overpaid.
That’s average and the police are well over that with overtime and off duty work. If you’re a regular patrol guy in jersey and not making over 200k, you’re probably doing it wrong
 
At the end of the day our college age children and RU Rankings will be the most impacted when the instructors become less qualified, hiring HS teachers that were let go, etc..
Faculty don't have "sick days" or "vacation days." That's true of full-timers as well as part-timers. I'm not saying that's bad because faculty have so much control over their own time; nobody asks when a faculty member has come in. But it does mean that retiring faculty can't get a windfall of unused sick or vacation days. (There are limits on this even for Rutgers staff.)
 
Faculty don't have "sick days" or "vacation days." That's true of full-timers as well as part-timers. I'm not saying that's bad because faculty have so much control over their own time; nobody asks when a faculty member has come in. But it does mean that retiring faculty can't get a windfall of unused sick or vacation days. (There are limits on ctorthis even for Rutgers staff.)

Nobody should be able to cash in unused sick days, and blood days for that matter. I don't think inost of the private sector does, though I'm sure there are exceptions.
 
Good post and with a nice summary of compensation for the various groups. The only thing that I would add is that adjuncts generally are poorly paid everywhere. I know - I did adjunct work several years ago. However, in my opinion, those jobs are not suited for full-time career. Most people taught a singleton night course like I did, while still working a full time job. I looked at it as a way to practice my craft while also giving back to the profession. You cannot be a career adjunct and expect that to give you a decent salary

I think that the solution is to develop a kind of hybrid adjunct/professor role, where the focus could be on teaching classes (like an adjunct) but would also have better pay because your contract would cover multiple classes. These individuals would not have tenure, and earn a lower salary than a full professor, but their course load would provide them with a wage and health benefits that would be similar to the salary for a high school teacher. That would allow individuals to do this work and have a decent salary while they seek a full-time tenured professorship. Plus, it would provide for a better student experience because you could hire people who focus on being good teachers rather than research. If you think about it, the current model of higher ed is based on a structure that has been in place for centuries. I think that it's time to look at alternative models (at the national level, not just at Rutgers).


Scarlet Jerry
Couldn't agree more. And you're right; it's bad almost everywhere. We have a better system where I'm teaching now, at the University of Otago in New Zealand. The standard faculty workload is 1800 hours per year, and each course is costed out in terms of hours for workload determination. If a course is workloaded at 200 hours, then if a co-ad is teaching it, he/she gets 200/1800 = 1/9 of a regular lecturer's salary (equivalent to an Assistant Prof at RU) for teaching the course. That could be around 8-10k for the course. And you can get a longer term contract than just one semester. Still not nearly as good a gig as being tenure track, but not abusive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift
Couldn't agree more. And you're right; it's bad almost everywhere. We have a better system where I'm teaching now, at the University of Otago in New Zealand. The standard faculty workload is 1800 hours per year, and each course is costed out in terms of hours for workload determination. If a course is workloaded at 200 hours, then if a co-ad is teaching it, he/she gets 200/1800 = 1/9 of a regular lecturer's salary (equivalent to an Assistant Prof at RU) for teaching the course. That could be around 8-10k for the course. And you can get a longer term contract than just one semester. Still not nearly as good a gig as being tenure track, but not abusive.
That's an interesting number. For comparison, many law firms target 1800 hours as the minimum hours billed for non-partner attorneys. The hours worked are longer than the hours billed. But I am guessing that a full-time faculty member puts in a lot of extra time beyond 1800 hours, which is nominally about 36 hours per week?
 
Middle School / High School teachers are making 3 -4 times as much as the adjuncts with just BAs with full benefits.
the responsibilities of Middle School/ High School teachers are far greater than adjunct faculty. It’s actually not even close. Then throw in the work hours. This is a poor comparison.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IL Lusciato
That's an interesting number. For comparison, many law firms target 1800 hours as the minimum hours billed for non-partner attorneys. The hours worked are longer than the hours billed. But I am guessing that a full-time faculty member puts in a lot of extra time beyond 1800 hours, which is nominally about 36 hours per week?
I'm down to half time now, but when full time, I would put in 50 hour week as typical, and usually worked when on vacation. But, having said that, I was writing books and articles, and meeting with students on their research, collaborating with colleagues, etc. I'm in my 48th year (and likely last) as a prof and can say that it has been a great profession. I'm at a conference right now and will be meeting with former students whose kids refer to me as Grandpa.
 
