Public Sector Union Beatdown Bloodbath Legismania 2011 Wisconsin-style

[Lemur]

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

Anyway, a couple of questions:

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

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

[drone]

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

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

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

[Devastatin Dave]

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

Anyway, a couple of questions:

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

Maybe because their jobs involve real danger?

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

Subversion, says I.

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

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

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lemur]

Maybe because their jobs involve real danger?

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

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

[Tellos Athenaios]

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

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't?

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

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

Oh, and prison guards aren't mostly men?

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

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

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

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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

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

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



CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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

[Vuk]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....ms-the-reality


About time someone had the balls to tell the teachers and others to start paying for their stuff.

[Motep]

The runaway politicians hid in my town...

Anyways, I thought this said "Bust the Onions", and I was on the verge of hilarity, but I read it again and...well...

*not aiding the discussion in any way. In fact, this post is pretty stupid. If you feel like deleting, oh moderating one,be my guest.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Here is another article on a similar situation in New Jersey, where Governor Christie has been fighting tooth-and-nail with our (really powerful) teacher's union ever since he took office. While it hasn't reached Wisconsin-esque proportions - yet - the battle's gotten pretty nasty overall.

Of particular note in the article on one of the pages is a bit about how governors are finally going after unions as a last resort. They've tried all the gimmicks like casinos and whatnot over the past several administrations and with the stimulus money slowly starting to dry up, it still isn't enough to fix the state budgets. I wonder if this is going to be a growing trend over the next couple of years, especially if the executives win out over the unions and other governors look towards their example.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Add signatures as a requirement on student id cards

[Lemur]

I'm just glad we're getting a handle on voter fraud in WI. Some cynics might point out that we had more UFO sightings in WI last year (40) than confirmed cases of voter fraud (14), but that's just being blinded by facts.

[Strike For The South]

No university in Texas does either

But I have a drivers liscence and strip club recpits, so I should be good