Chicago teachers strike

Chicago teachers are currently on strike. They are taking this action even though on average, they make around $76,000 a year + benefits (health care plans etc). This benefits package is the most generous teacher compensation of any major American city. 

Chicago's mayor, Rahm Emanuel, wants to make mild reforms to Chicago's rotting education system - seeking improved teacher quality control and trying to ensure that bad teachers lose the right to a lifetime job. Except, the union isn't willing to play ball. Instead, they believe that their members are entitled to unaffordable benefits, lack of standards and the absence of any responsibility to teach well. Put simply, the teacher's union doesn't give a $$$$ about Chicago children. Instead, they care about maintaining their never ending ride on the greed train. 

As if these facts didn't make the situation bad enough, Chicago also faces a severe budgetary crisis. Without any changes, this year's education budget will be around $1 billion in the red. As a 'compromise', Emanuel offered the teachers union an effective 16% rise over 4 years. Yes, you read it right. The teachers are already the best paid of any American city, the education budget is already $1 billion short and the teachers already get 3 months paid holiday each year - but according to Emanuel, a 16% rise is still justifiable. Yet, as absurdly generous as this offer is, the union refuses to accept a deal that requires higher teaching standards. Improved responsibility is something that this particular union will never stand for that.

The teacher's union is unapologetic. But they should be. Many of the children they're supposed to be educating already have to deal with terrible crime rates. Now they can't even go to school.

For some other thoughts on teacher's unions, read my piece on Philadelphia school unions.

Nate Silver on the election

Nate Silver has an interesting piece in his NYTimes column that analyzes polling results post the DNC and RNC conventions. Silver concludes that Obama currently has a 79% chance of winning the general election. Now... I believe that Silver is a fantastic analyst, but I have some major issues with the polling conclusions in this case. My concern is that the conclusions do not take into account some critical data.

 First, the terrible jobless numbers that were released on Friday, the day after Obama's speech, will not have been accurately reflected in the polling sets. While Bill Clinton has received a lot of praise for his speech endorsing Obama - and the polls reflect that the public responded positively- the jobless numbers essentially rebut Obama's argument that the economy is picking up steam. The economy is struggling. I expect that many Americans who regarded the Democratic convention positively will see the latest jobless numbers as evidence that Obama's strong talk is not matched up with reality. I expect that the polling data released next week will reflect this hypothesis.

Second, Romney spent the week of the Democratic Convention preparing for the Presidential debates. He was out of the news. In essence, while Obama and the Democrats launched a full assault on Romney, he was nowhere to be seen. This undoubtedly caused a degradation in his polling numbers V the President. Again, when Romney starts campaigning next week I expect his numbers will improve. 

Third, a lot of voters still don't have a good feel for Romney. As we approach November, it will crucial for Romney to show voters that he is a decent, intelligent and ultimately moderate-conservative Republican. The debates will be incredibly important. Though I am of course biased, I expect that Romney will generate substantially improved personal appeal numbers over the next few weeks. I also expect that he will be able to win the debate with the President on the economy. As I expect Ryan will win the debate with Biden.

This will be a very close election. With its fun moments - See below.

Poor Service from T-Mobile UK

Update: T-Mobile resolved my concerns. I was happy with the follow up service that I received in response to my complaints.

I wanted to write about a little contract law scenario I am currently having with T-Mobile. I know that there are a few American and British lawyers who follow this blog, so I thought they might enjoy this one! In early August, I called T-Mobile to provide them with the required 30 day notice period that I intended to end my contract. The customer service representative was helpful and friendly - while he attempted to persuade me to stay with T-Mobile, he was not rude. The representative gave me notice that my contract would terminate around September 3. 

All was well. 

In later August I called T-Mobile again, in order to request my PAC code (the code that allows UK cell phone users to transfer their number to a different network). The representative on this call provided me with the code and told me that I would have 30 days (up to Sept.20) to post the number onto another network, or it would no longer be usable. This representative made no mention of a variance of my contract end date - agreed at  around September 3.  All remained well. From my perspective, on September 3rd my T-Mobile contract would end. I expected the interim period between September 3 - 20 to be a dead period where my PAC code would remain reserved but my T-Mobile contract would be finished. 

