WakeEd

The WakeEd blog is devoted to discussing and answering questions about the major issues facing the Wake County school system. How much will the new Democratic majority on the school board do to undo the changes made by Republicans since 2009? Will the new student assignment plan be a hybrid of the last two models or primarily be a return to the use of busing for diversity? Who will replace Tony Tata as the new superintendent of the state's largest district? How will voters react to a likely request in 2013 to borrow potentially more than $1 billion to build and renovate schools?

WakeEd is maintained by The News & Observer's Wake schools reporter, T. Keung Hui. While Keung posts information and analysis on the issues, keep us posted on your suggestions, questions, tips and what you're doing to cope with the changes in Wake's schools.

Choose a blog

Security costs for school board meetings

Submitted by KeungHui on 05/31/2010 - 09:00

Will things begin to slow down at Wake County school board meetings?

School board chairman Ron Margiotta said Wake has been spending $1,000 per meeting for additional security because of the crowds and their behavior. The money has paid for eight off-duty uniformed law enforcement officers, working in two shifts of four, and additional private security officers.

In addition to the security that the school system has been paying for, the Raleigh Police have had extra officers standing by.

Before this year, the school system didn't have armed officers providing security at board meetings.

1328812202 Security costs for school board meetings The News and Observer Copyright 2011 The News and Observer . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Comments

Wow, with that level of

Mon, 05/31/2010 - 14:11 — woodstock

Wow, with that level of lunacy it is hard to know where to begin. Are you actually saying that disagreement with decisions justifies threatening behavior!!?? What rational person would even suggest such a thing? Thinking like that is why there is increased security. Unbelievable.

Defensive Woodstock

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 14:43 — jgegbgmg

Woodstock - Why is it you are so defensive anytime something is written about your buddies? You must be a very sad person. By the way, got any idea when your best friend Tedesco is going to start living out of his car - I want to be sure and give him a handout when he does.

How is pointing out

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 15:55 — woodstock

How is pointing out your idiotic attempt to justify threatening behavior being "defensive?" LOL

Only a truly sick person

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 15:17 — CaryCurmudgeon

Only a truly sick person could gloat about someone losing their job.

Yep.

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 15:57 — woodstock

Yep.

Losing Job?

Thu, 06/03/2010 - 10:52 — jgegbgmg

I didn't realize that Tedesco had "LOST" his job - I thought he stepped down by "CHOICE" (if you really believe it was by choice). I'm sure the truth will come out sooner or later about his "LOST" job (probably had a choice of keeping his job or staying on the board and of course he wanted to make it look like his decision and pick the board). Pity those of you who really believe in this guy !!!!!

Right wing, left wing,

Mon, 05/31/2010 - 13:24 — HJ2ss2

Right wing, left wing, fringe, diversity, busing, community schools............none of this is relevant as long as we continue doing the same thing with ED students and expect a different response.

If Pope .... then Goodmon

Mon, 05/31/2010 - 11:42 — AgentPierce

If Art Pope is indeed responsible for the actions of "extreme right-wingers" then I suppose, Yes, we can blame Jim Goodmon and the N&O for the actions of the "extreme left-wingers". Works for me.

Neither, of course, is true; but the N&O's attacks on Art Pope started the "blame a millionaire activist" game.

I don't even know why Art

Mon, 05/31/2010 - 12:21 — woodstock

I don't even know why Art Pope is even mentioned in regard to this matter. I never heard a single comment out of the man and am unaware of any influence he has over anyone.

Goodmon -- whose foundation funds Fitzsimons, Schofield and Barber -- and Quarles on the other hand control a media empire that has very blatantly taken sides and are intent on moving on a political agenda by manipulating what is referred to as "news" in this area. If you do not see that, you are blind.

I have to agree with you on

Mon, 05/31/2010 - 11:07 — HJ2ss2

I have to agree with you on this one. I wouldn't doubt if someone with influence is supporting this behavior. It doesn't speak well for the previous board or administration.

That's interesting. So the

Mon, 05/31/2010 - 10:58 — woodstock

That's interesting. So the vast number of individuals who were for years adamantly opposed to the status quo and their failed forced-busing, at-risk model of education expressed their disagreement in respectful and non-threatening ways. However, the small fringe opposition that rants against the new forwarding-thinking school board members -- who are seeking to improve academic achievement for ALL students -- has ratcheted up the threats to such an extent that armed guards are now needed. I think that provides a very alarming glimpse into the character of those who want to cling to the old ways. Very scary.

