I read most of the posts so forgive me if this is already been stated in one way or another on another post.

I am currently a union man, Teamsters Local 120, and was in the Teamsters Local 160 for quite a while as well. I understand the benefit of the unions and realize the detrimental behavior of some of the unions (UAW) I personally have despised the Teachers Union for years for two primary reasons, they protect inept teachers and protect pedophiles.

The issue of dealing with inept teachers is very complicated and do not want to get into that as much as I would like say that breaking the teachers union is a small price to pay in order to eventually get rid of these dirt bags and keep them away from kids.

Changing the union would be a better option. The techers union in Australia is more focused on services and support. Even i'm tempted to join the union :O. The Australian techers union doesn't support pedo teachers, thats what certain religious groups are for o.O. Thats a flame based on 20 years ago, so its probably very unfair to say now.

The only problem with the union is higher pay for less qualified people and lower pay for more qualified.

This thread interests me quite a bit as I have to teach industrial relations this semester >.>.

Just a note; Japanese unions often support pay cuts and cuts to conditions to preserve jobs and company growth.

So unions are not always terrible, just certain outdated models of them are.

I can say this for sure- in construction and im sure its with industry too- if you are not in a union you are not given personal protective equipment (earplugs, safety glasses, and respirators) but if you are in a Union you get them. If you don't have them you can call your hall and they will make sure you get them. Unions for this reason really protect workers. Without this you would not get it and maybe loose your job if you complained.

I'm not even reading the other responses on here, but are you insane? They paid 0% toward retirement. ZERO. Almost NO other state teacher's unions have that much of a sweetheart deal.

As much as I care about teachers, I think they whine a little too much sometimes and I dated one for a long time. Keep in mind often states provide them tax breaks, pay off their student loans and they're provided full-time benefits for working 75% of the time. And yes, I know, they take home work as do most other state employees.

I haven't looked closely enough at Wisconsin's pension plan, but in MD they're vested after 3 years as teachers. Normal state employees are 5 years. That's insane on both counts.

Something has to change.

Maybe you should read the other posts then, rather than show that you don't know what this is about. It is not about what teachers have to pay towards their pension.

The war between unions and many workers/businesses has been coming for a long time. Now some politicians have the tenacity to take up the fight as well. The battle that I expect to hit the courts will be in those states where paying union dues can be a condition of employment even if an employee does not wish to be part of the union.

Were unions a good thing at one point? Yes. Can they still be a good thing now? Yes. Can they be a good thing is the form and manner of the United Auto-Workers union? NO!

Unions should protect their employees from dangerous work conditions. They should only be concerned with workers pay if the workers are not receiving a liveable wage/salary. If they are being paid a liveable wage/salary and should still be paid more, then some company will offer more. After the first company loses needed employees, they will either increase pay or go out of business.

Luckily for me, I live/work in a right-to-work state. Unions have significantly less power in Tennessee than many other states. However, Tennessee's legislature is still taking on the teachers union(s). Pay is not the main issue in Tennessee, but rather the state and local authorities are moving to change tenure policies and make it easier to fire low quality teachers.

Those states that are more pro-union have been losing employers and citizens to those states that are pro-business/worker. Let's be perfectly honest, there are far too many cases where the union represents the interests of the union at the expense of the interests of its employees. Employees have a stake in the companies they work for. They need those companies to stay open. When unions like the UAW nearly force companies into bankruptcy, they are acting more like illegal mafias and less like employee advocates. In recent years we have seen unions trampling on the rights and interests of employees to simply remain in power and continue making money. However, in recent years we have also seen employees move to more worker and company-friendly states. Truly, the irony is not lost on me that worker's and employers are on the same side against unions that are suppose to represent the workers.

To conclude: I think this fight has been coming for a long time. The reason that it's been ignited now is because enough people have voted with their feet to force the largely pro-union states to change their tunes a bit. Simply put, population is down and so are tax revenues. People are forcing the hands of states. What did you expect would happen when unions grew too powerful. The system is rebalancing itself.

