Wow, that was my exact situation. We didn't have healthcare until I was 15 and my father got a job loading trucks in Newark. It was a closed shop and he had to join the Teamsters, then we had insurance.
OT: Rutgers faculty union calls strike
- Thread starter Retired711
- Start date
- Status
Wow, that was my exact situation. We didn't have healthcare until I was 15 and my father got a job loading trucks in Newark. It was a closed shop and he had to join the Teamsters, then we had insurance.
Funny how these protestors look EXACTLY as you think they would look
Have any of these people ever been to a gym?
So here’s a quote from an NJ.com story on the union’s demands:
“The unions want: Non-tenure track, part-time lecturers must be paid on a “fractional” basis, based on the number of credits taught each semester, “so they are paid equally for doing equal work” and given the same job security and benefits as full-timers.”
This demand is obviously without merit – full-time faculty are expected to do scholarship and service and part-timers are not. The work of part-timers and full-timers is not “equal” and therefore the pay need not be equal.
But there’s a method to the union’s madness: the more expensive it is for the university to use part-timers, the less the university will use them and therefore the more the university will hire full-timers with the protection of tenure -- which is what the union wants. So the union's demands, while seemingly helpful to part-timers, will greatly diminish the number of them and increase the number of full-timers.
“The unions want: Non-tenure track, part-time lecturers must be paid on a “fractional” basis, based on the number of credits taught each semester, “so they are paid equally for doing equal work” and given the same job security and benefits as full-timers.”
This demand is obviously without merit – full-time faculty are expected to do scholarship and service and part-timers are not. The work of part-timers and full-timers is not “equal” and therefore the pay need not be equal.
But there’s a method to the union’s madness: the more expensive it is for the university to use part-timers, the less the university will use them and therefore the more the university will hire full-timers with the protection of tenure -- which is what the union wants. So the union's demands, while seemingly helpful to part-timers, will greatly diminish the number of them and increase the number of full-timers.
Like the people complaining that working at McDonalds does not provide a living wage, I would say, if the job doesn't pay enough, go look for another job. Its not like their pay was cut, they knew what the details were when they applied and accepted the job.
For some of you , yes some talking points for you
Stop acting like since Australia put in force a tough gun law no one can own a gun there
>Australian civilians now own more than 3.5 million registered firearms, an average of four for each licensed gun owner.<
The anti gun lobby has brain washed too many people into thinking gun reform means taking away everyone’s guns and that misinformation is spread by the misinformed.
They value guns over their own child’s life because they’ve been brainwashed by the NRA who at one time backed gun laws that were meant to keep guns out of the wrong hands, then once gun manufactures started giving them money, the NRA fought gun laws meant to keep people little safer and put out messages meant to fool gun owners those laws would mean their guns would be confiscated.
> “In the wake of John Howard’s gun reforms, the risk of an Australian dying by gunshot quickly fell by more than half – and it’s stayed that low for 25 years.<
Yes it’s damm harder to own a gun there , but also safer for kids to make it though the school year without being shot.
America doesn’t need a strict gun law like Australia, but this country needs to make sure only those who are responsible can legally own guns and make it harder for the public to buy the type of semiautomatic assault weapons that kill at an alarming rate,
Making a special category for buying them, but not an outright ban so they can be purchased by the people that pass a ridged screening to obtain a permit to own one.
I won’t stoop to name calling, just asking people to educate themselves on the issue before they do.
This (2021) article shows the need for gun reform , but also might show Australia’s gun law probably is too strict for America and self defense should be a good reason to own a gun, just not the type that can be used for an overkill type actin that ends in mass killing of te innocent
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opin...es-revealed-25-years-on-from-port-arthur.html
Stop acting like since Australia put in force a tough gun law no one can own a gun there
>Australian civilians now own more than 3.5 million registered firearms, an average of four for each licensed gun owner.<
The anti gun lobby has brain washed too many people into thinking gun reform means taking away everyone’s guns and that misinformation is spread by the misinformed.
They value guns over their own child’s life because they’ve been brainwashed by the NRA who at one time backed gun laws that were meant to keep guns out of the wrong hands, then once gun manufactures started giving them money, the NRA fought gun laws meant to keep people little safer and put out messages meant to fool gun owners those laws would mean their guns would be confiscated.
> “In the wake of John Howard’s gun reforms, the risk of an Australian dying by gunshot quickly fell by more than half – and it’s stayed that low for 25 years.<
Yes it’s damm harder to own a gun there , but also safer for kids to make it though the school year without being shot.
America doesn’t need a strict gun law like Australia, but this country needs to make sure only those who are responsible can legally own guns and make it harder for the public to buy the type of semiautomatic assault weapons that kill at an alarming rate,
Making a special category for buying them, but not an outright ban so they can be purchased by the people that pass a ridged screening to obtain a permit to own one.
I won’t stoop to name calling, just asking people to educate themselves on the issue before they do.
