Public Sector Union Beatdown Bloodbath Legismania 2011 Wisconsin-style

[Lemur]

So apparently my state is having a big brouhaha, a kerfluffle, a haymaker. Our new governor campaigned on a platform of slashing the public sector unions down to size, and lo, behold, once in office he's trying to do it, much to howls of dismay and anguish.

Anyway, a couple of questions:

If you're going to go after the public sector unions, why exempt police and firefighters? Is there any conceivable rationale for that? 'Cause to my eyes, it sure looks like it's okay to go after the chicks who work in the schools, but leave the dudes out of it! A friend has suggested it's because the policeman's union and firefighter's union endorsed him as a candidate. Who knows? It just seems very weird to me.

The dem legislators have fled the state to prevent a vote on the subject. Subversion of democratic process or heroic last stand against tea party tyranny? Discuss.

Oh, and there are big protests. It's just like Egypt, except that it isn't. At all.

[HoreTore]

Can anyone explain to me how cutting teachers wages will give you better teachers, as opposed to worse?

[drone]

Can anyone explain to me how cutting teachers wages will give you better teachers, as opposed to worse?

The plan is not to cut the wages, but prevent what the public sector unions can negotiate for in their bargaining. It's an attempt to break the vicious cycle of unions funding Democrat candidates, who then give taxpayer dollars to the unions in negotiations. Targeted are the COL raises and extra-tasty benefits, I believe, to save the state of Wisconsin from going bankrupt.

I've been reading articles on this all day, and the comments sections are gold. There is a lot of knee-jerk anti-capitalist sentiment going around, which makes no sense since these jobs are not part of the capitalist system. I'm happy I live in a right to work state.

[HoreTore]

Removing benefits and cutting pay is the exact same thing, as "benefit" is simply another word for "wage".

In order to save money, they are making it less attractive to be a teacher. How will that encourage the good ones to stay, and the bad ones to leave, opposed to the other way around?

[Crazed Rabbit]

So apparently my state is having a big brouhaha, a kerfluffle, a haymaker. Our new governor campaigned on a platform of slashing the public sector unions down to size, and lo, behold, once in office he's trying to do it, much to howls of dismay and anguish.

Anyway, a couple of questions:

If you're going to go after the public sector unions, why exempt police and firefighters? Is there any conceivable rationale for that?

Maybe because their jobs involve real danger?

The dem legislators have fled the state to prevent a vote on the subject. Subversion of democratic process or heroic last stand against tea party tyranny? Discuss.

Subversion, says I.

How will that encourage the good ones to stay, and the bad ones to leave, opposed to the other way around?

Get rid of union protections, and you can easily fire bad teachers, thus making life easier for the good teachers. Plus, you can pay merit pay and not just more pay for being in the job longer, regardless of quality.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Get rid of union protections, and you can easily fire bad teachers, thus making life easier for the good teachers. Plus, you can pay merit pay and not just more pay for being in the job longer, regardless of quality.

This is completely the opposite direction needed. Every time legislature comes up regarding teachers, people continue to talk about solutions that will make the problem worse.

1. Tenure is there because parents are idiots. I fully support removing tenure in favor of a more fluid and workable teacher's bill of rights, but without the union, teachers would literally become babysitters and not figuratively. 95% of parents don't keep track of their students, as long as the students comes home without bruises and passes classes, they don't care. But 5% of parents seem to think that they need to start telling teachers what books they can and can't teach, what grades their children should be getting etc... In fact your first statement does even make sense, by getting rid of bad teachers, good teachers have an easier life? Except for the fact that bad teachers don't affect good teachers, they only affect the students.

2. Merit pay is the most widely touted and least thought out education reform idea there is out there. There is no way to judge how good a teacher is quantitatively to a precise measurement. Merit pay is anything but. You are deciding the pay of the teacher based on the efforts and laziness of the student of their class. Not only will this basically create two tiers of payment (one for AP students who try and one for regular classes where students need extra help in getting their life going), but you will essentially cause all the "good" teachers to try and flood the AP teaching classes and no one except those who are the least knowledgeable or qualified or experienced will teach the regular students. The regular students are the ones who need the best and most inspiring teachers in the first place. All my AP classmates had their "life plan" already figured out and what they didn't get in class they already read from the book the day before. They don't need the best, they need a teacher to simply convey information into the packets they need to regurgitate on the test.

