Thousands protest Wisconsin anti-union bill

[gilliam]

From the Washington Post:
The president’s political machine worked in close coordination Thursday with state and national union officials to mobilize thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals.

Their efforts began to spread, as thousands of labor supporters turned out for a hearing in Columbus, Ohio, to protest a measure from Gov. John Kasich (R) that would cut collective-bargaining rights.
By the end of the day, Democratic Party officials were working to organize additional demonstrations in Ohio and Indiana, where an effort is underway to trim benefits for public workers. Some union activists predicted similar protests in Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. …]

The White House political operation, Organizing for America, got involved Monday, after Democratic National Committee Chairman Timothy M. Kaine, a former Virginia governor, spoke to union leaders in Madison, a party official said.

The group made phone calls, distributed messages via Twitter and Facebook, and sent e-mails to its state and national lists to try to build crowds for rallies Wednesday and Thursday, a party official said.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

What is the problem with making more money than the next person?

Nothing whatsoever so long as its someone a Republican deems WORTHY of those wages.

Shall the government fix wages depending on your job?

Drown it in the bathtub.

And, what’s this about teachers prevailing more than taxpayers. Sorry to burst your bubble, but teachers are also taxpayers.

No they’re not, well not to Republicans.

What’s ironic is that the arguments used against public employees are the EXACT same ones the Republicans criticize the Democrats for when it comes to the wealthy. The Republicans will cry “class warfare” and “class envy.” It’s completely hypocritical, but they REFUSE to see it.

 

[mlund]

Civil Servants get their collective bargaining rights at the Ballot Box, something no worker engaged in Private Enterprise gets. They also draw salaries from the pockets of the citizenry by use of the coercive power of government rather than an employer whose revenues only come from customers involved in voluntary commerce. Public Employees and Private Employees are apples and oranges when it comes to labor “rights.”

Just make it a Private Sector problem. Move public education funding to vouchers and have independent Charter and Private schools replace the State-run institutions. Now you can unionize and bargain until your heart is content. Somehow I seriously doubt the NEA would approve. They don’t want the same rights everyone else has to organize labor. They want to continue to exploit a privileged position of governmental monopoly from both the supply AND the demand ends of labor, something that doesn’t happen outside of government.

• Marty Lund

 

[iamrefreshed]

What is really galling is the politicians who have fled the state. What gives them the right to leave their jobs? I hope their paychecks will be adjusted accordingly?

You can see the union mentality at work here. Yes, I realize I used work and union in the same sentence.

 

[1voice]

That 19th century mentality of “take it or leave it 'cause I can get someone who’ll take lower wages regardless if it’s a living wage or not” is not a Catholic attitude. Sure, there are always some who need work so badly they don’t care if they’re abused or not, but it’s not an attitude that should be encouraged.

And, if the non-union people get restless about wages, the boss man can always go overseas, and stick it to them as well as to the unionists.

This has absolutely nothing to do with “living wage or not”. No union member is going to go to the poor house over this. In fact I aam willing to bet that the State employees live well above the mean and have a job security that is hard to match in the private sector.

It is my understanding that the sticking point is the benefit package … which the voters have no control over when the state employees vote themselves more and more… to the point now, if it is anything like this State where I reside … health care and retirement benefits for state employees are the single biggest burden on tax payers … hands down. Retired State employees can make more than they did while working in some cases and the tax payers pay for it… ad infinitum.

The State employee union benefit package is bankrupting the state of WI. Period. This has absolutely nothing to do with a living wage. These State employees are very well cared for. They are on the gravy train and they are bankrupting the State. The Gov is saying that the State employees set up a system that benefits them with no regard for fiscal responsibility. That is the point.

 

[Seamus_L]

A backlash against the teachers is coming as soon as people start looking at their property taxes and where the bulk of what they already pay goes. This is not the same as a private sector union making outrageous demands and getting them, because government unions have the taxpayers held hostage to their demands.
Maybe with the current recession, enough people will wake up to the fact that civilization will not come to an end without public school teachers. Home schooling parents beat their brains in anyway.

 

[ChadS]

What’s happening in Wisconsin now look’s like it may next be coming to Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Nevada and Florida for starters, and while I’m generally pro-union, I have little or no sympathy for government employees who are very well paid at the taxpayer’s expense. And to throw a little sarcasm into the mix, the serious financhial debt that so many of our state governments are now in, may eventually dictate, that arrogant, well paid, predominantly left wing academics teaching our children may become a luxury we can no longer afford.

Throughout all of this I keep hearing about how overpaid (not just well-paid) these teachers are and then state debts get thrown into the mix. If you’re not careful one becomes confused as to causing the other. Of course this what the supporters of this action want you to believe is if we can just break this union then the debt won’t be so bad.

I don’t think I’ve seen one place where hard numbers have been crunched. So if the Governor gets everything he wants how much will that affect the budget? Or is this all just smoke and mirrors?

