- This topic has 1,770 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
GH.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 13, 2010 at 12:02 AM #618207October 13, 2010 at 12:03 AM #617146
CA renter
ParticipantBTW, I would disagree vehemently about the “lack” of danger. They most definitely evaluate everything they do, and try to keep as safe as possible. The improved fatality/injury numbers are almost 100% due to better training — which you won’t see in volunteer departments, and why they have much higher injury/fatality numbers.
October 13, 2010 at 12:03 AM #617232ParticipantBTW, I would disagree vehemently about the “lack” of danger. They most definitely evaluate everything they do, and try to keep as safe as possible. The improved fatality/injury numbers are almost 100% due to better training — which you won’t see in volunteer departments, and why they have much higher injury/fatality numbers.
October 13, 2010 at 12:03 AM #617777ParticipantBTW, I would disagree vehemently about the “lack” of danger. They most definitely evaluate everything they do, and try to keep as safe as possible. The improved fatality/injury numbers are almost 100% due to better training — which you won’t see in volunteer departments, and why they have much higher injury/fatality numbers.
October 13, 2010 at 12:03 AM #617897ParticipantBTW, I would disagree vehemently about the “lack” of danger. They most definitely evaluate everything they do, and try to keep as safe as possible. The improved fatality/injury numbers are almost 100% due to better training — which you won’t see in volunteer departments, and why they have much higher injury/fatality numbers.
October 13, 2010 at 12:03 AM #618212ParticipantBTW, I would disagree vehemently about the “lack” of danger. They most definitely evaluate everything they do, and try to keep as safe as possible. The improved fatality/injury numbers are almost 100% due to better training — which you won’t see in volunteer departments, and why they have much higher injury/fatality numbers.
October 13, 2010 at 12:05 AM #617151Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Just because someone got a sweet deal yesterday doesn’t mean someone hired tomorrow needs to be offered the same deal.
Again, comparing groups or whether or not certain jobs are tough, etc., etc., ad nauseam, just muddies the water. All we should be looking at is if there are qualified people willing to do the job for less. I assert there are plenty.[/quote]
They’re not. That’s why many departments are going to a two-tier system where new hires are paid less and/or get fewer benefits.
October 13, 2010 at 12:05 AM #617237Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Just because someone got a sweet deal yesterday doesn’t mean someone hired tomorrow needs to be offered the same deal.
Again, comparing groups or whether or not certain jobs are tough, etc., etc., ad nauseam, just muddies the water. All we should be looking at is if there are qualified people willing to do the job for less. I assert there are plenty.[/quote]
They’re not. That’s why many departments are going to a two-tier system where new hires are paid less and/or get fewer benefits.
October 13, 2010 at 12:05 AM #617782Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Just because someone got a sweet deal yesterday doesn’t mean someone hired tomorrow needs to be offered the same deal.
Again, comparing groups or whether or not certain jobs are tough, etc., etc., ad nauseam, just muddies the water. All we should be looking at is if there are qualified people willing to do the job for less. I assert there are plenty.[/quote]
They’re not. That’s why many departments are going to a two-tier system where new hires are paid less and/or get fewer benefits.
October 13, 2010 at 12:05 AM #617902Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Just because someone got a sweet deal yesterday doesn’t mean someone hired tomorrow needs to be offered the same deal.
Again, comparing groups or whether or not certain jobs are tough, etc., etc., ad nauseam, just muddies the water. All we should be looking at is if there are qualified people willing to do the job for less. I assert there are plenty.[/quote]
They’re not. That’s why many departments are going to a two-tier system where new hires are paid less and/or get fewer benefits.
October 13, 2010 at 12:05 AM #618217Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Just because someone got a sweet deal yesterday doesn’t mean someone hired tomorrow needs to be offered the same deal.
Again, comparing groups or whether or not certain jobs are tough, etc., etc., ad nauseam, just muddies the water. All we should be looking at is if there are qualified people willing to do the job for less. I assert there are plenty.[/quote]
They’re not. That’s why many departments are going to a two-tier system where new hires are paid less and/or get fewer benefits.
October 13, 2010 at 2:14 AM #617171ParticipantQuite a bit O/T, but relates to teachers (who are often put in the category of “greedy union thugs” as well). Just ran across the video that was shot by a student in what appears to be a high school math class. The student posted it on YouTube, apparently because the student thought it was funny that the teacher “lost it.”
Personally, it broke my heart. It’s not the teacher’s behavior that’s so bad. Look at what the students are doing, and listen to what they are saying.
What pay would you demand to take this job?
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/tennessee-teacher-has-major-meltdown
BTW, this is not uncommon student behavior in urban public schools.
October 13, 2010 at 2:14 AM #617257ParticipantQuite a bit O/T, but relates to teachers (who are often put in the category of “greedy union thugs” as well). Just ran across the video that was shot by a student in what appears to be a high school math class. The student posted it on YouTube, apparently because the student thought it was funny that the teacher “lost it.”
Personally, it broke my heart. It’s not the teacher’s behavior that’s so bad. Look at what the students are doing, and listen to what they are saying.
What pay would you demand to take this job?
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/tennessee-teacher-has-major-meltdown
BTW, this is not uncommon student behavior in urban public schools.
October 13, 2010 at 2:14 AM #617802ParticipantQuite a bit O/T, but relates to teachers (who are often put in the category of “greedy union thugs” as well). Just ran across the video that was shot by a student in what appears to be a high school math class. The student posted it on YouTube, apparently because the student thought it was funny that the teacher “lost it.”
Personally, it broke my heart. It’s not the teacher’s behavior that’s so bad. Look at what the students are doing, and listen to what they are saying.
What pay would you demand to take this job?
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/tennessee-teacher-has-major-meltdown
BTW, this is not uncommon student behavior in urban public schools.
October 13, 2010 at 2:14 AM #617921ParticipantQuite a bit O/T, but relates to teachers (who are often put in the category of “greedy union thugs” as well). Just ran across the video that was shot by a student in what appears to be a high school math class. The student posted it on YouTube, apparently because the student thought it was funny that the teacher “lost it.”
Personally, it broke my heart. It’s not the teacher’s behavior that’s so bad. Look at what the students are doing, and listen to what they are saying.
What pay would you demand to take this job?
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/tennessee-teacher-has-major-meltdown
BTW, this is not uncommon student behavior in urban public schools.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.