View Full Version : Wisconsin and unions
flowerseverywhere
2-17-11, 11:02am
I have been reading about the proposals in Wisconsin to change the bargaining power and change the benefits of public employees.
Here in NY I am seeing huge changes in budgets for schools and services and I haven't heard of any similar proposals here, but I think it will be a matter of time, especially if it is successful in Wisconsin.
I am not sure where we are headed at this point, I see schools losing programs, staffing, extra curricular activities- but most important of all academics are slowly slipping away and I find this quite disturbing in many ways. This is serious stuff.
It sets up those affected for some serious gutting of wages and benefits in the longer term. And little security into the future. I expect there will be some serious flight of marketable workers out of the public sector, with those replacing them being much less so. You (hopefully) get what you pay for - but in paying less you're going to get less.
Yesterday I read an article on the decline of the middle class in the US. The article gives one factor for the decline as the decline in union membership in the US. Without unions employees have no one to fight for them and corporation for the most part only care about the bottom line so the workers are the losers. The average middle class wage has remained around $33,000 over the last 20 years.
loosechickens
2-17-11, 12:55pm
I posted a link to that CNN article, freein05 and others, in the "rich are getting richer, etc." thread here.....lots of other reasons, but the decline in collective bargaining power of workers is certainly one of the causes of why the incomes of the middle class have stayed static or regressed in the past thirty years and why those of the top 5% have skyrocketed.....certainly not the only reason, but significant.
I'm in Wisconsin, and as of 12:30 today we are at a melodramatic impasse on SB-11 (the Budget Repair Act). The Wisconsin Senate requires a quorum of 20 (of 33 members) for a fiscal bill vote. There are 19 GOP senators, and the Democrats have decided to boycott the vote. I understand the police have been dispatched to bring a few in, which may involve escorting them through screaming mobs of AWOL teachers. Makes for great television if not dignified politics.
ApatheticNoMore
2-17-11, 2:00pm
I do distinguish between private sector (very few left) unions and public sector unions. If the private sector has no unions, no guaranteed retirement, no protections and yet the demands of public sector unions stay high, it seems to me we have a problem. Who has the income to pay for this really expensive public sector? Increasingly no one does or the state budget wouldn't be some 20 something billion in the red (CA). Although really I think it is less current expenses (sure there are deficits there, but higher taxes could probably solve it) but future promises that can never possibly be paid because they are astronomical that are the problem.
flowerseverywhere
2-17-11, 4:19pm
Ldahl, now I'm reading the Dems are not in the state! The kids are not in school. Overall a huge mess.
One of our neighboring districts rejected a proposal to limit their raises to 2% instead of 4- angry mobs are showing up at school board meetings as programs are being cut. I do some on call work with special ed kids and there is no hope of my program making it through to next year.
Apathetic you are correct we have a problem but whatever the solution there will be unhappy parents, taxpayers, kids and teachers. Not a great environment for healthy learning.
Sadly, it appears that Republican Gov. Scott Walker is from the same mold as Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry. :devil:
Let’s hear for Wisconsin Democrats who are not going to stand for being steamrolled into Republican hell! They took a page out of the playbook of Texas Democrats in the State House and fled the state to protect the state.
Wisconsin Democrats on Thursday fled the statehouse in an effort to prevent legislators from reaching a quorum and passing a bill put forth by Gov. Scott Walker (R), which would cripple the collective bargaining rights of public unions.
The move produced a frantic political drama, as state troopers were reportedly sent out to find the fleeing lawmakers and Walker hinted that the National Guard would be called in to fill the void left by protesting union workers.
One Democratic senator told the Milwaukee-WIsconsin Journal Sentinel that most of the members of his caucus had already crossed state lines.
When Texas Democrats fled to Oklahoma, Tom DeLay tried to send Homeland Security after them, and their families were threatened. However, Willie Nelson sent them red bandannas with a note to “stand your ground!”
Peace
"Walker hinted that the National Guard would be called in to fill the void left by protesting union workers"
That will be interesting - school kids will eat them alive :-)
I admit I'm not up on the details of this, but how can a state governor limit the collective bargaining rights of union members? Aren't union rights protected by federal law?
I'm not understanding how this can even be legal?
In the meantime, Governor Mitch Daniels is working hard to break up the public (aka teacher's unions) in Indiana. Note that Daniels is one of the leaders possibles for a Republican run for being President. I'm just saying.....
fidgiegirl
2-17-11, 8:27pm
I'm scared, as a teacher in Minnesota, that it will kind of spill over into us. We have a Democratic governor right now but it was just by a hair that he got in. I think once the dominoes fall in one state, they will start to fall in all. I don't know that spiraling teacher pay DOWNWARD is the answer to recruiting talented, able people into the profession or retaining the ones that are already in it.
ApatheticNoMore
2-18-11, 12:19am
Oh I think concern over schools going downhill (especially K-12) is very legitimate. Once schools have gone downhill there's very little that can be done to bring them back up again either. It's really a lost cause. You'll probably just go down the road of complete polarization where everyone who can buys a house in a good school district or sends their kids to private schools, and only whoever is left (the majority unfortunately) go to horrible public schools. It's already the case here. The state of education is truly pathetic.
And yes if teachers are paid less than other highly paid professionals they may flee the public sector (although the private sector will take it's pound of flesh and then some, if they choose it. The working conditions for most corporations are aweful - unpaid overtime, intense stress, etc. etc.). Then again they aren't being supported via taxes by just a bunch of other highly paid professionals. That's just not the vast majority of taxpayers much less citizens. They are being supported by an utterly gutted now service sector working class. By the growing sector of counted and uncounted unemployed who probably aren't paying any taxes and are probably getting state payouts to boot. (which I suppose is now being backstopped by the federal government). And yea there's a few well paid professionals (whose salaries still haven't kept up with the cost of living!) and a few very rich people also, these 2 are the only stones you can even try to get much blood out of.
The way I see it: that state employee benefits are going to be cut some is pretty much inevitable. State employees have been promised things that can never be delivered, You can pretend it's entirely about Republican governors but riddle me this: we have a Democratic governor and a Democratic legislative body in CA at present. Apparently we have unfunded pension liabilities of 500 billion. Our Democratic governor has proposed overhauling state pensions. I don't know how serious he is about it (he has lots of union backing so I wonder ...) but then again he may well believe in things like the public universities etc. to the point where he knows promised pensions must be cut or eventually they will EAT the BUDGET whole ... for breakfast. We are also cutting 12 billion from the state budget mostly in schools and welfare spending (and maintaining tax increases) just to try to bring it to something that still won't balance 100% but will be closer. I think our governor is a real true Democratic in ideals, but also is being honest and facing some reality about how deep a hole we're in and circumstances (looming default?) also weigh on him so I think he might really deal with our financial problems (we will see about that :)). But no it's not pretty.
The Storyteller
2-18-11, 10:43am
I do distinguish between private sector (very few left) unions and public sector unions. If the private sector has no unions, no guaranteed retirement, no protections and yet the demands of public sector unions stay high, it seems to me we have a problem.
Most private sector employees have the right to unionize. Most public sector employees do not. Those few of us in my state who can are about to lose that right. It's very difficult for me to sympathize with private sector employees who elect not to unionize when they have every right to.
ETA
Although I'm now falling into the trap union busters are using of dividing one worker or set of workers against another. That's what this thing is really about. Not just public sector unions, but all unions, and thus all workers, are the target. There are many people out there who do not believe workers should have any voice in the workplace at all.