You can argue if reducing the power of the Unions is correct or not, but these facts you just posted are WAY wrong. It was started by ONE blogger who can't read and now repeated. Even the Union leaders themselves have dropped it. That memo showed a surplus only in General funds, and a few paragraphs down showed all the "other" bills coming due and actually projected a deficit higher than Walker even claims. Also, Walker's changes do not even take effect in this fiscal year and made not one cent difference.

http://politifact.com/...in-track-have-budget-sur/

Ooops, I didn't know Kitty had left herself logged in, that should have been me.

It was far more than one blogger, however yes, it turns out the current budget is unaffected by the tax breaks. Fortunately the budget is still unaffected by worker's rights to unionize. Everyone has already agreed to give Walker the actual fiscal concessions he wants.

And that is something that can be argued. There are still an estimated $800 million ti $1 Billion that will be cut from State aid to local governments. Without this change those small governments will just have to lay workers off. Personally, I think with it being made this big of an issue Walker should just back down and let the layoffs happen. Counties can't even hope to increase property taxes so far to make up that much in funding. So, for right or wrong on the decision itself, it is actually still about budget.

How is taking away the right to unionize about the budget? Or are you taking it a step further and saying that once unions are gone he can just do whatever he wants to state employees in the name of balancing the budget?

No. What I am saying is those local governments that have up to a $1 billion reduction staring them in the face have their hands tied if they have to rely on 18 months or more to even TRY making any changes or adjustments that can help them balance their own budget and survive. Maybe that is not the answer though and just going with the layoffs is.

um, the unions protect CRAP teachers. They refuse to let the teachers take a pay cut to help with the budget deficit. They are making life for the state a ROYAL pain in the ass.

They are acting like a little kid who's mommy wants to take their bike away. Throwing a tantrum. I am all for the state fluffting all over the selfish unions.

It is in a union's best interest to not get people laid off. As long as that is always on the table then unions have a vested interest in being reasonable in negotiations and not forcing things to take a year.

mrford...
1) Unions protect GOOD teachers too. The problem is most qualified people don't want to teach because they are not getting their market value... you get what you pay for. If people want to pay teachers like crap, then you will get crap teachers.
2) Ummm... all public worker unions here have agreed to make Walker's fiscal changes... refusal to accept pay cuts to help with the budget deficit is 100% false.
3) No, Walker is the one throwing the tantrum. The people just want to talk. Walker is the one who is refusing to cooperate with anyone - he is saying it is his way or the highway.

1. The Union and the Democrats, offered to meet the Govorners requests in regards to teachers paying in mroe on retirement and health.

The Gov and the republicans turned it down.

THis has NOTHING to do with Budgeting process, or it would have been accepted, it is simply a ploy to bust the unions.

And, it is coming to other states.

This is about some Republican idea, hatched in some Washingonton think tank, to use the budgets as an excuse to bust the unions/


Neverm,ind that Wisconsin had a balanced budget till they gave a tax break to the wealthiest, then went oh $%^% we have a defecit, let's make the teachers pay. Oh yeah and Bust their unions!


This is going to play out in multiple states, and we'll find it really is about busting unions. Not balancing defecits,
Bush allready proved Republicans don't really belive in that.

wow

servant didn't exactly read the thread, or he wouldn't of posted half what he just did

stop being lazy dude

Yeah, he went for what has already been proven false and even the Unions have corrected their own statements :) Bad Servant!!

But, the issue still remains on HOW to fix it. The cuts yet to come that local governments have to deal with will be slowed by the Unions, although Detmer's take is also correct. If they know the consequence, they will likely agree quickly. If Unions are OTHERWISE good or bad, is yet another argument entirely. I would personally rather see this current proposal as temporary, and before it expires work with the Unions on redefining the process and organization. It seems even Unions are now seeing performance vs tenure as important. It could likely be hashed out.

Why should teachers be paid more if some of their number are crap teachers. Bottom line is this, teacher's won't be paid more until the people see a value in paying their teachers more. Crap teachers in the system with no way for the system to show the crap teachers the door means that not many people will see the value in paying good teachers more.

