On 7/15/02 10:03 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Didn't the Minneapolis teacher's union just agree to merit pay language in >> their latest contract? > Not that I'm aware of. If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to take note of that. > It would certainly be a big exception to the general rule where the AFT/NEA > are concerned, and well worth noting. Fortunately, the editorial I remembered seeing in the Strib was only a week old, so I can post the link to it: http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/3036173.html This may not be the kind of merit pay Mr. Trainor is pushing for, but it is a move towards an alternative to straight seniority. I'm not sure why the push for teacher testing - all the teachers I know had to demonstrate competency in their subject in order to earn their certificate. Might Mr. Trainor explain why that's not sufficient? > You took that out of context, Mark, and not only that, you skipped the > juicy parts. I'm of the opinion that employers should get out of the insurance > business, since it's a leftover from the wage & price controls put in place > after World War II, BUT they should raise their employees' pay by the amount > they presently contribute to the health plans so the employees can go out > and buy health insurance/HMO coverage/medical savings accounts on the open > market...if they choose to. The system as it stands now discriminates against > young people who miss out on some of their pay if they choose not to take > advantage of employer-subsidized health coverage. > The whole deal was as part of my original answer to the Pink Pistols' > question on domestic partnerships. I'm pretty annoyed that the GOP House > Caucus tried to sink the state labor agreement because of the domestic > partners health benefits, and the foregoing was offered as a way of getting > that question off the table. Mr. Trainor is right that I didn't keep his statement fully in context. I suppose that was due to my skepticism of the proposal. I could fully see the GOP passing legislation to free employers of the requirement to to provide health insurance. I'm not so sure I trust the GOP to include in that legislation a requirement that employers must raise salaries to compensate. I suppose that's due to so many years of the GOP opposing increases in the minimum wage and other legislation that would help workers. Here's my other question: if health care costs are skyrocketing now despite the collective purchasing power of big companies or *ack* government to supposedly rein in prices, what's gonna happen if we all have to fend for ourselves? Who among us gets a good feeling about the idea of choosing their health care coverage all by themselves knowing how good our insurers are at presenting nice, simple, straightforward descriptions of their policies and the associated benefits, requirements and restrictions? Insurers may be the one industry I know that makes banks and credit card companies look pristine by comparison. I will grant Mr. Trainor credit for stating his opposition to the House GOP's shenanigans with the state employee contracts. Will Mr. Trainor pledge to continue to hold this position should he be elected or will he buckle under the pressure of the House majority caucus, presuming they manage to keep control of the House, that is. > Funny, I missed that part of the party platform. So did all the > union members at the state convention, such as my fellow House candidate > Andy Lindberg, a Teamsters member in good standing. Maybe because there's > no truth to it, Mark? OK, Mr. Trainor got me. There's no specific language in the GOP platform about how they intend to eradicate all unions. After another trip to the GOP web site, here's what I found in regards to unions. The GOP believes in: "Reforming tenure, limiting public school teachers� right to strike and restoring balance to the Public Employment Labor Relations Act. We would institute pay for performance and periodic competency testing for public school teachers in both the core curriculum and the subjects they teach." So the GOP doesn't want to stick it to all unions, just the teachers by taking away their right to strike. Please accept my humble apologies. I'd sure like to hear what "restoring balance to Public Employee Labor Relations Act" would entail, though. "Supporting the right of employees to organize, to join a union or other association, and to not have dues used to support political candidates; and requiring unions to receive written permission from their members before collecting funds for political purposes." OK, my union already does this stuff, we have a voluntary PAC for political contributions and it's separate from the regular union dues. Can anyone share examples to the contrary or is this dead weight in the MN GOP platform? Now, I've admitted that the MN GOP platform is relatively free of anti-union sentiment, so long as you're not a teacher. However, I'm one of those who believes actions speak louder than words. - As Mr. Trainor mentioned, it was the House GOP caucus that tried to stick it to state employees over the domestic partners issue. They may have succeeded in preventing ratification, but because they couldn't manage rejection, the contracts still went forward after a month where the old contracts went into effect. Unfortunately, at fairly significant cost. A colleague of mine who works in fiscal administration estimated that the processing changes required for all 50,000 employees affected by this would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5-$3 million. So much for those "fiscally conservative" GOP members. - At the federal level, it's the GOP that has steadfastly opposed efforts to raise the minimum wage, to properly fund OSHA, the USDA and other agencies that inspect workplaces for safety issues, and until recent scandals, were wholly uninterested in doing anything to protect worker pensions from corporate fraud. Quick question for all you labor geeks, though: the authors of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 were members of which political party? If you don't know what the Taft-Hartley Act is, check this out: http://www.zmag.org/naderlaborday.htm So even though unions got off pretty easy in the MN GOP platform, I'll stand by my comments that the GOP would like nothing more to take out the unions. > I also believe that fraternal societies (Knights of > Columbus, Eagles) and professional associations and other groups of people > (AAA, NAACP, whoever) should be allowed to sell health insurance as they > presently sell life insurance. The more vendors, the better. Swell. What about those who don't belong to any such organizations? They get left to fend for themselves, huh? Mark Snyder Windom Park (59A) [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