First they came for public employees, to submit them to peonage. I did nothing, for I was not a public employee. . . Then they came for janitors, I did nothing, for I was not a janitor.
Then they came for (fill in your work here), who was left to act?. . .
ApatheticNoMore
2-18-11, 12:36pm
Most private sector employees have the right to unionize. Most public sector employees do not. Those few of us in my state who can are about to lose that right. It's very difficult for me to sympathize with private sector employees who elect not to unionize when they have every right to.
Some private sector jobs that can't be outsourced might benefit from unionization. Any jobs that can be outsourced don't dare. Marx and the communist's grasped this much. It was workers of THE WORLD who needed to UNITE, they called their meeting the INTERNATIONAL etc.. Nope I'm not arguing for early 20th century state communism, noone seriously does, that's the dustbin of history. I'm just saying that they grasped an essential truth here. Why is EVERYTHING manufactured in China, is it because they are so much better than us? Or is it cheap wages and no environmental protections. Almost self-evidently it is the later, I mean really you'd have to have a really clever and maverick thesis to even try to argue otherwise. And if so maybe cash in on it and write a book :).
Sure you can add to this decades of policy weakening private sector unions (but even this doesn't solve the international competition problem unless you want to include trade agreements in the "decades of policies weakening private sector unions", which might be accurate :D). Still private sector unions are stronger in Europe and they have trade too. So you can add in the American political system. You can add in etc.
simplelife2
2-18-11, 12:44pm
The first thing Daniels did as governor was decertify the state public employee unions, then he outsourced social services to a private contractor. It cost millions and resulted in families facing huge waits for services and being falsely denied benefits. But that was the point, funneling money to big business and screwing the poor. Now, he is in a heated battle to destroy teacher unions.
I'm not sure when police and fire unions, teachers and other civil servants became enemies of the state. As with any workplace, including the private sector, there may be some abuses, but these workers care about the communities they serve and certainly aren't getting rich. I remember when people in such community service careers were respected and appreciated.
ApatheticNoMore
2-18-11, 12:48pm
First they came for public employees, to submit them to peonage. I did nothing, for I was not a public employee. . . Then they came for janitors, I did nothing, for I was not a janitor.
Then they came for (fill in your work here), who was left to act?. . .
Yea but you have the sequencing wrong. FIRST they already came for all the other jobs. Manufacturing outsourced (still a few manufacturing jobs left but pretty much everything is made in China these days), customer service/call centers almost entirely outsourced (although some are coming back), IT outsourced (actually still many IT jobs left, but some were certainly outsourced). They already came for all of this. Nary a peep out of public sector unions when all this was happening of course.
Now a population with 10% official involuntary unemployment (probably more like 20% unofficial) and tons of low wage jobs is supposed to pay enough in taxes to support all of the unionized state workers. But falling income taxes receipts (despite increases in rate), falling sales taxes receipts (despite increases in rate) and it's just not possible. deflation?
And by the way the pension promises (500 billion in CA and high in many other states as well) are they payable or are they not? Really, give me an honest answer to that. Because if they are not payable (which seems to me to be reality), then all unions don't need to be disbanded necessarily (not if they are willing to compromise), BUT pensions do need to be reformed probably renegotiated and definitely need to be reduced for new workers. And so some benefits are being cut, how horrible.
gimmethesimplelife
2-18-11, 1:00pm
I once held a public sector job in Portland, OR - I worked as an office clerk in the property tax assessor's office for Multnomah County. I have never in my life held a more boring and more political job - but I have never had better benefits, either. I remember all the people who worked there that hated it and were only doing their time for the benefits and the pension - something told me to leave the job, so I did - am now I am glad that I did as IMHO the clock is ticking on these wonderful benefits as it seems that they can't be afforded anymore. Truly I believe we as a nation are in for some very austere times not too far around the corner.....Rob North Rim Summer 2011
Why is the governor afraid of collective bargaining? Is he not tough enough to set down and say no? Does he want the powers of dictator? It is true a dictator has a lot more power and his/her job is easier. Private sector benefits have been cut to the bare bones over the years and now it looks like public sector job benefits are going to be cut.
For the middle class it is just a matter of time before the last nail is driven into the coffin.
No unions, no middle class. Period.
In my state (not Wisconsin), public employees receive very generous benefit packages and much earlier retirements than those in the private sector. When you factor in the benefits, these employees are making substantially more than those in the private sector.
Meanwhile, the state, cities and school districts are constantly going back to the taxpayers for more money. Given that payroll is one of the largest expenses of these entities, it seems rational that we would discuss the wages and benefits of those employees. If their collective bargaining rights need to be curtailed to rein in the spending, so be it.
Given the wages and benefits the public employees are receiving now, I think you could cut costs substantially before you would have an exodus of employees. Our country is bankrupt and hard choices need to be made.
You will not lose the teachers, because in most communities they, along with police, firefighters, etc., have the best jobs around. Where else can you work 10 years and qualify for a defined benefit pension plus gold-plated post-retiree medical benefits for you (and also for your spouse for life regardless of whether or not you predecease your spouse)? Only in the public sector. Maybe if you're a head of a big corporation in NYC, but not for most people in most communities in the private sector.
There are many people out there who do not believe workers should have any voice in the workplace at all.
I think that is the crux of the problem. Instead of supporting collective bargaining and insisting that the private sector "share the wealth" many find it justified to look at unions as evil - strange that!
In Solidarity,
Peace
You will not lose the teachers, because in most communities they, along with police, firefighters, etc., have the best jobs around. Where else can you work 10 years and qualify for a defined benefit pension plus gold-plated post-retiree medical benefits for you (and also for your spouse for life regardless of whether or not you predecease your spouse)? Only in the public sector. Maybe if you're a head of a big corporation in NYC, but not for most people in most communities in the private sector.
That is the whole point of what's going on in Wisconsin, isn't it? Even if these are "the best jobs around" (questionable - why would they have such a hard time finding and keeping teachers?), they won't be shortly.
There will be job flight. You also have to wonder the affect of losing all those "best jobs around" on communities.
BTW, I know our people in Congress still have a lucrative pension plan that hasn't been brought up in all their cost-cutting - anyone know what type of benefits the governor and the rest pushing this bill through in Wisconsin get?
That is the whole point of what's going on in Wisconsin, isn't it? Even if these are "the best jobs around" (questionable - why would they have such a hard time finding and keeping teachers?), they won't be shortly.
There will be job flight. You also have to wonder the affect of losing all those "best jobs around" on communities.
BTW, I know our people in Congress still have a lucrative pension plan that hasn't been brought up in all their cost-cutting - anyone know what type of benefits the governor and the rest pushing this bill through in Wisconsin get?
I question flight occurring. Unemployment is 10%+, pay will still be good and benefits will still be excellent. Just not quite as good. In addition, many of these public employees live in small towns. Better alternatives simply don't exist for them. In addition, the taxpayers can't afford to continue paying for salaries and benefits at an ever increasing rate.
dado potato
2-19-11, 1:01am
Pension Envy
Bastelmutti
2-19-11, 8:36am
Pension Envy
"If we can't have it, they can't have it either" instead of "If they get it, maybe we can get it, too"
Pension Envy
More like, Tapped out taxpayers
The Storyteller
2-19-11, 9:14am
Pension Envy
http://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/img/smilies/yuckyuck.gif
ApatheticNoMore
2-19-11, 12:37pm
But they don't actually HAVE anything. They have a bunch of promises that noone knows how on earth we can actually fulfill. You can promise someone anything. I hereby promise all forum members a slice of the moon. But .....
