[ARCHIVED THREAD] - teacher salaries (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 2/22/2011 5:03:09 PM EDT
|
In one of the "other" threads about the budget bill that's the top news story, someone, I forgot who or in what thread, made the statement that teachers in WI only earn about $24,500 per year. I KNEW this was wrong and that they made much more where I live, but didn't reply because I had no proof. Now I do.
Go here -> http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/dataondemand/33534649.html and enter your school, or school district, click on "all" (need not enter a name, unless you want to) and all the teachers at that school or district comes up. Lists their salary and fringe benefits for the 2009-2010 school year. FWIW... I'm in Vilas County. Small population, lower than average income levels, higher unemployment, than most of southern WI. The lowest paid teacher in my school district - who just happens to be my grandson's kindergarten teacher, and she IS a good teacher, not knocking her in any way... but she makes $58,764 in salary and another $11,505 in benefits. She's only been teaching for 1 or 2 years, so her benefit package is lower than all the other teachers. Total compensation is $70,269. For a 190 day work year, that breaks down to $369.37 per day (and her "day" is limited, by contract to 7, not 8, hours). That's $52.77 per hour, starting pay. The highest paid "teacher" (excluding district administrator and principals) makes $70,238 in salary, and benefits of $32,216. Total compensation of $102,454. Again, 190 day work year = $529.23 per day, or $75.60 per hour. The 4 principals in my district each make $85,000 in salary, and $36-38,000 in benefits. District administrator makes a salary of $118,101 with $44,379 in benefits. |
|
Your hourly salary is saying that teachers only work when the students are there. Teachers spend a lot of time planing lessons, making worksheets and tests, checking papers, preparing the classroom for the next season or lesson, etc. They do not have the same hours as the students.
|
|
Teacher's pay ranges vary greatly. The pay in the district I went to school in ranged from 30k - 100k (before benefits). There is a very wide range and that was in one district. Now image that all over the state or country.
For the record, there are too many unemployed teachers in Wisconsin at least in South Eastern WI. My wife has her Education licences but does not have a job in the education system. When she was applying for jobs, it was not uncommon to be in a pool of 200+ applicants. In same cases it pushed 500+ in popular districts that have been deemed good places to work. The only real way in was to have good connections. |
|
Quoted:
Your hourly salary is saying that teachers only work when the students are there. Teachers spend a lot of time planing lessons, making worksheets and tests, checking papers, preparing the classroom for the next season or lesson, etc. They do not have the same hours as the students. Gym class, recess, "free hour" , early release every thursday at 1:45, oh and the best...."teacher work day" no school for kids though ....all of which falls in the school day. I also understand you have to take work home, I do everyday but I knew that when I took the job. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your hourly salary is saying that teachers only work when the students are there. Teachers spend a lot of time planing lessons, making worksheets and tests, checking papers, preparing the classroom for the next season or lesson, etc. They do not have the same hours as the students. Gym class, recess, "free hour" , early release every thursday at 1:45, oh and the best...."teacher work day" no school for kids though ....all of which falls in the school day. I also understand you have to take work home, I do everyday but I knew that when I took the job. I am not a teacher, but I did do some subbing for a while. I am just saying that any good teacher is putting in more time than the hours the students are there. Most professions have hours outside of their normal day. I was just reminding the OP that his hourly pay was a little deceiving. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Your hourly salary is saying that teachers only work when the students are there. Teachers spend a lot of time planing lessons, making worksheets and tests, checking papers, preparing the classroom for the next season or lesson, etc. They do not have the same hours as the students. What you said is true. The 7 hours they spend "in school" is what they are required to work on the time clock. A good teacher will spend time at home at night, or on weekends, planning lessons, etc., so I'll admit that the "hourly" pay rates I posted are somewhat off base. But, does that extra time spent "off the clock" equal the 2 months in the summer when they do nothing? I think they are very well paid. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your hourly salary is saying that teachers only work when the students are there. Teachers spend a lot of time planing lessons, making worksheets and tests, checking papers, preparing the classroom for the next season or lesson, etc. They do not have the same hours as the students. What you said is true. The 7 hours they spend "in school" is what they are required to work on the time clock. A good teacher will spend time at home at night, or on weekends, planning lessons, etc., so I'll admit that the "hourly" pay rates I posted are somewhat off base. But, does that extra time spent "off the clock" equal the 2 months in the summer when they do nothing? I think they are very well paid. What should teachers get paid? I don't know what it would take for me to deal with 15-20 5 year olds for 6-7 hours a day without killing at least a couple of them.  Then you gotta deal with the little shits parents who think their little angle could never do anything wrong.
