The Washington Education Association (WEA) hates Walmart more than it loves the children.
The teachers' union operates a $50,000-a-year charity called the Children's Fund from which teachers can claim reimbursements of up to $100 for the purchase of coats, hats, shoes, school supplies, etc. for needy children.
But "a great many of the receipts members submit for reimbursement are for purchases from Wal-Mart," lamented union president Charles Hasse in a recent article.
So the Children's Fund Board decided last week to refuse reimbursement to teachers who get bargain coats, hats and shoes at Wal-Mart. The union has long tried to bully its members into boycotting the company for what it calls "exploitative labor practices" and I translate to "a refusal to unionize employees."
Seems a lot of WEA members aren't on board with the boycott.
And one more irony: While the union can be commended for administering the Children's Fund, most of the donations come from private contributors and charities. Even if the WEA did shell out $50,000 for the children, that's a whopping .2% (two-tenths of one percent) of the union's annual $25 million grab from Washington teachers.
Obviously, for union officials, loving the children isn't as important as advancing a controversial political agenda.
Posted by Marsha Richards at March 09, 2005 11:59 AM | Email ThisNED
Posted by: NewEnglandDevil on March 9, 2005 12:37 PMIt's all coming together now.
Posted by: Larry on March 9, 2005 12:38 PMThat said, the Union can do whatever they want.
I could care less.
However, why do the LEFTIST Legislators want to tell private businesses and private Associations what they can do with their money??
The ridiculous, heavy-handed Workers Comp Retro Bill does exactly that.
The same Teachers Union that wants to be free to spend dollars they receive from teachers (that were once PUBLIC dollars). They elected these LEFTIST's that want to restrict others???
What's good for the goose is apparently bad for the gander.
Do your best. You'll not get the money. There won't be any money left after your administration is done bankrupting the country and economically raping the citizenry.
Furthermore, everyone pays taxes. Why do you claim that the money being used for taxes is YOUR money?
But I know what will really make you happy, Mrs. Lucy. I'll make this proposal.
Scrap the entire public education system. Eliminate the property tax (or whatever tax goes to fund the public school system). People who have children between the ages of 4 and 17 get a standard tax break if they include proof of enrollment at a pre-school, kindergarten, elementary, junior-high, or secondary school. Additional deductions for fees for summer school or college classes if they apply towards graduation.
The kicker? Truant officers become agents of the IRS. HA!
Would that satisfy you?
NED
Posted by: NewEnglandDevil on March 9, 2005 01:30 PM"Why do you claim that the money being used for VOUCHERS is YOUR money?"
NED
Posted by: NewEnglandDevil on March 9, 2005 01:31 PMMarsha: Just so I'm clear about the fund: it's entirely administered by the union, but funded by private contributors...? And the point is to put clothes on kids, by helping teachers to get reimbursement... but only if they shop at a unionized store.
Yuck.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on March 9, 2005 01:35 PMIt has all come together. YOU indoctrinate the citizen's children in YOUR religion, SECULAR HUMANISM. Your GOD is the Gov't. So don't preach your spittle about private schools and their "indoctrination". You are a priest of liberalism.
The WEA cares much, much more about protecting its turf than it cares about the children. That is the nature of the beast.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Shaun on March 9, 2005 01:47 PMTests have been dumbed down to try to show the opposite but even that isn't working.
Private schools do a better job for less cost per student.
Why? Because of the Teachers union, incompetent to average teachers and the Olympia Cabal's being in their back pocket.
Dumocrats are soft on crime, want illegals to vote, want a dumb electorate and a future dumber voter. It's all about feelings!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Norm on March 9, 2005 02:02 PMAnd if you hadn't been indoctrinated in a government school perhaps you'd be able to use punctuation correctly, unlike a marginal twelve year old.
Posted by: Richard Easbey on March 9, 2005 02:29 PM- said the spelling champion.
Posted by: jimg on March 9, 2005 02:35 PMto lucy personally, if you can argue your point, in a somewhat Socratic post, then knock yourself out; when you run out of arguments, then keep to yourself.
Posted by: MIMike on March 9, 2005 02:40 PMWhatever gave you the idea that the WEA cared about the children at all? How many examples (Marysville illegal strike comes to mind right away) are needed of the WEA behaving in a manner completely dismissive of the needs of the children before everyone realizes that the WEA views children as props for its programs and policies?
WEA would sell children to slavers in a heartbeat if it could increase their members' salary and the WEA's due revenues.
