Posted on 01/31/2010 6:01:04 AM PST by WackySam
A Queens teacher who collects a $100,000 salary for doing nothing spends time in a Department of Education "rubber room" working on his law practice and managing 12 real-estate properties worth an estimated $7.8 million, The Post found.
Alan Rosenfeld hasn't set foot in a classroom for nearly a decade since he was accused in 2001 of making lewd comments to junior-high girls and "staring at their butts," yet the department still pays him handsomely for sitting on his own butt seven hours a day.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
“Instead, Schools Chancellor Joel Klein has kept the scruffy 64-year-old in a Brooklyn rubber room, deeming him too dangerous to be near kids, officials said.”
And Obama wants the whole damn country unionized because? There sure was a need for unions some 100 years ago but they have outlived their usefulness by a large amount.
Haw many unions are there in Cuba? That would seem to be the ultimate worker’s paradise.
Without unions who would guarantee rubber rooms for our less desirable government workers?
Few union members, however, own $7.8 million in real estate and conduct a law practice in their spare time.
true but the out sized and unsustainable pension is fairly universal as is the difficulty in firing them. I knock no person for doing well but i naturally have to question how much of that did he make in his spare time collecting wages that he was in no way entitled to except under some Alice in Wonderland union rule.
I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard someone remark that. To my mind, there is never a "need" for an organization that uses the police power of the state to tell private individuals, at the point of a gun, under what terms and what rates of pay they may hire other private individuals to do work.
Unions is how Obama separates himself from a commie dictator. Unions are after all,democratic. No,really,they are. Stop laughing.
Ever read about work conditions in the late 19th and early 20th century? Safety for miners? Would anything have been done by the government without unions? No,there was a time and a place for them but they went well beyond their parameters. There was never a reason for government employees for instance,to have unions. All they’ve done is create unsustainable wage and benefit scales which is why state governments and soon the federal as well are in the same condition as a GM or a legacy airline.
I'm not interested in that kind of rationalization for government interference in private affairs. I'm a conservative, you see.
“Few union members, however, own $7.8 million in real estate and conduct a law practice in their spare time.”
How about paying this creep 100 grand a year for 10 years to do nothing?
The way I see it, unions helped working folks get compensated according to their fair market value. Starting sometime in the 50s, they began to lose their understanding of what a market is.
Thats pretty much the way i know the history of unions as well. For some reason that means we’re not conservatives.
"Fair market value", by definition, is what they would have been paid without the coercive effect of unions.
What a union does is use the threat of violence and sabotage to coerce a company to pay above market wages to union members.
A hundred years ago, people chose to take the risk of working hazardous jobs because they paid better than the available non-hazardous jobs.
When economic conditions improved, people could choose to make the tradeoff of foregoing some amount of pay in order to have safer working conditions.
A miner was not going to get a job as a bank teller or a teacher. People did not have the variety of jobs available to them at that time nor the education to have true job mobility.
That’s what they do now.
I thought about your reply,whether it was worth getting into a discussion with someone that throws up his magic ‘i’m a conservative shield’ as though that should stop all conversation since it makes the user invulnerable to criticism. I decided,what the hell,go for it.
Early 20th century businesses didn’t much care for paying their workers a fair wage,nor the conditions they worked in. Neither did local governments as many times police were sent in to break up the mere attempt at unionization.
The fact is the employees had nobody to turn to but themselves. This is the path they chose when the world turned a deaf ear to them. Just how different is that from the Tea Parties? One was economic,one political,both with the same goal,to be heard.
I won’t continue this conversation any further because i know i can’t defeat the magic conservative shield but now and then i enjoy tilting at windmills. Have a great day.
Unions were always Marxist-Socialist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.