Public Sector Union Beatdown Bloodbath Legismania 2011 Wisconsin-style

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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. :shrug: I'm happy I live in a right to work state.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

Maybe because their jobs involve real danger?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by you

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

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.

:rolleyes:

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

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.

:rolleyes:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by you

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

(as a quick example only)

---

Quote:

---

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Lemur Lemur Lemur Lemur Vuk

---

Surreal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.”

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

Lemur, I am dead serious. Public pay is going to be slashed. First support, then teachers, then Police, then the Military - in that order. Every agency can do more with less. Technology should be making the same crap levels of education cheaper per child, not more expensive. We are being hosed in every direction and Americans are starting to realize it. Khan Academy has helped me learn and retain more mathematical knowledge than any and all of my math teachers combined; all for the high price of a computer and the internet. 1 man, 2000 videos, public domain content and a great interface vs the insane cost of employing crap teachers around the country. The need for their jobs is coming to an end and they are screaming over a 4% pay cut. IMO, this reaction is sharpening the swords of the masses.

The future of the United States is deflation of income and inflation in technology. I believe that we are going to come to a point where peoples salaries stagnate or even go down year after year with exponential growth in technology being responsible for an overall increase in the standard of living. Get on board. If you realise that traditional growth was mostly illusory on the domestic level; salary increases being outpaced by inflation and based more on our increased in lving standards in relation to the rest of the world; then you can see how a growing and driven international standard of living will reduce or value in relation to it. I'm ok with it. One day, none of us will have anything to do because robots will be doing all of it for us. We will be volunteering for all of the jobs that we do now for crazy fees. SINGULARITY IS THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE END OF TIMES AND HEAVEN ON EARTH BRINGING THE DEAD BACK TO LIFE... did I lose you? Stay with me.

I'll be honest here, I'm not very pro-union. I think a lot of what unions were instituted to fix has now been addressed in labor law. That said, I'm not terribly anti-union either.

Looks to me like a good argument can be made against public-sector unions. However, the way our Governor is going about it strikes me as ... ill-planned. Let's bust the teachers first? Really? And leave the police out and supposedly get around to them later? I don't believe it, not for a moment. Much more likely: Walker will succeed in busting the teacher's union, and then this whole "reform" process will grind to a halt. Net result: To hell with the teachers, but you, Mister Policeman, can have health care and a pension for the rest of you natural life. Thanks for voting Republican!

If I thought there were a realistic prospect of reform, I'd be much more generously inclined toward this experiment. But leaving the police and firefighters off the table turns it into a sexist little voyage of political payback.

-edit-

Okay, after your 10:05 edit your post became really epic. Respect!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'll be honest here, I'm not very pro-union. I think a lot of what unions were instituted to fix has now been addressed in labor law. That said, I'm not terribly anti-union either.

Looks to me like a good argument can be made against public-sector unions. However, the way our Governor is going about it strikes me as ... ill-planned. Let's bust the teachers first? Really? And leave the police out and supposedly get around to them later? I don't believe it, not for a moment. Much more likely: Walker will succeed in busting the teacher's union, and then this whole "reform" process will grind to a halt. Net result: To hell with the teachers, but you, Mister Policeman, can have health care and a pension for the rest of you natural life. Thanks for voting Republican!

If I thought there were a realistic prospect of reform, I'd be much more generously inclined toward this experiment. But leaving the police and firefighters off the table turns it into a sexist little voyage of political payback.

-edit-

Okay, after your 10:05 edit your post became really epic. Respect!

---

Ha! I think I may have convinced my father that I was insane when I started talking about Singularity. I read an article in Time magazine and a few more in the Economist and I'm sold.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Oh yes, I remember now. The unions don't contribute so much directly as they use their mobilization ability to go out and drum up support. But I think unions can be allowed to do that. I mean, would you rather they strike?

Quote:

---

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.”

---

Clearly the children aren't working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

---

Stranglehold on America's children? :dizzy2:

It's just a union. What exactly is it that's been passed that shouldn't have been?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The future of the United States is deflation of income and inflation in technology. I believe that we are going to come to a point where peoples salaries stagnate or even go down year after year with exponential growth in technology being responsible for an overall increase in the standard of living. Get on board. If you realise that traditional growth was mostly illusory on the domestic level; salary increases being outpaced by inflation and based more on our increased in lving standards in relation to the rest of the world; then you can see how a growing and driven international standard of living will reduce or value in relation to it. I'm ok with it. One day, none of us will have anything to do because robots will be doing all of it for us. We will be volunteering for all of the jobs that we do now for crazy fees.

---

So... Which political system do you consider can handle this change? :scholar:

Which political systems today existed 100 years ago? Not too many. Times change and political systems arise as a result of them. The U.S. government in 2010 is not the U.S. government in 1911. Our current monetary system is merely a carrot and stick encouraging labor and morale. What happens when we no longer need human labor and it can be done better by our developed automations? What will we need the current monetary system for? It will have to change. What if home prices and entertainment fell at the same time as our income did? Would we need raises if the fall in cost of living fell? It has always risen, but it doesn't have to forever.

I see home prices around the country continue to decline. Wages are declining. And yet, life is getting better. Investments can be made abroad for growth, but the vast majority of us will see a slide forever until we meet the rest of the world. It will feel like a fall merely because of our monetary system, but if standards of living for everyone have increased, it would be foolish to consider it a real "decline".

gut the opposition to our decline. speed up the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Lemur, I am dead serious. Public pay is going to be slashed. First support, then teachers, then Police, then the Military - in that order. Every agency can do more with less. Technology should be making the same crap levels of education cheaper per child, not more expensive. We are being hosed in every direction and Americans are starting to realize it. Khan Academy has helped me learn and retain more mathematical knowledge than any and all of my math teachers combined; all for the high price of a computer and the internet. 1 man, 2000 videos, public domain content and a great interface vs the insane cost of employing crap teachers around the country. The need for their jobs is coming to an end and they are screaming over a 4% pay cut. IMO, this reaction is sharpening the swords of the masses.