ChadS

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Maybe with the current recession, enough people will wake up to the fact that civilization will not come to an end without public school teachers. Home schooling parents beat their brains in anyway.

Quite to the contrary. It will come to an end. If public schools close, the existing Catholic schools can’t take in the great number of public school kids looking for an education. And, if you think that nearly every woman who has kids in public school will quit her job (on which the family may be depending) so that she can home-school, then you are dreaming.

 

[a_priori]

But let’s talk about your pendulum a little. What are we really into here? Well, in the last few years we have seen the destruction of an enormous amount of wealth. With the bogus mortgages, inflated housing prices, speculation, worthless securities based on mortgages, and easy money, the big balloon finally popped. When it did, absolutely staggering amounts of wealth were destroyed.

And to add to it, Americans had over-leveraged, thanks to cheap money, bogus home equity and a general feeling that we could “have it all”. So we all got over-leveraged, which made the balloon pop even more disasterous.

Now, there are those who would argue that the last two years have scared businesses into not investing or hiring, but let’s set that aside for a moment. It isn’t essential to the point.

So, Americans are now looking at 9%+ unemployment, a reduced tax base (less income to tax, less capital gains to tax), and excessive debts to pay down, and to pay down rather painfully. It’s hard to do. Very hard. It takes a long time to rebuild destroyed wealth. And that effort reduces consumption and the production people rely on for jobs in a lot of sectors. Lots of people have lost jobs. Even more are underemployed. People aren’t getting raises in the face of inflation.

It’s terrible to adjust to all that. Americans have had to do it many times. It’s something that happens. It has always improved in the past and there’s no reason to think it won’t this time. And that’s despite China, OPEC and all that. They’ll have their problems too, and I think we’re right on the cusp of seeing them come on.

Regardless, we have all had to adjust. Now, some of these unions are saying, in effect, “we should not have to share in that adjusting”. Well, where’s the pendulum there?
We’re not really looking at teacher starvation or working two shifts per day in an uneated classroom. We’re not. The economic pendulum has swung against the American people. It will swing back eventually. I believe it will. But is there some holy writ somewhere that says public employees should not be expected to share in it when the economic pendulum swings against everybody else? And should we think they shouldn’t when the only alternative to their sharing in the downturn is to additionally tax those against whom the pendulum has already swung; the guy whose house is $30,000 under water and whose job is insecure, the gal who does a bit of moonlighting because she hasn’t had a raise in two years, but grocery prices keep going up?

Personally, I think public employees should ride the pendulum with the rest of us.

This is one of the most articulate, well-reasoned writings on this issue anywhere.

 

[1voice]

Throughout all of this I keep hearing about how overpaid (not just well-paid) these teachers are and then state debts get thrown into the mix. If you’re not careful one becomes confused as to causing the other. Of course this what the supporters of this action want you to believe is if we can just break this union then the debt won’t be so bad.

I don’t think I’ve seen one place where hard numbers have been crunched. So if the Governor gets everything he wants how much will that affect the budget? Or is this all just smoke and mirrors?

ChadS

Here is a partial, but probably typical, answer to your question. It describes teachers wages and benefits. Other public employees wage and benefit packages are probably similar.

This info is from 2002 but if the numbers have changed since then I am guessing that it would be in favor of the teachers and their families.

Wages seem to be average to above average overall. Benefits seem to be much higher and better than the private sector on average… and as I said … any changes since then are probably in favor of the teachers.

wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol11No3/Niederjohn11.3.pdf

 

[KathleenElsie]

As expressed by Rich, sure. But is that what we’re really dealing with here? The Popes have also endorsed subsidiarity and the right of individual action for individual benefit. There has to be a balance among those things.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Do you really think the Church endorses the notion that one group of people who are already making a living wage should have the power to extract more through the power of the state from people who make less, just because they have the power to do it? Those teachers make more than do most of the people who are paying them, and a lot more power to prevail in their wishes than do taxpayers.

Personally, I have never been persuaded that teachers were ever oppressed in this country. The earliest land grant colleges were all teachers’ colleges and people went to them. Why? Because, notwithstanding that teachers in those days didn’t make much, they did better than most, all things considered, including employment stability when there was no tenure. So it was worth it for them to attend. And that was back when teachers “bargained” as individuals with school boards. But perhaps someone can persuade me otherwise.

So, is the teachers’ position in WI the more reasonable, or is the governor’s (and seemingly that of the majority of the legislature) position more reasonable? When you strip away the hard ideologies, it is not obvious that the former is the case. Certainly, it’s debateable.

Thank you I fully agree.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What is the problem with making more money than the next person? Shall the government fix wages depending on your job?

And, what’s this about teachers prevailing more than taxpayers. Sorry to burst your bubble, but teachers are also taxpayers.

No bubble burst here. Of course teachers are taxpayer. But they sure aren’t the greatest number of them. It’s not too hard to pay more if, by doing so, you can compel a lot of others to pay you that much and more.