We can thank our ultra left-wing regional media led by Jim Goodmon -- and his minions (Fitzsimon, Schoefiled, Barber) -- and Orage Quarles for manipulating the ill-informed and often emotionally unstable fringe element and escalating their anger with relentless, baseless, and politically motivated attacks.

Character

Mon, 05/31/2010 - 12:09 — Solon77

I agree that the character presented at the BOE meetings has not helped their cause. They would be better served with data driven facts and to call the board out on their real intentions.

I am not saying busing is the answer but the fact is community based schools across the country are failing students. The example of John A Johnson cited by JT, while an impressive story of rehabilitating a blighted area, has not resulted in sustained achievement and is in fact down from 2008 to 2009 and the 2009 scores are slightly worse than Wake County as a whole. With the amount of focus and resources from state, city and private I would expect John A Johnson to be performing well above the 48% grade level proficiency they reported in 2009. Show me a model that exceeds Wake County and I will be on board 150%. Otherwise, the board's actions on assignment, PLT and magnets will be viewed as catering to the desires of their contributors while ignoring the whole of the county.

so, you agree that the opposition is composed of more than one

Mon, 05/31/2010 - 11:49 — Athey01

group. One of those groups have engaged in inappropriate behavior, and represent the fringe. And there are other groups who oppose the BOE majority on ideological basis, and they represent the majority of the opposition. You may not agree with their beliefs, but as an American, you support their right to disagree.

I would never suggest that

Mon, 05/31/2010 - 12:22 — woodstock

I would never suggest that anyone does not have the right to state their opinion, but that same freedom of speech allows me to question their methods and motives.

Additionally, I am not convinced that there are that many "groups." It seems to be the same small set of people doing most of the ranting and they appear to be connected by the same emotion-based ultra-left-wing rhetoric. I say"ultra"-left-wing because the new board majority enjoys very broad-based , bi-partisan support including a large percentage of politically liberal individuals.

"the new board majority enjoys very broad-based , bi-partisan

Mon, 05/31/2010 - 18:45 — Athey01

support"... I did not realize that.. so, if you could just name a few non-right wing groups that support the BOE majority, I would appreciate it.

Also, your right to question the motives and beliefs of the opposition, also applies to those who oppose the BOE majority.

Non-right-wing groups? Sure,

Mon, 05/31/2010 - 19:57 — woodstock

Non-right-wing groups? Sure, that's easy, WakeCares, Wake Schools Community Alliance, 65% of the voters in the last BoE elections (w/twice normal turnout) and the multitude of families in Wake County of all political persuasions fed up with the failure of the status quo.

And..

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 07:07 — Bob_Sconce

Don't forget about Dana Cope. He's certainly not right-wing.

Ali

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 10:00 — supportwcpss

But he did beat up his neighbor I believer?

And your point is?

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 10:10 — Bob_Sconce

Correct, Cope's Children's

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 07:46 — woodstock

Correct, Cope's Children's PAC was folded into WakeCares. He is not right-wing AT ALL and he and his former organization were and remain ardent supporters of the new BoE members.

Cope

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 09:10 — Dove314

Dana Cope is a joke.

That sounds like a personal

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 09:41 — woodstock

That sounds like a personal problem.

Make of it what you will.

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 09:47 — Dove314

Make of it what you will. I was referring to his lack of competence on the job. He certainly does state employees including teachers no favors whatsoever.

Fine with that....

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 10:15 — Bob_Sconce

State employee unions and the benefits they've been able to squeeze out of state governments are a big reason that California and New York are in such awful financial trouble. I'm perfectly happy if Dana Cope is completely ineffective.

Public employee unions are growing while private sector unions are shrinking. The reason? They're an easy way for politicians to buy votes: befriend the public union, give them enormous benefits that will only have to paid well after you leave office, and get re-elected.

Hey Bob..