I don't know if you could pay me enough to be a middle school teacher, imaging dealing with hormonal tweens all day. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your hourly salary is saying that teachers only work when the students are there. Teachers spend a lot of time planing lessons, making worksheets and tests, checking papers, preparing the classroom for the next season or lesson, etc. They do not have the same hours as the students. What you said is true. The 7 hours they spend "in school" is what they are required to work on the time clock. A good teacher will spend time at home at night, or on weekends, planning lessons, etc., so I'll admit that the "hourly" pay rates I posted are somewhat off base. But, does that extra time spent "off the clock" equal the 2 months in the summer when they do nothing? I think they are very well paid. What should teachers get paid? I don't know what it would take for me to deal with 15-20 5 year olds for 6-7 hours a day without killing at least a couple of them. Then you gotta deal with the little shits parents who think their little angle could never do anything wrong.
I don't know if you could pay me enough to be a middle school teacher, imaging dealing with hormonal tweens all day. video tape the class, that will solve any helicopter parents from denying that their kid is Satan reincarnated. |
|
I don't know if any WI teachers are listed here: www.thechampion.org but IL teachers are.
Who wouldn't want a job that gives you most weekends off, all federal holidays off, Christmas to New Years, a week in the spring, various other days off, and if you don't teach summer school, most of the summer off. I can't think of one other job that offers all of that. In WI a lot of the fishing guides are school teachers, and have the weekends, and summer to do what they like to do, and earn more money too. FWIW, when I was in school, most tests were multiple choice tests, with the fill in the oval (lotto style) cards or papers. They were put in a machine, and graded in seconds. The only thing the teacher had to do was record the grades. Most teachers did this during "study periods". A lot of teacher lesson plans never change; math especially. All they have to do, is put on a different date for the lesson next year. In reality, some math could be taught just as well with fifty year old textbooks. I had teachers beat me off the school grounds after the final bell. 
The problem is, most people won't attend school board meetings, to voice their opinion, and I'm as guilty as the next in that regard. In IL they allow former teachers and administrators to serve on school boards. I don't know about WI, but this practice should be ended. After all, if you have a union school teacher, retire, and serve on the school board, what kind of salary/benefit/staffing decisions, do you think they are going to make about their former colleages, who are still working at the school. Get rid of tenure also. No job should have that type of security; in the public or private sector. And make them pay social security taxes too, while slightly revising the pension system. Cut out some of the nonsense, requiring or encouraging unnecessary continued education (master's degrees, for instance), that, often times is not needed for some subjects. Their education cost, is passed on to the taxpayer. I know most people would disagree, but I believe the property tax system, has to change also. Why is a single person with no kids in a 500k home, paying more on the school portion of the tax, than a family of five (three kids), in a 250k home? It makes no sense for people with no kids, to subsidize education. Something similar, would be charging someone who uses a tollway once a month, more than someone who uses it everyday. Dumb. I'm not saying that they should pay nothing for education, but it is quite ridiculous, that I, as a part time WI resident with property, am paying so much for schools I will never use. There has to be something better, (federal and/or state) tax breaks, for instance, to bring more people into teaching, rather than overpaying and over benefitting, because there are still some under compensated people in the rural areas, that don't have large tax bases. |
|
Quoted:
What should teachers get paid? I don't know what it would take for me to deal with 15-20 5 year olds for 6-7 hours a day without killing at least a couple of them. Then you gotta deal with the little shits parents who think their little angle could never do anything wrong.
I don't know if you could pay me enough to be a middle school teacher, imaging dealing with hormonal tweens all day. Simple. Whatever rate the market sets. |
|
I received this in an e-mail:
Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit! We can get that for less than minimum wage. That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan–– that equals 6 1/2 hours). Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day. However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations. LET'S SEE.... That's $585 X 180 = $105,300 per year... |
|
Quoted:
Actually that is NOT what I said. What I said was the AVERAGE STATE EMPLOYEE's salary is 24,500. I didn't specify teachers, or any other subset of the group. If you read the statement and use it in context it would help a great deal.
According to CNN, the state employee's average salary is $48,348. http://oi56.tinypic.com/2elywco.jpg See bottom left corner. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/21/wisconsin.budget/index.html?iref=allsearch |
|
Here is the most current information I can find:
Here are the FEDERAL numbers, but this only applies to those within the State of Wisconsin. YearAnnual 2001 42889 2002 44745 2003 46429 2004 49735 2005 50553 2006 53026 2007 53880 2008 54691 2009 55355 This is the annual average wage for state employees of Wisconsin. This spans all industries and applies ONLY to State Employees. YearAnnual 2001 39657 2002 40765 2003 43301 2004 43745 2005 44650 2006 46777 2007 48955 2008 52070 2009 51305 Here are the same numbers but for LOCAL Government: YearAnnual 2001 31147 2002 31776 2003 32902 2004 33684 2005 34415 2006 35499 2007 36256 2008 37099 2009 38121 Here are the same numbers, but this is for the PRIVATE sector. YearAnnual 2001 31180 2002 32118 2003 32998 2004 34388 2005 35115 2006 36459 2007 37715 2008 38746 2009 38626 All of the above information is purely wages, it does not take into account benefits or anything like that. Purely, annual wages. State Employees on average, purely wage-based, are earning 20 to 25+% more than the private sector. That does NOT include their benefits. I think we're all agreed that state benefits are much better than the average private sector benefits, and the cost to ownership ratio is far different. Fox News last night on TV said Public Employees earn 30% more in wages, and 70% more in benefits, over the private sector. The numbers I pulled myself are close to that. All numbers come from the BLS. (U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics). |
|
Ok so everyone is mad that someone else makes more than you?