I have no problem with the idea of somebody making more than another. What I was saying is that one really can’t use the “living wage” rant in favor of someone who is already making a living wage but wants more, and the persons from whom he wants to extract it with the power of the state, makes less.

 

[gamewell45]

The schools who hire these teachers are just like any other employer–you hire someone you think will work out, it doesn’t always work out. With the Union being so strong, you then have a long drawn out battle of “proving” the worker is not doing the job. The result is that there are teachers who sit in a room all day doing NOTHING because they can’t be fired and they can’t do the job. Same for other union jobs. I KNOW, I’ve seen it happen and as a manager of union workers, my hands have been tied.

So the school administrators hire people they “think will work out??”. It sounds like a guessing game and it appears that they have a poor track record if you read the news about how many alledgedly incompetent teachers are working in our schools.

Furthermore, the decision to have a teacher sit in a room all day and do nothing is a management decision not the employees choice. There’s certainly no reason why they cannot be assigned related duties involving teaching.

Finally, if your a good manager, you’ll properly investigate potential hires prior to hiring them and thus avoid issues involving poor teachers. It all comes down to doing your job properly as a manager and not blaming the union for all the districts ills. If you don’t like the contract, then change it through negotiation, not by stabbing all teachers in the back.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Quite to the contrary. It will come to an end. If public schools close, the existing Catholic schools can’t take in the great number of public school kids looking for an education. And, if you think that nearly every woman who has kids in public school will quit her job (on which the family may be depending) so that she can home-school, then you are dreaming.

Lol

I’m sorry Rich, but this is a bunch of balogne.

People would adapt and overcome as they always have. For those who couldn’t homeschool, vouchers could be made available for private schools for those with low incomes and those would start popping up all over the place. Getting rid of public schools would create a need that would be filled like any other.

 

[1voice]

What is the problem with making more money than the next person? Shall the government fix wages depending on your job?

And, what’s this about teachers prevailing more than taxpayers. Sorry to burst your bubble, but teachers are also taxpayers.

The Government is going broke because the Public Employees figured out how to build a gravy train. The Benefit packages that they demand and get are not sustainable. They are effectively contributing to the bankrupting of the state. Yet the Public Employees refuse to accept reality and despise those that would dare to tell them that there is a limit and they managed to reach it.

 

[gamewell45]

Why wait? Why doesn’t the union just give the concessions in exchange for keeping their collective bargaining ability?

Not one single union supporter has pointed out that unions spent more than $400 million in 2008 to help elect President Barack Obama and other Democrats, with public-sector unions such as AFSCME among the biggest contributors. Funny how speculation is interesting only when it backs one’s position.

Peace

Tim

Tim, its all based on negotiations; you know, give and take? not just take like the state is trying to do.

Furthermore, whats wrong with unions spending money on political candidates? Corporations spend shareholders monies on political contributions. shouldn’t it be a two way street? furthermore in my union, they are prohibited from spending dues monies on political contributions, rather we have a voluntary PAC fund in which members can contribute monies if they so desire.

I applaud the workers in Wisconsin for having the guts to do what they feel they must do.

 

[Seamus_L]

I used to believe the police had some of the most secure jobs in America, but they’re getting laid off in cities with high crime rates, Camden, Newark etc. It’s all about having or not having the money to pay employees, and I think when it comes down to having a roof over your head and food on the table, or public education, I think most folks will opt for the former as the more important.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Lol

I’m sorry Rich, but this is a bunch of balogne.

People would adapt and overcome as they always have. For those who couldn’t homeschool, vouchers could be made available for private schools for those with low incomes and those would start popping up all over the place. Getting rid of public schools would create a need that would be filled like any other.

Not at all. Who is going to build all those private schools? Who is going to teach at them? As of the 2000 Census there are some 77 million children in public schools. The amount of money needed to provide purely private education would be staggering. Even today, Catholic schools are closing for want of parents willing to pay for tuition for their children there.

 

[oldcelt]

Originally Posted by Orogeny View Post
Why wait? Why doesn’t the union just give the concessions in exchange for keeping their collective bargaining ability?

I think this will probably be the solution, and I’m a union supporter. With the current fiscal crisis nationwide, everyone has to take a hit, but collective bargaining rights are essential for any union.

John

 

[Sabda]

There is money. There is a LOT of money. The problem is, it’s in too few hands and those hands have no intention of loosening the money and prefer to hoard it in their greed.

Ahh, well that explains why all the states are in the red and having difficulty balancing their budgets.

Lots of people have had to take pay cuts and loss of benefits. Others people have flat out lost their jobs. But yet it’s the American taxpayer who needs to keep shelling out more and more money. I’m sorry but in the real world it doesn’t work that way. In the real world there is a give and take that happens. When the economy goes down people need to cut back, including those in the government. When the economy is good than you have more money to spend. Right now we are in a downward spiral and the teachers need to wake up and smell the coffee.