Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

[Foxton]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Lets spend more then we have to please to the unions, raise taxes, Scooby is happy to pay them, raise them so much Scooby has to live in a box, he doesn't mind as long as those unions get theirs. Scooby, you have collective bargaining? If you owned a business would you want your employees to have it?

**** NO! I want them to work for pennies and I want to be able to fire them if they displease me in anyway. Minimum wage? **** that! Safety standards? **** that!

Keep your gov't out of my medicare!

 

[bronconick]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Lets spend more then we have to please to the unions, raise taxes, Scooby is happy to pay them, raise them so much Scooby has to live in a box, he doesn't mind as long as those unions get theirs. Scooby, you have collective bargaining? If you owned a business would you want your employees to have it?

Hell no, I want them tied to the land like serfs. Stupid industrial revolution ruining things.

And why the hell are they letting folks vote that don't own land? They shouldn't decide property taxes!

 

[Carter]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Per post 897 from WWM, I can assure you that there was no matching of deferred compensation by the state of Wisconsin. I worked for the UW for 33 years, the last 15 or so doing payroll and benefits.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I think this exchange from the comments kind of illustrates what I'm saying:


He responds:



So again, even if we grant him his point, that it's really wages, not pensions (and I'm still skeptical) I don't think that changes anything.

I mean, great, it's the employees money. Guess what? Their employer (the state) is out of money! So something still needs to change.

So the workers should bend over and lose all their rights just because the employer was too stupid with their money? I am guessing the WI State Legislature screwed up a lot more than just this yet they have to pay for it?

Even better, they said they would and he STILL is trying to bend them over a table without any KY. Please explain to me how that is right. The union said he can have the numbers he wants (meaning the error is corrected) all they want is the right to CB and he said no. He was then caught on tape admitting to negotiating in bad faith. Why should we believe he is going to not cornhole them in the future when they have no right to CB?

See that is the real problem WWM...most of us agree with you and him that the budget needs balancing...hell even the UNION does! Walker is going Arafat on the bit, he is getting 99% of everything he wants but that last 1% (the part he supposedly doesnt really care about since he supposedly doesnt want to destroy the union) is enough to make him walk away from the table. If I was the state workers I would tell him to shove it.

And I love that walrus is now putting forth the union boogeyman...how is it the unions fault right now they arent asking for anything but CB rights. If they cant have them what is the point of even existing? They would have as much value as the Loyal Order of Waterbuffalos. And without unions who is going to watch the workers back...the companies? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I am sure that the businesses wont cut corners at every turn to save a dime...I mean it isnt like they do that now when unions are still there. (I hate that this argument makes me defend unions, I HATE UNIONS!)

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

See that is the real problem WWM...most of us agree with you and him that the budget needs balancing...hell even the UNION does! Walker is going Arafat on the bit, he is getting 99% of everything he wants but that last 1% (the part he supposedly doesnt really care about since he supposedly doesnt want to destroy the union) is enough to make him walk away from the table. If I was the state workers I would tell him to shove it.

...Which means that you (and the unions) disagree with the article written by Ungar, which correct me if I'm wrong, was what we were talking about.

I mean, if Ungar is really correct in his little word play, why the heck are the unions not screaming bloody murder about it?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

And I love that walrus is now putting forth the union boogeyman...how is it the unions fault right now they arent asking for anything but CB rights. If they cant have them what is the point of even existing? They would have as much value as the Loyal Order of Waterbuffalos. And without unions who is going to watch the workers back...the companies? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I am sure that the businesses wont cut corners at every turn to save a dime...I mean it isnt like they do that now when unions are still there. (I hate that this argument makes me defend unions, I HATE UNIONS!)

That's the thing though, we're talking about public unions. What company exactly do they need to be protected from? The taxpayers?

In private sector unions, we have two distinctly adversarial players. In public sector unions, I'd argue that we certainly don't.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

****ing greedy *** middle class. If it wasn't for them we'd all be swimming in jobs and balanced budgets. Lay them all off.

