To me it is fairly easy. If the unions were the least bit logical or sensible you create an extensive evaluation criteria. The bottom ten percent of teachers are axed every year. Obviously unions won't go with this because fundamentally they don't tolerate anyone getting fired no matter how horrible or incompetent they are. Being convicted of murder is maybe the only thing that might bring some unions on board with maybe letting a union member be fired.

In my scenario though, the bottom 10% are replaced with new blood as part of the union contract. You can obviously make the 10% number whatever you want and adjust teacher salaries to encourage new people to apply every year. It does not have to even be a one year assessment , it could be a rolling two or three year assessment. That way consistent under performers are shed to be replaced by new blood.

The problem is there is pretty much no major union in the us who would cotton to anything like this. To them losing any union members for any reason is the worst thing possible. Bringing in new blood on a regular basis , as replacements and not as expansion, creates the threat of the new people not being sold on the union indoctrination. Which potentially weakens their control.

Automatically firing a certain % of your workforce every year is an incredibly stupid system.

The last paragraph is stupid also. Unions deal with turnover in any business. People move, quite, retire, etc.

That wasn't a union you belonged to, man. You were taken in by a cult of some sort. Or some sort of organized crime faction.

What kind of scumbag continues to hold the U.S. economy hostage, refusing to pay bills and hard-working public servants, and then demands that you take health care away from his staffers as a condition of continuing to fund the government?

He even does this regardless of the fact that behind-the-scenes, he's fighting for the exact opposite. I guess this is the Republican's William Wallace, their fearless leader--the man who will lead them into the biggest political controversy they've faced in twenty years, perhaps more. I guess this is the moment their fate will be determined. Hope they like the hand they've dealt themselves.

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookm...oud-and-proud/

How exactly does Congress and its staffers get an exemption from Obamacare? Dont they all have healthcare coverage?

They aren't exempt. Like any company that offered health care they didn't have to use Obamacare. Republicans put an amendment saying Congress had to use Obamacare. The Democrats agreed. Most Congressman will buy their own insurance but staffers will probably be on Obamacare. The Vitter amendment is trying to strip away from Congressional staffers the subsidies that everyone gets because Republicans are lying and saying Congress gets special subsidies which they don't.

Its all bull****, of course. Like most large employers the federal government currently provides insurance. The GOP wants to not only end that, but also force them onto exchanges with no employer contribution. The whole thing plays to GOP base idiocy as there is of course no such thing as "forcing people onto Obamacare," which is their dumbass talking point.

Can't believe this didn't get more love

So in 2014 is there a chance the republicans lose the house? Or are the ridings setup so it will be difficult?

So at this point are the republicans basically betting their future on a somewhat risky but pretty well thought out health care system being a failure?

It seems insane that they are going all out against it now considering how likely it is the new health insurance system will be wildly popular. limited upside and enormous downside for them.

General Electric (GE) disagrees...

(I agree tho)

While Welch was famous for this, they discontinued it for the obvious reasons.

I believe this discussion is now being continued on the Teacherz! thread. I'm certainly not trying to audition to be Junior Thread Police, but I don't see any benefit to continuing it on this thread.

Well just for that we're going to keep talking about it here!

Someone didn't read the thread title. There will be no republican party after this year.

Most people aren't as confident as you are that this will be wildly popular.

And somebody else didn't read the OP.

We don't have to guess if Obamacare is popular. We know people actually want the specifics of the plan. There's polling data to support it.

I've been avoiding this topic for awhile because good god what isn't ******ed about it, but this is just wrong. Democrats are just as capable of giving as republicans.

The problem is that the nation as a whole doesn't have a realistic set of expectations for what it wants. We want lower taxes but more benefits, so we've elected a government that is half more benefits (the senate) and half less government (the house)... And yeah we've gotten exactly what we've asked for.

Congress is especially dysfunctional because we are especially dysfunctional, not the republicans.

Here's a good summary of the more nuanced polling research being done recently, recognizing that yes, as I said some 100 posts ago, the number of people unhappy with the ACA because it doesn't go far enough is enough to swing public opinion from net negative to net positive:

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.o...want_to_ke.php

Ah, ah, but who cares what Kaiser, CNN/ORC or NYT/CBS found recently? It matters not a whit in Republicanland what the better methodology in the current polls shows; what matters is that several months ago, all the big polling houses used a ridiculous method that aggregated everyone who didn't like the ACA and found those people to be a majority. Who am I to argue with the manifest wisdom of these experts?

(By manifest wisdom I mean manifest wisdom in January or whatever month, certainly not now, because now they're skewing the polls to make Republicans look bad, obviously. But when their poorly-designed polls showed good things for the Republicans, their expertise was beyond reproach from mere laymen.)

Ikes,

You seem to be speaking generally and I'm doing it specifically. Generally sure. The shutdown however, is all house republicans.

It's there, in nicer terms, but bolded is clear bull****. Again, democrats could cave just as much as republicans. What's important is what is more palatable to the country, the status quo or a years delay of the mandate.

lol. Just because Democrats can cave to Republican demands doesn't mean its a negotiation.

No. What is important is one and only one political party resorting to political terrorism.

It's not just policy it's also politics. What do you think will be the effect if a party that holds one of the two houses regularly pins any law they don't like to the budget deals and shuts down the government unless that law is repealed/passed.
And no amount of claiming "but that is within their power to do" will change that this is the symptom of a failed system.

Everything the Democrats want in this standoff is either something the Republicans want too, or something the Democrats already have. The Republicans are asking the Democrats to give up something in exchange for giving the GOP everything it wants.

What? Maybe you don't know what the word 'negotiation' means, but it's clearly happening. Their incentives and priorities are just too far apart. Time will move those incentives and priorities. Putting blame squarely on republicans for the shutdown is just as laughably partisan as your rate defense of the IRS.

Both parties think they have the public on their side, and until that changes not much is going to happen.