I went through my list of school salaries and it didnt list the teacher salaries, only select higher paid people. This makes me wonder, but even so I am not outraged by what it shows. Of course the principle will make more than a first year teacher. of course a trained psychologist will need to make good money or they wont work for the school. most teachers do spend hours at home reading and grading papers and the coaches well can double the hours they actually work. Many of them have a masters degree and they are supposed to educate our children so i have NO issues with them making money and having good benifits. However i do think the school year should be all year without any extra pay. I think they need to get rid of the tenure system which pays teachers more buy the number of years they have tough and keeps them from being replaced by better teachers. This bill will effect more than just teachers. While yes we all see the lazy state employees at the DMV there are quite a few of them that do work pretty hard and put up with a ton of shit. Everyone knows that state and federal jobs are nice to have. This is not new, this is exactly why many people seek out and want these jobs. I agree some of these unions have gone off the deep end. The problem is that the government was running with the economy in high times. The boom was flowing and Doyle gave away the keys to the vault. The unions are offering up the concessions, lets take them and make some changes during the next contract negotiations. Then we can move forward to doing real work like breaking the back of the DNR and its crazy firearm regulations and abuse of power |
|
My own school district only listed 2 actual teachers. The rest were administrators, principals, and department heads. One teacher was listed at 115% time.
So need a bit more data on actual teachers, and it would be helpful if it indicated how long they've been there. |
|
I agree they cant cry poverty, even when the majority of them are making 40k on check a year. "they are making more in full package" I have no argument with that. I have no argument that maybe many of them are getting paid too much for the work they do.
But the bill in debate right now is NOT teachers crying poverty. "though yes they do it all the time" This bill is attacking unions and will effect more than twice the number of non-teachers than it will teachers. Personally i think unions are a bit crooked, but at the same time they do have some benefit. But what i dont understand is why the state doesnt fight harder during contract negotiations. To pop something out of the blue on a partisan level "no matter what the party" is wrong in my opinion. It can always be all or nothing. There is so much that needs to be changed in federal state and local governments its disgusting. I agree the state needs the concessions it is asking for. I hear the unions are willing to give them. Ok so let them work out the deal now to get us out of this situation. Then when each of these contracts come up let them sit down and make some realistic and responsible new deals. I would have no problem with SW attacking the school union directly during their contract negotiation to make some of the changed that without a doubt need to be made. But lumping everyone into the same bill is not the way I think there is something wrong any time a topic is divided along party lines. It only shows that it is a political issue and not a real issue |
|
Quoted:
My own school district only listed 2 actual teachers. The rest were administrators, principals, and department heads. One teacher was listed at 115% time. So need a bit more data on actual teachers, and it would be helpful if it indicated how long they've been there. What I've found out about the link, since posting this thread, is that by leaving teachers' name blank and clicking "all" after entering school district, is that not all teachers appear. In my district, about 20% didn't come up. However, by going to my district's website, and pulling a list of current teachers, and comparing that with the 80% that did come up, I can get the info on those who didn't come up under "all", by entering the names of the 20% not listed. I'm not familiar with the teachers in my district, other than the two that my grand children have as teachers. It's been 11 years since the youngest of my kids graduated. My wife, however, knows many more of them than I, and she pointed out several names missing. When we searched for them by name, they were there. My district's website did list how many years they've been employed in that district. Don't blame me for what's missing... it's the J-S's website, not mine.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok so everyone is mad that someone else makes more than you? Wrong. People are upset that teachers cry poverty when they are making $70K + per year. Then they don't want to give in on paying into their health care and pensions. im fine with a GOOD teacher making 70K+ in compensation. what i am angry about is teachers making 100K+ for being a band,physical education, or art teacher.... that and the fact that the unions make it all but impossible ot fire the bad teachers. most of my dislike for the unions is the last issue, protecting the piss poor teachers who should not be allowed around our nations youth. |
|
Quoted:
Riddle me this... Are the local school district teachers (not including UW/tech schools) state employees? If so, then why do my property taxes go partially towards teh school district? If not, why are they complaining about the state workers CB? You might be confusing lingo. Teachers work for the local district. All the hubbub is about public employees which covers teachers, city workers, sewer + water, UW & Tech, DNR, Corrections Officers, EMTs ect. everyone pulling a wage from tax dollars except Police and Fire. |
|
Quoted:
Your hourly salary is saying that teachers only work when the students are there. Teachers spend a lot of time planing lessons, making worksheets and tests, checking papers, preparing the classroom for the next season or lesson, etc. They do not have the same hours as the students. LOL. It is about equity. Hint, private workers do work at home as well. |
|
Quoted:
Holy shit. The teacher I had for automotive mechanics made 87,000 last year. if you really want to see gross overcompensation, take a look at what the administrators/bureaucrats in a school district make. 87K for a mechanic is on the high side, but 150-300K for a desk jockey is even more sickening |
|
Quoted:
im fine with a GOOD teacher making 70K+ in compensation. what i am angry about is teachers making 100K+ for being a band,physical education, or art teacher.... that and the fact that the unions make it all but impossible ot fire the bad teachers. most of my dislike for the unions is the last issue, protecting the piss poor teachers who should not be allowed around our nations youth. I've stayed out of this union argument until now, but this post reflects the widespread ignorance of teaching, public unions, and arfcom's anti-union bandwagon hysteria. 1) I personally am VERY well acquainted with the required qualifications of being a band teacher. Guess what––it's 5 years of college instead of 4, as you're effectively double-majoring. Yeah, clearly teachers with more schooling should be paid less, not the same, as "regular" teachers. It's just music, ignore any studies showing how much it improves student achievement in the sciences and reading and language (and don't concern yourself about aesthetics at all because that's just gay anyway.) 2) Unions do not make it impossible to fire bad teachers (or public employees of any type). They simply ensure the school district has a valid reason to fire bad teachers. If any school district has bad teachers it's because the administration didn't recognize the bad teacher during 2 years of "fire for any reason". Then, after missing that they've had a bad teacher for 2 years, then they continue to fail to document why the teacher is bad, and then fire them for being bad (which is completely OK to do). It's that simple....the NON-UNION administration isn't willing to do their job. Don't like it? Fire those non-union supervisors who are failing to uphold standards. The guy who helped me keep my sanity for my 2 years as a middle school teacher was the biggest pro-union guy you'd ever meet, because he'd seen the abuses heaped upon teachers before union protection. And he routinely joked that he was going to start a consulting business when he retired, to help districts fire bad teachers, because it's NOT DIFFICULT if you simply document, document, document. 3) I call BS on the "2nd year teacher up north in a small rural district" making $58k per year. No way, not with a bachelor's and 2 years experience. Maybe 2 years in the district with prior experience and a Master's degree. Hell, you couldn't pay me to be a teacher in some districts (Milwaukee, for example), regardless of the pay. On the other hand, some suburban districts pay extremely well...because that's how they get the very highly qualified teachers those residents want––and can afford. Those are *very* competitive jobs, and get *very* qualified teachers. 4) I've read all the posts saying "economics dictates paying the least amount that still gets the job filled." Yeah, Econ 101, whatever. I also happen to know that if you pay the minimum amount required to get a minimally-qualified teacher in front of your kids, you can do it...you're right, there's hardly a shortage of people applying for the jobs...and when the minimally qualified teacher with minimal experience does the minimum necessary to produce minimally qualified students, you can rejoice at the kid's minimum achievement. Are unions to blame for Wisconsin's financial crisis? Hardly. What everyone overlooks in the anti-union hysteria is that we have a $3 BILLION dollar deficit, and if Walker gets everything he's asking for, he's taken care of a SMALL bit of that deficit. If just piling on the public employees would fix the deficit, that would be great, but it won't....and Walker has already, repeatedly!, carved out favors to his political allies, and has publicly said he's not going after several kinds of entitlement spending, where the real money is (sounds like Obama, there––ignoring entitlement spending, because that's where votes are). So instead of going after entitlements, after he takes down public employee unions, he can slash state aid to your city and county. Keep Medicaid and welfare, for people not contributing to society, but fire local police, fire, teachers, public works, etc...you know, people who CONTRIBUTE to their community. Sounds like a great recipe for a wonderful utopia, there. The unions have already offered to concede to all Walker's financial requests, but Walker said no. This isn't about the money, it's only about busting unions. I'm now bowing out, as I don't believe I'll change anyone's mind. But the facts of #1-#3 above had to be corrected, and I figured I'd throw out the communist-loving tax leech-on-the-taxpayers opinion on #4. 