The way the bill is written it is written more for killing unions than controlling expenses. One part of the bill the governor is pushing is requiring that unions have a re-certification vote every year. The governor does not have to stand for reelection every year so why should a union have to. If he wanted to cut expenses he should have proposed cutting pensions, health care, and salaries.
I find that most unions are good/bad. The help protect the workers from the abuses of the big corporate giants/government, but it seems over time they become so absorbed in their power that they kill the hand that is feeding them.
Pension envy - I don't think it is right when government workers retire and make more $$ in their retirement than they did when they worked. Sorry, something just isn't right there.
Some years ago there was a ballot measure here in Oregon, I can't remember the details, but one of the committees was named, "We pay for all ours (pension) we pay for all yours (government workers), can't you just pay for some of yours - committee"! I think that about says it all.
The fact is that most of the governments are broke...everyone is going to have to give or everyone is going down.
I don't think it is about busting the unions - but rather shaking some sense into them.
I find it ironic that Obama was critizing what they are trying to do, except he doesn't have the guts to do the same.
flowerseverywhere
2-19-11, 1:30pm
Pension Envy
I do believe this is part of it. However, in the private sector many of us saw decrease in pensions, or elimination of them, huge healthcare cost increases, and increase in own taxes. Many companies saw the middle and upper management positions decimated.
Our local school unions are voting to freeze their wages in order to prevent layoffs for now. But what will happen next year and so on?
Perhaps looking at the structures of schools has some answers. Kids are picked up, bussed to school, bussed to sports, many given free lunch and breakfast. Our high school has guidance counselors, a principal, and four assistant principals, even as our student population is declining. Another area district closed two elementary schools due to declining enrollment and when the numbers were examined by the local newspaper it was obvious that the schools should have been closed years ago. Our bus mechanics make a bunch of overtime, why is that so? These questions are being asked to school boards and administrations locally.
Pension envy - I don't think it is right when government workers retire and make more $$ in their retirement than they did when they worked. Sorry, something just isn't right there.
I totally agree with that. It is quite common for public workers to retire and then come back to work the next day for their same salary - effectively doubling their pay. I also don't think it is right to exclude police, firemen, etc - that is not consistent. Divide and conquer?
The private sector has had to make tough choices that for the most part eliminated Defined Benefit Pensions, etc. My question is why are our elected officials shunning their responsibility and agreeing to these "collective bargaining" agreements? I'll answer my own question - because it is easy and because they can count on getting re-elected by handing out "gravy". I would much prefer that instead of attacking unions and portraying them as the problem that our elected officials bargain in good faith and be fiscally responsible. If not then they should not be re-elected.
This like almost everything in the US is all about ideology and very little to do with issues or responsibility. They have no skin in the game because it is not their money. I think most voters are too bothered to talk politics becuase it is usually not pleasant, and we all know that discussing family or sports is much more pleasant - this is the type of government we get based upon living in "La La Land". We usually get government that mimics our society - take a look around!
Peace
The Storyteller
2-19-11, 11:30pm
II don't think it is about busting the unions - but rather shaking some sense into them.
No, it's 100% about busting unions.
No, it's 100% about busting unions.
In Ohio, it's not just about busting unions.
Let's use my local school district as an example - averages wages for all employees for the past 5 years have risen 3-5%. That's during a recession. For the next 3-5 years, they are projected to rise by 4.5%. The situation with their health care costs is even worse. Our school district is in financial trouble and is constantly pushing for a new property tax levy (now they want an income tax).
We have great schools, but the taxpayers are tapped out and the employees don't seem to understand that. What they are pushing in Ohio, would allow the government the ability to control costs.
The Storyteller
2-20-11, 9:15am
In Ohio, it's not just about busting unions.
Of course it is. It's always about busting the unions. They might work at some of them incrementally, and give lip service to other issues for the sake of the naive, but the end goal is to first reduce their power, rights, and influence, then finally eliminate them.
Of course it is. It's always about busting the unions. They might work at some of them incrementally, and give lip service to other issues for the sake of the naive, but the end goal is to first reduce their power, rights, and influence, then finally eliminate them.
I'm in Ohio and see the budget issues, inform myself and attend school board meetings. The taxpayers are broke and can't afford the wages/benefits demanded by the public employees. You may call that union busting, I call that dealing with an unsustainable system.
Dharma Bum
2-20-11, 10:02am
If the government represents the people, who exactly are these unions organizing against?
If the government represents the people, who exactly are these unions organizing against?
Well, the government does represent the people - but some people much more than others.
Dharma Bum
2-20-11, 1:18pm
but some people much more than others.
Which of these people is exploiting public employees such that the employees need a union for protection? Are the government agencies forcing the employees to go work in private sweatshops of some over-represented citizen? How does this work exactly?
ApatheticNoMore
2-20-11, 1:29pm
In California talk about pension reform and spending cuts are not just about busting unions. We have a governor elected almost entirely with union backing afterall. Does anyone honestly care to argue that our governor is all about union busting?
Splitting the difference 1/2 and 1/2 with spending cuts and keeping the tax increases might just be about the fact we have a 28 billion dollar state deficit, to the point that investors fear default! Talking about pension reform might just be about the fact that 500 billion dollars of pension obligations, all of which WERE HIDDEN FROM THE BUDGET for all these years, are unsustainable.
Frankly in other states I'd be careful about being so eager to cut teacher pay increases and the like. You might end up with what you ask for, an education system at the quality of California's. You really don't even realize how good you've got it in the Midwest with your fairly high quality education etc.. Do you know people here buy houses based on whether or not they are in good school districts? That education is very strictly rationed by income by that means? You should appreciate what you've got, such cats are not so easy to put back in the bag once they have escaped ....... I'm not saying CA's education problems are only caused by low pay for teachers, I don't actually believe that, we have lots and lots of problems here, poverty and extreme wage inequality, huge unaccountable school districts, high immigration, etc. etc.. I'm just warning: be careful about messing with a good thing!!
Maybe when the whole country's education is that poor at that point we should give up on the whole concept of public education altogether. Wait, I'm serious. If all the education system is capable of is being of that quality and producing idiots, we should spend all our money encouraging people to read more or something instead as that would at least produce intelligent people. Haha, it would produce intelligent people with minds of their own for sure :)
Between state, local and property tax, I pay 10 -12% of my income in taxes. That's without federal. On top of that, we have a 6.5% sales tax on most goods excluding food. Factor sales tax in and I'm paying 15%+ of my income in state and local taxes. A large portion of this goes to wages of the public employees.
We can talk quality, public servants deserve more, etc., but at the end of the day, the taxpayers only have so much money. Both the employees and the politicians seem to have forgotten that.
ApatheticNoMore
2-20-11, 2:37pm
Well I don't pay 10%-12% of my income in state income taxes. I rent so I don't pay property tax. The marginal income tax that most of the middle class in CA falls into pushes 10%, and with SDI (another income tax that is called by another name) it pushes 11%. But I can't claim I pay 11% of my income in state income taxes as not all my income is taxed at the marginal rate, of course. Sales taxes on non-food items push 10% here (yes really). I have concern that things like the pension promises when added to existing spending are not supportable on almost any level of taxation, so yea I think the pension problems are real.