In late August I travelled to the US for one week. I arrived back in the UK on Sept 8th, expecting that my mobile contract would have ended. To my surprise, when I turned the phone on, the T-Mobile network ID was still showing and I started to receive text messages. I have just finished a phone call with T-Mobile. After speaking to a representative who was polite but unable to assist me, I asked to be put in contact with a supervisor. The supervisor was rude and sarcastic (perhaps hungover?). He informed me that even though I had not been given notice of a contract variance (to extend the contract end date from Sept 3 to Sept 20), post my original PAC request phone call, the generic letter/text confirmation message that T-Mobile had sent me had given me effective notice. He did not seem to understand that simply telling someone a contract has been varied does not constitute a new contract. We had a discussion about contract law. He essentially told me that I didn't know what I was talking about. I decided to end the call rather than waste time.

The PAC letter notice states the following - 

'Your terms and conditions say that you have to give us 30 days' notice to end your contract with us. That notice started when you called us to request this PAC code and it will end 30 days later, so your final bill for that number will include your price plan charge for the 30 day notice period.'

According to the supervisor - this closes the case. Not a chance.

I complied with the 30 day notice period requirement. From my position, because the PAC request phone call representative did not explicitly mention the contract extension, that extension was never agreed. My understanding of the PAC code letter notice is that it is a generic template sent to all T-Mobile customers who request their PAC code. There was no recognition of my personal situation in the letter that was sent to me. Again, from my perspective, T-Mobile made no effort to seek my agreement for the contract extension. 

One party's provision to another party of notice of a varied contract, does not itself constitute a valid contract variation. Agreement is always necessary. In this case where because of the generic letter, the 'notice' was far from legitimate, I have no belief that I have either varied my contract with T-Mobile and/or that T-Mobile's letter provided T'Mobile's notice of their understanding of a variation.

All in all - pathetic service from a major communications firm. This kind of business model will be a disaster in the United States. In the US, customer service is valued as integral to successful business interactions, rather than regarded a flexible notion subject to the whims of the individual representative in question. I will let you know if T-Mobile responds to this.

Obama's Speech and the final stretch

In his speech last night, the President said that his re-election 'leads [America] to a better place'. My response is pretty simple - the first four years have certainly not lead to a better place. The great challenges that we face - uncontrolled deficits, soaring debt, uncontrolled health care inflation, 8%+ unemployment are all sustained. President Obama simply has not addressed these issues.

And the President still has no compunction about misrepresenting un-truths as truths. Here is the Washington Post's fact checker on the $4 trillion deficit reduction claim - he basically says that it is complete bs. As did Paul Ryan in a memorable encounter with Obama's budget chief. (I can't wait for the VP debate).

I agree with the President in one regard. Like him, I believe that this election is offering Americans a clear choice. However, I believe that the President offers a future of uncontrolled debt, ever expanding spending (and deficits) and higher taxes. I believe his policies serve the short term interests of Unions rather than the long term economic interests of our country. Today's figures show that unemployment in America remains terribly high and that many Americans have effectively given up looking for work. Less jobs are now being added than in 2011. The President's policies have failed. I will be voting for Mitt Romney. This earlier post of mine basically sums up why.

Soaring rhetoric of hope and promise might sound good, but it doesn't create jobs or pay the bills.

New Daily Caller op/ed - What the conventions tell us about America

What the conventions tell us about America

Democratic Party 'Democracy'

From today's DNC in Charlotte - Democratic Party Civic Lesson 1.

If when conducting a poll the vote tally is counter to desired outcome, repeat poll. 2) If after two further polls the vote tally remains counter to desired outcome, ignore poll results and declare vote outcome as desired. 3) Ignore any irony of Democratic Party name. 

