This is why they kneel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

I Wonder how many people realize this.

I could kind of live with football and basketball scholarships since those sports on the high levels can pay for themselves and generate revenue.

But a track scholarship, golf, lacrosse etc.…I don't get those. Do you give a scholarship to a so-so golfer but bypass a "B" student??? I dunno.

And why not make football and basketball scholarships read where if you get drafted by the NFL or NBA you pay back the value of the scholarship. The NFL & NBA would pay it. As it is no, they are the major sports without minor league expenses. Baseball and Hockey pay for their minor leagues, why not the NBA and NFL???

---

I was talking about high school.

College should just be cheaper across the board... but I am in favor of all scholar ships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flips333

I get a sense that you are a little older... (than me anyway) 50s?, anyway, what teachers have to teach and what they have to do has changed dramatically. by the 90s what kids were learning in high school was stuff taught in college 20 years prior. I remember my pharmacist dad being shocked at the chemistry we learned as sophomores in highschool. The amount of work has gone up, the amount of knowledge that we have to impart is increasing exponentially... etc.

---

older? me?! :p
Put it this way, I started at a country school as the only kid in my class...in 1962

and I know kids are being taught things earlier now than we ever were....but they're also NOT being taught some things we were....like how to write (vs type), how to spell, even how to do basic math in their head...yet know trig..lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flips333

I was talking about high school.

College should just be cheaper across the board... but I am in favor of all scholar ships.

---

I guess the free tuition plan would be scholarships for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flips333

I get a sense that you are a little older... (than me anyway) 50s?, anyway, what teachers have to teach and what they have to do has changed dramatically. by the 90s what kids were learning in high school was stuff taught in college 20 years prior. I remember my pharmacist dad being shocked at the chemistry we learned as sophomores in highschool. The amount of work has gone up, the amount of knowledge that we have to impart is increasing exponentially... etc.

---

All this advanced stuff is great but it seems like it is being done at the expense of the basics.

A lot of students cannot do basic arithmetic let alone advanced mathematics. Reading comprehension…almost laughable for some of them. Writing skills…abysmal.

Lack of the basics makes all the advanced stuff almost unteachable for some of them.

It seems as if a lot of the teachers at the lower grades feel it is beneath them to teach simple basics by rote in arithmetic yet that is what seems to have worked in the past. 2 + 2 still = 4. The times tables haven't changed. No one goes to the blackboard (or whiteboard) anymore. They might screw up in front of the class and be embarrassed. Can't have that. Doesn't seem like they get left back all that much (if at all ) anymore. So if they can't do one grade push them ahead to the next. That ought to work.

I'm on the phone all the time. Some of the calls with people in other companies are amazing in how stupid some of the young people sound. And many are uncomfortable in conversong. Their emails are worse. You would never see that years ago and I would not tolerate that from my people now. When you sound stupid, you lose all credibility. (Some posters here should take heed.)

But I guess that is where we are going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

All this advanced stuff is great but it seems like it is being done at the expense of the basics.

A lot of students cannot do basic arithmetic let alone advanced mathematics. Reading comprehension…almost laughable for some of them. Writing skills…abysmal.

Lack of the basics makes all the advanced stuff almost unteachable for some of them.

It seems as if a lot of the teachers at the lower grades feel it is beneath them to teach simple basics by rote in arithmetic yet that is what seems to have worked in the past. 2 + 2 still = 4. The times tables haven't changed. No one goes to the blackboard (or whiteboard) anymore. They might screw up in front of the class and be embarrassed. Can't have that. Doesn't seem like they get left back all that much (if at all ) anymore. So if they can't do one grade push them ahead to the next. That ought to work.

I'm on the phone all the time. Some of the calls with people in other companies are amazing in how stupid some of the young people sound. And many are uncomfortable in conversong. Their emails are worse. You would never see that years ago and I would not tolerate that from my people now. When you sound stupid, you lose all credibility. (Some posters here should take heed.)

But I guess that is where we are going.

---

I was at a convenience store in the nearby college town the other day and bought a couple things. I was told my total was $5.65. I handed the clerk a $10 dollar bill and a $1 dollar bill. Puzzled, she handed the 1 back to me and I said no, I gave that to you for a reason. Finally she punched $11 into the register and I assumed the light bulb went off....no, she started giving me 5 dollar bills until I said no, I gave you that 1 so I could get a 5 back. 'Ohhhh' she finally realized.

Bad enough in normal circumstances, but I happen to know the gal is nearing completion of her masters........obviously not in math.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

I was at a convenience store in the nearby college town the other day and bought a couple things. I was told my total was $5.65. I handed the clerk a $10 dollar bill and a $1 dollar bill. Puzzled, she handed the 1 back to me and I said no, I gave that to you for a reason. Finally she punched $11 into the register and I assumed the light bulb went off....no, she started giving me 5 dollar bills until I said no, I gave you that 1 so I could get a 5 back. 'Ohhhh' she finally realized.

Bad enough in normal circumstances, but I happen to know the gal is nearing completion of her masters........obviously not in math.

---

Well, you gave her cash you dinosaur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

Well, you gave her cash you dinosaur.