Unions have gotten to say that it's their way or the highway for a long long long long long long long long long time. State's like TN are now telling the unions that they (the unions) can hit the highway. I can't speak to what's happening in Wisconsin as well, but in Tennessee the unions are weaker and the fight hasn't yet heated up as badly. We'll see how it goes. Maybe my state's teachers unions will be resigned to the fate of their rights being curtailed in part or at least in their job security declining so that crap teachers can be removed from classrooms.

Protecting good teachers is not an acceptable reason to continue protecting bad teachers today. We are FAILING our children in our almost sacred duty to prepare them for life. Everything is fair game in the fight to protect the future of the nation's children.

The obvious choice here (which Walker is not accepting for obvious reasons since his true goal is union busting) is to balance the budget with his benefit alteration suggestions as everyone has agreed to do that right now and then tackle any issues he has with unions separately. He claims this is about solving the budget now, so he should only focus on solving the budget now. His unwillingness to drop his stance on unions shows that this is not about the current budget. Fix the budget now, address unions later. Simple.




It's a chicken vs egg argument. You won't get good teachers until you pay more and you won't pay more if you just have a bunch of crap teachers.The real solution would be to pay teachers more but to then have critical evaluations in place to ensure that they are good teachers. Only give the good pay to current teachers who are demonstrably good (which of course there are many factors that make this difficult). That being said, crap teachers and good teachers both get paid like crap right now.

Detmer, you are still missing the fact that there is up to another $1 billion in cuts to local government. He may be WRONG in thinking it is needed to help close that gap, but it IS about budget even if it isn't the right answer.

"It's a chicken vs egg argument. You won't get good teachers until you pay more and you won't pay more if you just have a bunch of crap teachers.The real solution would be to pay teachers more but to then have critical evaluations in place to ensure that they are good teachers. Only give the good pay to current teachers who are demonstrably good (which of course there are many factors that make this difficult). That being said, crap teachers and good teachers both get paid like crap right now."

I also agree 100% there. That is why I would like to see the collective bargaining suspension being temporary and redefine how it all works. Unions could easily adjust to looking out for TRUE workplace abuses, negotiate salary within some boundary, and also warp into a sort of "oversight" to ensure nobody is unfairly harmed, while still moving things more towards performance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...ngs-maths-science-reading

wonder how much them South Korean teachers are getting paid?

2500000.0 KRW = 2252.51606044 USD

2500000.0 Korean Won = 2252.51606044 US Dollar

(as of 21st February 2011)

oh.

It looks like SK teachers are paid well.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/...her-pay-around-the-world/



DaGecko, apparently you're going to have to spell it out more for me because I just don't see how taking away collective bargaining is going to save money.

yeah, but it seems that the South Korean teachers do a better job with 1/2 the time put in when compared to US teachers.

Detmer,

Currently, an administrator can hardly remove a poor performing teacher. They are also stuck in that if they MUST lay someone off it is by senority alone. So, while they MAY have a new genius on their hands, fresh from school, and a great teacher, that one must go first. Not productive.

While it WOULD degrade education as a whole, at least for now until the budget is fixed, something as small as increasing class size from 20 to 25 students is a Union issue. Changing teachers in-service days to be at the beginning or end of the school year would save, but is a Union issue (wouldn't save much though). Reducing "prep time" is a union issue. They obviously should have some, but we all went to school and know they mostly use the same lesson plan year after year. These things still all add up to money in the end. The question should not be if it is related to the budget, because it certainly is, but rather where the line should be. I think unions are making a mistake claiming it is NOT about the budget, instead of arguing it crosses the line while admitting there is a financial impact.

So the argument that this is fiscal is that it will allow Walker to start making all sorts of changes not currently laid out by the bill? I agree that is true and completely scary.

No, it would not be Walker at all, but each local government.

