WebFire;945854 wrote:I'm fairly certain any department that falls under civil service commission does not (or cannot) require prior certification.

Isn't Sunbury volunteer?

jmog;945844 wrote:Ah, ad hominem debating logic huh? Typically shows whoever resorts to ad hominem is wrong on their side.

And trust me, you don't want to start comparing mental capacities, you will come up short.

sleeper;945862 wrote:Ah, so LJ's bias shines brightly. While I agree with SB5, I find it interesting that LJ wants to protect firefighters so much from merit based pay since it will directly affect the people close to him.

Pretty hilarious.

WebFire;945876 wrote:And they haven't disowned you yet?

wkfan;945859 wrote:Look, I've pointed out here multiple times that you are, indeed, incorrect.

I'm guessing that your self-reported 'superior mental capacity' is so far superior that you can't comprehend being wrong.

I will compare mental capacities anytime, anywhere.

jmog;943780 wrote:Not totally separate to be honest.

If it is ok for firing to be based on "merit" then why not layoffs based on "merit"?

I'm sorry, but if my school district has to layoff some teachers due to budget deficits I would rather them be able to keep the "best" teachers and layoff those that are not as good.

So you are still wrong.

wkfan;944570 wrote:Symantics.

You are lumping layoffs caused by budget deficits and firing for cause into one bucket. They cannot be lumped together because one is governed by a mutually negotiated and agreed upon contract between the union and the elected school board and the other is not.

If you would rather layoff the 'not as good' teachers in the face of a budget deficit, come up with a way to determine who is best and who is not, run for school board, get elected and get your plan implemented

jmog;945907 wrote:1. You haven't proven me incorrect on anything, if you have please quote it as I must have skipped right over it.
2. You started with the ad hominem attacks and then get.your panties in a bunch when I laughed it off with a like response.
3. I was published twice in scientific journals before I had a bachelors. I have been published 2 more times for math/engineering research. My.name is listed as an inventor on a few company patents. Name a standardized test (SAT,ACT,GRE, etc) and I scored perfect on all math and science portions (well above average on all verbal portions as well). I have been working in combustion/emission research for nearly 10 years now....I could keep going if you want to continue being a prick instead of sticking to the topic.

wkfan;945915 wrote:Please read the bolded parts.....

What you would rather have happen and current reality are two distinct and different things.

As for the rest.....I could say the same things about my accomplishments and, on an internet chatboard, no one would be the wiser.

jmog;945907 wrote:3. I was published twice in scientific journals before I had a bachelors. I have been published 2 more times for math/engineering research. My.name is listed as an inventor on a few company patents. Name a standardized test (SAT,ACT,GRE, etc) and I scored perfect on all math and science portions (well above average on all verbal portions as well). .

WebFire;945790 wrote:1. Fireground competency
2. Leadership
3. Do just what is required to get the paycheck, or working hard
4. Additional training
5. No different than any other job

Go into a firehouse and the FFs there can tell you which ones are good and which ones are bad. Examples:

Firefighter A shows up for his shift at 6:59am...just in time for roll call. He does the morning chores and then watches soaps and talk shows the rest of the day. When they do have a call, he gives the minimum effort, and often time shows ineptitude on the fireground. He is unsure of the proper tactics, unfamiliar with the equipment, etc.

Firefighter B shows up for his shift at 6:30am, so he can get settled in and chat with the previous shift members before roll call. He gets his morning chores done, then spends the afternoon working on that overgrowing to-do list around the station. He fixes that broken airpack on Engine 115 that most seem to ignore. He fixes the leaking drinking fountain in the apparatus bay. On calls, he clearly shows good leadership and helps teach the younger firefighters the ropes (while FF A is sitting on the bumper of the engine). He is sharp as tack when it comes to fireground operations, and many times he is sought out for his advice. In the evening, during his downtime, he has book in his hand, or watching a video, learning some new techniques in search and rescue.

Both are regular fireman, not officers. Which one would you pick to be on your crew? Which one deserves more pay?

BRF;946275 wrote:Hey Footwedge! Nice to hear from ya!PS - No on Issue 2!

Footwedge;946321 wrote:I'm voting no big time. Teachers that excel at their work will also vote no. Unions today have an extremely easier life...in comparison to the private sector. Even the somewhat liberal USA Today wrote a headline piece confirming this fact of life.

Why should the private employees have to sweat their asses off...work 55 hours a week, also knowing that the company closing is an everyday possible reality? Yet, the public sector, which makes more money that their private sector collegues, don't have to do a damn thing other than show up for work in order to get paid.

Footwedge;946321 wrote:I'm voting no big time. Teachers that excel at their work will also vote no. Unions today have an extremely easier life...in comparison to the private sector. Even the somewhat liberal USA Today wrote a headline piece confirming this fact of life.

Why should the private employees have to sweat their asses off...work 55 hours a week, also knowing that the company closing is an everyday possible reality? Yet, the public sector, which makes more money that their private sector collegues, don't have to do a damn thing other than show up for work in order to get paid.

Glory Days;946267 wrote:Fireman 1 will probably never advance and be a mediocre fireman. Fireman 2 will be a supervisor one day and earn his increase in pay and benefits....under the current system.

Footwedge;946321 wrote:Why should the private employees have to sweat their asses off...work 55 hours a week, also knowing that the company closing is an everyday possible reality? Yet, the public sector, which makes more money that their private sector collegues, don't have to do a damn thing other than show up for work in order to get paid.

analogkid;946374 wrote:So the BLS says, "The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by 0.1
hour over the month to 34.3 hours following a decrease of 0.1 hour in August." Not everyone in the private sector works long gruelling hours and 50 to 55 hours per week sounds about right for me as a teacher. I also assure you that if "I didn't do a damn thing other than show show up for work in order to get paid", I would not be employed for very long.

analogkid;946374 wrote:So the BLS says, "The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by 0.1
hour over the month to 34.3 hours following a decrease of 0.1 hour in August." Not everyone in the private sector works long gruelling hours and 50 to 55 hours per week sounds about right for me as a teacher. I also assure you that if "I didn't do a damn thing other than show show up for work in order to get paid", I would not be employed for very long.

Writerbuckeye;946332 wrote:Unless you're being sarcastic -- I think you want to vote "yes" on Issue 2. Yes means SB 5 will become law; no means it does not.

BRF;946325 wrote:Ummmmmmm..........

WebFire;946347 wrote:So the only way is to advance? What if he doesn't want to? (yes, there are plenty that never do and don't want to). What if there aren't many promotions to be had?