The future of the United States is deflation of income and inflation in technology. I believe that we are going to come to a point where peoples salaries stagnate or even go down year after year with exponential growth in technology being responsible for an overall increase in the standard of living. Get on board. If you realise that traditional growth was mostly illusory on the domestic level; salary increases being outpaced by inflation and based more on our increased in lving standards in relation to the rest of the world; then you can see how a growing and driven international standard of living will reduce or value in relation to it. I'm ok with it. One day, none of us will have anything to do because robots will be doing all of it for us. We will be volunteering for all of the jobs that we do now for crazy fees. SINGULARITY IS THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE END OF TIMES AND HEAVEN ON EARTH BRINGING THE DEAD BACK TO LIFE... did I lose you? Stay with me.

---

I would just like to correct you on one thing.

Teaching can not be completely transferred over to technology. I get to listen in on a few committees as a student representative at my uni and all the professors in the committee I attend agreed that technology can only go so far to replace the human interaction that some people need. Kahn Academy is just absolutely fantastic, no doubt about that. But Kahn Academy is inherently restricted to what you can get out of a video (it doesn't change the explanation to a more simplistic view every time you watch the video as a teacher would if you were still confused about some concepts). MITOpenSource and Kahn Academy I think will allow those that are already motivated and/or interested and/or smart enough to go be able to gain this information on their own and further their education through technology. However, the demand for physical teacher-student interactions will never be replaced because the average student needs to ask questions, needs things clarified once if not multiple times. Technology should not be treated with the same philosophy that created No Child Left Behind. NCLB is a complete failure because it treats all students on an equal level, which even if you disregard the socioeconomic factors, anyone can tell you that not all brains are created equal. Just a fact of life. To treat technology as the same singular solution that will wash over all of education and make everything better is false as well.

That being said, the concept that in the future people will be volunteering to do things because things that "need" to be done will be done by robots is still applicable here. In this singularity future you have brought up, those that still require human interaction with teachers will be able to find those who have a passion for teaching, which is why many teachers are in it to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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!

---

What world are you living in exactly Lemur?! That is one of the most desperate, ill-informed, generalizing statements that I have ever heard in my entire life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This bill is actually exactly what Wisconsin needs. The only thing I do not like is that a comprehensive overhaul of the education system is not on the table at the same time.
How is this? Instead of having a good-old-boys (I'm sorry Lemur, a good-old-girls) system, why don't they try evening out the pay of teachers. 40,000 a year (adjusting for inflation) is well above average, and considering how low the requirements of being a teacher are (If I remember correctly, you only need a 2.84 GPA to pursue an ED degree/intent at my Uni, as apposed to the 3.5X required for most other fields), and that you don't even need a bachelor's degree to teach, I honestly don't see why it should be any higher. (not to mention that a large part of the year many teachers will not be teaching)
If you lowered the pay to 40k for full-time teachers (with up to 10k incentive pay for those with better performance) a teacher, you would not have a bunch of teachers making peanuts and a bunch making outrageous salaries. Not only would they all make a decent salary, but you would probably be able to afford more teachers than you do under the current system. Also, make it illegal to refuse to hire someone on the basis of not being in a union. If you did that and only made them pay 5% of their benefits, you would probably save money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

What world are you living in exactly Lemur?! That is one of the most desperate, ill-informed, generalizing statements that I have ever heard in my entire life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This bill is actually exactly what Wisconsin needs. The only thing I do not like is that a comprehensive overhaul of the education system is not on the table at the same time.
How is this? Instead of having a good-old-boys (I'm sorry Lemur, a good-old-girls) system, why don't they try evening out the pay of teachers. 40,000 a year (adjusting for inflation) is well above average, and considering how low the requirements of being a teacher are (If I remember correctly, you only need a 2.84 GPA to pursue an ED degree/intent at my Uni, as apposed to the 3.5X required for most other fields), and that you don't even need a bachelor's degree to teach, I honestly don't see why it should be any higher. (not to mention that a large part of the year many teachers will not be teaching)
If you lowered the pay to 40k for full-time teachers (with up to 10k incentive pay for those with better performance) a teacher, you would not have a bunch of teachers making peanuts and a bunch making outrageous salaries. Not only would they all make a decent salary, but you would probably be able to afford more teachers than you do under the current system. Also, make it illegal to refuse to hire someone on the basis of not being in a union. If you did that and only made them pay 5% of their benefits, you would probably save money.

---

People are conflating the part of the bill teachers are rallying against so heavily (removing collective bargaining for the union) with the idea of cutting back on teacher salary. They are two different things here. The bill is bad because it strips the ability for the union to protect teachers, which is needed because teachers otherwise are going to get trampled by ignorant parents. Cutting back on salaries and/or asking to pay in 1-5% of their salary for the benefits they receive I agree might very well be a good thing for some states. Trying to strip teachers of the ability to organize and defend themselves? Not a good idea.

Also a couple of things to correct you on Vuk,

1. Since education is a state issue and not a federal issue, the point of what the qualifications are to teach are going to vary wildly across different states. Some states want higher GPAs than others, from what I can remember off the top of my head, California may actually require a college degree in the field you are planning to teach with the exception of those under the category of some education with a bunch of actual private industry experience.

2. This is partly a continuation of the first point, but sort of isn't since this does apply everywhere in some respects. The point you made regarding cutting the current salary and using that to hire more teachers, is mostly likely going to require more funding because of the rampant overcrowding there is. Right now I believe the average for California if not the country are classroom sizes of anywhere from 30-45 students (47 in one of my classes! The entire room was packed with chairs!). Ideally, it really should be about 20-25 students a class. Not only will you have to hire the extra teachers as well, but those teachers need classrooms, and there isn't enough space available right now to handle the overcrowding situation, so if you want to use the money to hire more teachers, you will need to find more money to build the classrooms needed for these teachers as well as the overhead expenses that go along with more buildings to maintain and operate. I am not saying this is an argument against reducing teacher salary or other cost cutting measures, I am simply just pointing out that the only real way of increasing the number of teachers in the amount that is needed is going to be more funding to support the expansion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

That being said, the concept that in the future people will be volunteering to do things because things that "need" to be done will be done by robots is still applicable here. In this singularity future you have brought up, those that still require human interaction with teachers will be able to find those who have a passion for teaching, which is why many teachers are in it to begin with.