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 12:11 — exYank_WCprin

you live in NC now.."a right to work state"..that concept was to capture all the great jobs that moved from the Rust Belt because the companies didn't want unions.....I don't think we picked up too many..oh yeah...last month the company that got perks for creating $19,000 jobs and oh yeah the chicken processing companies in the east.

what about arguing that private industry shouldn't screw workers and bring back some sort of pension....I won't be around but I don't think the kids in their 20's and 30's will ever get to retire on their wonderful 401K plans foisted on them by corps and govt. especially because we're now competing with Vietnam on wages (Lost there once, now twice)

and POWER??!!what about the financial industry with their 2000 lobbyists and $300 million campaign contributions so they could write their own Finreg.....public unions are mere toddlers compared to those vampires.

Gee..when times are good maybe I missed the long lines of people who wanted to be public employees because of the wonderful pensions? Are you urging your children to be teachers because of the pay and perks???I think not...

So...

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 13:12 — Bob_Sconce

NC has been a "right to work" state for a very long time -- it's not some new innovation designed to capture northern jobs. However, we're doing a pretty good job of that. If you want examples of jobs moving south, look at: http://bit.ly/cBm7QW .

If you really want to talk about unions and pensions, how about this: http://bit.ly/cLcAod (Talking about Sen. Casey's plan to bail out mismanaged union pensions to the tune of $164B+).

And, more generally, as to public employee pensions, this: http://bit.ly/92pS1o (about pensions in New York), or http://bit.ly/PmecL (about public pensions generally.)

so....

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 14:20 — exYank_WCprin

can you calculate how many jobs we have lost because of it, There is always a flip side

And yes I am aware of the problems in Ill, CA, NJ, NY, etc. and others, mostly because pols and treasurers were not upfront with the voters OR the voters not really caring. I didn't say I supported a bailout plan.....but it is always easy when management(union or business) loots an institution and then simply screws the employees

You, Beck, Limbaugh and your rightwing buddies (or John Locke Foundation) vilify unions to keep the people "on the farm" and as a result generations never improve financially and stay equivalent to tenant farmers of years ago.

My point is simple there is no longer a balance of power between labor (people?), business and govt......ie. business owns govt therefore absolute power corrupts! Since Reagan fired all the airport controllers in the early 80's (you're probably too young to remember that) business has gotten all that they wanted and more and what is the result?.....read the papers for the past 2 years and please don't tell me the kool-aid story that it was caused by people who bought homes they couldn't afford........(what honest CEO would authorize their employees to give no-doc loans or securitize them)

So...

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 15:30 — Bob_Sconce

Private sector unions are disappearing because they don't provide any
real benefits to their members, not because of some right-wing
conspiracy to keep them down.

As to "generations never improving financially," ignoring the current crisis, Americans today are doing FAR better than they ever have. Life expectancy is up; we drive safer cars than we ever have; nearly all dread diseases have been virtually eradicated; we have access to a greater variety of food than ever. The percentage of the average American worker's time needed to provide the basic necessities has never been lower. My grandfather sold eggs during the Depression for more (in nominal dollars!) than I pay at Walmart.

Public pensions have the same underlying incentive problem that governments have with earmarks -- one small set of people have a huge interest in making sure it passes, but nobody in the general population is individually harmed much by it. So, politicians can buy blocks of votes with impunity until voters wake up and realize the sum total of what the politicians did.

Russ
Roberts, an economist at George Mason, has an excellent podcast on the
root cause of the economic problems at econtalk.org, it was about 3
weeks ago. Saying "it was caused by people who bought homes they
couldn't afford" is like saying "that big gasoline-soaked pile of wood
caught on fire because your boot made a spark when you kicked a rock."

Real Wages

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 18:18 — jeffrey1

Won't get into the unions debate, but real wages peaked in the early 1970's and have fallen significantly since then, bottoming out in the early 90's:

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/06/chart-of-day-real-hourly-earnings.html

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+%281964-2004%29

Totally Misleading

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 21:08 — Bob_Sconce

You're not measuring the same people. And, I'm not just talking about people getting older.

Since the early 1970's, the US has had a big influx of low-wage workers from third world countries. These people come in at the bottom of the ladder and drive the average down. They're better off (otherwise they wouldn't have come) and natives are better off on average.

