• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SDSUfan

Profile Information

  • Team
    San Diego State
  • Gender
  • Location
  1. It's an interesting read for those concerned with such matters. Other than the obvious; the growth in management positions and compensation far exceeding growth in all other employee categories, there's this little nugget: Also, San Diego State improperly classified eight assistant coaches as management personnel instead of faculty specifically to increase their salaries. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, CSU is required to classify coaches as faculty unless they supervise two or more full‑time employees in the faculty bargaining unit. In a 2011 memo, San Diego State’s associate athletic director of business administration (associate athletic director) stated that new assistant football coaches would be hired as management personnel and would receive starting annual salaries of $150,000 each to keep pace with comparable coaching salaries across the country, based on previous discussions. In addition, he requested that three existing assistant football coaches be reclassified as management personnel and receive the same higher salary. San Diego State’s assistant director of employment services, the recipient of the memo, told us that the campus reclassified the assistant coaches because their salaries, which were at the maximum allowed for faculty under the collective bargaining agreement before the reclassification, were too low to be competitive in the labor market and attract sufficient talent. However, as previously stated, the bargaining unit agreement that governs assistant coaches requires CSU to classify these employees as faculty unless they supervise two or more full‑time employees in the same bargaining unit. The assistant director of employment services confirmed that the campus’s assistant coaches do not supervise other individuals in the faculty bargaining unit. It appears we are not the first to question San Diego State’s reclassification of the assistant coaches. In the margin of the associate athletic director’s 2011 memo, we observed a handwritten note from an unidentified individual asking “why?” with an underline below the narrative describing the reclassification. When we asked the assistant director of employment services for further explanation, she acknowledged that San Diego State may not be in compliance with the Chancellor’s Office’s interpretation of the bargaining unit agreement, but she asserted that the assistant coaches are program managers, therefore qualifying them to be management personnel in accordance with state regulations. However, the Public Employment Relations Board decided in 1981 that coaches were properly classified as faculty. Further, the Chancellor’s Office policy on this subject requires any athletic coaches not supervising two or more full‑time faculty bargaining unit members to be included in the bargaining unit and excluded from the management personnel plan. We found this policy to accurately convey requirements in the bargaining unit agreement. When we examined position descriptions for some of the assistant coaches, we did not find adequate support for San Diego State’s claim that these employees are program managers. Given the foregoing, we disagree with San Diego State’s assertion and believe that San Diego State improperly classified these assistant coaches as management personnel and thus inappropriately granted the three existing assistant coaches raises averaging 33 percent at a total annual cost of more than $111,000. Eventually, San Diego State hired more assistant coaches as management personnel and misclassified a total of eight assistant coaches. If San Diego State believes that its eight assistant coaches are underpaid, it should work with the Chancellor’s Office, bargaining unit representatives, the Public Employment Relations Board, and others as necessary to come to an agreement on the appropriate classification of assistant coaches.
  2. We're due. Fear the spear bitches 😎
  3. There's really no appreciable cost savings with building your own anymore. If that's what you want to do, do it for the fun/experience or because you want to build something extraordinary. Start here:
  4. The ability to launch a preemptive strike is not dependent upon the location of 1 of our carrier task forces. We have troops on the ground, airplanes in the air and submarines beneath the sea. I'm not sure why any of this is even remotely controversial. This may seem shocking, but on occasion our government uses the press to spread misinformation and confuse adversaries as to its intention or actions.
  5. So have the Russians, who apparently are suffering some buyers remorse.
  6. Masturbatory marching, especially in California. Laughable really No, I'm pretty sure it's grassroots Trump voters who are disillusioned after learning that he's really rich and pays little taxes. Combined with the shocking news that he has had more than one wife and owns casinos, it's all just too much for these well meaning, salt of the earth folks to bear, so they march. I can feel the tide turning......
  7. Have told her about shrinkage Stunner? Tell her about shrinkage!
  8. You're a shitty little school in the middle of nowhere. You can't even claim flyover status because other than a few jets out of Fairchild, nobody even flies over you. What little market you have is not controlled by you. Go away.
  9. Not entirely accurate. Coexist meant for Christians and Jews, paying taxes and living in separate communities. Peace was maintained by everyone staying their lane which for the times was downright progressive, admittedly. The key was for everyone to admit the primacy of Islam and act accordingly
  10. The Clippers look done. Griffin killed them last night. San Antonio has been counted out way too early. Boston, with the tragic event of Isaih Thomas's sister being killed yesterday may have some trouble. Cleveland looked mortal against a scrappy Pacers team. I watch waaaaay too much basketball
  11. I rest my case So who has to sign off before a bombing is considered justified if not our duly elected representatives, you, me? As to evidence of their effectiveness, is the intended target dead? If so, the attack was effective. I think we all have our opinions as to what makes a Jihadist. What they are discovering in Syria is that many are in some way mentally disturbed, many others are recent converts to Islam and become Jihadists in order to "prove" their faithfulness, others are irreligious young men who have rediscovered their " faith" on the Internet. Young men born into the religion and are active in their faith tend to adhere to the religion as they are taught it by their parents and Imam. Those teachings by and large are more mainstream. I understand times weaponry and doctrine have changed. Fully aware as a matter of fact. That's what makes the phrase "bombing the hell" out of a country inaccurate, basically inflammatory rhetoric. We can, and if necessary will bomb the hell out of a country. We would do it to destroy a country's infrastructure and ability to defend itself and wage war. What we are now doing isn't that. We are instead using small yield missiles to take out very specific targets in very specific cases. As I said, reasonable people can disagree as to whether this is an approach that's effective and or moral.
  12. "without justification" is a value judgement. Presidents of both parties as well as many others with specific knowledge have deemed them justified. The courts have determined that they are legal. Reasonable people can disagree, One would think that our political leaders wouldn't simply engage targets randomly and I can assure that they don't. I've addressed the false notion that killing extremists creates more extremists. The statistics don't support this notion. The video is simply to show what "bombing the hell" out of a country looks like. The point of building smarter weapons, targeting and delivery systems. the billions of dollars we've spent doing so. the doctrine by which we fight wars and the care we take when we actually attacking a target indicates that as a country. we do not attack and kill other humans in a feckless or haphazard fashion. When we do so it's about protecting the interests of the US and it's citizens. Whether or not other countries want us there or not is beside the point and I'm pretty sure nobody thinks we can bomb people into liking us.
  13. You need some perspective. This what bombing the hell out of a country looks like.