So what exactly would your plan be to deal with the pension problem? A problem that isn't just limited to Wisconsin, as I've pointed out time and again.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

So what exactly would your plan be to deal with the pension problem? A problem that isn't just limited to Wisconsin, as I've pointed out time and again.

No public workers. Privatize everything, including education. You can't afford an education? Tough. After all, the private sector DOES EVERYTHING better than the public sector does. How do I know? I heard it on Fox News just this morning.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

No public workers. Privatize everything, including education. You can't afford an education? Tough. After all, the private sector DOES EVERYTHING better than the public sector does. How do I know? I heard it on Fox News just this morning.

Nice.

But surely, since you seem to be eager to moan about it, you must have a better solution than what these governors (both Republicans and Democrats) are attempting, right?

 

[bronconick]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

That's the thing though, we're talking about public unions. What company exactly do they need to be protected from?

The politicians elected by the taxpayers that are bought and paid for by corporate interests.

The taxpayers haven't been the "employers" of public workers in years. At best, they're the shareholders in the government.

We may be a Republic in name, but it's been an Oligarchy for most of its history, which is why the pendulum swings back to unions being necessary every so often.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Nice.

But surely, since you seem to be eager to moan about it, you must have a better solution than what these governors (both Republicans and Democrats) are attempting, right?

Yeah, I see your point but I'm done now. There's nothing I can do about. I agree with what bronconick just said and I can't fix that. Since I can't fix that I can't really propose a simple solution to this problem.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

The politicians elected by the taxpayers that are bought and paid for by corporate interests.

The taxpayers haven't been the "employers" of public workers in years. At best, they're the shareholders in the government.

We may be a Republic in name, but it's been an Oligarchy for most of its history, which is why the pendulum swings back to unions being necessary every so often.

Okay. What about some specific examples though. For example, what about schools. What exactly are the competing interests there? Why would we allow an organization whose sole goal is to get better benefits for the members to have such sway over kids education? Isn't it supposed to be "about the kids" as people can't stop talking about these days?

 

[bronconick]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Okay. What about some specific examples though. For example, what about schools. What exactly are the competing interests there? Why would we allow an organization whose sole goal is to get better benefits for the members to have such sway over kids education? Isn't it supposed to be "about the kids" as people can't stop talking about these days?

That organization also has a goal of keeping their members from being fired because of one obnoxious parent who can't stand the idea that their kid is really a C- student, or the administrator that folds upon contact from one similar parent. So, it's not just about benefits.

From zero tolerance policies, to a somewhat disturbing lack of privacy for students while in school, to lazy or incompetent teachers with tenure, to parents that don't give two craps as long as the government run baby sitter takes their kid away for 180 days a year for a dozen years, lack of vocational options or anything non-college related, massive differential in the support systems but who all end up taking the same government unfunded mandate tests, there's any number of problems with public schools, most of which won't be solved by privatizing schools or eliminating unions, and might add new problems anyway.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I don't believe I said I'm for privatizing schools.

My point though, is that unions were started against a 100% legitimate enemy. Bosses who, if they could have, would have had 20 hour work days, all the terrible stuff you read about, etc. In the private sector, I think that's still largely true. Take an auto workers union. The company owner wants profits above all else (oversimplifying I know), and the union wants employee needs above all else (as they totally should-not complaining about that in the least).

But whatever the situation in the public sector was at the start, it's somehow devolved into a situation where asking for things like this

Gallo asked teachers to work a longer school day of seven hours and tutor students weekly for one hour outside school time. She proposed teachers have lunch with students often, meet for 90 minutes every week to discuss education and set aside two weeks during summer break for paid professional development.

becomes some outrageous act to union leaders. You're telling me Randi Weingarten cares on iota about the kids her teachers teach? Bull.

Or, take DC for example. Michelle Rhee actually had test scores improving there, but the teachers union screeched and screeched and spent lavishly on a mayoral candidate who wanted her gone- all because she had the temerity to actually fire people who were bad at their jobs.

So who exactly is the stereotypical "evil employer" a union like the AFT is fighting against?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

The politicians elected by the taxpayers that are bought and paid for by corporate interests.

The taxpayers haven't been the "employers" of public workers in years. At best, they're the shareholders in the government.