Also, measuring "real wages" pretends that 1972 living was the same as 2010 living is -- as if a 1972 car made you just as well off as a 2010 car does, even though the 2010 car will go at least twice as many miles and be far safer. An iPod in 1972 was infinitely expensive -- you couldn't buy one at any price. In 1972, only the very wealthy had mobile phones; today, it's typical for families to have one for each family member.

Real Wages

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 23:00 — jeffrey1

You said:

The percentage of the average American worker's time needed to provide the basic necessities has never been lower

Cell phones and ipods are not basic necessities. When I think of basic necessities, I think about food, clothing, and shelter. While not technically a necessity, I also look at the cost of college education as a must-have in today's world.

Nearly every study of wages concludes that workers make less today in terms of real wages than they did in the 70's and 80's. It doesn't matter whether you want to use 1972, 1982, 1992, or 1902 as a year to compare. Wages have not kept pace with inflation.

Cars may travel twice as many miles, but US DOT studies all indicate
that households today own more cars, have more drivers, and have
increased number and length of daily trips. Mileage driven has
increased at a rate of 3% per year since the 70's. Americans are
definitely spending a greater percentage of their incomes on transportation.

While it is true that the percent of income spent on food has declined about 5 points since the 70's, the median home values adjusted for inflation nearly quadrupled over the
60-year period since the first housing census in 1940. The median
value of single-family homes in the United States rose from $30,600 in
1940 to $119,600 in 2000, after adjusting for inflation.

The average annual inflation-adjusted increase in public four-year college published tuition and fees was about 2 percent between 1976-77 and 1986-87, but has been about 4 percent for the past two decades. A college education can consume 2-3 times the portion of household income that it did 30 years ago.

Americans are spending a greater portion of their income on housing, transportation, and college education.

With regards to the effects of immigration on real wages, at least one economist (David Card) who studied the issue, concluded:

We believe that the evidence we have assembled for the 1980's confirms the conclusions from earlier studies of 1970 and 1980 Census data. In particular, we find little indication of an adverse wage effect of immigration, either cross sectionally or within cities over time.

Again...

Wed, 06/02/2010 - 06:27 — Bob_Sconce

You're not comparing the same thing...

I don't have 1940's numbers handy (which would have been significantly lower after a decade of depression), but do have figures for the 1970s: http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqrguz/housingbubble/

The median home price, inflation adjusted, is up 16%. But, the size of those houses is also 1/2 again as big: http://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf

And, you are seriously misusing your last quote. Card was talking about the effects of immigration on the wages of natives -- basically he said that when workers come here from some place else, they don't drive down the wages of those of us who were already here. I didn't say that they did. But, they do come in at the bottom end and, thus, drive the average down.

What website did you pull your middle part from? It doesn't appear to be your words. It's especially odd that you'd chose to point out that families now have multiple cars to support the idea that wages have been stagnent since a time when a single car was the norm.

Reread your premise

Thu, 06/03/2010 - 00:54 — jeffrey1

The percentage of the average American worker's time needed to provide the basic necessities has never been lower

I do not disagree that houses are bigger and cars last longer. But that has absolutely nothing to do with how far a dollar goes today. You have to live somewhere, you need to have transportation. You still send the kids to college. You must spend a percentage of your income on those things. There is absolutely no doubt that it takes a greater percentage of income to provide those necessities.

If you won't consider the data, then at least consider the logic. In the 1970's, it was possible for a family to have a single, blue-collar worker, who was able to own a home and a car, put food on the table, and put the kids through college. That is not possible today!

As we moved into the 80's, the two worker family became more of the norm. Real Household (not personal) income increased, but at what cost? Families now needed multiple cars, and drove longer miles. Families now had to spend money on day care for the kids. Families now ate out at restaurants more because there was no one home to prepare meals. Studies have shown that a large portion of a family's second income goes to purchase things that would not be purchased if the family had only one income.

It is indisputable that real wages have declined over the last 30 years. If you want to argue that houses are bigger, cars last longer, or that we now have a variety of toys that we did not have before, I don't disagree.

The median home price, inflation adjusted, is up 16%

In a subsequent post you caution against the selection of a time period that can dramatically affect the data, like picking the absolute bottom of a housing bust. I got news for you: most people did not buy their home at the bottom of the current housing bust. Consult the Census Bureau statistics at:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html .

You'll see that housing prices have doubled (inflation adjusted) in many places since 1970.

