Powerful Leader of Mexican Teachers’ Union Is Arrested - $160 million embezzeled

Quote from bonkman : How are you going to do research? You have access to the names of every union leader at every level? anyway, start doing your research. It would only take forever for you to find good ones if every single one was bad. Take a list of unions, research each leader, stop when you've found good ones. are you serious? "name a union leader that's good. I'll bet you can't!" "oh you're right. but that union doesn't count." Gross generalizations get us nowhere.

It's easier to find a bad one than a good one. Not only because there are less good ones, but also because it is easier to find evidence of guilt than evidence of innocence.

I would look at public financial documents and see where they spent the money. That is usually the only step needed to find the guilt.

I was trying to find the face palm emoticon yesterday. Thanks for helping me find that.

Quote from jplayland : It's easier to find a bad one than a good one. Not only because there are less good ones, but also because it is easier to find evidence of guilt than evidence of innocence. I would look at public financial documents and see where they spent the money. That is usually the only step needed to find the guilt. I was trying to find the face palm emoticon yesterday. Thanks for helping me find that.

it's easier to find stories of anything bad happening than it is to find stories of baseline normal happening.

Quote from highfloydelity : It's too bad they caught her. She was putting a lot of money into CA's economy!!

Next article will be about another border city going bankrupt due to a sudden lack of discretionary income.

Quote from jplayland : It's easier to find a bad one than a good one. Not only because there are less good ones, but also because it is easier to find evidence of guilt than evidence of innocence. I would look at public financial documents and see where they spent the money. That is usually the only step needed to find the guilt. I was trying to find the face palm emoticon yesterday. Thanks for helping me find that.

you're exactly right.

Let's save us both a lot of time by using a little logic.

We both agree (not that that means we're right, but let's go with it) that being good -- or at least "normal" -- rarely makes the news and gets reported. We agree that it's much easier to find evidence of people being bad, since there's more media coverage.

So if you're only occasionally seeing media coverage of a couple random unions (keep in mind, by going into mexico, we've opened up international waters and have take the number of unions from thousands to hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions), what do you conclude about the other unions that you're NOT hearing about?

<insert logic here>

Quote from thikthird : it's easier to find stories of anything bad happening than it is to find stories of baseline normal happening.

Exactly. To go with that, it's harder to prove innocence than guilt.

Quote from jplayland : Exactly. To go with that, it's harder to prove innocence than guilt.

so you're agreeing with me when i say that it's easier to find news on the extraordinary (in this case, bad union leaders) than it is to find news on the ordinary (good union leaders).

Quote from thikthird : so you're agreeing with me when i say that it's easier to find news on the extraordinary (in this case, bad union leaders) than it is to find news on the ordinary (good union leaders).

Yes, the subject (unions/union leaders) matters not, what you say is generally true of most subjects. I just don't agree that good unions or union leaders are ordinary/common.

My biggest problem with unions isn't the corruption, the corruption is everywhere, not just unions. My biggest problem with unions is that most of them do not support merit based pay and promotions. Instead they support seniority based pay and promotions. I don't think a 10 year employee who has been mediocure should be paid more than a 5 year employee who has been great. Merit is in the best interest of the business and employees who care and try hard. Seniority is in the best interest of the lazy and those not capable of being better than the average employee.

Quote from bonkman : you're exactly right. Let's save us both a lot of time by using a little logic. We both agree (not that that means we're right, but let's go with it) that being good -- or at least "normal" -- rarely makes the news and gets reported. We agree that it's much easier to find evidence of people being bad, since there's more media coverage. So if you're only occasionally seeing media coverage of a couple random unions (keep in mind, by going into mexico, we've opened up international waters and have take the number of unions from thousands to hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions), what do you conclude about the other unions that you're NOT hearing about? <insert logic here>

If we are smart we conclude nothing about the other unions unless the number of proven corrupt reaches a level that is statistically excessive. At that point you start assuming that they aren't as likely to be innocent as any other type of organization.

Quote from jplayland : If we are smart we conclude nothing about the other unions unless the number of proven corrupt reaches a level that is statistically excessive. At that point you start assuming that they aren't as likely to be innocent as any other type of organization.

too bad your hypothesis is the idiotic statement that all unions (or at least union leadership) are corrupt.

If 100% isn't statistically excessive, I don't know what is.

Quote from jplayland : Yes, the subject (unions/union leaders) matters not, what you say is generally true of most subjects. I just don't agree that good unions or union leaders are ordinary/common. My biggest problem with unions isn't the corruption, the corruption is everywhere, not just unions. My biggest problem with unions is that most of them do not support merit based pay and promotions. Instead they support seniority based pay and promotions. I don't think a 10 year employee who has been mediocure should be paid more than a 5 year employee who has been great. Merit is in the best interest of the business and employees who care and try hard. Seniority is in the best interest of the lazy and those not capable of being better than the average employee.

not a bad thought.

however, merit requires quantification. valid measurements are not always possible.

Quote from bonkman : not a bad thought. however, merit requires quantification. valid measurements are not always possible.

I guess it depends on the job. Merit is usually defined by a measure of your work product modified by the feedback of your boss/coworkers. So as long as you can measure your work product in some way, merit based pay and promotions are far more fair.

Unions have also been the cause of a fair part of the economic issue. Companies like the GM were pushed to compensate workers more than they could afford in pay, benifits, and retirement. We can't put companies in a position where they have to deal with a union with a monopoly on labor. We protect people from a monopoly, why don't we protect businesses as well. Unions can't be allowed to price gouge. I know they don't usually have that effect, but some have and that needs to change.

Quote from jplayland : My biggest problem with unions isn't the corruption, the corruption is everywhere, not just unions. My biggest problem with unions is that most of them do not support merit based pay and promotions. Instead they support seniority based pay and promotions. I don't think a 10 year employee who has been mediocure should be paid more than a 5 year employee who has been great. Merit is in the best interest of the business and employees who care and try hard. Seniority is in the best interest of the lazy and those not capable of being better than the average employee.

I always wonder why people that bang the drum so hard on this aren't at the forefront of attacking C level pay since it's about the worst kept secret in business that they, by an overwhelming majority, aren't worth the package. Not only that, their pay seems to defy the very laws of economics in the place where you'd think they'd most apply.

Bob the welder makes $2 more than he should (?) cause of unions. Pitchforks!

An incredible amount of C level executives and damn near the entire financial industry can't justify its own pay. Grumble grumble.

So did we ever get those 2 shining examples of good Union leaders? I heard it was easy to provide them so I'm not sure what the delay is.