|
|
Quoted:
I received this in an e-mail: Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit! We can get that for less than minimum wage. That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan–– that equals 6 1/2 hours). Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day. However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations. LET'S SEE.... That's $585 X 180 = $105,300 per year... If you believe this, you FAIL at running a business and only proves why the teachers have no clue. The "babysitter" isn't paid by the number of kids baby sat. The business owner is and they have to pay to turn the lights on, salaries, bennies, etc. It just doesn't work that way and this is a flawed arguement. OR if this is true/so good, why don't the teachers go into business for themselves? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your hourly salary is saying that teachers only work when the students are there. Teachers spend a lot of time planing lessons, making worksheets and tests, checking papers, preparing the classroom for the next season or lesson, etc. They do not have the same hours as the students. LOL. It is about equity. Hint, private workers do work at home as well. Well, if you're talking about a race to the bottom, sure. The real reason why they're making more is they got near-guaranteed raises, inflation adjustments, etc whereas those of us in the private sector have been getting the shaft for decades in comparison, on average. If the private sector's compensation increases had kept pace with public sector compensation increases, I think support for Walker would be MUCH less than it is now. As it is, people see a system heavily biased towards automatically approving benefits increases, pay increases, etc. - and here's the key part: on the taxpayer dime. Unfortunately I haven't seen anyone attacking the sacred cows of SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and other entitlement programs. That's because unlike Walker's maneuvering, that would be TRUE political suicide (hello, AARP, one of the most powerful lobbies/groups in the country). |
|
Glenn, I love you pal, and know you have more emotionally invested in the topic than most.
When the average teacher makes ~50k/yr in wages and ~30k/yr in benefits for working 190 days - and has the gall to complain about anything work-related, something is broken. While I hate the waste (primarily because school boards are forced by WEAC to use WEAIC insurance in no-bid contracts, and 100% taxpayer funded pensions will still be bankrupting this state when my kid is my age), I am more heartened by the provisions in AB11 that exclude the system from collecting dues and requiring participation in the union. I have a strong suspicion that if the system is thrown open to the decision of the individual to participate or not (i.e. the union has to compete with the free market), that the most onerous parts of union membership will be forced to reform or die. That is most certainly a good thing. Regarding the deficit, remember that it was the Doyle administrations 2009 1.9 Billion-dollar budget (using one-time federal stimulus money, transportation fund dollars, and the physicians malpractice trust for balancing purposes) passed with ZERO taxpayer feedback by the Democrat-controlled Senate & Assembly that put us here... with a large portion (40%) of that spending going into education funding. Further, any "favors" I've seen for Walker's "political allies" have been revenue neutral (despite what On Wisconsin Now claims). Tommy Thompson reformed the welfare system in the state to keep it from going completely out of control, so I'm not sure what more could be done there without a complete scrapping of the system. Medicaid will take a significant hit under AB11 if the advocates are to be believed. No, the Fire & Police unions did not get targeted for reductions in benefit spending or collective bargaining power  , but they could suffer many layoffs under a reduction in state aid. Again, that's not a bad thing. Wisconsin currently has more police officers and agencies per capita than most states (FBI UCR data), and spending for an awful lot of them has gone through the roof over the last decade... with a large part of that coming from the $950 million/year in shared revenue given out by the state.
Remember G, AB11 is a stopgap - just one more budget bill (among several) to reduce spending and attract businesses back to the state after suffering disastrously because of 8 years of Doyle taxing and spending on pet projects. Forcing public employees to contribute to their pensions will allow for a refinance of some of our debt, and at least keep us solvent until the new fiscal year. Taking collective bargaining away for everything except wages doesn't negate the Civil Service protections afforded to them, but it does empower localities to shop around instead of being forced into overpriced sweetheart insurance policies controlled and required by the very union that profits from them. The taxpayer has been getting fleeced, and WEAC has been part and parcel to that for a long, long, time. It has to stop. |
|
