Clearly.ruckman101 wrote:
gloves off class war.
neal
Colin
Clearly.ruckman101 wrote:
gloves off class war.
neal
This is just typical right to work anti union rhetoric. Seems reasonable to me if you want the benefit of being in a union you ought to be required to pay your share. I'm personally disgusted at our growing trend of declaring the sanctity of personal choice every time there is a requirement to pony up for a benefit we enjoy. Jesus on a pogo have we become a nation of crybaby weasels.turk wrote:The teachers will be fine. They now get the option of NOT paying union dues. They can spend their money on something else each month. Yes, it's about the budget. If it weren't there wouldn't be a half dozen other states already looking at how to reform their public sector unions. Even here, DEMOCRATS are having to look at how to reform teachers unions. Yes, DEMOCRATS.
It looks like the pay and benefits for government workers began to outpace the private sector in the mid 80's. Its interesting that it coincides with the decline of unionization in private sector. It seems like for years jobs like police work, teaching, being a fireman didn't come with great pay or benefits but now that they've morphed into okay jobs we're pissed they might be getting more than the rest of us. Personally I want happy cops and firemen. I want teachers that are smarter than me.glasseye wrote:On the other hand, the following graphic from the NYT appears to show some pretty good working conditions for government employees.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011 ... tml?ref=us
Agreed. And the same goes for pilots and doctors. I want 'em old, smart and well-paid.RussellK wrote:... Personally I want happy cops and firemen. I want teachers that are smarter than me.
I know more than a few folks who wish they could have their vote for him back.RussellK wrote:Not so fast. Some of the people of Wisconsin have spoken. Some. Some of the people of Wisconsin are disgusted.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolit ... 72988.html
Common sense tells me that better pay and better benefits make a job more attractive increasing the likeliness better qualified people are attracted and stay. Did this occur because of a union? I can't say. My experience with the NEA is pretty limited. My wife was a member in the late 70s early 80's. I don't recall the union being particularly militant nor the negotiations being heavy handed on either side of the table. I do recall the teachers loyalty was not to the union but to their students. I suspect it is still that way.turk wrote:How does unionization make it more likely the teacher is smarter? It doesn't is my understanding. It actually means it has nothing to do with smarts or competence, only seniority and loyalty to the union.
RussellK wrote:Turk I find it unlikely a chief would be covered by collective bargaining and of course we all know about the NYC schoolteachers that are paid $125,000 per annum to sit in a room and play cards but that's beside the point. This fallacious argument strategy is tiresome and unproductive. Collective bargaining is not one sided. Two parties reach an agreement and two parties ink the deal. That's how it works. Its suspicious to me that there is this effort to demonize collective bargaining and unions as the root cause of budgetary trouble when it took both parties to put the deal together. The politicos made an offer and the unions accepted. How do you fault them for that. Now there is a price to pay and the politicos are unhappy with the deal they struck. Instead of admitting they sucked rather largely at the negotiating table they want to claim it was the mean nasty union that made them do it. The truth is they struck these deals because it was smart politically to do it. This looks to me like nothing more than a convenient excuse to pursue an anti labor agenda.