This (2021) article shows the need for gun reform , but also might show Australia’s gun law probably is too strict for America and self defense should be a good reason to own a gun, just not the type that can be used for an overkill type actin that ends in mass killing of te innocent
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opin...es-revealed-25-years-on-from-port-arthur.html
Yes a neighboring town police chief had over two years of supposedly unused sick / vacations on top of his $140K pension. Not bad for someone with just a HS or CC education. Adjuncts have what an addition 6-7 years at least of college.
Yes a neighboring town police chief had over two years of supposedly unused sick / vacations on top of his $140K pension. Not bad for someone with just a HS or CC education. Adjuncts have what an addition 6-7 years at least of college.
Yes a neighboring town police chief had over two years of supposedly unused sick / vacations on top of his $140K pension. Not bad for someone with just a HS or CC education. Adjuncts have what an addition 6-7 years at least of college.
Its actually a national issue with pay near poverty with no benefits for a very long time. As I posted earlier percentage of budget towards instructors have dropped from 40% in the 70s to 24% today.
I feel the same way about this; some people knew to prepare themselves to be more self-sufficient. Some people put in some hard work as a McDonald's cashier and rose through the ranks. Some people chose their major in college in a more practical way, instead of studying what they enjoyed and ended up in career paths that are, uh, not lucrative.
However, regardless of who is at fault, is it good for so many people in our country to be living badly, even if its due to their own choices (or those of their parents, and their parents, a long time ago)? I don't really know the correct answer. I'm more confused about it than ever, actually...
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..
Last edited:
Based on actual work performed, professors should have their compensation cut and given to adjuncts. That's a fair approach.
Because they basically have a gun to their head. Most would choose not to given the option.
How did a thread about a strike at a university get to gun control? Some people struggle to stay focused--or they deliberately change the debate.
My rights don't end at your feelz. Gun control is inherently racistFor some of you , yes some talking points for you
Stop acting like since Australia put in force a tough gun law no one can own a gun there
>Australian civilians now own more than 3.5 million registered firearms, an average of four for each licensed gun owner.<
The anti gun lobby has brain washed too many people into thinking gun reform means taking away everyone’s guns and that misinformation is spread by the misinformed.
They value guns over their own child’s life because they’ve been brainwashed by the NRA who at one time backed gun laws that were meant to keep guns out of the wrong hands, then once gun manufactures started giving them money, the NRA fought gun laws meant to keep people little safer and put out messages meant to fool gun owners those laws would mean their guns would be confiscated.
> “In the wake of John Howard’s gun reforms, the risk of an Australian dying by gunshot quickly fell by more than half – and it’s stayed that low for 25 years.<
Yes it’s damm harder to own a gun there , but also safer for kids to make it though the school year without being shot.
America doesn’t need a strict gun law like Australia, but this country needs to make sure only those who are responsible can legally own guns and make it harder for the public to buy the type of semiautomatic assault weapons that kill at an alarming rate,
Making a special category for buying them, but not an outright ban so they can be purchased by the people that pass a ridged screening to obtain a permit to own one.
I won’t stoop to name calling, just asking people to educate themselves on the issue before they do.
This (2021) article shows the need for gun reform , but also might show Australia’s gun law probably is too strict for America and self defense should be a good reason to own a gun, just not the type that can be used for an overkill type actin that ends in mass killing of te innocent
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opin...es-revealed-25-years-on-from-port-arthur.html
If reading what I consider propaganda is your idea of "educating" yourself, respectfully I'll pass.For some of you , yes some talking points for you
Stop acting like since Australia put in force a tough gun law no one can own a gun there
>Australian civilians now own more than 3.5 million registered firearms, an average of four for each licensed gun owner.<
The anti gun lobby has brain washed too many people into thinking gun reform means taking away everyone’s guns and that misinformation is spread by the misinformed.
They value guns over their own child’s life because they’ve been brainwashed by the NRA who at one time backed gun laws that were meant to keep guns out of the wrong hands, then once gun manufactures started giving them money, the NRA fought gun laws meant to keep people little safer and put out messages meant to fool gun owners those laws would mean their guns would be confiscated.
> “In the wake of John Howard’s gun reforms, the risk of an Australian dying by gunshot quickly fell by more than half – and it’s stayed that low for 25 years.<
Yes it’s damm harder to own a gun there , but also safer for kids to make it though the school year without being shot.
America doesn’t need a strict gun law like Australia, but this country needs to make sure only those who are responsible can legally own guns and make it harder for the public to buy the type of semiautomatic assault weapons that kill at an alarming rate,
Making a special category for buying them, but not an outright ban so they can be purchased by the people that pass a ridged screening to obtain a permit to own one.
I won’t stoop to name calling, just asking people to educate themselves on the issue before they do.
This (2021) article shows the need for gun reform , but also might show Australia’s gun law probably is too strict for America and self defense should be a good reason to own a gun, just not the type that can be used for an overkill type actin that ends in mass killing of te innocent
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opin...es-revealed-25-years-on-from-port-arthur.html
Re-educate is the more appropriate description of aims of those spouting this nonsense. Folks should read up on where this leads. I disagree with your thinking and conclusions based simply on what you posted. Can't be certain because I don't know you.