I am seriously going to have to start an education reform thread.

[Lemur]

Maybe because their jobs involve real danger?

That makes no sense, and doesn't even hold up to the slightest scrutiny. If danger is the measure of whether or not union organizing can take place ... dang it, Rabbit, do I need to walk through why that's hogwash? Prison guards face as much real danger as a beat cop, but their union wasn't given a pass. And since when has "danger" been the organizing principle of what workers can collectively organize? Should fishermen be unionized since they have one of the most dangerous jobs?

I don't really mind our governor going after the public sector unions, but it bothers me that everyone thinks it's fine to attack the girls (teachers) and save the plums for the boys (police and firefighters). Seems like some sort of reflexive sexist bullhockey. Your thoughtless response just reinforces that impression.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well as we know from CR's reporting, the police have their own fraternal order! They simply made that guy an offer he could not refuse! We also know that firefighters do more than pose for hunk of the year, they are the fraternity's loveable face to the ouside world saving kittens from crazy cat ladies and so on...

More seriously though, I expect that slashing teacher's pay can be spoon fed to the voters as being good for finances and somehow good for that wretched education system you apparently have, but slashing cops' pay means being lax on law and order, slashing firefighter pay is being lax on public safety we can't have that, can we now?

[Crazed Rabbit]

1. Tenure is there because parents are idiots. I fully support removing tenure in favor of a more fluid and workable teacher's bill of rights, but without the union, teachers would literally become babysitters and not figuratively. 95% of parents don't keep track of their students, as long as the students comes home without bruises and passes classes, they don't care. But 5% of parents seem to think that they need to start telling teachers what books they can and can't teach, what grades their children should be getting etc... In fact your first statement does even make sense, by getting rid of bad teachers, good teachers have an easier life? Except for the fact that bad teachers don't affect good teachers, they only affect the students.

So what about those parents who want to tell teachers what to do? Don't listen to them.

Yes, getting rid of bad teachers, who teach students poorly, makes things easier for other teachers who don't have to deal with poorly taught students in other grades or classes.

There is no way to judge how good a teacher is quantitatively to a precise measurement.

It doesn't have to be perfect. But using student test grades (and scaling AP class grades as appropriate) is a lot better than the current union endorsed system.

That makes no sense, and doesn't even hold up to the slightest scrutiny.

It doesn't?

The public perception of police and firefighters is that they face dangers hardly anyone else does. That they sacrifice a lot for modest wages. So when the governor doesn't go after their unions he doesn't appear stingy with 'heroes', and by comparison he appears more reasonable when he tries to cut the other unions.

I don't really mind our governor going after the public sector unions, but it bothers me that everyone thinks it's fine to attack the girls (teachers) and save the plums for the boys (police and firefighters). Seems like some sort of reflexive sexist bullhockey. Your thoughtless response just reinforces that impression.

Oh, and prison guards aren't mostly men?

You accuse me of sexism while generalizing all teachers as women, and all police as men?

You assume I don't want police unions busted up simply because I offered a reason why they weren't included?

But why bother about all that when you can accuse me of sexism?

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

So what about those parents who want to tell teachers what to do? Don't listen to them.

Yes, getting rid of bad teachers, who teach students poorly, makes things easier for other teachers who don't have to deal with poorly taught students in other grades or classes.

You don't understand the school system. Parents get what they want because the school board in many cases are elected by the district public. They want to keep their job so they for the most part concede and force schools to accept the demands of parents. Same goes for school administration.

Example: The woman of this blog: http://fortheloveofya.blogspot.com/2...g-down_05.html
Originally posted this story (before she removed it because of reasons given in the first link): (this is a mirrow someone made btw)http://speakloudly.org/2010/10/censo...mullins-story/

EDIT: Your second sentence there still doesn't make sense. How one teacher teaches does not affect another "good" teacher. If a math teacher is bad at teaching math, the students are not inherently dumber when they walk into their english class.