Why did CA education jump the shark? Many blame the cuts in funding from Prop 13 (cuts in funding, eh? uh oh ......). Some blame bussing. Some blame immigration. Things like the extreme wealth inequality seem huge to me though seldom mentioned. Nobody really knows, and nobody, absolutely nobody, seems capable of fixing it. I know the correlation between school spending and educational quaility is far from clear (though a dollar anywhere else is only worth about 60 cents or something in CA, something that's never accounted for in those things, cost of living differences). I just warn in what is almost conservative style (oddly, I feel like William Burke - combined of course with the Cassandra I always am :)): don't mess with a good thing. If you have a high quality education: appreciate it, reward it well, CONSERVE it :) Since there seems no way back to it when it is destroyed.
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk022011dAPR20110219014616.jpg (http://townhall.com/cartoons/2011/2/20/80678)
Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Their ranking on ACT/SAT scores:
South Carolina - 50th
North Carolina - 49th
Georgia - 48th
Texas - 47th
Virginia - 44th
Wisconsin is currently ranked 2nd. Welcome to the race to the bottom.
Peace
Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Their ranking on ACT/SAT scores:
Is there in general a correlation between educator salary/benefit packages, and educational outcomes?
My State has teacher's unions, but our educational system here is in shambles.
Is there in general a correlation between educator salary/benefit packages, and educational outcomes?
My State has teacher's unions, but our educational system here is in shambles.
Yea, but it's not 50th, 49th, 48th, or 47th, is it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...I'm just saying. The correlation seems pretty clear to me.
Yea, but it's not 50th, 49th, 48th, or 47th, is it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...I'm just saying. The correlation seems pretty clear to me.
Pick your statistics, and your dataset, to demo whatever point you want.
But I was interested in the underlying truth.
My State is 45th in the nation in per-student spending, 37th in the nation in graduation rates, 52% of our students entering college require remedial math, and eighty-four percent of employers say public schools are not doing a good job of preparing students to succeed in the workplace.
This is not a good thing.
I'd have to see more info before I'd confuse correlation with cause.
flowerseverywhere
2-21-11, 10:30pm
here is something interesting talking about school performance
http://www.publicschoolreview.com/
it tells you number of students in school, what percent of each race, graduation rate.
Interestingly there is almost a direct corelation between the number of free/reduced lunch students and the graduation rate in my county. My town has 2% free lunch, 2% reduced lunch and a 99% graduation rate. I checked some of the poorer districts and they have way lower graduation rates and a much poorer population. I have no idea if this is true everywhere but it makes me wonder, do the richer districts have more money, or the kids have better preparation, or are the teachers better? Are the richer kids better fed, safer, more likely to have responsible parents in the home? Maybe some of the educators here have some of these answers.
here is something interesting talking about school performance
http://www.publicschoolreview.com/
it tells you number of students in school, what percent of each race, graduation rate.
Interestingly there is almost a direct corelation between the number of free/reduced lunch students and the graduation rate in my county. My town has 2% free lunch, 2% reduced lunch and a 99% graduation rate. I checked some of the poorer districts and they have way lower graduation rates and a much poorer population. I have no idea if this is true everywhere but it makes me wonder, do the richer districts have more money, or the kids have better preparation, or are the teachers better? Are the richer kids better fed, safer, more likely to have responsible parents in the home? Maybe some of the educators here have some of these answers.
I think it's really a combination of all those things. No amount of teaching, good or bad, is going to make a difference if the parents are indifferent, or don't value education. Sure, some can rise above it, my husband did, but for the most part they won't. They simply won't. This is why head start is so important because it gets these kids when they are still very young and maybe helps to reverse at least some of the damage. Also the Missouri 'Parents as Teachers' is/was a very good program. Both these programs have been gutted. (but the mega wealthy got to keep their tax cuts...yea!)
I do think all the programs should be looked at very closely, but I don't think we should simply throw up our hands and declare nothing works, while planing how to spend that money elsewhere. some programs work and some don't. Get rid of the ones that don't work and double down on the ones that do.
Many, Republicans especially, want you to believe our educational system is composed of babbling idiots who can't find their butts with both hands, but it's simply not true. There are pockets of poor education, but there are also pockets of brilliance. And the pretty good schools outweigh the pretty bad by a huge margin.
It's sloppy, it's messy, and sometimes it doesn't resemble anything we ever knew in school, but overall it works. Think about it. Creativity, innovation, art, technology, we produce all these things. Where were these kids educated? Here. But examine their stories and more often than not you will find an encouraging family behind them. And a few gifted teachers who helped along the way.
You know, during this union fight I've heard some say teachers are just glorified baby sitters. OK, well, then let's just pay them like baby sitters. Let's see, baby sitters get what? $3 and hour? Ok, forgetting all the prep time before classes and grading and parent/teacher meeting time after, let's just say they work 6 hours a day, (not going to pay them for lunch)
OK, 30 kids, at $3 an hour each, that's $90 an hour, x 6 hours, = $540 a day. Approximately 20 days a month, subtracting 1 let's say for snow/holiday/whatever. So 19 days a month x $540 = $10,260. Now, they work 9 months a year, so 9 x $10,260 = $92,340. OK I'm good with that. And while they are babysitting they can teach them to read and write and do math, and understand evolution.
Gee, seems we are getting a bargain after all!
You know, during this union fight I've heard some say teachers are just glorified baby sitters. OK, well, then let's just pay them like baby sitters. Let's see, baby sitters get what? $3 and hour? Ok, forgetting all the prep time before classes and grading and parent/teacher meeting time after, let's just say they work 6 hours a day, (not going to pay them for lunch)
OK, 30 kids, at $3 an hour each, that's $90 an hour, x 6 hours, = $540 a day. Approximately 20 days a month, subtracting 1 let's say for snow/holiday/whatever. So 19 days a month x $540 = $10,260. Now, they work 9 months a year, so 9 x $10,260 = $92,340. OK I'm good with that. And while they are babysitting they can teach them to read and write and do math, and understand evolution.
Gee, seems we are getting a bargain after all!
My child's teacher (who is wonderful), makes just south of $70,000 per year for 9 months of work per year. In addition, after 30 years she will receive a pension + medical for the remainder of her life. The pension will be roughly $45,000 per year. The medical will be $10,000+ at this point. She has excellent job security, good holidays, and plenty of time off. Try and find that kind of deal in the private sector.
When you add wages and benefits, many teachers are making much more than the baby sitters in your example. They are also making more than many for their private sector counterparts.
Now it looks like Indiana Democrats have fled their state and gone into hiding in Illinois as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/22/indiana-democrats-budget-protests_n_826641.html
I'm reminded of children holding their hands over their ears and repeating "na na na na na, I can't hear you!" when confronted with harsh truths they don't want to acknowledge.
What a riot. Since our Illinois governor raised Illinois income tax by 66%, Wisconsin, Indiana and Iowa have been advertising that our businesses should move to their states. It seems in return we're getting their politicians! What a rotten deal. Maybe this should be Illinois new tourism slogan. "Illinois. A great place to dodge your responsibilities!"
Now it looks like Indiana Democrats have fled their state and gone into hiding in Illinois as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/22/indiana-democrats-budget-protests_n_826641.html
I'm reminded of children holding their hands over their ears and repeating "na na na na na, I can't hear you!" when confronted with harsh truths they don't want to acknowledge.
Per the AP today:
MADISON, Wis. (AP) State senators who miss two or more session days will no longer get paid through direct deposit. They'll have to pick up their checks in person on the Senate floor during a session. The new rule is aimed at forcing the return of 14 Senate Democrats who have been hiding in Illinois since Thursday. They fled the state to stall a vote on an anti-union bill, and have threatened to stay away until Republican Gov. Scott Walker agrees to compromise. Tuesday's vote was along party lines. The three Republicans on the Committee on Senate Organization voted for it and the two absent Democrats cast their no votes by fax.