Holloway needs to just go to court and get his injunction at this point.

This is just a party akin to Occupy Wallstreet. There is no purpose but to hang out and fight "they"...years of unchecked leftism at RU has led to this. Adjunct is not a full time job, just like burger flipping without striving for management is not a career path. This Bernie generation is such a joke.
 
Let me get this right. If I'm not for the infringement of law abiding citizen's Constitutional rights, I am by default OK with dead kids? That's some Simple Jack kind of logic there.

The crazy liberal a$$hole that ran over the old ladies in the Christmas parade was driving a little SUV. Is BrgRC looking to ban those?

We don't have a gun problem. We have a crazy a$$hole problem. You think limiting law abiding citizen's rights will solve that? Not one chance in hell.

Keep throwing your canned responses out. Harms me not in the least.

My town has handled this issue proactively. If one of these morons gets past the electric door locks & cameras and enters a school here, they will be shot dead by a good guy with a gun. That's how you protect kids. Not posting pipe dreams on a message board.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Have fun at target practice Mr. "Patriot"!
 
Last edited:
I'm down to half time now, but when full time, I would put in 50 hour week as typical, and usually worked when on vacation. But, having said that, I was writing books and articles, and meeting with students on their research, collaborating with colleagues, etc. I'm in my 48th year (and likely last) as a prof and can say that it has been a great profession. I'm at a conference right now and will be meeting with former students whose kids refer to me as Grandpa.
Those making negative comments here, many of which are just cheap shots, just like any other professions, there are hard workers that set a high standard and there are slackers--we can't let the slackers define the whole profession. Congratulations on a long and productive career!
 
  • Like
Reactions: newell138

The union’s own updates say they turned down an offer of 11.5% increase over 4 years, plus a 2% lump sum additional compensation year one and an additional 1% lump sum compensation the second year of the contract. This sounds like a very fair and reasonable, some would say very good offer from the university. They turned it down.
 

The union’s own updates say they turned down an offer of 11.5% increase over 4 years, plus a 2% lump sum additional compensation year one and an additional 1% lump sum compensation the second year of the contract. This sounds like a very fair and reasonable, some would say very good offer from the university. They turned it down.
Again, I'm not going to defend the strike. But keep in mind that's the offer for the full-time faculty. The key issues, though, are with graduate students and part-timers. If those can be resolved, then something like the university's offer, with maybe some sweeteners, will be the pay deal for the full-time faculty.
 
Again, I'm not going to defend the strike. But keep in mind that's the offer for the full-time faculty. The key issues, though, are with graduate students and part-timers. If those can be resolved, then something like the university's offer, with maybe some sweeteners, will be the pay deal for the full-time faculty.
Do those individuals get free tuition? I’ve heard different information in that.
 
Firstly, Mediation is much more of an art form than a science. There is no particular road map on how to do it & certainly not for when to pressure either one or both of the parties.
Every negotiation is it's own animal. While there are common elements to all negotiations, there are also many variables present with each. The variables can include: items to be negotiated; personalities present on each bargaining committee & in the background; history of the parties, ie, past bargaining experiences, any personal & party animosities, level of trust with each party for the other & with the mediator[critical-the parties must not believe that the mediator is carrying water for the other side-a constant for all successful mediations]; among other considerations.
Therefore, when & if to to really apply pressure varies. It is generally a matter of instinct & experience.
I don't believe that you can make a good mediator. You either have it or you don't. Hope this helps.
Thank you for the response. I'm looking to hire a mediator to resolve a dispute. Based on the facts I'm confident I'd prevail at trial but I'd prefer a mediator to help the parties reach a mutually agreed outcome. Other side knows they'd lose at trial yet can't decide whether take my suggestion to hire a mediator.
 
You're a little unhinged. THERE ARE NO UNLIMITED RIGHTS. Things like background checks are not an infringement on people's rights, certainly not compared to other people's right to, you know, not get murdered.

But I have your answer: you find mass killings acceptable. Duly noted.
you truly are a fking moron. This is the same logic you used years ago to say you were an expert on pre war Germany cause your brother researched it

you're a real dope, shame you have a RU degree
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT