Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Yet another reason I will be a permanent "no" on any request by the Hockinson School District

KOIN6 News reported last night that there will be no classes in the Hockinson School District where my two kids were failed, because the teachers are walking out.  (No, they didn't fail their classes: they both did very well.  But what they learned was worthless at the college level, and even though both were above 3.00 students (3.1 and 3.5 respectively), they also both failed the placement test at Clark College.)

Their lie is that this is about "fully funding education."

It's actually about paying the teachers more money.

It's ALWAYS about paying the teachers more money.

Anything else they tell you is an excuse to cover their demand for more money, because here's the thing:

They never walk out on their responsibilities and abandon their children for any reason BUT money... THEIR money.

I am urging my legislators to do all they can to completely ignore the unenforceable McCleary decision and cut teacher pay and benefits from the absurd level it is now to the merely ridiculous.

Any teacher leaving today should be fired.

They won't be, of course, which means this kind of extortion will just continue.



Pete Masterson said...

Too bad the politicians that operate the school system(s) don't have the guts to fire every striking teacher. To the best of my knowledge, all districts in the area have union contracts in effect. Such contracts SHOULD have (if the politicians are totally in the pocket of the unions) a no-strike clause.

Ronald Reagan countered the bluff by the Air Traffic Controllers union and fired all those who went on an illegal strike. The local school boards should do the same.

Just a guy said...

You've got THAT right!

karl said...

So let me get this straight...Teachers should be fired for breaking the law and not following a judges decision but the legislature is allowed to defy not only a court order (the McCleary Decision) but the highest law in the state (the State Constitution).As a teacher I chose not to strike (BG) but our nation has a long history of civil disobedience. It is interesting how you cherry pick your facts.

Just a guy said...

Let me help you with that, Karl.

You agree that the teachers broke the law. You call that "civil disobedience."

OK, fine. I'm all about "civil disobedience."

But I'm not all about it for free.
You want to be civilly disobedient? Cool.

But you should suffer the consequences for that. In this case, the consequences should be the termination of all teachers who abandoned their children.

Failing to punish these thugs does nothing to reduce the possibility of further temper tantrums in the future.

See, what YOU want is "civil disobedience" WITHOUT consequences.

What I want is accountability.

You wanna play?

Then you should pay.

As a teacher, do you allow students to act out in your classroom? Can they do whatever they want without consequences under the guise of “civil disobedience?”

Or is that “different” somehow?

Of course you don’t allow that.

You won’t put up with disruption or disturbing others or acting out in any way.

You know: like teachers breaking the law by going on strike.

Meanwhile, since the court order has no legal validity to the Legislature, of course the Legislature should ignore it.

To me, this is no different then our Supreme Court ordering someone in Oregon to do something.

Of course they have zero jurisdiction in Oregon, and of course any such order would be ignored.

Well, they have zero jurisdiction over the Legislature as well.

The state constitution isn't a series of suggestions, after all, and there is absolutely nothing in that document that allows the Supreme Court to order the Legislature to legislate anything.

There is absolutely nothing in the state constitution that requires the legislature to spend billions to some arbitrary number, arbitrarily arrived at as the definition of the legally undefined “paramount duty” standard. And even if there was, the Supreme Court can only INTERPRET the Constitution... not enforce it.

Meanwhile the teachers specifically violated an RCW that specifically forbid them from going on strike.

One is the opinion of judges with a legally unsupportable, constitutionally forbidden agenda. The other, the prohibition against striking, is black letter law.

Indeed, I agree with "civil disobedience." But also agree with punishing those who engage in it.

But here is where I point out that the ONLY group the Legislature answers to is THE PEOPLE.

THE PEOPLE will, ultimately decide each election if the Legislature has, in fact, met the definition of "paramount duty."

In reality, that's none of the Court's business.

Thanks for stopping by.