Republican Scorched Earth Policies

[Amskeptic]

gloves off class war.
neal

Clearly.
Colin

[turk]

Sounds like you guys are gettin' "ready to rumble".

[RussellK]

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.

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.

But there is a history here. These agreements originated back when there was an acute teacher shortage and not many of our brightest were entering the field. We needed to attract and retain good people to educate our kids. How do you do that? You increase pay and retirement benefits. It was a smart move that worked, the teachers remained in their profession increasing their pay and retirement benefit with years of service but now there is a price to pay. I'm amazed that suddenly politicians are demonizing unions and pensions when they signed off on the deal years ago.

Look I don't have an issue with tough negotiating. That's the function of government as ward of the coffers but to suggest the only way to do get that job done is to reform (carve out) the union, suggests to me the politicians have made unions the scapegoat for their own inadequacies.

[turk]

Are death threats (to Republicans) sent to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial page just left-wing rhetoric? Or are we to watch out for the next Jared Loughner egged on by the new "civility" Obama, Krugman, and the rest inspired? The unions will re-group. The politicians need to sacrifice some of their bloated "guaranteed" pension plans. Mobocracy deserves the results they have got so far. The dems who fled deserve to "miss out" on any legislation passed. In the end this is good for everyone. It is sobering. We hope. There are plenty of vein-popping mad lunatics who think the world is coming to an end and "democracy was stolen" from them. They are dumb. This is a teaching moment. The people of Wisconsin have spoken. Get to the back of the bus.

[RussellK]

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

[glasseye]

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

[RussellK]

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

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]

... Personally I want happy cops and firemen. I want teachers that are smarter than me.

Agreed. And the same goes for pilots and doctors. I want 'em old, smart and well-paid.

[Ryno]

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

I know more than a few folks who wish they could have their vote for him back.

[turk]

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]

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.

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]

I half-way agree with you, but that is a good question I asked. link That's one story that may show there is something to be said for reform. There are many others. One I read about a fire department chief in California who retired with a pension that, if I'm not mistaken, was in the hundreds of thousands. I wanna say 500,000 a year, but I need to find the story. That chief also continues to work as a consultant to the same department, so is getting paid twice. That's what collective bargaining with the tax-payer's money can bring down. That seems a little crazy, but not unbelievable. Now, with teachers, I have nothing against. Same with other public employees. I'm just saying, they are paid with tax money, and there needs to be some reform. I read somewhere that even if you taxed all the multibillionaires at 100 percent that still wouldn't fill the budget deficit(s) governments are faced with. Like it or not, the really big proportion of tax revenues are in the middle class brackets, so this isn't a thing where taxing the rich is the solution. I can discuss this with my friends who are Air-traffic controllers, one retired early, the other retiring next year. I want their opinion, even though I gather they are very anti-republican in their views.

[RussellK]

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.

[turk]

You know that Walker almost caved when he made numerous concessions to his proposal, except the one giving union teachers the option of not paying the mandatory dues each month, and not being in the monopoly the unions represent in Wisconsin; and the dems (I mean union peps) declined that deal, right before the the 'pubs figured out how to pass it without the 14 awol reps? That is something you will only find in one sentence, buried paragraphs into in AP reports. Yet, that is the key to this whole debate.

[turk]

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.

Why would you find it unlikely? I should now go find the report to show you. Nothing against fire and police but if that's true it shows the power public sector unions have. I also think this should apply to elected officials. I dunno what they get, but we kinda know they get some sweet deals too, on pensions, health care etc.. They shouldn't be exempt from sacrifice while unions' members are not. That's something I never heard brought up in this. As we all kinda know, top execs exempt themselves from the same "teamwork" sacrifice the lower people on the totem pole are expected to do.