Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 23 May 2016, 4:12 pm

http://komonews.com/news/local/churchs-pizza-giveaway-irks-school-cafeteria-workers

Why is this a problem for the school union? They allow kids to leave campus and get fast food, and there is no proselytizing, so what is the issue? Perhaps they don't want kids to have junk food.

No, that can't be it because the kids are allowed to leave campus for junk food.

Could it be because the workers are losing hours because of eating off campus?

That is what they say, but if this were an issue, the union would be protesting against the kids eating off campus at all.

As for the threatened picketing... What say does a school union have regarding charity given off campus?

As Tajon Williams said: "If they would cook it a little better, then they would have students up there eating, you know what I'm saying?"
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 May 2016, 6:34 pm

It's pretty clear that the union is complaining for economic reasons and not because they are concerned about proselytizing. The difference between the church and other fast food places is that the church is giving away free pizza. Less kids will eat at school if there is free pizza available.

I'm not clear as to the union having any valid legal reasons to complain about the practice, though I have to wonder about the propriety of giving away free pizzas to further church recruitment. And they can protest because they don't like it, not because they have any right to stop it.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 23 May 2016, 6:51 pm

What do you see as impropriety?

If they cared about the kids, they would make better meals.

(Sidebar: don't get me started on the food thrown away after the new requirements for school lunches)
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 May 2016, 7:49 pm

Not that I should be telling a church what to do, but if it's going to be giving out free food shouldn't it to be to people who need it? And perhaps a little more balanced meal for children might be nice--a protein, vegetable, grain and maybe fruit or dessert. Lots of kids nowadays are overweight and pizza--usually overloaded with cheese and pepperoni--does not help matters. The meals at school I am sure do not taste that good compared to that, but they are probably more nutritious. And the church is interfering with that. And they are not doing so for charitable reasons; they are doing it as a means to attract young kids to their church. Just because kids love pizza doesn't mean we should be giving it to them. And parents should be the ones deciding how often kids have pizza, don't you think?

I get the church feels this is a good way to get kids to church so that they can hear their message. It does not feel like the right way to go about it to me. Bribing kids with pizza so they could hear about God? I think they should find another way.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 23 May 2016, 8:36 pm

Then why does the school allow them to leave if it wants to feed them nutritious food? You seem to be blaming the church for providing what the school allows.

Gee whiz! How do you feel about Santa giving candy canes? They are not nutritious, either...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 24 May 2016, 5:57 am

I'm a bit surprised a school would let kids come and go. When I was in high school we were semi locked down. Yeah, we came and went but were not supposed to do so, my kids ended up going to that very same high school and they had even further restrictions. They would get in big trouble if they were caught having lunch off campus. That's the norm around here and it makes sense for safety reasons, why would a school allow kids to come and go like that???

Seems like an easy solution to take away that option and blame it on security.

As far as the food available,
Good tasting food and food that is good for you are almost polar opposites, especially at a school with a limited budget. It's hard to make food taste good and be good for you when it all comes from a giant can!?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 May 2016, 6:10 am

tom
As far as the food available,
Good tasting food and food that is good for you are almost polar opposites, especially at a school with a limited budget. It's hard to make food taste good and be good for you when it all comes from a giant can!?


http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-14845/wh ... shame.html

Its about priorities.
If a society cares about nourishing its chilren.s minds and bodies it will ensure that happens.

As for nourishing the soul? Important too. But if Pizza is required as an incentive,
The Church isn't paying any taxes. If it were, maybe the schools would have more money and the churches couldn't afford the pizza?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 24 May 2016, 6:40 am

The question is why doesn't the school enforce the policy it is desiring? It should limit the child's choice and only provide the options it desires.

If a school allows an open campus, it should not be surprised when children choose pizza over what the cafeteria provides. The union should be threatening the picketing of administration for the open campus policy, instead of a church giving free food.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 24 May 2016, 6:44 am

Regarding the money for schools:

Just think how much money a school district would have if parents of students had to pay to attend. There would be even MORE money for them. Not to mention more parental interest in the quality of the product being purchased.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 24 May 2016, 9:58 am

Ricky, did you actually read what I posted and/or what you linked?
I said taste and nutrition were pretty much mutually exclusive based on a school budget. Then you link an article on what kids in some French school eat. From your post:
Chocolate Eclairs, Kiwi's, slice of tarte, ice cream, a "delicacy" from the local pastry shop, veal marinated with mushrooms, roast beef, fresh bread, fresh organic meals, filtered water served in glass pitchers, etc

Thanks for posting exactly what I stated! No kidding they have an excellent lunch, the pictures also look great! But these lunches are far more expensive on a typical school budget. Go ahead and argue more should be spent on the school lunch budget but that's a different thread! For now you did nothing but agree with what I had stated!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 May 2016, 3:00 pm

bbauska
Just think how much money a school district would have if parents of students had to pay to attend

That used to be the case.
You ended up with an educated elite and a large uneducated peasant class.
However with the industrialization came the need for a better educated populace. One that could read, and write. So public education began in order to provide an educated work force to industry.