---

Have you been to Khan Academy lately? Go there, create a profile and learn all of the math you've missed. I think the new math path is the future of scientific and mathematical education at the elementary and high school levels. It effectively makes teachers redundant. Get a room full of 50-100 kids with some low paid minders to make sure that they are doing their work and you will save a bundle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Have you been to Khan Academy lately? Go there, create a profile and learn all of the math you've missed. I think the new math path is the future of scientific and mathematical education at the elementary and high school levels. It effectively makes teachers redundant. Get a room full of 50-100 kids with some low paid minders to make sure that they are doing their work and you will save a bundle.

---

Yes I have. I have used it, I am not ignorant on its implications or potential. I think that it will be a useful tool for many students but that being said, it is a tool not a solution to every student's needs. Low paid minders can't answer the questions that students ask for higher level courses. All the TAs in uni are grad students for a reason.

Just listen to the video on the front page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuMTSU9DcqQ

"I want it to become the operating system of the classroom for what goes on in the classroom where every student is allowed to work at their own pace and the teacher actually becomes more of a mentor or a coach."

So even the founder doesn't intend for his academy to make teachers obsolete.

So, Khan wants to be the educator. From what I understand, if he is the one doing the educating, that would cut down on the amount of educating that a teacher would need to do. Hence, if he did a good enough job at it, teachers would need to work less that the 8 months that they currently work, hopefully; A. lowering their compensation or B. Lowering their numbers. No more lesson plans, just tutoring. People do that in school, they are called tutors. Last time I was in school, they were unpaid, mostly a year or 2 ahead or volunteers.

Classic strategic speak. He wants to get the backing of teachers who will find it easier to use him than spending time writting a lesson plan. Like the trainer who trains a trainer in India, or the Barnes and Noble employee responsible for selling the Nook reader or the Insurance agent who automates his methods and has customers doing everything online or over the phone. They are buying the noose that will be used to hang them and it is beautiful. It is the future. Accellerate redundancy. Pedal to the metal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

So, Khan wants to be the educator. From what I understand, if he is the one doing the educating, that would cut down on the amount of educating that a teacher would need to do. Hence, if he did a good enough job at it, teachers would need to work less that the 8 months that they currently work, hopefully; A. lowering their compensation or B. Lowering their numbers. No more lesson plans, just tutoring. People do that in school, they are called tutors. Last time I was in school, they were unpaid, mostly a year or 2 ahead or volunteers.

Classic strategic speak. He wants to get the backing of teachers who will find it easier to use him than spending time writting a lesson plan. Like the trainer who trains a trainer in India, or the Barnes and Noble employee responsible for selling the Nook reader or the Insurance agent who automates his methods and has customers doing everything online or over the phone. They are buying the noose that will be used to hang them and it is beautiful. It is the future. Accellerate redundancy. Pedal to the metal.

---

I agree. All I am saying is that there will still be a need for teachers. Whether not they are tutoring or actually teaching is besides the point. All I am trying to say is that technology can't replace human interaction 100% of the time. I agreed with the original point that it will be volunteers in the future.

My point is that their racket is nearing a close. They hold back education. Unions will oppose the technology to better educate children because it is the inevitable downfall of unions and paid teachers. Cutting their benefits is the first step to gutting the teaching force. They need to go and we need to accellerate their decline with a suitable alternative at the earliest opportunity. I can't stand teachers because they are a reminder of the broken past and the impediment to our future. Some are well intentioned, but the vast majority of teachers are people who see dollar signs, big pensions, and huge vacations. Hell, I'm a local insurance agent and we are nearing a breaking point where our customers are starting to wake up and cut us loose. Rightfully so, imo. We are essentially useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

My point is that their racket is nearing a close. They hold back education. Unions will oppose the technology to better educate children because it is the inevitable downfall of unions and paid teachers. Cutting their benefits is the first step to gutting the teaching force. They need to go and we need to accellerate their decline with a suitable alternative at the earliest opportunity. I can't stand teachers because they are a reminder of the broken past and the impediment to our future. Some are well intentioned, but the vast majority of teachers are people who see dollar signs, big pensions, and huge vacations. Hell, I'm a local insurance agent and we are nearing a breaking point where our customers are starting to wake up and cut us loose. Rightfully so, imo. We are essentially useless.

---

You are overestimating the trend. Give it another 20 years before the actual decrease starts to happen. It is unwise to accelerate trends, especially ones that impact society as fundamental as education because sometimes society isn't ready for it. The teachers will bring about their own deconstruction by adopting Kahn Academy for themselves in the class. But before that happens, you need teachers who actually used Kahn Academy earlier in their lives during college. Once those people are the majority of teachers, then things will start happening on a fast past in regards to your projection. But like I said, that will be another 15-20 years before that majority happens.

I don't understand the anger at teachers. The system in which they function in is broken and of the past, not the function of teaching itself. Kahn is a teacher, you are not angry at him.

EDIT: Also, you characterize teachers in a general negative light using descriptions that could be applied generically to any worker. If anything, more teachers are there by % because of a passion for teaching then the % of cubicle workers there because they love doing...cubicle work.

Sorry TuffStuffMcGruff, I meant economical system. My mistake. A simular question has intrigued me for years so I'm a bit curious about your thoughts on the subject.

And to be a bit more to the point. Can a free market system handle a large part of the working force being simply obsolete (aka not longer required for any important jobs)?

And do you think we're starting to approach this during your life time?