MY point, is that it IS still a fiscal issue. He wants those local governments to have more "tools". The Unions SHOULD be arguing that it crosses the line, not that it has nothing to do with finances when it clearly does. We could say all classes will have 100 students, and clearly save money. It would be finance, but it would obviously cross the line. They are only galvanizing the opposition arguing in the wrong direction. Fight for the collective bargaining based on it crossing the line, not by denying it has no fiscal impact. MANY more would support them if they did. It would also likely open up more conversation for them to be part of the solution, instead of a growing distrust by many.

The republicans are making the same mistake Obamma and the Democrats made when they got lots of power- they are moving to their extreme. America is still slightly right of center. Republicans have a huge majority there and are using this budget issue as an excuse to enact their extreme ideology in busting the unions and making things easy for big business. It makes me sick.

This is the same stupidity as the Democrats shoving their health care plan down Americas throats when most Americans do not want it. Yes, we want health care reform. We like some parts of the bill but it is not worth the cost or all the bad parts. Just like this with the unions. There are some problems, but you don't fix them by cutting the head off.

I wish they (both partys) would start doing what s best for America and not their party or people who paid them off.

yah, bust the unions that are driving up our taxes just so they can protect their self-interests. i saw a stat that stated that only 7% of US workers are in a union, that's a lot of teachers complaining about being granted the opportunity of making 4-5 times the money required to be at poverty level.

I stand by what I said. This is purely a move to take out the unions.

This is totally about taking the unions out of comission.
AP just did a nice article on this.


http://news.yahoo.com/...sin_budget_union_politics

If the AP says it, it must be true!!

Here's a good one:

"Public safety workers, including police officers, firefighters and state troopers, would keep their rights under the plan. Those unions endorsed Walker in his campaign for governor last year, but he said they were exempted because he did not want to jeopardize public safety if they walked off the job."

Of 314 Public safety unions in the state, FOUR endorsed Walker. The rest, including the two largest statewide unions, all opposed him. yet, we continue to see drivel like this? Payback? Really? If one pays back a group who was still largely against them, then I want some payback from all those I ever didn't endorse or vote for!

There is MORE than enough to argue or discuss, without poor reporting and people repeating it as fact.

Servant, your last post was based on another falsehood. When shown wrong you moved to another with no comment on having perpetuated a myth. I admire anyone who stands up for their beliefs, but do it on it's own merits (and there are MANY), and not by simply pointing fingers, innuendo, and false accusations.

For clarification Servant, I'm not saying Walker is right either. I'm only saying that all this obfuscation is getting ridiculous. Argue the point of if the Union should remain, and if it is more important than tax savings, etc. Pointing out one thing after another against Walker, either with no proof or proven false, doesn't meet that.

http://www.k12jobs.com/...isconsin_teacher_jobs.php

get back to work beotches.

Schlemiel, Schlamazel Hasenpfeffer Inc!!!

fark, why can't i remember the name of the show?

duh, Laverne and Shirley... oh, and the big Ragu!

how you spell Laverne?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRmKzxhMzwo

there we go, Welcome To Wisconsin!

The other unions (police and fire in Wisconsin historically support republicans) are showing up to the protests and backing the Unions that the governor is craking down on.

Kinda ironic he isn't cracking down on unions that tend to vote Republican heh?

The article clearly points out those Rep leaning unions are supporting the protests.

My brother is a teacher in Ohio, its allready started there, and yes they're going after the union.

Its coming to other states.
I expect it to happen in Oklahoma soon (my home state) now that is has near a super majority in the house/senate and a super conservative Gov, they are allready changing how the board is appointed to eliminate the the Democratic appointments so they can replace the board with a Rep one.

If this was about balancing the budget, there'd be a compormise on the wages.

But as the Gov put it no compromises,
he's after taking outt he union.

I stand by it, there are plenty of articles supporting this.

The "article" said. You obviously missed that the article is not accurate, just as your previous claim on the State not really having a deficit. FOUR, of 314 Emergency Services related unions supported Walker. Also, at least one of them has now decided they want nothing to do with him. Where do you get that they vote Republican? Where do you get that he would reward thousands as a favor when only a few of them supported him? It doesn't add up.