Quoted: In before the dogpile.Quoted: im fine with a GOOD teacher making 70K+ in compensation. what i am angry about is teachers making 100K+ for being a band,physical education, or art teacher.... that and the fact that the unions make it all but impossible ot fire the bad teachers. most of my dislike for the unions is the last issue, protecting the piss poor teachers who should not be allowed around our nations youth. I've stayed out of this union argument until now, but this post reflects the widespread ignorance of teaching, public unions, and arfcom's anti-union bandwagon hysteria. 1) I personally am VERY well acquainted with the required qualifications of being a band teacher. Guess what––it's 5 years of college instead of 4, as you're effectively double-majoring. Yeah, clearly teachers with more schooling should be paid less, not the same, as "regular" teachers. It's just music, ignore any studies showing how much it improves student achievement in the sciences and reading and language (and don't concern yourself about aesthetics at all because that's just gay anyway.) 2) Unions do not make it impossible to fire bad teachers (or public employees of any type). They simply ensure the school district has a valid reason to fire bad teachers. If any school district has bad teachers it's because the administration didn't recognize the bad teacher during 2 years of "fire for any reason". Then, after missing that they've had a bad teacher for 2 years, then they continue to fail to document why the teacher is bad, and then fire them for being bad (which is completely OK to do). It's that simple....the NON-UNION administration isn't willing to do their job. Don't like it? Fire those non-union supervisors who are failing to uphold standards. The guy who helped me keep my sanity for my 2 years as a middle school teacher was the biggest pro-union guy you'd ever meet, because he'd seen the abuses heaped upon teachers before union protection. And he routinely joked that he was going to start a consulting business when he retired, to help districts fire bad teachers, because it's NOT DIFFICULT if you simply document, document, document. 3) I call BS on the "2nd year teacher up north in a small rural district" making $58k per year. No way, not with a bachelor's and 2 years experience. Maybe 2 years in the district with prior experience and a Master's degree. Hell, you couldn't pay me to be a teacher in some districts (Milwaukee, for example), regardless of the pay. On the other hand, some suburban districts pay extremely well...because that's how they get the very highly qualified teachers those residents want––and can afford. Those are *very* competitive jobs, and get *very* qualified teachers. 4) I've read all the posts saying "economics dictates paying the least amount that still gets the job filled." Yeah, Econ 101, whatever. I also happen to know that if you pay the minimum amount required to get a minimally-qualified teacher in front of your kids, you can do it...you're right, there's hardly a shortage of people applying for the jobs...and when the minimally qualified teacher with minimal experience does the minimum necessary to produce minimally qualified students, you can rejoice at the kid's minimum achievement. Are unions to blame for Wisconsin's financial crisis? Hardly. What everyone overlooks in the anti-union hysteria is that we have a $3 BILLION dollar deficit, and if Walker gets everything he's asking for, he's taken care of a SMALL bit of that deficit. If just piling on the public employees would fix the deficit, that would be great, but it won't....and Walker has already, repeatedly!, carved out favors to his political allies, and has publicly said he's not going after several kinds of entitlement spending, where the real money is (sounds like Obama, there––ignoring entitlement spending, because that's where votes are). So instead of going after entitlements, after he takes down public employee unions, he can slash state aid to your city and county. Keep Medicaid and welfare, for people not contributing to society, but fire local police, fire, teachers, public works, etc...you know, people who CONTRIBUTE to their community. Sounds like a great recipe for a wonderful utopia, there. The unions have already offered to concede to all Walker's financial requests, but Walker said no. This isn't about the money, it's only about busting unions. I'm now bowing out, as I don't believe I'll change anyone's mind. But the facts of #1-#3 above had to be corrected, and I figured I'd throw out the communist-loving tax leech-on-the-taxpayers opinion on #4.  |
|
Quoted:
Glenn, I love you pal, and know you have more emotionally invested in the topic than most. When the average teacher makes ~50k/yr in wages and ~30k/yr in benefits for working 190 days - and has the gall to complain about anything work-related, something is broken. While I hate the waste (primarily because school boards are forced by WEAC to use WEAIC insurance in no-bid contracts, and 100% taxpayer funded pensions will still be bankrupting this state when my kid is my age), I am more heartened by the provisions in AB11 that exclude the system from collecting dues and requiring participation in the union. I have a strong suspicion that if the system is thrown open to the decision of the individual to participate or not (i.e. the union has to compete with the free market), that the most onerous parts of union membership will be forced to reform or die. That is most certainly a good thing. Regarding the deficit, remember that it was the Doyle administrations 2009 1.9 Billion-dollar budget (using one-time federal stimulus money, transportation fund dollars, and the physicians malpractice trust for balancing purposes) passed with ZERO taxpayer feedback by the Democrat-controlled Senate & Assembly that put us here... with a large portion (40%) of that spending going into education funding. Further, any "favors" I've seen for Walker's "political allies" have been revenue neutral (despite what On Wisconsin Now claims). Tommy Thompson reformed the welfare system in the state to keep it from going completely out of control, so I'm not sure what more could be done there without a complete scrapping of the system. Medicaid will take a significant hit under AB11 if the advocates are to be believed. No, the Fire & Police unions did not get targeted for reductions in benefit spending or collective bargaining power , but they could suffer many layoffs under a reduction in state aid. Again, that's not a bad thing. Wisconsin currently has more police officers and agencies per capita than most states (FBI UCR data), and spending for an awful lot of them has gone through the roof over the last decade... with a large part of that coming from the $950 million/year in shared revenue given out by the state.