I love volunteer teachers. I wish that everyone was one (they are in reality). I hate the people who are paid to do it and throw temper tantrums when the people they are ripping off call them on it. Good points, though.

Ironside, I think that we are starting to approach this in our lifetime. I'm just a history major nobody, but the sheer number of people who seem to have exited the work force for good coupled with the likelihood that jobs won't be returning, coupled with the amazing willingness of people to volunteer their knowledge and assistance online, coupled with the obvious uselessness of most jobs, etc leads me to believe that the current system is failing. If you believe in exponential growth in technology, within the next 40 years we should have totally revolutionized the economy through automation. today we are talking about the realization that paid teachers serve a decreasingly useful purpose and their benefit is being clearly outweighed by their costs. Within 10 years, I suspect that attorneys and general practitioners will begin going through the same thing. As transparency increases, I would also imagine that the value of brands will decrease, eliminating usurious mark-ups of otherwise utilitarian commodities. Within 10 years we won't need to buy small parts because we will begin 3d printing them in the home. Within 20, the few of us who actually serve a traditional economic purpose won't need to travel to work due to insane increases in communication technologies (interactive holographic projections.). The future is limitless and it includes reduced manpower. Prepare to sit around simply consuming information for no other purpose than the faint hope that you will come up with something useful that a machine has skipped over, which will become increasingly unlikely. From there, watch Wall-e ;-)

I think that Capitalism is failing and a new economic system is growing.


Time Magazine on Singularity

Kurzweil on TED

3D Printing

Full color 3d demonstration

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I love volunteer teachers. I wish that everyone was one (they are in reality). I hate the people who are paid to do it and throw temper tantrums when the people they are ripping off call them on it. Good points, though.

Ironside, I think that we are starting to approach this in our lifetime. I'm just a history major nobody, but the sheer number of people who seem to have exited the work force for good coupled with the likelihood that jobs won't be returning, coupled with the amazing willingness of people to volunteer their knowledge and assistance online, coupled with the obvious uselessness of most jobs, etc leads me to believe that the current system is failing. If you believe in exponential growth in technology, within the next 40 years we should have totally revolutionized the economy through automation. today we are talking about the realization that paid teachers serve a decreasingly useful purpose and their benefit is being clearly outweighed by their costs. Within 10 years, I suspect that attorneys and general practitioners will begin going through the same thing. As transparency increases, I would also imagine that the value of brands will decrease, eliminating usurious mark-ups of otherwise utilitarian commodities. Within 10 years we won't need to buy small parts because we will begin 3d printing them in the home. Within 20, the few of us who actually serve a traditional economic purpose won't need to travel to work due to insane increases in communication technologies (interactive holographic projections.). The future is limitless and it includes reduced manpower. Prepare to sit around simply consuming information for no other purpose than the faint hope that you will come up with something useful that a machine has skipped over, which will become increasingly unlikely. From there, watch Wall-e ;-)

I think that Capitalism is failing and a new economic system is growing.


Time Magazine on Singularity

Kurzweil on TED

3D Printing

Full color 3d demonstration

---

You forgot to mention that we have already reached the age where for all intents and purposes, anything that can be put in digital form is free. People don't pirate out of moral reasons, not economic.

When digital media is free and ubiquitous and all manufacturing/services is automated is within our lifetimes.

I am still struggling to see how lawyers and doctors will be able to keep up with demand. If we have everything that could be manufactured (basically money is not needed as much), a lot of doctors and lawyers are not going to be such. And I am pretty sure that those that will go through the work as a volunteer, will not be able to meet the demand.

Capitalism has a good chance of becoming more artificial and hollow, instead of being phased out completely.

From what I'm led to believe, haven't had the time to research it yet, Wisconsin teachers at job rate receive wage & health benefits worth about $89,000 per year plus a half pay pension. Not sure what the service time & age requirements for the half-pay pension are, probably 30 years service and 55 years old to retire. They contribute nothing toward the health benefits ($22,000 to 24,000 per year family plan) and nothing toward the half-pay pension. The Governor wants them to contribute 12.5% per year toward the health benefit & 5% toward their pensions. That's in line with many other state's public sector unions, mine included. It's reasonable and quite a good deal compared to the private sector without question.

Lem, I believe the Governor excluded the police & fire personnel from this for now because of the very likely threat to public safety. Closed schools isn't a good thing, but for the short term an inconvenience. Loss of police & fire protection, even in the short term, could be a real disaster, which is why most states allow collective bargaining for these departments in return for no strikes legislation. Most of the National Guard is probably being used, or will be soon, to man the state prisons if the corrections personnel strike.

I also know from experience that public sector union members only get the crumbs that fall from management's plate. If State leadership really wants to be honest about the need for "shared sacrifice" then they need to reduce staff & top-heavy redundent/useless management positions, perks like take home cars etc...patronage jobs for friends & family, double+ dipping on their pensions etc...contribute to their health care & pensions too. Cuts should start from the top on down, but never do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

The Governor wants them to contribute 12.5% per year toward the health benefit & 5% toward their pensions. That's in line with many other state's public sector unions, mine included. It's reasonable and quite a good deal compared to the private sector without question.

---

If our governor were only asking for bennie contributions and pay cuts and so forth, I don't think you'd see quite the level of pushback that's going on. Legislating that the union may exist, but may only negotiate pay raises, and those circumscribed by COL, makes the union irrelevant. And my impression was that the teachers' union, for all of its evils, does some valuable work to protect the teachers from the idiot parents. Now, I am firmly of the belief that the teacher' union should be reofrmed and perhaps even done away with, but this is not the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Lem, I believe the Governor excluded the police & fire personnel from this for now because of the very likely threat to public safety.

---

The funny thing is, nobody is even making an argument for it. Seriously, I have yet to hear or read anyone from the governor's office even trying to make a case for the selectivity of the union-busting. I'm a little bit disgusted. If the governor would like my support, he could, you know, put forward an argument. A rationale. Something. But what are we getting? Nada. We're just gonna bust the unions that we don't like and leave the others alone. Pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Cuts should start from the top on down, but never do.