The measure applies to paychecks, per diem checks, and any expense reimbursements. The absent senators will have to collect their checks from the Senate majority leader.
In Detroit they are planning on shutting down half the schools. The projected classroom size could exceed 60, although I don't know how they could do that - I don't think I've even seen a K-12 classroom that could hold 60. It's crazy.
flowerseverywhere
2-22-11, 11:06pm
creaker, the Detroit graduation rate is 62% - and the news reports support your claim of class sizes of 60. How can you ever expect children to be educated and have even a small chance of life success? Do you think they are going about the same thing they are in Wis but with a different tack- force the population to revolt against the unions? I have no idea but it came to mind reading the articles.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/02/22/Detroit-to-eliminate-half-of-public-schools/UPI-84761298354738/
"The district's budget is saddled with $53 million in pension costs, $45 million for healthcare and $27 million for utilities"
This should be a concern for all of us, the children are our future. We are already saddling them with huge budget deficits, polluted waters and greatly reduced old age entitlements. Now the only chance for some kids to climb out of poverty will be taken away.
The Storyteller
2-23-11, 9:14am
If the government represents the people, who exactly are these unions organizing against?
Unions don't organize against anyone. They organize for the ability to have a say in the workplace. All workers should be able to do that, no matter whom they work for.
Unions don't organize against anyone. They organize for the ability to have a say in the workplace. All workers should be able to do that, no matter whom they work for.
It looks like the sticking point now on this whole issue is the collective bargaining for benefits part of the legislation. As I understand it, under current collective bargaining rules, the vast majority of teachers in the state (those represented by the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the largest teachers union in the state) receive their insurance coverage through that unions own insurance company, the WEA Trust.
As it turns out, those districts locked into using the WEA Trust as their exclusive insurance provider end up paying more than other districts for the same coverage, and those extra expenses are paid for by the taxpayers. The WEAC naturally doesn't want to be subjected to free market competition for their insurance business and now must pit it's members against the general public in order to maintain the status quo.
On an individual union member level, how would they be damaged by allowing competition into the benefits picture?
It looks like the sticking point now on this whole issue is the collective bargaining for benefits part of the legislation. As I understand it, under current collective bargaining rules, the vast majority of teachers in the state (those represented by the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the largest teachers union in the state) receive their insurance coverage through that unions own insurance company, the WEA Trust.
As it turns out, those districts locked into using the WEA Trust as their exclusive insurance provider end up paying more than other districts for the same coverage, and those extra expenses are paid for by the taxpayers. The WEAC naturally doesn't want to be subjected to free market competition for their insurance business and now must pit it's members against the general public in order to maintain the status quo.
On an individual union member level, how would they be damaged by allowing competition into the benefits picture?
This seems to be something that other teachers' unions do elsewhere and is how the unions generate the funds to meet some of the pension or benefits payouts as I understand it.
The teachers' unions here in Ontario have huge funds to invest in other revenue schemes that continually amaze us. These unions have their own extended insurance benefits plan but a number of retired teachers that I know have opted not to insure with them as the %age portion that the plan pays is not worth the cost of the premiums if these retirees are basically healthy.
Very interesting discussion, BTW.
Not sure how accurate this story is but it sure sounds typical.:laff:
Ya gotta love those "Koch Brothers".
Scott Walker Gets Punked By Journalist Pretending To Be David Koch (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/scott-walker-buffalo-beast-phone-prank_n_827058.html)
Peace
I can see that the amount of money public employees pay for benefits needs to be increased in Wisconsin. I think they pay 8% of the cost of health insurance and about the same amount for their pension. In the private sector employees pay 25 to 30% of the cost for health insurance and probably 100% for their retirement.
What the governor wants to do by eliminating collective bargaining and requiring the unions to certify every year has nothing to do with increasing the amount union members pay for benefits. You do that at collective bargaining or you fire enough public employees to balance the budget. He is trying to bust the union plan and simple.
My wife was a public employee. She had to pay 25% of the cost of her health insurance and about 25% of the cost of retirement benefits. When she retired she got to remain on the counties group health plan but had to pay 100% of the cost. So not all public employees have it so good. If everyone had to pay the full cost of health insurance they would quickly realize how expensive it is.
If everyone had to pay the full cost of health insurance they would quickly realize how expensive it is.
But don't we, in the end? In the Wisconsin Public Employees example, if they are paying 8% of their health insurance, who is paying the other 92%? Of course, the answer is the tax payers. Then throw in a collective bargaining agreement whereby the Unions representing the workers also get to provide the health insurance at above market rates and what happens? The taxpayers not only pay 92% of each workers benefits, but they get the added benefit of being forced to pay a premium due to the collective bargaining agreement, with a portion of that premium going right back into the Democrat party.
I can certainly see why the entire Democratic legislature has gone into hiding on this one since the unions provide so much money to their campaign coffers in order to make sure that those agreements stay in place.
If they do the right thing, they risk losing a steady revenue stream for their campaigns. If they do the wrong thing, they've contributed to their states fiscal demise and/or to the taxpayers inability to support the whole rigged game.
I almost feel sorry for their predicament.
What the governor wants to do by eliminating collective bargaining and requiring the unions to certify every year has nothing to do with increasing the amount union members pay for benefits. You do that at collective bargaining or you fire enough public employees to balance the budget. He is trying to bust the union plan and simple.
+1
It's fine, and perfectly legitimate, that the governor wants to reduce costs by having public union members pay more of the costs of insurance and pensions. But the way to do that is through collective bargaining in good faith. He needs to sit down to the bargaining table and make it happen. Other than his desire to bust the union I suspect he doesn't want to bargain in good faith because then he'd have to justify the $140M in corporate tax cuts he favored just last month.
The Storyteller
2-24-11, 6:33pm
Don't you people know, it's never about union busting. Even when the bill in question specifically busts unions.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20110224_12_0_hrimgs991142&rss_lnk=1
Lawmaker says bargaining repeal not union busting
February 24, 2011 14:37 EST
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- The author of legislation that would repeal collective bargaining rights for municipal workers in Oklahoma's 13 largest cities says it is designed to give cities more control over their workforce and budgets, not to bust unions.
Republican Rep. Steve Martin of Bartlesville said Thursday he does not believe the state should force cities with populations in excess of 35,000 to collectively bargain with their non-uniformed employees. Martin says the process is costly and personnel rules make it hard to discipline or dismiss troublemakers.
The bill was approved Wednesday by a state House committee. Martin says he has been thinking about filing it for many months and that it is merely a coincidence it was approved as other states, including Wisconsin, are in political turmoil over legislation challenging union rights.
The Storyteller
2-24-11, 7:29pm
The taxpayers not only pay 92% of each workers benefits, but they get the added benefit of being forced to pay a premium due to the collective bargaining agreement, with a portion of that premium going right back into the Democrat party.
I must be particularly stupid today because this makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm afraid you are going to have to explain it to me.
I must be particularly stupid today because this makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm afraid you are going to have to explain it to me.
It's really quite simple, all Wisconsin teachers belonging to the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the largest teachers union in the state covering approximately 68% of all state teachers, receive benefits from their union's insurance arm, the WEA Trust. Those districts that receive benefits from the WEA Trust pay a significantly higher price for the same coverage that other districts receive from alternate providers.` See:http://www.publicschoolspending.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/WEATrustfinalreport1.pdf
The WEAC is also one of the largest spending special interests in Wisconsin with the vast majority of it's contributions going to Democrats. See: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/02/21/2671957/wis-budget-plan-may-tilt-political.html
So, Wisconsin teachers pay 8% of the cost of their benefits, leaving 92% to be paid by taxpayers at the higher rates mandated by WEA Trust, with a portion of that going back to Wisconsin Democrats who have decided to vacate the state rather than vote on a bill which may have an adverse effect on their benefactor.