I know, I know, its the WEA and they are evil incarnate. However, if you are in favor of logical consitancy, you should admit they have the right to use their money as they see fit, and their is nothing wrong with directing people to avoid Wallmart or any other anti-union shop. I love some of the logic shown above, "The unions are hurting themselves by not supporting an anti-union shop," or that this is harmful to children. The program is still there, it still provides relief, they are just letting their members know they should use a union store if they want reimbursement from the union.
And George, Stefan still hasn't corected his article claiming 1801 v. 1800 unaccounted for votes, even though it was pointed out repeatedly that he made a mistake (see below). And given all of the derision against Norm Rice for making a similar mistake on this site..., I know, I know, not one of us, therefore evil.
It does make things simpler.
Posted by: JDB on March 9, 2005 02:52 PMLet's look at graduation rates for both private and public schools.
Using figures from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) the 1999 graduation rate for 12th graders (most recent available) at private schools was 98.1% with 56.5% of those going on to a 4-year university. For public schools, the national graduation rate was 85.5% with Washington state doing a little better at 87% (using Washington State government figures).
Or perhaps you would rather look at the Manhattan Institute's report that shows just 67% of all Washington state students from the class of 2001 graduated from high school. Of course, the state shows different numbers because they only include students dropping out in the year 2001 and exclude students that dropped out in earlier years and never returned. True the state does not count GED recients as graduates, but they also don't count them as drop-outs.
So I guess that overall, private schools do a much better job of educating our children as their graduation rate is higher and the majority of private school graduates are able to enroll in 4-year universities right out of high school. I guess that also means they don't have to take remedial college courses as well.
Posted by: Ken on March 9, 2005 02:56 PMEvidently children must be indoctrinated to think her way.
(And they say the religious right are intolerant and closed minded.)
Posted by: Becky on March 9, 2005 02:59 PMre: "What is absolutely unnecessary is the personally vitriolic attacks made by posters like headless lucy when they run out of reasoned, well crafted arguments."
Sadly, if people actually held themself to that standard around here, you would loose 95% of the conservative adn 50% of the liberal posts...., Plus almost no threads would be started. The one thread I have seen that didn't get into name calling almost imediately was, surprisingly enough, the death penalty for minors thread a few days ago.
Try it for yourself. Point out a problem in the Gospel of the Martydom of Rossi and see how quickly you are attacked. It is actually a shame, I first came to this site hoping for some good policitcal discourse. I now come to get a good laugh and to point out the falacies and paranoia the swirls around the 20 or so posters who make up this site. If you have any problems with Lucy, blame her for giving as good as she gets.
Posted by: JDB on March 9, 2005 03:03 PMThe article headline states it fairly cogently: "WEA Hates Walmart more than it loves children". I didn't see where Marsha contended that the WEA had no right to take this action. Marsha merely pointed out that this action reflected on the WEA priorities--specifically that the political statemement against Walmart was more important than the value to children that purchasing from Walmart presumably provides.
This assumes that the teachers spending the money must be going to Walmart because of better prices/quality/availability/etc., of course. The headline would be different if teachers were going to Walmart because they wanted to waste money. But I somehow think that wasn't the case.
There is one district in WA that has already done this. I forget which district it is, but I would hope people in this forum would get involved in school politics, get on the board, and get those mandatory union membership rules revoked. This would solve a lot of the problems in WA state, and cut off a major source of funding for the democrat party.
I'm trying to get the Federal Way School District to take that bold step, because of personal friends who are teachers and are living in fear of the union.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on March 9, 2005 03:32 PMA number of them don't like opposing arguments here much Mike. When they don't have a substantive argument to respond with, they attack the person.
My take is the teachers can spend their money where they want to. If you love Walmart and want to shop or work there fine.
Other people don't have to follow you there or participate with them.
What happened to free choice?
Posted by: Erik on March 9, 2005 03:35 PMA relative worked at Walmart as an assitant manager. He eventually left for a "normal" job elsewhere when he realized his MBA was worth more than Walmart was willing to pay. Walmart replaced him with another person that fit their business model.
There's nothing deceptive about WEA's focus on Walmart because it is non-union. What store did Walmart shut down entirely when the employees were considering to unionize? It's a private business. The State Teachers union isn't private and members don't have a choice about paying dues. When they realize they're worth more, they can always quit and go to work for a higher paying job at private school. Wait ... many are already doing that.