But, I guess when you have no REAL argument to support, having to point fingers is what must be resorted to.

http://www.politico.com/...ies/0211/49919_Page2.html

Here's another article, where the dem's and labor are willing to agree to paying Pension dues, and increased healthcare costs.

If it really was about the budget, the Gov would accept.

Democrats say they’re willing to compromise — wielding a letter they sent to Walker on Friday that said labor would be willing to concede pension cuts and pay more into health care and retirement plans, which the governor has demanded.

They insist that collective bargaining has nothing to do with paying down Wisconsin’s debt.

“We just want the governor to get to the table — to take the collective bargaining provisions out,” said Sen. Dave Hansen, assistant Democratic leader. “We agreed to pay the pension that he asked, the increased costs for health care. … This is a bigger game plan, and that is to destroy the middle class, destroy collective bargaining. He could end this right now.”

Wait, you just contradicted yourself. First you claim he is handing out favors over a SMALL minority of unions who endorsed him, THEN claim those same unions support the protests. You just proved MY point. Other than four SMALL unions, they already didn't support him, and he is obviously not doling out favors to them. Kudos to them for sticking with what they believe though, although I bet none of them, other than maybe 3 of the 4 small ones, appreciate being told they gained favor when they had nothing to do with it.

How much of their voice now is simply due to trying to PROVE they had no part in it, drummed up by people spreading a complete falsehood?

get back to work beotches, you have no legitimate claim.

Ok Servant, you obviously can't debate and have a one track mind. Give me $1 billion, I will pass it on to local governments, and the argument will be settled :)

I, for one, do not like where we are, but people only spouting half a story doesn't fix it. I guess we'll have to let the protests continue and go with the line in the sand sort of mentality.

So short minded. "OMFG IF THIS WAS ABOUT THE BUDGET A DEAL WOULD BE MADE OMFGWTFBBQ"

that's such an inaccurate statment it's insane. If the unions were gone then the goverment would be spending less money and the workers would be making more money, period.

Public worker unions have no place at all. Private sector maybe. But public? Hell no, they have no purpose other than to profit on the goverments dime and at the expense of the taxpayers.

They protect the weak and hinder the strong from advancing. I see no good from that. Not all the teachers are the same and they do not deserve to be treated as such.

The unions might be good for the teachers, but they are fluff for the students, the taxpayers, and the budget. So what if they are using this as a last straw fluff you unions platfom. I applaud them.

Is it that I don't know what I'm talking about or you don't?

I read you're convinced that this is about union-busting under the mistaken belief that Wisconsin is running a surplus. I don't know where to begin.

Perhaps I start by explaining how states budget. First off, most states do not have one big budget. This is a horrible misconception. Often they have an operating budget (sometimes called a general fund, operating budget, etc), a capital budget (sometimes called a bond budget), and pension liabilities. Do these interplay? Yes, but they are not one in the same.

Enter the concept of 'structural deficits'. These are created when you have future outlays surpassing future income/revenue/taxes. I don't know Wisconsin's outlooks, but many states do fiscal outlooks ranging from 5-10 years out. The goal being to avoid the train wreck before you get there. However, legislators and governors often prefer the game of papering over deficits. They do this through a number of methods. You tossed out stimulus dollars. Sounds appetizing. Free money, right? The reality is if you accepted education stimulus dollars then you could NOT offer a budget in any successive years less than the year you accepted the money. Or Medicaid, but you had to adjust who you covered and then keep covering them after the money is gone. These lead to bigger deficits in the long run. Another way is by raiding dedicated funds and/or transferring money around.

As for pension liabilities perhaps you can learn some here: http://www.swib.state.wi.us/WRSsustainability.pdf . I would love to engage you in the fun discussion of post employment benefits and/or healthcare costs, but alas you can learn more by reading about them. End-game is you either make severe reductions to benefits, utilitze layoffs/furloughs/some combination, increase contribution costs and/or raise taxes--obviously you can blend all of these choices.