It doesn't have to be perfect. But using student test grades (and scaling AP class grades as appropriate) is a lot better than the current union endorsed system.
CR

But isn't for the reasons I described. Instead of treating teachers equally we would be shafting the majority of teachers stuck with the regular students. They will be angry at how teachers that do less work because their students are motivated get paid more. This means that more teachers both good and bad will leave the profession which means less for our students which means higher class room sizes which are already overcrowded etc... it is just a terrible idea that is actually worse than the status quo.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You don't understand the school system. Parents get what they want because the school board in many cases are elected by the district public. They want to keep their job so they for the most part concede and force schools to accept the demands of parents. Same goes for school administration.

You just said 5% of parents were the problem - how can such a minority force anyone to accept their demands? If that's the issue, there's bigger problems.

But isn't for the reasons I described. Instead of treating teachers equally we would be shafting the majority of teachers stuck with the regular students. They will be angry at how teachers that do less work because their students are motivated get paid more. This means that more teachers both good and bad will leave the profession which means less for our students which means higher class room sizes which are already overcrowded etc... it is just a terrible idea that is actually worse than the status quo.

It doesn't have to be perfect. But using student test grades (and scaling AP class grades as appropriate) is a lot better than the current union endorsed system.

That means (as a quick example only) teachers with students in AP classes averaging A's on state exams would get the same pay as teachers in non-AP classes with students averaging B's.



CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

You just said 5% of parents were the problem - how can such a minority force anyone to accept their demands? If that's the issue, there's bigger problems.

I don't know CR, how does any group of people that are not a majority manage to get anything done in politics? The school board does what ever the public wants it to do. When the only members of the public that interact with them are the 5% that are crazy and selfish, then those are the only people they will listen to.

It is just like how come politicians don't respond to what the youth want, but love to cater to older people? Why is that? Because older people interact with government through voting a whole lot more than the youth do.

That means (as a quick example only) teachers with students in AP classes averaging A's on state exams would get the same pay as teachers in non-AP classes with students averaging B's.



CR

Except that correlation doesn't make sense. Why does an AP A equal an average B? Where is the correlation? You need some basis to go off of otherwise it is just pissing i nthe wind and would still be unfair. As I have already said, the quality of teachers cannot be quantitatively measured to the degree of precision you need to make a system like this work.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't know CR, how does any group of people that are not a majority manage to get anything done in politics? The school board does what ever the public wants it to do. When the only members of the public that interact with them are the 5% that are crazy and selfish, then those are the only people they will listen to.

It is just like how come politicians don't respond to what the youth want, but love to cater to older people? Why is that? Because older people interact with government through voting a whole lot more than the youth do.

It's because old people vote. Interaction has squat to do with it. And those 5% of crazies wouldn't control elections - even if they were all crazy in the same ways on the same issues. The school board wouldn't be that stupid.

Except that correlation doesn't make sense. Why does an AP A equal an average B? Where is the correlation? You need some basis to go off of otherwise it is just pissing i nthe wind and would still be unfair.

Good grief.

(as a quick example only)

As I have already said, the quality of teachers cannot be quantitatively measured to the degree of precision you need to make a system like this work.

Sure it can. It may not work perfectly, but it would work a heck of a lot better than the current "pay teachers more if they've been around longer, regardless of how well they teach".

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Where is the evidence that the problems in education are with the teachers? At all?

[Whacker]

Ahh, the backroom. Yet again I shall gaze into the abyss.

Seeing how I'm married to a 3rd grade teacher, I'd just like to say that ACIN has a very solid grasp of what's going on in the teaching world these days. I'm no fan of unions, but seeing what NC has been doing to it's teachers over the past year or two and what they've gotten away with because NC has no teachers union is appalling. On top of that, I'm to understand that RDU's board of education has made it on national news for all of the ridiculously stupid crap they've been pulling lately, and there's even talk of the local schools losing accreditation. There are a very, very few problem teachers that can and should be fired, but from what I've seen through my wife's eyes in trying to get rid of the trouble teachers, it's not a damn bit different than if there were a union or not. In short, I don't see unions or the lack thereof as the problem in terms of teaching. At least not here in this state.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Seeing how I'm married to a 3rd grade teacher, I'd just like to say that ACIN has a very solid grasp of what's going on in the teaching world these days.