Posted by: Mike J on March 9, 2005 03:36 PMActually, the decision to refuse reimbursement WILL have an impact on the WEA's charitable efforts. WEA pres Charles Hasse reported that some teachers lamented the fact that Wal-Mart was the only retailer in their area. If they want to meet a need, they have to personally eat the cost or drive to a different community to make purchases from an "approved" outlet.
Posted by: Mike on March 9, 2005 03:43 PMHardly impartial. The "study" was done for one thing: to try to keep Wal-Mart out of California.
Anyone wanting more facts and info about the truth on this matter can get them at walmartfacts.com. Yes, it's done by the company, but, you'll find info there to refute everythng Hesse cites, and more.
It's also heartening to note that Wal-Mart has pumped millions in charitable and in-kind contributions into public schools in this state and sponsors, along with the professional teachers organization (I almost said sorority, cuz that's what it was for a long time), local, statewide and national teacher of the year recognition, including the awarding of scholarships to help teachers.
Too bad the WEA is interested in every effin' thing under the sun EXCEPT educating our children.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on March 9, 2005 04:05 PMI guess we just keep throwing money at the beast until it gets full...
Posted by: Ken on March 9, 2005 04:14 PMThe also find that the practices of a particular retailer offends them, and choose not to deal with that retailer.
Republicans decry the union, saying that somehow, this organization does not have the right to choose how that money is spent. Somehow, the unions position that Wal-Mart causes more harm than good is translated to "WEA hates Walmart more than it loves the children"
Additionally, at least one poster on this board stated "The same Teachers Union that wants to be free to spend dollars they receive from teachers (that were once PUBLIC dollars).
Now, at least part of my income is from my military retirement. This money was also once "PUBLIC dollars" as well. Should I be required to shop at Wal-Mart? I'm not even in a union, but I just don't like Wal-Mart. Do you think that you have some authority to tell me how to spend this money?
Some people just can't be satisfied. The WEA collects voluntary donations to help poor children, and you complain because they won't spend it at one of the most anti-union companies in the country. They go down the street to Target or K-Mart.
As for the argument about places where Wal-Mart is the only store for many miles, a simple "give me a break" seems appropriate. This is Washington, not Alaska.
I suppose it would not be possible for Ms Richards to find herself saying "the WEA managed to do one good thing." Her computer would explode.
Ken asked:
"So if I follow the logic correctly, it's really the public that ends up paying more for supplies because the union wants teachers to shop at union shops.
No, the WEA wants to spend money that it collects from its members to help children at union (or at least not anti-union) shops. Schools supplies are an entirely different matter.
Posted by: John Barelli on March 9, 2005 04:21 PMI just cannot understand why libs are so against parent having the choice of school for their children? Stopping competition doesn't help anyone.
BTW, nowhere in the constitution does it state "separation of Church and State". There can be no endorsement of a state religion which is completely different.
Posted by: Jonathan on March 9, 2005 04:24 PMThat being said, If I'm purchasing a bag of groceries for Second Harvest, I search for the best prices possible so that I may buy more groceries for the hungry. This is just plain old common sense. The WEA has never, ever shown any sign of common sense and it is no surprise to me that they are denying reimbursement for Walmart purchases that benifit the needy.
Posted by: Jeffro on March 9, 2005 04:24 PMWEA can spend the money it gets from (forced) union dues as it wishes. No one is really stating that they cannot. Just that this particular example shines a considerable amount of light on their priorities. Like it or not, that is the point of the article and many of the posts.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 9, 2005 04:32 PMhttp://www.walmartwatch.com/
Posted by: Steve Ramsey on March 9, 2005 07:22 PMThat is a good arguement, and one that I thought of when I first posted, but in general I don't think it is true. I lived in Port Orchard for a while, where until the last few years, Wallmart was the store. However, there were always alternatives, although admittedly more expensive. Also, most everyone went up to Kitsap Mall/Costco in Silverdale or over to Tacoma at least once a month, and with a little careful shopping, you can usually find similar or better prices. There may be some areas where there is legitimatly no choice, but if you find that it is helping, a group like the union can use their size and have members in Tacoma ship things to Moses Lake.
Again, having lived in Port Orchard, I am somewhat conflicted when it comes to Wallmart. They make shopping simple, and their prices can be low, but a lot of their mechandise is questionable, and with a little shopping you can find equal or better deals. The contrast is that they treat their workers like crap and drive out small buisness that has ties to the community.