Remember G, AB11 is a stopgap - just one more budget bill (among several) to reduce spending and attract businesses back to the state after suffering disastrously because of 8 years of Doyle taxing and spending on pet projects. Forcing public employees to contribute to their pensions will allow for a refinance of some of our debt, and at least keep us solvent until the new fiscal year. Taking collective bargaining away for everything except wages doesn't negate the Civil Service protections afforded to them, but it does empower localities to shop around instead of being forced into overpriced sweetheart insurance policies controlled and required by the very union that profits from them. The taxpayer has been getting fleeced, and WEAC has been part and parcel to that for a long, long, time. It has to stop. Well put. To add, it's not really busting the union Glenn. Like FMD said the union can still exist to (cough) help it's members, however people will have to pay to be members with their own pen and checkbook. Some people will still write that check, but you and I both know that many will choose not to. This is what the union fears most. It's not to help the workers Glenn, they are worried that if the payment and the option to pay is put in the hands of the worker, the workers will opt out and the union will lose money or collapse. Why should the government be forced to write the check to the union? A union that is clearly anti government. To me it's like paying protection money to the mob. Why can't the people pay that for themselves? My guess is that most people don't want to pay for something that often does not help them, plus in time like this the people need the money more than the unions. The union bosses are only there in Madison to make sure the union keeps feeding from the trough. It's really that simple. It's money, no more, no less. I still beg the question, if unions are so great, why are people FORCED to be in them? No offense Glenn but you sound like most union leaders, claiming than if the unions fall, all government workers will be chained with manacles to their desks and be forced to slave and toil for hours on end while being beaten with a cat of nine tails. Or, should I say "like slaves on the plantation." Glenn you and I both know this won't happen. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
im fine with a GOOD teacher making 70K+ in compensation. what i am angry about is teachers making 100K+ for being a band,physical education, or art teacher.... that and the fact that the unions make it all but impossible to fire the bad teachers. most of my dislike for the unions is the last issue, protecting the piss poor teachers who should not be allowed around our nations youth. I've stayed out of this union argument until now, but this post reflects the widespread ignorance of teaching, public unions, and arfcom's anti-union bandwagon hysteria. 1) I personally am VERY well acquainted with the required qualifications of being a band teacher. Guess what––it's 5 years of college instead of 4, as you're effectively double-majoring. Yeah, clearly teachers with more schooling should be paid less, not the same, as "regular" teachers. It's just music, ignore any studies showing how much it improves student achievement in the sciences and reading and language (and don't concern yourself about aesthetics at all because that's just gay anyway.) I made note of band, physical ed, and art because in the private sector, those professions do not make anywhere near what they are paid in the public sector. 2) Unions do not make it impossible to fire bad teachers (or public employees of any type). They simply ensure the school district has a valid reason to fire bad teachers. If any school district has bad teachers it's because the administration didn't recognize the bad teacher during 2 years of "fire for any reason". Then, after missing that they've had a bad teacher for 2 years, then they continue to fail to document why the teacher is bad, and then fire them for being bad (which is completely OK to do). It's that simple....the NON-UNION administration isn't willing to do their job. Don't like it? Fire those non-union supervisors who are failing to uphold standards. The guy who helped me keep my sanity for my 2 years as a middle school teacher was the biggest pro-union guy you'd ever meet, because he'd seen the abuses heaped upon teachers before union protection. And he routinely joked that he was going to start a consulting business when he retired, to help districts fire bad teachers, because it's NOT DIFFICULT if you simply document, document, document. If it were so easy to fire bad teachers, it would be done more often. my mother in law is a teacher as are 2 life long friends. they state the opposite of what you are trying to tell me. once the teacher is past the "trial period" it is very hard to get rid of them 3) I call BS on the "2nd year teacher up north in a small rural district" making $58k per year. No way, not with a bachelor's and 2 years experience. Maybe 2 years in the district with prior experience and a Master's degree. Hell, you couldn't pay me to be a teacher in some districts (Milwaukee, for example), regardless of the pay. On the other hand, some suburban districts pay extremely well...because that's how they get the very highly qualified teachers those residents want––and can afford. Those are *very* competitive jobs, and get *very* qualified teachers. teacher salaries are public information, dont believe it,look for yourself 4) I've read all the posts saying "economics dictates paying the least amount that still gets the job filled." Yeah, Econ 101, whatever. I also happen to know that if you pay the minimum amount required to get a minimally-qualified teacher in front of your kids, you can do it...you're right, there's hardly a shortage of people applying for the jobs...and when the minimally qualified teacher with minimal experience does the minimum necessary to produce minimally qualified students, you can rejoice at the kid's minimum achievement. private school teachers make less than public school teachers. private school teaching jobs are more desirable and better teachers apply for them. why is this? the pay is less... Are unions to blame for Wisconsin's financial crisis? Hardly. What everyone overlooks in the anti-union hysteria is that we have a $3 BILLION dollar deficit, and if Walker gets