We may be a Republic in name, but it's been an Oligarchy for most of its history, which is why the pendulum swings back to unions being necessary every so often.

You've got it reversed: the local and state politicians involved are there because of the millions of dollars in union contributions to their campaigns. Effectively, the public unions ae sitting on both sides of the table at once. If the politicians with whom the unions negotiate are "owned" by the rich and powerful, why do these tools of the "oligarchy" keep caving in to the unions?

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I don't believe I said I'm for privatizing schools.

My point though, is that unions were started against a 100% legitimate enemy. Bosses who, if they could have, would have had 20 hour work days, all the terrible stuff you read about, etc. In the private sector, I think that's still largely true. Take an auto workers union. The company owner wants profits above all else (oversimplifying I know), and the union wants employee needs above all else (as they totally should-not complaining about that in the least).

But whatever the situation in the public sector was at the start, it's somehow devolved into a situation where asking for things like this

becomes some outrageous act to union leaders. You're telling me Randi Weingarten cares on iota about the kids her teachers teach? Bull.

Or, take DC for example. Michelle Rhee actually had test scores improving there, but the teachers union screeched and screeched and spent lavishly on a mayoral candidate who wanted her gone- all because she had the temerity to actually fire people who were bad at their jobs.

So who exactly is the stereotypical "evil employer" a union like the AFT is fighting against?

Well you have to remember that unions, just like management are going to hoot and holler over every change and half the time it is just for theatrics. It is downright annoying but is just part of the script. I cant speak to any specificity of what you mentioned because you presented one side of the argument and it leaves little to go on. (most of that stuff seems reasonable and I doubt any of our districts would raise a stink about it)

If you want to know what districts would do if there was no teachers union...well there would be a hardcore zero tolerance policy. Districts are already gunshy about complaints on teachers and all it would take is a few parents to whine the principle or the school board and said teacher would not be renewed. I am not sure salaries would change much on the average (though the long term teachers would probably make a lot less) but the benefits would definitely go in the crapper big time. It would be the first thing a non-affluent suburban district would cut. Many times demands on teachers would rise also, with little to no compensation. (like forced OT)

This is just stuff off the top of my head. If you want to ride down the slippery slope a bit, it will create a competitive imbalance overall I do believe. Without a union it will become a total free market, wild west style. Rich districts will offer tenure and better starting salaries (since there will be no union scale) or better benefits and the less affluent districts will not be able to compete since they dont have the backing. (the unions made sure this could never happen) As more students leave schools like Minneapolis South and head to the Edinas or Bloomingtons or Hopkins the rich get richer. (just like what happened with open enrollment only on a much grander scale) It would be up to the State or the Fed to make such things mandatory and we both know that wont happen. (Do you think Walker would do that, Tpaw wouldnt no GOPer would be caught dead doing that) So it will either flounder or it will flip flop with every new administration.

Like I said, that is the slippery slope, but I would bet everything I got that if the unions disappeared the city districts would start cutting hardcore to balance budgets...what do you think would happen next?

JMHO.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_50.htm - more evidence that public school teachers are doing pretty well overall (I'm sure someone will claim the BLS data is somehow biased and hours aren't properly counted, etc).

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Every time I read this thread, I just can't help thinking:

Cut the union's wages, and you balance the budget for a year - cut the union's CB rights, and you balance the budget for a lifetime.

Liberals complain that the governor doesn't really care about the money, he just wants to bust the union. That argument could easily be turned around - what are benefit negotiating rights for if not for getting more $$$ out of taxpayers' pockets?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_50.htm - more evidence that public school teachers are doing pretty well overall (I'm sure someone will claim the BLS data is somehow biased and hours aren't properly counted, etc).

Moving from the general to the specific, nearly two thirds of students fail to graduate from high school in Milwaukee. While there are doubtless many factors involved, teachers must take some of the blame for that appalling failure.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Moving from the general to the specific, nearly two thirds of students fail to graduate from high school in Milwaukee. While there are doubtless many factors involved, teachers must take some of the blame for that appalling failure.

You know what will solve MPS' problems? Viagra!

All about the kids.