Henry Ford, a fairly conservative individual, knew that by increasing the wages of his employees, he allowed them to live better lives and, more importantly, purchase more, including the cars they were building. And lets not forget the million of good things that unions have done for all of us. Of course, then we might have to admit to the fact that the Democratic party, liberalism and the left have a lot more responsiblity for making this country the great place it is over the Republican party and Conservatism, which of course has had no power since the 1920s and until Rush Limbaugh, no one had ever heard of.
Posted by: JDB on March 9, 2005 11:19 PMno, that aint right.
"An open politics, carried on in front of television cameras, was not conducive to the kinds of compromises traditionally framed in "smoke-filled rooms" that had ensured party unity. These factors had an impact on all parties, but the Democrats seemed less able to cope with the new political world. Defeated in every presidential election but one from 1968 to 1988, they retained control of Congress not so much because of voters' party loyalty as because of loyalty to long-serving individual members of Congress. The disintegration that characterized American politics found Democrats unable to come to terms with a personalist ethos that foreswore collective discipline and asserted individual authority over organizational and community loyalties"
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_024300_democraticpa.htm
our country's economic power is forged in the crucible of capitalistic freedom, and this strength is embodied by wal-mart. the unions, on the other hand, have long since outlived their usefulness and these parasites should now be RICO'd into oblivion.
Of course, then we might have to admit to the fact that the Democratic party, liberalism and the left have a lot more responsiblity for making this country the great place it is over the Republican party and Conservatism, which of course has had no power since the 1920s and until Rush Limbaugh, no one had ever heard of.
This sounds like some of the ahistorical nonsense promulgated by the likes of Michael Moore. Tending to forget just a few things (Eisenhower, 1964 civil rights act, Nixon, Reagan, classical liberalism and JFK, "progressives" and the USSR, etc., etc.) ya think?
Anyone who really believes things like this (or the total opposite) really must be grateful for the nearly unlimited mental health benefits just mandated by Gregoire and co.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 10, 2005 07:50 AMIf I remember correctly, The Walton Family has in the past supported mostly Democratic issues, similar to Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, & George Soros. So if the Democratic union lovers look closely at their pocketbook issues, there seems, at least to me, some dichotomy of thought. These paragons of Democratic $$$ are union supporters? Better perform you DD and check them out before you all start tearing into someone who says the WEA is dumb in this reinbursement policy.
'Nuff Said
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on March 10, 2005 08:10 AMNo Walmart simply wants to become a monopoly. After Walmart drives its competition out of business. There will not be any choices at all.
Besides when you lose your job, your only choice is to shop at Walmart because it is the only place where you can afford to buy something. Walmart likes those making a minimum wage.
Why do you accuse any business of trying to spend as little as possible on things to run the business, including labor? Do you seek out the lowest price? Do you shop at Costco? or do you support the more expensive store. If business didn't try and be efficient you would accuse them of poor management. Successful companies/people can never win in the eyes of the entitlement society, even when they have no idea who pays to provide the entitlements.
Posted by: Fred on March 10, 2005 01:12 PMBoy, ya sure nailed that one. Why you pick the 20s, I have no idea. It was the progressives (liberals) who were sticking their noses into everything up until the 20s, or so - you know, that overwhelming success called Prohibition. I guess in your mind, conservatives ceased to exist in 1929, right?
But sure, give credit to the Democrats for everything. They built this country.
BTW, how did that pesky lil' slavery thing turn out? Free silver? Shipping the Indians (sorry, native Americans) to Oklahoma? Vietnam?
Posted by: jimg on March 10, 2005 02:30 PMhttp://cms.washingtonea.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=159
So, you anti union folks can go and use your own market power to not shop at staples, Saturn, and Columbia Dental.
Posted by: jeremy on March 11, 2005 01:48 PMjeremy posted what I just found out listening to Dave Ross, namely that this money is not taken from teacher's union dues, but is a separately run fund, with funds from raffles and fundraisers. Many of the big donors to these events are very pro-union (let's face it, anti-union people don't go to WEA charity events) and have expressed displeasure at their donations going to Wal-Mart.
So, by making this change, they end up with more money to help.
Whidbey Teacher, I presume that you are more up-to-date on WEA functions than most of the rest of us. Even if you're not fond of the union, I presume you're either a member or know a number of members. Is this information correct?
Posted by: John Barelli on March 11, 2005 05:11 PM