Thank you.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's because old people vote. Interaction has squat to do with it. And those 5% of crazies wouldn't control elections - even if they were all crazy in the same ways on the same issues. The school board wouldn't be that stupid.

Is not voting not an interaction between the public and the government? Every time we vote the government reacts to our demands (theoretically).

I am not going to say that the 5% "control" electrons. But this is the situation. Most parents don't care, like I said earlier. They will keep voting in the same people, time after time after time because they don't pay attention, like with a lot of local elections. The 5% that are crazy (I regret using that word), the 5% that are inadvertently undermining the system and teachers, will go that extra mile to smear by word of mouth to as many parents as possible. They portray a member as hurtful towards the future of your children or whatever emotional statement you can come up with involving children. People get worried over their children and start voting out people. School boards know this, so they go along with the extreme 5%. Why else has there been a "most banned books" list from the American Library Association for the past couple decades? It's because this extreme 5% holds a lot of power.

The school board is actually very smart in this case. They know that parents are quite happy to vote out an incumbent if they feel their children's lives are in danger.

Sure it can. It may not work perfectly, but it would work a heck of a lot better than the current "pay teachers more if they've been around longer, regardless of how well they teach".

CR

Ok, maybe I have gone about this in the wrong way. Why exactly is this a better method? I have already given numerous reasons why it is worse. You have not countered them, but you insist that merit pay is somehow better. Please elaborate why. Please also elaborate on how you can measure the quality of teachers precisely enough to be able to create a weighing system that is fair for AP teachers and regular teachers alike. Please don't throw out "as a quick example", because if you recognize that your quick example has major flaws in it that need elaboration than elaborate before declaring again that your system is better.

I want to clarify. I think the current system sucks. I know first hand that older teachers can be worse from being burnt out for so many years and as such don't deserve the pay they get. But merit pay is even worse because it turns teachers against each other and forces a "weighing" system that from what I can tell is neither factually supported to be accurate or immune from manipulation.

[drone]

The biggest travesty here is the union's support of Democrat election efforts. Lemur and his fellow cheeseheads pay state income tax, sales tax, and property tax to the Wisconsin state government and municipal governments. A large percentage of these taxes goes to education, and the salaries of teachers. Automatically deducted from these salaries are union dues, and a fair amount of these dues goes to the political campaigns of Democrats across the state. This is something public sector unions should not be able to do.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The biggest travesty here is the union's support of Democrat election efforts. Lemur and his fellow cheeseheads pay state income tax, sales tax, and property tax to the Wisconsin state government and municipal governments. A large percentage of these taxes goes to education, and the salaries of teachers. Automatically deducted from these salaries are union dues, and a fair amount of these dues goes to the political campaigns of Democrats across the state. This is something public sector unions should not be able to do.

Why? I thought in America everyone has the ability to lobby their representatives?

[drone]

Why? I thought in America everyone has the ability to lobby their representatives?

Why should Lemur's tax dollars favor one party over another?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why should Lemur's tax dollars favor one party over another?

Because they are not tax dollars? They are union dues. The union collects them because you signed a contract with them to join. They are now the union's to spend. If they feel one party works for unions more than the other, than they are doing their job.

[drone]

Because they are not tax dollars? They are union dues. The union collects them because you signed a contract with them to join. They are now the union's to spend. If they feel one party works for unions more than the other, than they are doing their job.

I think you are missing my point. Lemur is not a teacher (to the best of my knowledge). He is not a member of the union. Teachers are paid in local and state tax dollars. Teachers salaries are docked union dues, hence the union gets Lemur's tax dollars. Union dues go to support candidates of the Democrat persuasion. Maybe Lemur does not like the Democrat candidate in his district, or other districts for that matter. Tough luck, he supports them anyway because his tax dollars go to them through teacher union dues. Lemur may or may not mind this arrangement, I'm sure Vuk is not happy about it at all.