What website did you pull your middle part from? It doesn't appear to
be your words.

Sorry to disappoint you, but they are my words, summarized from the following report from the US Department of Transportation:

http://nhts.ornl.gov/1995/Doc/Envecon.pdf

It's especially odd that you'd chose to point out that
families now have multiple cars to support the idea that wages have
been stagnent since a time when a single car was the norm.

Not odd at all. A second and third car have become a necessity in many households, as more and more households have more that one wage-earner. Wages are stagnant, household income is not.

And, you are seriously misusing your last quote.
Card was talking about the effects of immigration on the wages of
natives -- basically he said that when workers come here from some
place else, they don't drive down the wages of those of us who were
already here. I didn't say that they did. But, they do come in at
the bottom end and, thus, drive the average down.

My apologies, I thought you were implying that immigrants drove down all wages. I am not an economist, but if someone comes into the US, and takes a job picking fruit (replacing a native worker), how does that drive down average wages? Isn't one worker replaced by another?

Fundamental Disagreement...

Thu, 06/03/2010 - 07:10 — Bob_Sconce

It is indisputable that real wages have declined over the last 30 years.

I dispute that. Here's an editorial from the Chairman of the George Mason University Dept. of Economics that explains this better than I can:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_425055.html

If someone comes into the US, and takes a job picking fruit
(replacing a native worker), how does that drive down average wages?
Isn't one worker replaced by another?

That's a zero-sum view. In many cases, that newcomer is doing something that either wasn't being done before or the native worker was doing for himself before. In other cases, he takes a job that the native worker vacated because he found something better to do.

For example, the US now has a lot more people paid to landscape than it did 40 years ago -- back then, nearly everybody cut their own lawns. Today, it's fairly common for middle-class people to have their lawns cut by services employing immigrants. Those landscaping jobs wouldn't exist if it weren't for immigrants willing to take them.

Newly freed from the drudgery of cutting their own lawns, those suburban homeowners are now free to pursue other things. Some of them will start side businesses, creating new jobs.

In the 1970's, it was possible for a family to have a single,
blue-collar worker, who was able to own a home and a car, put food on
the table, and put the kids through college. That is not possible today!

I think you have a romantic view of the 1970's -- In general, kids from blue-collar families went to the same blue-collar jobs that their parents did. College was for rich kids.

Many of those 1970's blue-collar jobs don't exist anymore, either having been off-shored or replaced by automation. But, those jobs were replaced by higher-skill blue-collar jobs or white-collar jobs. And, it is possible for a single earner to support a family with one of those jobs. I have two friends, one of whom does HVAC and one who is a mechanic exclusively for Audis, both blue collar jobs, both single-earner families.

Really?

Fri, 06/04/2010 - 00:54 — jeffrey1

...Here's an editorial from the Chairman of the George Mason University Dept. of Economics...

Are you serious? Calculators are cheaper today, so we're much better off!!! All along we have been talking about basic necessities: food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care, transportation. These have always been in the CPI and will always be in the CPI.

I think you have a romantic view of the 1970's -- In general, kids
from blue-collar families went to the same blue-collar jobs that their
parents did. College was for rich kids.

I have a first hand view of the 70's. Having grown up poor in the 60's and 70's, I can assure you that you couldn't be more wrong.

Many of those 1970's blue-collar jobs don't exist anymore...

Sure, many factory jobs have moved overseas, but many more jobs will never move overseas: who's laying the water/sewer/electrical lines, who's paving the roads, who's cleaning the halls at your school, who's patrolling your neighborhood to keep you safe, who's driving the buses, and trailer trucks, who's framing that house down the street, who's picking up your trash, ...

These are jobs that once allowed an American worker to support his/her family (i.e. pay a mortgage, own a car, put food on the table, pay for medical care, and send a kid to college). Not today!

Simple measure

Wed, 06/02/2010 - 12:19 — Solon77

A simple measure as to the direction of out standard of living - how many households with two wage earners just to get by ? Today vs yesteryear

Define "just to get by"?

Wed, 06/02/2010 - 12:54 — Bob_Sconce

I live in Wakefield, and a lot of folks here have two wage earners, "just to get by." With two recent foreign cars, annual ski vacations and cruises, a membership in the country club and regular meals out. How do you distinguish in the statistics between people like that and those where you have two minimum-wage incomes?