An Indiana deputy attorney general just got sacked for saying the police should use live ammunition to clear out Wisconsin demonstrators.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110224/NEWS05/102240410
The Storyteller
2-24-11, 8:53pm
So, Wisconsin teachers pay 8% of the cost of their benefits, leaving 92% to be paid by taxpayers at the higher rates mandated by WEA Trust, with a portion of that going back to Wisconsin Democrats who have decided to vacate the state rather than vote on a bill which may have an adverse effect on their benefactor.
Ah. I see where the mixup is. You think unions can use member dues to fund political contributions. They can't. It's illegal. Those PACs are fully funded by voluntary contributions by the members. Money also can't be transferred from the WEA Trust to union coffers for the purpose of political contributions or expenditures. That also is illegal.
Ah. I see where the mixup is. You think unions can use member dues to fund political contributions. They can't. It's illegal. Those PACs are fully funded by voluntary contributions by the members. Money also can't be transferred from the WEA Trust to union coffers for the purpose of political contributions or expenditures. That also is illegal.
Does that change the fact that the collective bargaining agreement, which keeps other insurers out of 68% of the market, ends up costing the taxpayers more than it would otherwise, without impacting the level of benefits provided to the union members?
The Storyteller
2-24-11, 9:47pm
Does that change the fact that the collective bargaining agreement,
AgreementS. As in plural. There is no statewide agreement. Each district has the right to select its own provider. Sounds like most of them either just choose this particular one, or come about to it through the bargaining process with the teachers.
What is being left out in the overall hyperbolic discussion is the fact that both parties at the bargaining table likely want something out of the other. This side wants a raise, while that side wants a change in the grievance process. Okay, we can't give you a raise, but how about we up your pension instead? Well you can't afford the pension increase we would want in lieu, so how about you give us another paid holiday? Okay, but what about that change in the grievance process?
etc etc etc
There are two parties at the table, each with their own needs, wants, and agenda. At the end of the process, each gained a little, each lost a little, all dependent on the skills of the negotiators. That's why they call this process "bargaining".
They keep saying that public sector positions have it better than private sector positions. The answer they say is for the public sector to go down a few notches when it comes to pay and benefits. NO ONE THINKS TO Question if instead the private sector positions SHOULD GO UP A FEW NOTCHES IN PAY/BENEFITS. Companies are making record profits, shipping jobs overseas, being bailed out left and right by the government.........they can afford it.
flowerseverywhere
2-26-11, 8:52am
So the news is reporting the assembly passed the bill. What does that mean?
Also in Providence RI they sent letter to all 2000 teachers re: possible loss of job, and say that going back and changing current retiree benefits is not out of the question. In NY the big five school districts are challenging the last in first out rule- saying layoffs should be based on performance (although they don't have a system in place to evaluate teachers at this point).
This is a gigantic mess everywhere. I do not have a federal or state pension but I know plenty of people who are in the system who will lose big time.
Zigzagman
2-26-11, 10:30am
Starting today at noon, Wisconsin solidarity rallies are taking place in major cities across America and in every single state capital.
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/crmlu110223.gif
Peace
They keep saying that public sector positions have it better than private sector positions. The answer they say is for the public sector to go down a few notches when it comes to pay and benefits. NO ONE THINKS TO Question if instead the private sector positions SHOULD GO UP A FEW NOTCHES IN PAY/BENEFITS. Companies are making record profits, shipping jobs overseas, being bailed out left and right by the government.........they can afford it.
The government has a responsibility to the taxpayers to negotiate on behalf of the taxpayers. If the government employees are receiving wages/benefits in excess of their private sector counterparts, the government isn't doing its job and the taxpayers suffer through increased taxes.
Private sector wages are set by supply and demand. With 10% unemployment, it's an employers market and wages will be stagnant to some extent unless you possess special skills that are difficult to find. Those record profits of which you speak are a result of employers getting more productivity out of their employees which is good for the economy as a whole.
Finally, regarding the bailouts - Chrysler and GM bankruptcy and bailouts were at least partially caused by unions unwilling to negotiate for reasonable wages and benefits that the companies couldn't afford.
supply and demand can only be praised so far. there is such a thing as a minimum wage. if there wasn't, people would be getting paid even less right now because there is a huge supply for jobs and little demand.
companies have been slashing positions and benefits for increased profit. adding 10 hours to a 50 hour work week may be considered "increased productivity" but working 60 hours a week for something you used to be able to work 50 hours for, with less wage and less benefits isn't exactly a good thing......... AND if govenment workers are going to be expected to do the same thing, well, we all suffer.
they say workers are unhappy with their jobs (doing the work of 3 people cause 2 were layed off) and will be leaving for better jobs as soon as they can. but if all jobs are equally bad we'll probably all just accept it, which is sad.
supply and demand can only be praised so far. there is such a thing as a minimum wage. if there wasn't, people would be getting paid even less right now because there is a huge supply for jobs and little demand.
companies have been slashing positions and benefits for increased profit. adding 10 hours to a 50 hour work week may be considered "increased productivity" but working 60 hours a week for something you used to be able to work 50 hours for, with less wage and less benefits isn't exactly a good thing......... AND if govenment workers are going to be expected to do the same thing, well, we all suffer.
they say workers are unhappy with their jobs (doing the work of 3 people cause 2 were layed off) and will be leaving for better jobs as soon as they can. but if all jobs are equally bad we'll probably all just accept it, which is sad.
You fail to address my primary point that government workers shouldn't be making more than their private sector counterparts. The fact is many are. That situation needs to be addressed for the benefit of the taxpayers.
You fail to address my primary point that government workers shouldn't be making more than their private sector counterparts. The fact is many are. That situation needs to be addressed for the benefit of the taxpayers.
Well, compare public teachers salaries to that of private schools. Or maybe one of those sylvan learning centers. Or a private tutor. Or a babysitter for that matter.
And in this case, the government/governor doesn't want to negotiate with them. He wants to do away with their ability to negotiate, collectively, which is really the only way thousands of teachers can negotiate. They certainly can't do it on a case by case business. In fact, the union conceded to the demands of the governor and still that wasn't good enough for him. He is trying to bust the union, pure and simple. He's a tea bagger on a mission. He even thinks he's Ronald Reagan, although HE is the one lacking the education because if he knew his history, he'd see that that case with Reagan was quite different. In that case it was wildcats who were actually breaking the terms that THEIR union agreed to. This guy lacks the intellectual authority or historic perspective to have this job and is sooo a one term governor, if they don't impeach or recall him before his term is up. He's a tea bagger voted in by low information voters. I'm pretty sure they regret it now, cause I'm thinking there are republicans who are public employees or have family members who are.
You fail to address my primary point that government workers shouldn't be making more than their private sector counterparts. The fact is many are. That situation needs to be addressed for the benefit of the taxpayers.
Why shouldn't they? If they choose to use collective bargaining, but their private sector counterparts choose not to, why should they be restricted to making what their private sector counterparts settle for? If private sector counterparts want parity, they could unionize. They could also take public sectors jobs.
The Storyteller
2-26-11, 6:20pm
So the news is reporting the assembly passed the bill. What does that mean?