---

100% agreement from this end. There's plenty of state and county level reform that could and should take place. But picking out one union, that trends Dem, and is largely female ... I dunno, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And to not even bother explaining or justifying the move ...

To clarify it is 12.5% of the health care cost ($2750 - $3000 based on the average you've provided) , not 12.5% of salary. 5% of salary for pension on the other hand (an average $4450). Average total cost for a family with one federal employee in the household would be around $7200 - $7450, is my math right? Essentially an ~8% pay cut for the average family (my math is probably wrong). This will save tax payers a truck load. I've heard that it was closer to a 4% cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

100% agreement from this end. There's plenty of state and county level reform that could and should take place. But picking out one union, that trends Dem, and is largely female ... I dunno, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And to not even bother explaining or justifying the move ...

---

I don't know, Lemur. That sounds like it could save alot of money for taxpayers to invest in more productive areas of education. The wages still sound awesome, don't they? I'm 26, make approx 40k with benefits included per year with a degree working 6 days per week in one of the most expensive areas of the country to live. Teachers work 8 months per year, get tons of holidays off, and have job security with the occasional blip like we are seeing. What do they really do? Aren't they really just glorified babysitters?

I fail to understand your argument that because the recent move targets teachers and not every other public union you arn't able to support it. Do you believe police are paid too well? Firemen? In NY and NJ we have started going after teachers. Everyone knows that police officers are about to be hit next. Abusive overtime, high-three manipulation to pad pensions. The abuses and the reaction are what spur movement against the organizations. I've been tryign to get a Federal job for closing in on 5 years now. I will work for half of that they are paying these people. I can assure you that employees are pulling their hair out because their free ride is over. I can only hope that they gut the pay and benefits enough that people will leave and make room for new jacks who will work harder for less.

Your argument sounds like if they don't take on all problems at once you won't support solving any problems. Don't bite off more than you can chew. Breaking the teachers union alone will pose the least resistance and create precedent to do it to others. do you believe that my argument is false or does it sound stupid? I've used every angle I could find. Please, let me know.

I do agree that top down approach to many organizations is where it should start. You need to be careful not to stop progress because it could be bigger. This is as big as I think they can handle right now. Calling more people into the opposition would be counter productive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I don't know, Lemur. That sounds like it could save alot of money for taxpayers to invest in more productive areas of education. The wages still sound awesome, don't they? I'm 26, make approx 40k with benefits included per year with a degree working 6 days per week in one of the most expensive areas of the country to live. Teachers work 8 months per year, get tons of holidays off, and have job security with the occasional blip like we are seeing. What do they really do? Aren't they really just glorified babysitters?

I fail to understand your argument that because the recent move targets teachers and not every other public union you arn't able to support it. Do you believe police are paid too well? Firemen? In NY and NJ we have started going after teachers. Everyone knows that police officers are about to be hit next. Abusive overtime, high-three manipulation to pad pensions. The abuses and the reaction are what spur movement against the organizations. I've been tryign to get a Federal job for closing in on 5 years now. I will work for half of that they are paying these people. I can assure you that employees are pulling their hair out because their free ride is over. I can only hope that they gut the pay and benefits enough that people will leave and make room for new jacks who will work harder for less.

Your argument sounds like if they don't take on all problems at once you won't support solving any problems. Don't bite off more than you can chew. Breaking the teachers union alone will pose the least resistance and create precedent to do it to others. do you believe that my argument is false or does it sound stupid? I've used every angle I could find. Please, let me know.

I do agree that top down approach to many organizations is where it should start. You need to be careful not to stop progress because it could be bigger. This is as big as I think they can handle right now. Calling more people into the opposition would be counter productive.

---

The statement "everyone knows police are next." doesn't convince me one bit. Most of you guys probably never heard about this, but last year Southern California got all bent over a scandal breaking out about the City of Bell paying its City Council, City Attorney and Police Chief some of the highest politician salaries in the entire nation (including Congress) despite Bell only having a size of about 35,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ci...ry_controversy

Well the police chief basically faked being disabled (he has been publicly running marathons for the past 5 years) in order to not pay taxes on his pension which amounts to half of the $400,000 salary he got. This guy jumped from city to city apparently milking his way to the top ending up at Bell because they were the most corrupt with the city money. From the wikipedia entry: On February 14, 2008, it was revealed on CBS nighttime news that Adams had allegedly exchanged e-mails with the assistant city manager on how they were going to arrange his over $400,000 salary and how to hide that fact from the citizens. The email's contents were presented in a humorous manner regarding bilking the city. "I am looking forward to seeing you and taking all of Bell's money," Adams wrote, according to the memo.

Police in Southern California have a strong hold with politicians, they are the military of the city and state. Despite all the outrage, mostly everyone in my hometown start justifying why the police chief there deserved his money and blah, blah, blah. From what I hear it was same across most of Ventura County. Police don't take hits in salary in state and city government just as the military/defense budget hasn't even been looked at for cuts until these extreme cost cutting measures.

I will not be surprised one bit if this is a one time union hit. Oh and that police chief I just mentioned hasn't been arrested at all or even charged with wrong doing.

Ok. In NYC police were making a starting salary of 25k 4 years ago. They are now making 41k to start. I think this is reasonable. Sure, the pensions can be looked at, but these guys are in danger. Last year a guy opened up with a tek-9 in times square. There was more than 1 real bomb close call. Suffolk County PC should be dragged out of their police stations and lampooned publicly. Local Northport police should be brought up on charges. all things are not equal. Root out waste and corruption where you can find it. I am a Republican and I am sharpening my balde, I promise you. Maybe we don't all think the same way, but almost every Republican I know is waiting for the opportunity to gut public wages. Across the board - I promise. Play along with us for once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

Yes, giving the teachers union and administrators more and more money over the past 30 years have done so well with America's public education system. /sarc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Ok. In NYC police were making a starting salary of 25k 4 years ago. They are now making 41k to start. I think this is reasonable. Sure, the pensions can be looked at, but these guys are in danger. Last year a guy opened up with a tek-9 in times square. There was more than 1 real bomb close call. Suffolk County PC should be dragged out of their police stations and lampooned publicly. Local Northport police should be brought up on charges. all things are not equal. Root out waste and corruption where you can find it. I am a Republican and I am sharpening my balde, I promise you. Maybe we don't all think the same way, but almost every Republican I know is waiting for the opportunity to gut public wages. Across the board - I promise. Play along with us for once.