What the UAW does with it's dues is between it and it's members. What teachers (and other public sector) unions do with their dues needs to be controlled, since these dues are public funds.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think you are missing my point. Lemur is not a teacher (to the best of my knowledge). He is not a member of the union. Teachers are paid in local and state tax dollars. Teachers salaries are docked union dues, hence the union gets Lemur's tax dollars. Union dues go to support candidates of the Democrat persuasion. Maybe Lemur does not like the Democrat candidate in his district, or other districts for that matter. Tough luck, he supports them anyway because his tax dollars go to them through teacher union dues. Lemur may or may not mind this arrangement, I'm sure Vuk is not happy about it at all.

What the UAW does with it's dues is between it and it's members. What teachers (and other public sector) unions do with their dues needs to be controlled, since these dues are public funds.

If you think that by the end of that chain of events that the money is still yours, there is a problem.

I paid X company to provide me with services. They took some of that money and paid their unionized workers. The unionized workers pay for their unions with union dues from their salary. Companies are spending my tax dollars on candidates I don't want.

None of what you said makes sense. The money is now the government's to spend at the discretion of the public wants. The public wants teachers. Government pays teachers. it is now the teacher's money he/she worked for. The teacher wants a union, teacher pays for a union. Somehow you now make the connection that paying taxes=supporting democratic candidates because of this long chain of events that serve only to highlight the life of a dollar. Your argument is completely false.

[drone]

The teacher wants a union, teacher pays for a union.

Since Wisconsin is not a right to work state, the teacher has no choice, the teacher pays for the union whether they want it or not. This is what make that chain of events a valid argument.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's a problem when politicians can grant money to unions and get the money right back in campaign donations. It's a conflict of interest. Much like when they can give tax breaks to businesses and then get money in campaign donations. But is the problem that politicians can raise teacher salaries and give tax breaks, or is it a campaign finance problem?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Since Wisconsin is not a right to work state, the teacher has no choice, the teacher pays for the union whether they want it or not. This is what make that chain of events a valid argument.

What Sasaki said.

[PanzerJaeger]

The backlash threatens to undercut one of the Democratic Party’s most stalwart backers — and upset a mutually beneficial relationship where the unions provided financial support and foot soldiers for Democratic campaigns, in return for political cover to protect their prerogatives in the U.S. Congress and state capitols across the nation.

The National Education Association, the largest teachers union, spent $40 million on the 2010 elections alone, making the union one of the largest outside funders of Democratic campaigns.

Obama’s education secretary Arne Duncan sounded surprisingly like the Republican governors when he told teachers unions and administrators at a conference Tuesday in Denver, “Clearly, the status quo isn’t working for children.”

What’s remarkable now, however, is how closely some of the Republicans’ complaints mirror those of the Obama administration, whose Race to the Top education initiative includes programs that have long been anathema to the unions, such as merit pay for teachers and giving districts the ability to fire bad teachers.

Obama and Duncan have made clear that their vision for the country’s teachers includes getting tougher on them. “It is time to start rewarding good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones,” the president said shortly after taking office.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1EISdbh1O

This is a critical point in American history. We can either bow to the unions, or take our fiscal future back. The GOP and the Obama Administration must work together to destroy the union stranglehold on America's children.

I hope Scott Walker breaks these corrupt unions and sends those throngs of leeches skulking around the capitol instead of working a message. This isn’t France and they need to learn their place.

They are state employees and if the state cannot afford their sweetheart benefits, they don't get to threaten the state's children's education. If they believe they are getting such a bad deal, they can give 30 days notice and try and find a better one in the private sector. Good luck to them on that. The sick outs are pathetic, childish, and a clear demonstration that this has nothing to do with the children.

Those Democratic state senators should be thrown in jail as well.

I've seen a lot of human interest non-stories about these people's ‘suffering’, but I have yet to hear a reporter ask them where they think the money is going to come from to fund their pensions. I suppose they expect the state to raise taxes on everyone else who actually has to save for retirement.

Is Pinkerton Security still around... or some of Mubarak's camel warriors?

'You will contribute a modest percentage of your healthcare and pension costs, or we will run you over with camels and then beat the hell out of you.'

Yes.