The Assembly is like the House of Representatives in the US capitol. It's meaningless unless the Senate passes it and right now it doesn't have a quorum because the Democrats have fled the country.
The Storyteller
2-26-11, 6:24pm
You fail to address my primary point that government workers shouldn't be making more than their private sector counterparts.
Your primary point is irrelevant to the central issue, which is the right to organize. Most private sector employs already have that right due to federal law. Most public sector employees do not, and that is what is actuallyat stake here. These people want to take away that right from the few people who do.
The Storyteller
2-26-11, 6:28pm
The government has a responsibility to the taxpayers to negotiate on behalf of the taxpayers.
THEN NEGOTIATE!!!
Don't take away the employee's right to do so, and don't break contract by essentially **** canning the agreements you have already agreed to.
Dharma Bum
2-26-11, 9:47pm
Why shouldn't they?.
There is a natural limit to how much a union can extort from a private company. Push too far, and the company goes under, like the unionized steel, airline and auto companies. The taxpayer picks up some of the tab through pension guarantees, but the ridiculous extorted salaries eventually end.
With a public sector job, the unions can just continue to steal the public blind since there really isn't a limit on what the govt can tax and the distortion is even worse when they can vote in the people who set their pay using other peoples money.
ApatheticNoMore
2-26-11, 11:01pm
There is a natural limit to how much a union can extort from a private company. Push too far, and the company goes under, like the unionized steel, airline and auto companies.
Outsourcing also places a natural limit. Probably why steel was doomed from day one of globalized trade and a globalized economy. Union or not, can we really complete with outsourced bottom of the barrel wages, plus almost non-existent environmental regulations? Seems to me an aweful lot of non-union manufacturing jobs have also been outsourced as well. Airlines are just probably not a very viable model by any model (with ever fluctuating and in the long run ever increasing fuel costs), plus the joys of homeland security added in for fun. Are airlines really self supporting anywhere? Trains may not be either, but as a truly fuel efficient mode of transport, I don't mind supporting them.
I argue people should understand widespread, nearly universal, economic trends (the decimation of private sector unions) by means of an understanding of economics and politics (the laws that apply to unions, free trade laws etc. etc.) and everyone wants to argue it's all about individual psychological choice unconstrained by any possible economic/legal reality ("people just choose not to form unions").
I mean these are specifically economic choices we are talking about (to form a union or not) how could they not be affected by overall economic trends? I'd only resort to psychological explanations there if politico-economic explanations failed entirely, and I don't think they have. An argument that economic factors may affect the bargaining power of labor isn't one that should have to be made to leftists of all people. Or is all ability to understand society by broad economic trends etc. completely thrown under the bus just to defend public sector unions at all cost - some solidarity that is! (when it isn't even particularly necessary to do so in order to defend them anyway IMO, well certainly not to defend their right to exist anyway).
The Storyteller
2-27-11, 12:08am
With a public sector job, the unions can just continue to steal the public blind since there really isn't a limit on what the govt can tax and the distortion is even worse when they can vote in the people who set their pay using other peoples money.
That just isn't true. If a union sits down with management to negotiate and there is no money, then there is no raise or other increase in financial benefit. It isn't like the employees get a raise just because they want one. They get it because there is sufficient revenue income to meet what is generally a mere cost of living increase. It works exactly the same as the private sector in that sense. If there is no money, then there is no money.
I'm guessing none of you has ever sat down on either side of a table during union negotiations. There are an awful lot of assumptions flying around here that are just plain wrong.
The Storyteller
2-27-11, 12:14am
(the decimation of private sector unions)
Is due mostly to misinformation, misunderstandings, fear, and apathy.
Sorry but have to chime in here. We are seeing the public sector unions who claim that municipality A must have the money because muni B is able to pay their staff a 4% increase. There is the fear that all the staff from muni A will go elsewhere if they don't pay 4%.
I know and talk to our elected councillors who are responsible for keeping control of the finances and almost 60% of muni budget costs are fixed through many layers of mandated government commitments and programs. If one cuts some of the programs, there are legal ramifications.
Nothing is straight forward in this issue. Cutting union wages is simply the easiest and most visible not the wisest.
Dharma Bum
2-27-11, 7:50am
That just isn't true. If a union sits down with management to negotiate and there is no money, then there is no raise or other increase in financial benefit. ......
I'm guessing none of you has ever sat down on either side of a table during union negotiations.
I have been personally involved, and you either haven't or you are being deceptive. Companies have to make choices and balance investments with comp. I've personally seen unions shift the balance too far to comp. Often that is done with promises for future benefits, so it's not like there is a pile of cash on the table today that just gets split, unions put a gun to the company's head and threaten to bring it down today or get promised comp that maybe the company can pay in the future. Often they get what they want, but in the end it turns out the company can't pay.
There is a natural limit to how much a union can extort from a private company. Push too far, and the company goes under, like the unionized steel, airline and auto companies. The taxpayer picks up some of the tab through pension guarantees, but the ridiculous extorted salaries eventually end.
With a public sector job, the unions can just continue to steal the public blind since there really isn't a limit on what the govt can tax and the distortion is even worse when they can vote in the people who set their pay using other peoples money.
If the voters think that the unions are overpaid then they need to elect a better negotiator as governor not a governor who will get a law passed to unilaterally change a negotiated contract.
ApatheticNoMore
2-27-11, 11:32am
Is due mostly to misinformation, misunderstandings, fear, and apathy.
So why don't public sector unions have this misinformation, misunderstanding, fear and apathy? Are they just much better people or are systemic factors involved? If you want to argue they are just much better people the argument just becomes too absurd to continue with. (From what I've seen of a few public school teachers I could just as easily argue they are all incompetent people, but I don't actually, because I'm sure the generalization isn't entirely true.) Systematic factors are at work here I say.
ApatheticNoMore
2-27-11, 11:34am
If the voters think that the unions are overpaid then they need to elect a better negotiator as governor not a governor who will get a law passed to unilaterally change a negotiated contract.
This is true. I feel for the poor voters though and their choices, which often seem to be slash and burn Republicans who outlaw the unions altogether, and Dems who seem to give into the unions every demand never mind if the state is bankrupt (the problem here is that states like CA can deficit spend without limit (except the willingness of bondholders to take on the bonds), without that ability the whole thing would self-regulate MUCH better!)
"Nothing is straight forward in this issue. Cutting union wages is simply the easiest and most visible not the wisest. "
Part of the union "problem" is wages and benefits were built on an infinite growth model which is now not panning out. But balancing budgets and tax cuts year after year on the backs of public workers isn't going to work indefinitely , either.
The Storyteller
2-28-11, 1:38pm
Often that is done with promises for future benefits, so it's not like there is a pile of cash on the table today that just gets split, unions put a gun to the company's head and threaten to bring it down today or get promised comp that maybe the company can pay in the future.
But that model doesn't apply to public service unions. Most can't strike (it's generally illegal), and even those that can have little power over the existence of the company. The municipality will still be there. No gun to the head. Sometimes arbitration is available, but no arbitrator is going to make an entity pay money it doesn't have. When a municipality does run out of money or need to make cuts, they still have the options of RIFs (the employer's side of the "gun to the head") or sitting at the table in the next round and negotiating pay cuts. If they can prove they are in debt, the arbitrator will once again side with them.
And if you have actually sat at the table (which I doubt) you would also know it is not one side or the other making demands. It is both. Negotiations are generally a system of horse trades. You give me this, I'll give you that. And if one side or the other doesn't have their issues they want to trade for, then they aren't doing their job. The negotiators should be fired and replaced by someone who knows what they are doing.