The Democratic Party no longer belongs to its members, it belongs to the party spin masters (and their Union bosses - see post below).

Democratic Platform and Unions

The release of the Democratic platform has largely been met with positive media reporting. Unfortunately, this reporting ignores how extreme the Democratic Party remains when it comes to the issues of Unions. In their new platform, Democrats unapologetically reject any restrictions on Union power. They "vigorously oppose" the "Right to Work", "Paycheck Protection" and "Save our Secret Ballot" measures. To me, it is stunning that alongside these measures the Democratic party tries to claim the mantle of middle class empowerment. Requiring Union membership to work a job, requiring un-consented paycheck deductions and denying private voting choice are illiberal and un-American policies. These steps deny low-middle income workers their constitutional rights to free speech and effectively steal money from their pockets. The Democratic rejection of secret balloting is an especially unpleasant example of the Democratic Party's apparent comfort with Union intimidation. I am proud that the Republican Party has leaders like Chris Christie, John Kasich and Paul Walker who are willing to stand up against these measures. As I have previously noted, Unions drive up living costs, reduce employment opportunities and destroy state budgets (just look at California and Illinois).

Far from being the ally of low-middle income Americans, Unions are our worst economic enemy. Sadly, the Democratic Party is owned by them.

Election Observations in Florida

I am currently in South West Florida. I will be returning to the UK this weekend. While in the sunshine state I have been attempting to get a feel for ground level voter leanings concerning this year's Presidential election. There is clearly a close split between likely voters. However, I have been able to make a number of conclusions. 

1) Republicans are far more energized than Democrats. The Republicans that I have met are almost unanimous in their profound dislike for the President's policies. Contrary to press spin, the majority of this opposition is focussed on a fundamental distaste for the President's economic approach and not on his personality (although he is not popular in this regard). The energy that this opposition holds in terms of prospective support for Republican candidates (at the national and state levels) is considerable. In contrast to Republican leaning voters, many Democrats are less energetic in their contrasting support for the President. They feel that his economic record is weak and they regard him as having failed to live up to expectations. Not surprising when the President promised biblical level change.

2) Romney-Ryan need to do a better job of explaining their Medicare reforms. A good deal of older voters are concerned that these reforms will deny them medical care. This is largely the result of Democratic ad campaigns that unapologetically lie about the Romney/Ryan position on this issue (The Democratic Party has no plan so just relies on lies). To counter Democratic attacks, the Republican ticket simply needs to repeatedly say this. 

3) Far too few voters are attentive to Afghanistan as an issue. Iran has come up in a few of my conversations, but it disappoints me that most Americans seem to have forgotten about the fight our military (along with our coalition allies) are currently involved in. Supporting our troops means more than waving a flag and a yellow ribbon, it requires an attention to our military operations.

4) By Democrats and Republicans alike, the President is seen as offering few new proposals. In this sense, support for the President by moderate Democrats and independents is largely rooted in their discomfort with the more extreme portions of Republican Party policy. I firmly believe that Romney-Ryan have little interest in issues like gay marriage, abortion and pornography (and will largely ignore GOP religious fundamentalists). However, negative perceptions of the GOP on these issues are undoubtedly damaging the party's ability to reach out to new voters. I always come back to this polling data. Around 40% of Americans are conservative, 35% moderate and only 21% liberal. On these results, the GOP should be landsliding every election. Unfortunately, candidates like Santorum drive many voters away. I am confident that over time as the next generation of Republican leaders begin to run for office, we will be able to attract more of these voters. My generation cares very little for intervention in the private lives of our fellow citizens.

John Boehner

John Boehner is a great Speaker of the House. He grew up in a poor family and worked extremely hard to earn his success. He is a patriot, he is willing to make common sense compromises for the good of the country (even if the President is not) and he is an exceptionally strong fundraiser! I cannot understand those Republicans who think that Boehner is a RINO. In fact, he is an intellectual conservative who follows in the best traditions of the party. We are lucky to have him.

My political position

Using this test - http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Where I stand on the political compass!