---

yes, as a test...and she FAILED! :p

https://static.onecms.io/wp-content/...e-dinosaur.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

I was at a convenience store in the nearby college town the other day and bought a couple things. I was told my total was $5.65. I handed the clerk a $10 dollar bill and a $1 dollar bill. Puzzled, she handed the 1 back to me and I said no, I gave that to you for a reason. Finally she punched $11 into the register and I assumed the light bulb went off....no, she started giving me 5 dollar bills until I said no, I gave you that 1 so I could get a 5 back. 'Ohhhh' she finally realized.

Bad enough in normal circumstances, but I happen to know the gal is nearing completion of her masters........obviously not in math.

---

I don't believe that. I saw that routine on Abbott and Costello. Just kidding…I believe it.

That happens often when you give someone a bill and then try to give them the pennies to eliminate you getting back more pennies.

I picked up a call and sat at an employee's desk once and I saw a sticky note on the employee's computer that said "100 ÷ 25 = 4" and she was pretty bright. Things are different now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

Well, you gave her cash you dinosaur.

---

Cash is pretty much all I use for anything under $50. Restaurants I do use credit cards, even for smaller amounts. Tips are always in cash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

But the government is supposed to be the supporters to the exploiters of the people.

---

Can you explain what you mean by this?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Can you explain what you mean by this?

---

There was a typo there. It was supposed to be:

But the government is supposed to be the supporters not the exploiters of the people.

The government employees shouldn't need a union to get a fair deal from the government. The government is supposed to be on our (the people's) side in all things. Government employees should get a fair deal because it's right not because a union convinced them to be fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Cash is pretty much all I use for anything under $50. Restaurants I do use credit cards, even for smaller amounts. Tips are always in cash.

---

I don't know about where anybody else lives, but for awhile here during COVID, there were businesses that would not TAKE cash....was weird!

But, I normally don't carry much cash because it's just too easy to use a debit card or rewards card...and NOT have to add coins to my pocket. In this case, I'd won a little bit playing video lottery and was just spending down some of it.

Seems we moved on from degrading teachers and are now making fun of students who work as cashiers. You guys what meet up and go to the casino? We can root for the house


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Last part first, the data is in the article you posted regarding safety. Furthermore, it’s common knowledge among unions to practice safety. How many cops would say they wouldn’t have most likely done the same thing in the Jacob Blake case? Do believe cops risked their careers and perhaps their freedom to kill someone because he was black? That in this current environment they didn’t understand the potential downside of shooting an unarmed black man? Or is it more likely, whether justified or not, they were reacting in order to protect themselves and others? Unions will make sure cops are acting in a way that protects them first and foremost. In the unions eyes, police lives are more valuable than a suspects.

Obviously, a government has it limits on how much it can spend, unlike corporations. This does not stop public sector unions from demanding more. There’s no CEO in the government earning 100x more than the average employee. People in public sector unions choose to be civil servants. Yet, they act like they have no purpose other than their own unions during negotiations.

How do you address unions protecting bad employees when that is one of its designed purposes- one for all?

---

No it isn't, that's what you decided to twist as an all around negative because some do it poorly. Police are a great example and like I said plenty they are bigger issues, you focusing on them isn't proving how this is true of every union in public sector like firefighters/garbage men/postal workers. I think right now there are issues all around on how police act from the training aspects to the legal issues it all leads to many problems. When you have standards in place that are bad then it can lead to bad actions and that is what many police unions have done over time. A big issue is in this country we go way overboard in allowing "protection" or calling it justified for some. People do it on this forum constantly, we see no action from justice system and I agree many unions are big issues on this too depending on the locations it can be quite bad even. None of this means that having legitimate safety procedures in place automatically means police need to kill anyone they feel an ounce of danger, that is just what many posters/justice system and unions have long defended it even has hit political levels as you see on this situation or that other shooting and people defending these guys actions constantly despite not being related to these unions at all.

People in the public sector likely choose to do so knowing they will be paid alright and working in decent conditions which again is part of what Unions help with. They aren't there to be servants to every persons need no matter how little we pay or how few benefits we can get away with and it would lead to worse people if we started going that route. They act like most people who work for a living in that they try and make a good living/good standards while doing so, I don't think that's such a bad thing.

By having good standards and laws in place outside of said unions. Unions are not the sole decider on if these cops get convicted for bad actions, that is the justice system and law enforcement not the union. You can have someone representing your interests (like a lawyer or union member) while still not having that be the sole decider of the outcome. You are just blaming unions in full and all around not just cops for some of the really bad ones even though it's already been agreed to cops in general have major issues and individuals involved (like a Kroll as union pres) are a big part. Unfortunately bad individuals leading the way create/add a ton to the main issues you are pointing out and this is why many want to "restart fresh" on this in some areas where it may have gotten way too bad and out of control like you keep saying. That doesn't apply to every sector or union though just because some are extremely bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

There was a typo there. It was supposed to be:

But the government is supposed to be the supporters not the exploiters of the people.

The government employees shouldn't need a union to get a fair deal from the government. The government is supposed to be on our (the people's) side in all things. Government employees should get a fair deal because it's right not because a union convinced them to be fair.

---

You think unions are exploiting people by helping public workers secure safe conditions/pay/benefits?

You say is supposed to. I agree they should but that is a far cry from will. You actually think government always acts in the benefit of the people because that is what it is supposed to do?