I suggest that most middle-class two-income families working "just to get by" could downsize to a single income, but would not want to give up what the second income affords them. Poor families have generally always had two incomes, although the wife probably did work like repairing other peoples' clothes for them.

T'is the challenge

Wed, 06/02/2010 - 17:43 — Solon77

T'is the challenge to know real necessity vs life style choice and the impact it has on public decision making.

Right as usual Bob... Some

Wed, 06/02/2010 - 13:32 — shearertw

Right as usual Bob...

Some other "bills" our parents didn't "have" to pay for.

Daycare

Trackout camp

Cell phone with data plan

Cable with 25 movie channels

Kid's "activities" (used to all be free)

Credit cards

Home equity lines

Aren't those "cost of

Wed, 06/02/2010 - 13:47 — user12345

Aren't those "cost of business" as more families work harder and longer to get a bigger house so they need to farm their kids out to providers to babysit them?

I think that's Bob's

Wed, 06/02/2010 - 15:20 — shearertw

I think that's Bob's point....

People used to live within their means. Mom stayed home so no need for daycare, trackout camp, etc. Meals were cooked at home. Kids played in the neighborhood.

Now, mom works 40/wk to pay for the daycare, trackout camp and dinner at Ruby Tuesdays plus the home equity line of credit because they bought a house they can't afford.

Not pointing fingers here because I've made most of these mistakes myself. I just spent the last 10 year unmaking them and now mom doesn't have to work. Of course my car is far from new and not foreign. I do have cable but no movie channels.

You sir..........

Wed, 06/02/2010 - 13:32 — exYank_WCprin

have no concept of the "real world"............Wakefield is not the real world...though with a few more years of no growth you might see more foreclosures out there

The average family income in this country is about $50,000 and has declined since 2000... now THAT'S REAL.

Inflation has forced familes to go from 1 earner in the 50-60's to 2 earners from the late 70's on...not the desire for a flat screen. I remember, you obviously can't.

So...

Wed, 06/02/2010 - 14:41 — Bob_Sconce

Didn't claim that Wakefield was the real world. My point is that the statistics on two-income families include those people in Wakefield. So, anything that shows a rise in two-income families will necessarily overstate the situation.

As to the 2000 comparison, note that when you start talking about short periods of time, you end up being influnced by local events, like the economic downturn. In particular, 2000 was the height of the boom before the tech bubble burst, and we're now at the depths of the worst economic downturn in a generation. If you adjust your dates by a few years, you get wildly different results. That's why comparisons over 40 or 50 years are much better. Since 1967, median household income for black families is up about 40%. For all races, it's up 20%. See http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf Page 7.

The whole "the economy has been stagnant for a long time" argument is an article of faith among some segments -- when the actual truth is pointed out to them, they simply refuse to believe it. But, when you look at the actual situation, you find that that people are generally far better off today than they were 40 years ago.

LOL what cave did you crawl

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 14:36 — woodstock

LOL what cave did you crawl out of. Unions??!! Are you kidding me. Unions have destroyed entire industries, most recently the U.S. auto industry.

You've got to be kidding

Wed, 06/02/2010 - 13:21 — exYank_WCprin

What about Michigan pols fighting increased mileage requirements?, auto management who failed to recognize foreign competition..are the unions supposed to build AND design cars ? Germany and the VW, Japan and Honda/Toyota. And what about the high cost of health care that foreign companies don't pay ...last time I looked that was $1,500+ per car...I'll grant that wages got out of line.

Other industries steel?......our factories were built in the early part of the century and couldn't compete with the new ones built after we destroyed theirs in WWII. Wages were only part of it.

It ain't just the unions....though Capital Associates will always bring out that "featherbedding" destroyed RR's.....NOPE it was the auto industry and their lobbyists.

I guess you never worked serious manual labor or you would recognize their value. (Jimmy Hoffa didn't run every union.)

I have no problem with

Tue, 06/01/2010 - 12:19 — shearertw

I have no problem with someone wasting their personal time and money joining a union. However, if you decide to "strike", i.e. not show up for work with no excuse and/or not perform your duties, a company should be able to fire you on the spot, no questions asked and put someone in your place who is willing to do the job. Period.