If only people who could afford to pay for the full cost of the education of their children then there would be a large underclass of poverty. Kind of what we see in third world countries.
Moreover, many very bright people are born into poverty. Imagine the brilliant minds that would be wasted because they were born into the wrong demographic.

In the US, up to WWII uuniversity eduation was the purvue of only those who could afford it... The GI bill paid for the education of hundreds of thousands of young men (and a few women) at the University level, vastly improving the competition within universities, providing a much better educated and trained work force and improved productivity greatly.
The high cost of university is reversing that trend. And the disparity in school funding across geographies is contributing to the production of a poorer educated undeer class. Some places could afford to give their children a meal like the French. Most have to feed them the kind of lunch Tom has described as barely palatable, but all that schools can afford.

tom
Ricky, did you actually read what I posted and/or what you linked?
I said taste and nutrition were pretty much mutually exclusive based on a school budget

Yes I did Tom.
If the French can provide this kind of school lunch free why can't the US? Why doesn't the US spend on education what the French do? ( Isaid it was priorities)
And, as a byproduct of the budget priorities you note that the article refers to the greatly higher incidence af childhood obesity in the US than France.
You are what you eat. In France they seem to want their children to grow up healthy and well educated.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 24 May 2016, 3:10 pm

Please note that I did not say that the parents are the only income stream for this education. If people pay a portion, they will be more concerned with the quality of this education.

Mind you that lunch is not education. Perhaps parents should at least be responsible that.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 25 May 2016, 6:05 am

so if the French do it then we all should do the same?
Well, I suggest the French start paying more for their military, the US does it so should France. Canada as well, they get by sitting under the US umbrella without paying their fair share.

Switzerland spends almost $15,000 per student, if they can do so, then so should everyone
China spent a boatload on the Beijing Olympics so everyone else should do the same.

Hey, Ricky lives in Toronto, I live nearby in New York State
Our toll road (NY Thruway) cost me something like $3 to go about 50 or so miles from Rochester all the way to Buffalo. Yet in Toronto his 407 cost a minimum charge (peak hours) of about $20 from one exit to the next. hey, if we can pay so little, then it follows he should as well. We all know he says the US should have free health care, we should spend as much as France does on lunch, it's one big unified world where we should all be the same so should tolls!?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 May 2016, 6:39 am

bbauska
Please note that I did not say that the parents are the only income stream for this education. If people pay a portion, they will be more concerned with the quality of this education.
Mind you that lunch is not education. Perhaps parents should at least be responsible that.

Don't people pay taxes in order to fund their communitites services? Including education?

There will always be the poor. and the children of the poor. If the poor can count on their children having access to a decent education, and to nutrition that fules the brain during school they will beleive that there is hope that their children can achieve a better life than they...
Isn't this something all of society should strive to achieve?
Pizza charity from untaxed churches, and lousy school lunches are a microcosm of the struggle. In the end its a struggle to achieve a happier, healthier community.
I get it bbauska that you beleive personal responsibility trumps everything. It just seems to me that you would agree with the goal of achieving a happier healthier community. And be willing to consider that sometime community responsibility is a more efficient and effective way of arriving at the goal.

tom
so if the French do it then we all should do the same?

Maybe.
In the business world its called "best practices". This is the discipline of considering the myriad of strategies, or business practices to understand the usually most effective and efficient manner of delivering a good or service.
US businesses do this regularly, especially after being schooled in the 80s by Japanese auto makers, and business machine companies...

tom
Well, I suggest the French start paying more for their military, the US does it so should France. Canada as well, they get by sitting under the US umbrella without paying their fair share.

According to the World Bank the US spent 3.5% of its GDP on defence between 2011 and 2014.
France spent 2.2%.
Canada 1.0%
The question is, are France and Canada spending too little. Or is the US spending too much?
The military industrial complex in Canada and France are much smaller and don't have sway over the federal budget the way it does in the US. So maybe politiicans in france aren't lobbied the same way?
Consider that the Gerald R. Ford will cost $14.7 billion just to build. Is that more necessary than building a sound educational system, or repairing US infrastructure in roads, dams, bridges and weather mitigation?

Tom
We all know he says the US should have free health care

Quote me.
I've said single payer is more efficient, and more effective.
According to the world bank, France delivers its universal health for 11.1% of total GDP.
The US spends 17.1% and doesn't deliver universal acceess, and delviers far poorer outcomes than in France.
Maybe thats another reason their kids get decent school lunches and don't need to rely on church charity for pizza.

But, its all about choices and priorities.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 25 May 2016, 6:58 am

let's take the same answer (as i expected)
Is the US paying too little or is France paying too much for their lunches so children can have eclairs and table cloths and the like?

I'm going to say France pays too much!
Not "best practice" but rather overboard and excessive!

also, nobody said these kids relied on church charity pizza but rather they preferred it. If you did the same thing in France, they too may opt for the pizza!? I have some news for you ...kids like pizza!
Nice way to change the facts.