---

I would love to trust you, but the internet and recent history has made this once naive teenager a bit more on the cynical side when it comes to Republicans asking us to "play along".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Stranglehold on America's children? :dizzy2:

It's just a union. What exactly is it that's been passed that shouldn't have been?

---

The "just a union" that brought their students out of the classroom to assist in the protest? Yes, a stranglehold on the children is an appropriate term for this issue.
I'm a product of public education. One year in history in my junior year our history teacher let us watch "Cops" every day. My government teacher in my senior year did the same thing. In fact, I could have skipped senior high all together because it was a complete waste. Sure, some of responsibility is on me but when a "professional" teacher offers you the choice of watching TV or protesting over actually learning anything, what is a teen going to choose...
Its time to stop this notion of the "honorable" profession known as the public school teacher. The majority are no less than you average welfare leach except they go to work half the year, recieve an offensively large pension paid by the tax payers, and still the US goes lower every year in tests compared to other countries. #### the public school teacher.

Throw in the FD & PD but allow the union to continue to negotiate for everything, not just pay.

I think that will make everyone sufficently unhappy

I can't help by shake my head, these "demands" by the govener are putting no one over a barrell and are certainly not untennable. Sure no one likes tax increases or a pay cut but we are facing a serious budget shortfall and we are facing it everywhere.

I thought everyone was going to cut teh fat?

Asking these people for a pittance is not a big deal, granted it's more about the power than it is the money. There is always a power play somewhere. Granted it's hard to conjure up anger for someone who makes 60,000$ a year and who pays NOTHING in benifits when the average American makes 40,000 and has to pay both those things

Granted most of the teacher hate in this thread is lol, but at the end of the day this is something that needs to be done and can be done relatively painlessly

Edit:granted

I think this article tells a lot about what is going on. Watch the embedded video for the full argument.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/rache...isconsin-truth

This is about more than teacher pay.

It is about collective bargaining and Unions.

Allowing Police and Fire Fighters to bargain and not other public sector employees to do the same is unfair.

None are actually permitted to strike, though it is usually ignored.

Without some organization to represent employees they only have the rights to employment that the government says they have.

While I am dubious as to Public Sector Unions announcing support for political candidates, I don't think this whole plan is a good move.

The market is going to fix all the problems, reduce teachers to minimum wage, there are still enough people who have no education but would be willing to teach your kids for minimum wage.
If you can't find any, then look to Mexico, they should have some, think of all the tax dollars you can save!

More seriously, I think it's a delicate subject and whether the teachers are doing well is very much up to anyone's interpretation of what makes a good teacher. If you pay too badly, then you will most likely run out of teacher, similarly to what I just said above, just not as extreme. The measure taken to get more then will be to lower the entry requirements, you can easily see what that leads to.
Merit-based pay just means the clever teachers who know that they're not supervised 24/7 will give the students hints as to what to expect in exams, everybody will love them but the students won't have learned a lot. I've had a teacher who asked us to grade ourselves, I think everybody got exactly that grade, it wasn't the most important course and his pay didn't depend on it but now imagine that it would...
Before that last crisis the banks had merit-based pay, which is why all the employees gave loans to people who didn't deserve them, just to get bonuses and benefits, right?
That's not to say it can't be useful, but one has to think of all the consequences this can have, you can't just claim it's a universal problem-solver.

From the Wall Street Journal.

Quote:

---

Mr. Walker, elected last fall as part of a sweep that also gave the GOP control of both houses of the legislature, last week proposed a "budget repair" bill to address a deficit of $137 million in the current budget and a projected shortfall of $3.6 billion in the next two years.
The measure would limit collective-bargaining rights for most workers—except police, firefighters and others involved in public safety—and require state employees, who currently pay little or nothing toward their pensions, to contribute 5.8% of their pay to pensions, and pay at least 12.6% of health-care premiums, up from an average of 6%.
In exchange, Mr. Walker has pledged no layoffs or furloughs for the state's 170,000 public employees. He has said 5,500 state jobs and 5,000 local jobs would be saved under his plan, which would save $30 million in the current budget and $300 million in the two-year budget that begins July 1.

---

The math is simple enough. I don't agree that they must or should give up collective bargaining rights. Collective bargaining only guarantee's the right to negotiate terms "in good faith", it's not a gun held to either party's head. Blaming workers for using the system & rules that management bargained for and agreed to without management accepting their own responsibility and contribution to the crisis is typically political=deceitful. Management has the right to manage, however they have no right to mismanage.

Exempting Public Safety departments from the loss of collective bargaining is a typical "divide & conquer" management strategy. Hell, they try to do that within departments all the time. Try requiring different tiers of pay & benefits of management & politicians for doing the same job and listen to them howl.
There needs to be reform and true "shared sacrifice", top to bottom in state & federal government. Unfortunately, the top will try and take everything needed to cover the shortfall from the rest, and not give up anything themselves.

Pump That Irony: The lifeblood of the teaching industry is evaluation (A, B, C, etc.). In the history of teaching, there have been about 10 million 10 billion complaints by students that the grading was unfair, and virtually every single complaint was rejected, usually summarily. Now, U.S. News magazine, and a higher-education advisory group are combining to evaluate the 1,000 U.S. teachers' colleges, and it seems there is no indignation quite like teachers' indignation at being evaluated. The criteria are unfair, they say, and not relevant to excellence. Their solution: All evaluators need to go away until they can come up with criteria that are perfect.