But at the end of the day, it isn't about any of that. It's about employers wanting to have all the say without having to answer to their employees, making unilateral changes without employee input. Unions are about giving the worker a voice in the workplace more than anything else.
The Storyteller
2-28-11, 1:52pm
Supply and demand do in fact apply to public sector jobs. I've been told by the other side of the table that the reason they want a good retirement plan is to attract and keep good professionals. Attorneys, engineers, librarians, and department directors are going to go to the best position they can, making the most money with the most benefits. And when they are there, if your benefits package doesn't keep up, you are going to lose them after they have developed their skills and built their resumes, skills paid for by the local tax payer. They will just go to a different entity with a better package.
Skilled laborers and professionals can also often make a good paycheck in the private sector. How are you going to hold on to a skilled electrician if you don't pay him as well or better as a private sector position? How do you keep a decent attorney when he or she can make double the salary in private practice? For teachers, why on earth go to 5 or more years of college to be paid a pittance?
All in all, you get what you pay for. If you don't pay an employee, you aren't going to keep them. A union is a collective voice for those workers, telling you what it will take to keep your workers happy, what combination of vacation, retirement, holidays, or other benefits will keep them around.
Dharma Bum
2-28-11, 2:18pm
But that model doesn't apply to public service unions. Most can't strike (it's generally illegal), and even those that can have little power over the existence of the company. The municipality will still be there. No gun to the head. Sometimes arbitration is available, but no arbitrator is going to make an entity pay money it doesn't have. When a municipality does run out of money or need to make cuts, they still have the options of RIFs (the employer's side of the "gun to the head") or sitting at the table in the next round and negotiating pay cuts. If they can prove they are in debt, the arbitrator will once again side with them.
And if you have actually sat at the table (which I doubt) you would also know it is not one side or the other making demands. It is both. Negotiations are generally a system of horse trades. You give me this, I'll give you that. And if one side or the other doesn't have their issues they want to trade for, then they aren't doing their job. The negotiators should be fired and replaced by someone who knows what they are doing.
But at the end of the day, it isn't about any of that. It's about employers wanting to have all the say without having to answer to their employees, making unilateral changes without employee input. Unions are about giving the worker a voice in the workplace more than anything else.
News reports say they are considering a strike. Maybe they back down, but if we are lucky it will be another PATCO moment.
My boss was in charge of labor negotiations, so I sat behind the person who was at the table. It was always about the union wanting more. Right until they drove the company into bankruptcy. Fortunately I had moved on by then since it was obvious the union was going to tank the place.
If all they want is a voice, you don't need collective bargaining.
The first thing Daniels did as governor was decertify the state public employee unions, then he outsourced social services to a private contractor. It cost millions and resulted in families facing huge waits for services and being falsely denied benefits. But that was the point, funneling money to big business and screwing the poor. Now, he is in a heated battle to destroy teacher unions.
I did not know he outsourced social services. Has this been reported anywhere outside of Wisconsin? Did the employees of the DSS put up a fight? What happened to all of them?
simplelife2
3-5-11, 11:37pm
I did not know he outsourced social services. Has this been reported anywhere outside of Wisconsin? Did the employees of the DSS put up a fight? What happened to all of them?
This cites the problems
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125003802691324435.html
Results: Indiana Family and Social Services Administration's 10-year, $1.6 billion privatization contract with IBM has gone so foul that both parties decided to sue each other last May. The deal was to have overhauled Indiana's social services system. Instead, not only does Indiana lack a viable computer system, it is also paying more than $5.25 million in legal fees to sue IBM. Whose pocket will this come out of? What do taxpayers have for this outsourcing deal? A huge bill with no new services.
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/03/964100/the-pitfalls-of-outsourcing-it.html#ixzz1Fn6OtTJu
thanks, simplelife2. I suggest we add this example to the long list of projects that "privatization" actually made worse.
Maybe we can kill this meme that private for-profit is always better than public non-profit.
ApatheticNoMore
3-7-11, 12:09am
That's sounds rather similar to how the Department of Motor Vehicle's computer system works here (basically it doesn't, it badly malfunctions with great regularity if my own experience and those I know are to be believed), although I don't think it is privatized.
+1 Thank you, simplelife2.
+1 Kill the meme.
Is the state no longer going to take union dues out of checks? Do they now get to vote if they want to stay in the union, or is Wisconsin going to be a right to work state?
What happpens if a teacher doesn't want to send in their union dues?
How much are union dues.
Is the state no longer going to take union dues out of checks? Do they now get to vote if they want to stay in the union, or is Wisconsin going to be a right to work state?
What happpens if a teacher doesn't want to send in their union dues?
How much are union dues.
I think that was the real, undisclosed, sticking point with the unions. If the state no longer withholds dues, which were previously paid directly to the unions, who's to say that individuals are going to voluntarily write that check?
If I were a betting man, I'd bet that revenue from dues in the public sector unions will drop by 50% or more as I believe that the new legislation strips the unions from their ability to force teachers to pay dues as a condition of employment. Overall, I think that's a good thing.
Supply and demand do in fact apply to public sector jobs. I've been told by the other side of the table that the reason they want a good retirement plan is to attract and keep good professionals. Attorneys, engineers, librarians, and department directors are going to go to the best position they can, making the most money with the most benefits. And when they are there, if your benefits package doesn't keep up, you are going to lose them after they have developed their skills and built their resumes, skills paid for by the local tax payer. They will just go to a different entity with a better package.
Skilled laborers and professionals can also often make a good paycheck in the private sector. How are you going to hold on to a skilled electrician if you don't pay him as well or better as a private sector position? How do you keep a decent attorney when he or she can make double the salary in private practice? For teachers, why on earth go to 5 or more years of college to be paid a pittance?
All in all, you get what you pay for. If you don't pay an employee, you aren't going to keep them. A union is a collective voice for those workers, telling you what it will take to keep your workers happy, what combination of vacation, retirement, holidays, or other benefits will keep them around.
I'm a public employee and a member of AFSCME, and I fully agree with you. Competence does not come cheap.
It seems to me that the public has taken many government services for granted for so long that they've forgotten that employees and equipment aren't free or paid for from some bottomless, magical pot of gold. As states tighten budgets, I expect quite a lot of complaining about services that are either slow to respond or no longer exist, likely from the same people who would complain about an increase in income or property taxes.
Unions are being scapegoated just as surely as the school bully is going to pick on the smallest and weakest in the crowd. Unions did not cause the stock market crash of 2008 that started the Great Recession rolling nor did we cause housing values to fall. We didn't come up with the idea of sliced and diced mortgages repackaged as "securities". We fought and continue to fight jobs being shipped overseas and the contracting out of government services, which usually fails at taxpayer expense. With sadness, I suppose that the general public would rather pick on unions than the big guys who deserve it: Wall Street, multinational corporations, the banking industry, and government that no longer represents anyone or anything other than its own interests and those of the big bucks crowd. Rescinding collective bargaining rights is going to cause more problems than it solves, IMO.
For the record, I am an experienced CPA and make less than half of what an independent contractor makes for the same work. I pay 60% of my pension costs and 20% of my health insurance premium, although that will likely increase at the end of this fiscal year. I expect a wage freeze, and my department will lose nine positions, some of them currently filled. I'm 65 and don't care to change employers within a year of retirement.
If this is the gravy train, somebody moved my gravy because I sure as heck can't find it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.