Jump to content

Public Sector Unions


Recommended Posts

In short, our current education system discriminates and segregates students in many ways. I'm surprised how people get upset about this and the past Ontario election miffed me.

The one constant throughout is that unless a child is homeschooled, only teachers approved by the provincial teachers federation can educate the child. IOW, the provincial education ministries no longer operate our education system. The teachers unions do that now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I post this link here because I think that it is a key point.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is all completely beside the point...not only of what I was arguing...but of the ridiculous claims I was arguing against.

Weren't you talking about "negotiating"?

I think Renegade makes the same argument as I do that circumstance, precedents, etc. are all factors determining the starting point of individual negotiations. If the individual feels the terms of the offer need further negotiating then he should be able to proceed. Most often, a person looking for work accepts the terms offered him. If he doesn't like them he generally refuses.

A person that wishes to negotiate needs to bring something to the table to negotiate with and I think that this gets lost with Unions who just bring a list of demands but offer nothing more from the membership to contribute to the companies productivity to pay for those demands, be they benefits or increased wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economics for the most part assume rational decisions. Humans being humans, don't alwasy act rationally.

Here you have stated a great fallacy. Humans do always act rationally from their own perspective. It is only others that think they have acted irrationally. You may even get someone to agree they acted irrationally but at the point in time when the apparent irrationality occurred, for whatever reason he obviously did not conclude it was irrational.

A child of two wandering into the street is not considered irrational but his parents may be considered irrational. The child escapes being called irrational because he does not know any better. If you inspect the information or purposes the person has to operate on you may find some of it faulty, forgotten, blocked or missing entirely, but the individual can never be irrational in his own estimation. For him to conclude he is irrational is to conclude he is mad. The parents, not being diligent in their parental duties, for whatever reason, may be considered irrational, and they will probably agree but then at the time what overrode their responsibility? Whatever it was that overrode their decision-making process made an irrational event.

Certain things may override a persons rational behavior such as drugs or disease but the person is obviously not aware of his surroundings or present environment so to observers his acts appear irrational but to him he is either acting rationally or if he has any of his faculties about him he may be wondering what is going on trying to regain his sensibilities. He knows he is impaired.

Mostly everyone will defend their point of view as long as they have enough information to form one. Unfortunately they take it personally when their point of view is challenged instead of looking at or inspecting the information they have used to form their POV. The more information one has the stronger he feels about his POV but he should inspect his own information if someone challenges him on his POV. Usually though he suspects the other persons information is faulty or his "rationality" is suspect. I don't usually suspect anyone's rationality, it is more likely their information, and Lord knows there's enough faulty information floating around cyberspace to make us all seem irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you have stated a great fallacy. Humans do always act rationally from their own perspective. It is only others that think they have acted irrationally. You may even get someone to agree they acted irrationally but at the point in time when the apparent irrationality occurred, for whatever reason he obviously did not conclude it was irrational.

You seem to misunderstand my use of the word rationality as it relates to economic decisions. I am not talking about insane behavour or even lack of informaiton. I am talking about behavour in which decisons are clouded by emotion. Humans are full of emotions such as anger, pride, love, envy, which would cause them to make decisions which they may not otherwise make had the emotional response not influenced them.

As emotions are not easily quantifiable or even sometimes predictable from person to person, economic theory has difficulty factoring emotion-based decision-making into its models.

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to misunderstand my use of the word rationality as it relates to economic decisions. I am not talking about insane behavour or even lack of informaiton. I am talking about behavour in which decisons are clouded by emotion. Humans are full of emotions such as anger, pride, love, envy, which would cause them to make decisions which they may not otherwise make had the emotional response not influenced them.

As emotions are not easily quantifiable or even sometimes predictable from person to person, economic theory has difficulty factoring emotion-based decision-making into its models.

Emotions are a part of the action to be taken that has already been decided upon when a certain situation presents itself. In other words they may be considered to be the best course of action to employ. Emotions themselves are the action. The emotion of grief produces the action of crying, crying is the solution. It may be the correct action or it may not. True it is variable and not easily quantifiable from person to person but that is precisely the point - We cannot subjectively judge the rationality of individual action. That agrees with your point about economic theory factoring in emotion-based decision-making. Entrepreneurs are only making the best educated guess they can about a product an how the market will react. Some are very good at it. But they don't really need to know all the factors individuals consider in their decision-making process. They just have to believe others will make what they consider a rational decision.

Your point about emotion clouding the decision making process is an easy error to make but the decision is prior to the emotion. Where it becomes irrational is when the emotion seems to not apply to the situation in which case the person is wrongly applying the emotion. The decision of when to use an emotion may or may not be correct and that decision, the when or why of it, most people have probably forgotten since they are developed at a very early age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...