Quote:

---

Devastatin Dave
The "just a union" that brought their students out of the classroom to assist in the protest? Yes, a stranglehold on the children is an appropriate term for this issue.
I'm a product of public education. One year in history in my junior year our history teacher let us watch "Cops" every day. My government teacher in my senior year did the same thing. In fact, I could have skipped senior high all together because it was a complete waste. Sure, some of responsibility is on me but when a "professional" teacher offers you the choice of watching TV or protesting over actually learning anything, what is a teen going to choose...
Its time to stop this notion of the "honorable" profession known as the public school teacher. The majority are no less than you average welfare leach except they go to work half the year, recieve an offensively large pension paid by the tax payers, and still the US goes lower every year in tests compared to other countries. #### the public school teacher. They can "collectively" :daisy:...

---

Taking personal responsibility for ending up licking the rear window on the short-bus of life. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

More seriously, I think it's a delicate subject and whether the teachers are doing well is very much up to anyone's interpretation of what makes a good teacher.

---

Side note: This is Wisconsin, so the schools are excellent on the whole. I have a very portable sort of career, and could live most anywhere. I choose to live here in large part because of the outstanding schools. We have the kinds of schools California used to have before they voted themselves out of them.

So some of the comments about how horrible and useless and outdated public education is ... well, they sound like they're talking about someplace else. WI still has a great eucation system.

And you're going the way of California, apparently. (The whole union can only argue for pay rise thing or whatever that was is a simple yet effective way of flushing it down the toilet: there's little that will get people riled up as much as saying you are not allowed to negotiate your own future...)

It would be interesting to see rioting over this. An actual battle royale in Madison, similar to Cairo. Taxed citizens using force to subdue the assembled teachers would be great for the cause of stopping the legislation.

Both sides would get something out of that arrangement. Teachers would get to keep their benefits the way they are now, citizens would be able to beat the ever living crap out of teachers. Fun would be had by all.

If the Government had any balls they would fire the 1,100 teachers who called in sick and showed up to the protests

If I call in and my boss seems me out and about, I get fired

And why are public sector employees allowed to unionize?

Hmmmm, The union is giving into the finanical concessions

Walker should take what he can get, if this was really about the budget he should be happy

Power you say? WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT FOR ITS OWN POWER AND THE BUDGET IS (HOPEFULLY) SECONDARY. I'VE BEEN LIED TO ALL THESE YEARS! IS THERE NO GOD

Madison Schools go to court to get the teachers to do their jobs.

It's all about the kids!

Ugh, from the sound of everyone posting. The propaganda pushed by Walker is winning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

100% agreement from this end. There's plenty of state and county level reform that could and should take place. But picking out one union, that trends Dem, and is largely female ... I dunno, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And to not even bother explaining or justifying the move ...

---

Ah, I see your problem.

You came here with your opinion already formed about how this legislation was sexist and therefore anyone who dared to offer reasons for picking out specific unions was a sexist.

Bah.

If I could crush one public union it would be the police unions first and foremost.

And yet, because I merely offer a reason, I'm sexist? My reasoning would be political posturing, true, but what isn't in our government anymore? In DC both parties toss the constitution at each other to score points - and neither side really gives the tiniest care about the constitution and it's limits on their power. In such a climate, how is my reasoning not realistic?

Anyways, more lawyerly people than I talk about why public unions are bad:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publi...-sector-unions

Quote:

---

Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: "Meticulous attention," the president insisted in 1937, "should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." The reason? F.D.R. believed that "[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable."

---

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2011...not-exist.html

Quote:

---

In the public sector, by contrast, a union is not bargaining for a greater share of the revenue produced by economic activity; it is bargaining for a greater share of revenue that is obtained by force of law – taxation – or, if not a greater share, at least for a constant share of those revenues extracted from the citizens. What a public sector union can and does provide in return is political support for the faction that chooses to increase taxes or the union’s share of existing taxes. If public sector unions deliver on their support, they will be rewarded by ever more generous payments. There is no market that acts as an external monitor of worker compensation; there is only a steady repetition of a corrosive bargain – tax the public ever more in order to maintain political power. That is inimical to responsible government.

---

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/p...-unionism.html

A running blog on the protests:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/

Maddow is right in that without public unions, union groups can no longer funnel funds from the taxpayer to democratic politicians, through government employees. Good.

I hope this is only the first of many public-union beat-downs and a return to fiscal sanity.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Ugh, from the sound of everyone posting. The propaganda pushed by Walker is winning.

---

You think it sounds more insane that government employees are ripping off taxpayers than it does to say that this has absolutely nothing to do with teacher pay and is actually a GOP plot to destroy the democratic party? Are you serious? I haven't watched any fox news, listened to any Rush Limbaugh. The only TV news I watch is Morning Joe on MSNBC Mon-Friday for 45 mins to 1 hour. The rest of my time I spend online, reading whatever I can and reading the weekly Economist front to back for good measure. I don't believe I've been brainwashed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I hope this is only the first of many public-union beat-downs and a return to fiscal sanity.

---

I agree. Workers should be kept under the heavy thumb of their benevolent overlords and be damn grateful for the opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Side note: This is Wisconsin, so the schools are excellent on the whole. I have a very portable sort of career, and could live most anywhere. I choose to live here in large part because of the outstanding schools. We have the kinds of schools California used to have before they voted themselves out of them.

So some of the comments about how horrible and useless and outdated public education is ... well, they sound like they're talking about someplace else. WI still has a great eucation system.

---

Well, it seems like your new governor wants to change the current system and save a lot of money.
That's not to say that you can't have a good education system without money but it will certainly change in some way. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

You think it sounds more insane that government employees are ripping off taxpayers than it does to say that this has absolutely nothing to do with teacher pay and is actually a GOP plot to destroy the democratic party? Are you serious? I haven't watched any fox news, listened to any Rush Limbaugh. The only TV news I watch is Morning Joe on MSNBC Mon-Friday for 45 mins to 1 hour. The rest of my time I spend online, reading whatever I can and reading the weekly Economist front to back for good measure. I don't believe I've been brainwashed.