I AM certain that I will defend your right to take any position you want and not suggest you are stupid and need to "educate" yourself. Even if I think you are.
"Shall not be infringed" is actually in the U.S. Constitution by the way. Not that that means much to folks these days.
Spent 18 yrs mediating private sector labor disputes as a member of the NYS Mediation Board & successor NYS Employment Relations Board. If I were still active I'd settle this sucker. [Ha Ha]
Seriously, as a mediator you have to know when to be very aggressive. Can't teach it, have to know it & when to employ it. Seriously, we were much more aggressive than the Federal Mediators. Have to be be willing to put yourself on the line.
Seriously, as a mediator you have to know when to be very aggressive. Can't teach it, have to know it & when to employ it. Seriously, we were much more aggressive than the Federal Mediators. Have to be be willing to put yourself on the line.
It always amazes me how little sympathy conservatives have for working people and how little sympathy liberals have for people who have to make budgets balance. I like The Simpsons: they portray the nuclear power plant workers as lazy and incompetent, which some are, and the owner as greedy and callous, which some are.
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.
I can understand why you'd have an issue with a peaceful protest where people calmly chant and sing.
There's no gallows, no assaulting police officers, smashing windows, crapping on the wall, calling to hang public officials- the kind of things in protests you like.
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.
Could you give an example of how you know timing is right to increase the pressure on one side of the bargaining table?
T2k I get a kick out of the fact that you use the term actual work performed when anyone who reads these boards and sees that you post all day long has to wonder what actual work you perform.
By the way was your mom in one of these unions when you got free tuition?
I'm gifted at the skill of multitasking. I'm on a work Zoom call right now. LOL!
It's harder to get into Rutgers University in 2023 than it was to get into Rutgers College in 1994? You can't go by a strict SAT average because 1600 was a perfect score on the SATs 30 years ago.
1600 is back to being perfect now. The average SAT is 1300+ now. It was *maybe* low 1200s then. It was low 1200s in the early 2000s.
Wow, I am dumber than average, and getting dumber by the year. I scored 1100 the one and only time I took it, back in the day...
UMD is tied with RU for top ranked public in the Northeast. Their SAT would be as high as ours, if not a smidge higher.
I quickly googled this site and it appears the test has been made easier. For example, an average SAT score in 1994 was 1003, while an average SAT score in 2022 was 1050. Accounting for the 400 points they gave you for signing your name on the scantron (I have no idea if that is still the baseline), that's an approximately 8% increase in average scores over the past 30 years. Are the 2023 Rutgers University average SATs more than 8% higher than the Rutgers College average incoming SATs in 1994?
EDIT: I closed the window and can't find the site anymore. Trust me, it said 1003 in 1994 and 1050 in 2022 (which was the last year it had data for).
The test was not made easier, they actually added higher level math onto it. More kids prep for it now though.
You would have to show the 1994 SAT score at RU to prove that assertion.
Not to mention, now you have to apply for say the business school from HS versus as a sophomore- never mind the other professional schools. RU is not tied for #1 public school in the Northeast because it's so easy to get in.
I didn't make an assertion. I questioned if your assertion ("admission standards have soared") was correct. And yes, we'd need to know the average Rutgers College incoming SAT thirty years ago (or 20 years ago, or however long ago you believed the people on this forum attended the school) to start making an informed assessment. Do you not know that information? Or were you just guessing/assuming admission standards had soared?
I think a big difference is in the preparation.
There were no SAT classes back when I was a kid. You just went and took the test.
I took the SAT one time on a Saturday after working until 1 am as a busboy.
Now the majority of kids take at least a class offered by their school to prepare and some wealthy families spend thousands on private instructors.
There were no SAT classes back when I was a kid. You just went and took the test.
I took the SAT one time on a Saturday after working until 1 am as a busboy.
Now the majority of kids take at least a class offered by their school to prepare and some wealthy families spend thousands on private instructors.
Somewhere around 1994 the ETS revised the scoring for the SATs, mainly due to declining English scores. I think the revision was supposed to boost scores by 20/30 points.
+1. I went to a prep school, which you would think would prep the kids. No way. The attitude was if you worked at things during your time here you've received the necessary preparation.
Liberals/democrats need to change given this happening by them. Less meds as most are on mood altering meds, greater emphasis on seeing other guys position and not being narrow-minded. In reality, dems are the problem here. Prove me wrong?
Oh, another tranny arrested on Colorado ready to shoot up a school
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.
Last edited:
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.
- Status
Latest
-
01
The Knight Report
Greg Schiano Presser Recap + Early Thoughts on Indiana - TKR Pod
-
02
The Knight Report
Four-Star Forward Brandon Woodard commits to Rutgers Basketball
-
03
The Knight Report
Rutgers Wrestling's Newest Star Anthony Knox Addresses His Past and Looks Ahead
-
04
The Knight Report
Full 2026-27 Rutgers Wrestling Schedule Released
-
05
The Knight Report
Rutgers Football HC Greg Schiano talks Indiana game week