Ignoring your projected liability increases, tapping your rainy day fund and/or failing to address the problem severely affect your bond rating which in turn means you're paying a premium in your capital budget (it's a death-spiral because it will end up expanding your deficits well beyond control and send you to the doldrums with California).

Need I elaborate more for you?

Augh they do have a shortfall, folks just don't know how to read legislative mumbo-jumbo:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&;Darling.pdf

Skip to page four. Their legislative staff separates our medicaid ($153.3 million estimated), public defender ($3.5 million), and corrections ($21.7 million). Why they separate these out is beyond me.

States are also advised to keep 5% of the size of the general operating budget/account/fund in reserve if they wish to maintain their bond ratings.

So they're rnuning about $178 million in the red. The medicaid growth is troublesome as they can likely expect to see expanded rolls in the outyears (rarely does this number ever go down). Their DOC numbers are also troublesome because for it to go down would require letting inmates out/shutting down a prison or two most likely. Thus they're running a structural deficit.

They need to come up with revenue somewhere. The concept that they had nada contribution before is astounding--especially to someone from a very pro-union state.

Here's some reading on their current Wisconsin Retirement System, Servant:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/...20Retirement%20System.pdf

Teachers are 82,000 of their 180,000 employees covered by WRS. State-obligated pension growth was almost 26% from 2000-2009 (table 11, pg26 http://legis.wisconsin.gov/...20Retirement%20System.pdf) or roughly $142mil more.

Currently their state is contributing at 5% for general employees (6% for protected..LEO/firefighter utilizing SS and 8% for those not using SS). The employees were doing 1% then .9% and 1.5% for 2011. Take a look at other states where 2.5-5 is the average.

"Over time, state employee groups have negotiated
or have been provided an employer "pickup"
of almost all employee-required WRS contributions.
The state has agreed to assume the payment
of basic employee-required contributions equal to
5.0% of gross payroll for all employee classifications
as well as up to 1.3% of gross payroll for any
benefit adjustment contribution required from state
employees in the general classification (pg 41 http://legis.wisconsin.gov/...20Retirement%20System.pdf)".

Their unfunded liabilities aren't bad (193mil), but its largely because of the above.

Anyway, Detmer will ignore the fact that the unions negotiated tons of additional contracts there to get the state to pay more and more of the employee's supposed contribution. But that's fact.

You guys need to quit reading just the media's 2 cent take on everything and start digging in the weeds aka reading the non-partisan legislative reports produced.

I'm done playing professor for the day because I can finally leave work (although ironically I work with a lot of this same stuff). State and federal budgeting processes are far more complex then they let on and far more complex then the 10 second editorials and news blurbs you can read on them.

In Wisconsin's case they exclude some of their mandated spending from their operating fund balances, they include counties and municipalities in their pension system (WRS) and they had unions with a unique ability to continue to force the state to pick up more and more of the employee retirement contribution amount. Bottom line is you can't get something for nothing and so their Governor is going back to one of their root budgetary problems which is horrible renegotiated union contracts that took their employee contribution rates from 5% of gross salary to under 1% while the state has picked up the difference. Rant on and on about fairness all you want, but do the reading.

Then Seperate the issue.

And, repeal the tax break.

If its really about the budget.


All I was saying is,
This isn't about the budget.

It's about busting the union.
I stand by that statement.

Even is this is about busting the union, I still support the Wisconsin Republican Governor and Legislatures. The unions have become an instrument of hardship and suffering. If they are not smacked back into line, they will continue to be incapable of fulfilling the reasons they came to exist in the first place (relieving employee suffering and maintaining REASONABLE pay for their members). Right now, unions exist to line their own pockets with employees' pay.

trumper, I still don't see how you think this isn't union busting... all you've really done is try to support union busting... You seem to be working on the assumption that unions will never relent anything and the only way to make things manageable is through their removal. I don't doubt that changes are necessary. I think the necessary changes can be done with unions.

the US is slowly turning into an old middle ages style economy...


millions of poor serfs running around for the upper class...

just the classes are divided on purely economical terms...