---

Wisconsin was running a surplus when Walker got in. He gave 140 million in tax breaks and is now claiming there is a 137 million deficit that needs to be filled up by removing unions rights for collective bargaining? Come on man.

Crazed Rabbit, I feel as though you saw the word "sexism" and all thought process stopped. Allow me to try to work in around your defense shields, tripwires and minefields: The union being singled out by our governor is the teachers union (yes, corrections is included in this round, but they're nowhere near as big). Teachers are overwhelmingly female. I think that's worth noting, as is the fact that the vast majority of people don't seem to have a problem with the weird selectivity of the union-busting. I realize that having the temerity, the face, the effrontery to suggest that gender roles might have something to do with the big "meh" puts me outside the realm of civil discourse. That said, however, I don't think it's an irrational observation.

Meanwhile, this is how we rock a protest Wisconsin-style. You chuckleheads might want to watch and learn.

[T]he day was marked by a surprising civility when the shouting stopped and the one-on-one conversations began. [...]

[A]side from a few outsiders -- like AFL-CIO chief Rich Trumka here to back opponents of the measure, and Andrew Breitbart, the conservative provocateur who appeared at the Tea Party-backed rally to support Walker -- the people on hand were from Wisconsin itself and these neighbors were remarkably civil despite their sharp disagreements.

Wisconsonites are united, even in times like this, by many things, including a love of University of Wisconsin, Madison, athletics and the program's strutting mascot Bucky the Badger; a devotion to the Super Bowl champion Green Bay Packers NFL football team; and, of course, a love of beer.

Lemur, it seems as though you confused me offering a reason for the selectivity of union targets with supporting that reason.

You think there may be some sexism in the reasoning behind targeting the teacher's union. It's not an unreasonable thought. But what I think is unreasonable is thinking that everyone who supports this is doing so at least in part because of sexism.

Quote:

---

Wisconsin was running a surplus when Walker got in. He gave 140 million in tax breaks and is now claiming there is a 137 million deficit that needs to be filled up by removing unions rights for collective bargaining? Come on man.

---

Part of the issue is not the immediate costs, but the near-future costs of pensions and the like, along with the trend of ever increasing public union wages (above inflation).

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

[W]hat I think is unreasonable is thinking that everyone who supports this is doing so at least in part because of sexism.

---

Hmm, I certainly do not think that, and if I left that impression then I communicated poorly. Sorry for my amateur hour. I do not think you are responding out of sexism, will repeat that as often as you like, and apologize unreservedly for causing this misunderstanding.

That said, there's a certain nihilistic glee in the lack of logic or rationale behind the selective union-busting. I realize almost nobody shares this concern with me, but what the heck, I have a vote and I live in this state, so I'm entitled to my befuddlement.

Ha! There is nihilistic glee in almost everything I've ever said in my entire life. While I agree with your concerns, Lemut, my concern is that even though half of the population has been talking about cutting compensation to government employees (particularly teachers, particularly in benefits) for years now, when they start going after the issue, you are accusing them of a sexist republican plot not based on any actual need, merely the desire to demolish working families and place Madison under one party rule. That is my nightmare as well, particularly because it doesn't exist in reality and seems to be merely a smokescreen created by a radical news anchor to obfuscate actual issues. You know how Beck has created a smokescreen to go after Google because they support the Obama administration?

Guestion the GOP by all means, but don't just question the GOP and then go to the Democratic shill anchors for the answer. Go to less radical sources for answers. Why is Cuomo doing a very similar thing in NY? Is he a right-wing sexist extremist now?

The idea seems to be to create a precedent to;
1. Eliminate the Public Unions ability to bargain over anything other than base pay and working hours.
2. Increase employee pension contributions for all employees.

Like I've repeated over and over - You can either go after them all without precedent at the same time OR go after 1 without precedent and, after success go after the others with better odds. Sure you'll have to deal with criticisms of "unfairness" in the short term, but will it hurt your chances as much as mass mobilization across the agencies? I would go with the second option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Guestion the GOP by all means, but don't just question the GOP and then go to the Democratic shill anchors for the answer. Go to less radical sources for answers.

---

Actually, I haven't seen any major new source anywhere raise the issue of selective union-busting. I mean, they mention it, and a couple of far-left sources suggest that it's because the public safety unions backed Walker, but that's about it. All kooky sexism conspiracy theories are home-grown. Sorry.

-edit-

And returning to my theme of high-class, well-mannered Wisconsin protests, this is pretty darn funny:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...7hu1qzz1qt.jpg

-edit of the edit-

Also, all of the conflicting claims about our state finances drove me over to Politifact, which draws the following conclusion:

There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.

They've got a nice Wisconsin section that's worth a looksee. Lots of people saying lots of false things, and it's nice to have someone keeping score.

The first article I had read about the "strike" was in the Economist. They clearly mention the likelihood that one of the reasons for excluding the PD and FD unions was political cronyism. It doesn't mean it's the only reason and it doesn't mean that those unions won't feel the burn. Like you've said, this will deal a blow to collective bargaining in the State of Wisconsin.You can doubt that they'll get hit, but If the GOP supports keeping inflated wages for public security and the budget can't stand it, they will have hell to pay.

Fact is - People want to become teachers and are doing so in droves nationwide. The demand for the job is at fever pitch, wages are suffering all over the private economy, the budget needs this, and the cuts proposed will do nothing to make teaching less competitive in the short term. In the long term you can be sure that they will go right back onto the "gouge the public for more money" track they've been on for years. I, for one, would love to see nearly all of the money saved in education go into education technology expenses rather than teacher salaries. I think we will get a much greater return on our investment that way than throwing more money into the pit of public employees demands.