[Centurion1]

ACIN is right about teachers. My mother teaches middle school and its a nightmare. And she teaches at the good public school........... she maintains high grades on her state exams for her students and they score normally on benchmarks butt he stories she tells....... a bunch of little ***** they are. And as ACIN said it all comes back to that 5% Ignore them CR fat chance of that happening. Administrators are a bunch of tools for the most part and are afraid of lawsuits so they ignore the misbehavior of students and step all over their own teachers to appease parents insane demands. The accommodations my mother has to make are sickening. My mother is about as conservative as they come and she is grateful to the union at some point for standing up for her rights and fighting the state to pay her a decent wage.

Students, Administration and Parents are the problem not teachers

[Lemur]

The public perception of police and firefighters is that they face dangers hardly anyone else does. That they sacrifice a lot for modest wages. So when the governor doesn't go after their unions he doesn't appear stingy with 'heroes', and by comparison he appears more reasonable when he tries to cut the other unions.

So there is no rationale, just a set of political tactics. This is insane. Either Governor Walker is serious about moderating the power of the public sector unions or he is not. To exclude two of the most expensive groups of public employees with no rationale or logic is insane, and forces me to wonder what on earth he is doing. It clearly ain't reform.

You accuse me of sexism while generalizing all teachers as women, and all police as men?

You assume I don't want police unions busted up simply because I offered a reason why they weren't included?

But why bother about all that when you can accuse me of sexism?

Your initial reply was, in fact, thoughtless, and your follow-up contained some short-stop political positioning and a predictable "How dare you call me sexist, you sexist!" Please. The vast majority of elementary-grade and high-school-grade teachers are female. The vast majority of police and firefighters are male. I would like to be able to observe this, and even speculate on the possible role of male/female stereotypes and prejudices, without being howled down by the typical counterpunch of "How dare you call me a racist for burning a cross? You're the racist for thinking a burning cross is racist, you racist!"

I would really like to hear if any rightwing Orgah can offer a cogent, reasoned rationale for excluding two major groups from the union-busting. It makes no sense.

Lemur Lemur Lemur Lemur Vuk

Surreal.

This is a critical point in American history. We can either bow to the unions, or take our fiscal future back.

Then, if this is a "critical point in American history," please explain to me why the police union and firefighter's union aren't on the table. Somebody, please, at least make something up and pretend you're serious.

-edit-

Okay, this just gets stranger. The nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau released a budget estimate showing that Wisconsin was on track for a $121.4 million surplus this year, but Governor Walker claims we're on track for a $137 million deficit. Linky. That's more than a quarter-billion accounting disagreement, and demands explanation.

Furthermore, according to one group our new Governor has doled out $140 million in special tax breaks. Not sure if I believe this, but it bears examination:

• $25 million for an economic development fund for job creation that still has $73 million due to a lack of job creation. Walker is creating a $25 million hole which will not create or retain jobs.
• $48 million for private health savings accounts, which primarily benefit the wealthy. A study from the federal Governmental Accountability Office showed the average adjusted gross income of HSA participants was $139,000 and nearly half of HSA participants reported withdrawing nothing from their HSA, evidence that it is serving as a tax shelter for wealthy participants.
• $67 million for a tax shift plan, so ill-conceived that at best the benefit provided to ‘job creators’ would be less than a dollar a day per new job, and may be as little as 30 cents a day.”

[ICantSpellDawg]

In general, you pay workers however much you need to in order to keep the job competetive and retain the talent. Pay is not designed to reward, merely retain. Everyone wants a government job. The pay, benefits, pension and security are lightyears beyond anything that the private sector offers. If everyone wants the job and is willing to do it for less, the competetiveness is not an issue. If nobody can find a good job anywhere then the logic for paying to retain doesn't exist. If they won't lose existing employees OR make the job un-competetive with new hires, it is time to cut salary/benefits/pension/ all of the above. For the best teachers, we can offset the hurt by taking more from the bad ones and supplementing the good teachers salaries with it.

The idea that the people and the government of the United States have precious little ability to regulate what they pay their employees in the public interest is a crap reality and it won't last much longer. GAME OVER, public unions. Screw with Cops and firemen when all of their potential allies feel betrayed and are out for blood. DIVIDE AND CONQUER