everything he's asking for, he's taken care of a SMALL bit of that deficit. If just piling on the public employees would fix the deficit, that would be great, but it won't....and Walker has already, repeatedly!, carved out favors to his political allies, and has publicly said he's not going after several kinds of entitlement spending, where the real money is (sounds like Obama, there––ignoring entitlement spending, because that's where votes are). So instead of going after entitlements, after he takes down public employee unions, he can slash state aid to your city and county. Keep Medicaid and welfare, for people not contributing to society, but fire local police, fire, teachers, public works, etc...you know, people who CONTRIBUTE to their community. Sounds like a great recipe for a wonderful utopia, there. The unions have already offered to concede to all Walker's financial requests, but Walker said no. This isn't about the money, it's only about busting unions. if the unions remain in tact as it is now, they will just re negotiate back everything that is in this budget repair bill. keep the unions, but make pensions on par with the private sector, that would be fair. considering govt jobs are the ONLY ones who provide pensions these days I'm now bowing out, as I don't believe I'll change anyone's mind. But the facts of #1-#3 above had to be corrected, and I figured I'd throw out the communist-loving tax leech-on-the-taxpayers opinion on #4. comparing walker to obama is quite the ignorant statement. your right, "piling it on" the public sector workers will not fix the fiscal crisis we are in. but it will take care of 5-10% of it. that is a step in the right direction. you are like most Americans, if we have to make a hard decision it must fix the problem right now and 100% of it. walker is going after other spending,just wait till the budget is released. there will be cuts across the board EDITED TO ADD: why is there no news pieces on how doyle and the liberal controlled state govt dug us into this hole? all the anger and hate should be directed at them, as that is the main source of the problem. |
|
Quoted:
To add, it's not really busting the union Glenn. Like FMD said the union can still exist to (cough) help it's members, however people will have to pay to be members with their own pen and checkbook. Some people will still write that check, but you and I both know that many will choose not to. This is what the union fears most. It's not to help the workers Glenn, they are worried that if the payment and the option to pay is put in the hands of the worker, the workers will opt out and the union will lose money or collapse. Why should the government be forced to write the check to the union? A union that is clearly anti government. To me it's like paying protection money to the mob. . Taking away the ability of the Union to collectively bargain wages AND working conditions AND benefits is most definitely "busting" the Union. Most people write a "check" every month for their utility bills, their cell phones and other monthly bills. An option is to have the payments automatically taken out of your bank accounts. Most employers direct deposit paychecks. Most employers will direct deposit in multiple accounts. Employers are supposed to take taxes out of your check. Employers also deduct garnishments from paychecks. No reasonable person would equate any of these administrative actions as being "like paying protection money to the mob"... Union dues deductions are just another administrative action. If you require the employee to write the check themselves, they will do so just like some do every month for their utility bills and car payments, etc... The reason Unions do not prefer this method is that they will have to follow up with those who neglect to make their payments on time. It becomes an administrative hassle for the Union vs just another direct deduction by the employer. It is simple for the employer to administer and a pain for the Union to administer. Only when the employer wants to cause the Union pain do they refuse to directly deduct the dues form the employees' paychecks. |
|
Quoted:
If you believe this, you FAIL at running a business and only proves why the teachers have no clue. The "babysitter" isn't paid by the number of kids baby sat. The business owner is and they have to pay to turn the lights on, salaries, bennies, etc. It just doesn't work that way and this is a flawed arguement. OR if this is true/so good, why don't the teachers go into business for themselves? You fail at analogy 101....
If you want to go down your line of thinking, please tell me what the cost is for each taxpayer to support public schools.... I can tell you that a cheap daycare can easily cost you $7000 per child per week for school aged children. A private school can cost you $6000 or more annually. I guarantee that public schools are a bargain for taxpayers. Paying qualified teachers a good wage should be an expectation of evey parent out there. I certainly do not want a creatin teaching my child just because they are willing to work for less cash.
If all you require for your child is a babysitter, then find a neighborhood dropout and pay them $5 per hour. That can easily run you $50 per day which is far more expensive than a licensed daycare facility. Even at $3 per hour for 8 1/2 hours assuming that you work across the street from your home that is ~$25 per day or $125 per week or ~$6500 per year. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
To add, it's not really busting the union Glenn. Like FMD said the union can still exist to (cough) help it's members, however people will have to pay to be members with their own pen and checkbook. Some people will still write that check, but you and I both know that many will choose not to. This is what the union fears most. It's not to help the workers Glenn, they are worried that if the payment and the option to pay is put in the hands of the worker, the workers will opt out and the union will lose money or collapse. Why should the government be forced to write the check to the union? A union that is clearly anti government. To me it's like paying protection money to the mob. . Taking away the ability of the Union to collectively bargain wages AND working conditions AND benefits is most definitely "busting" the Union. Most people write a "check" every month for their utility bills, their cell phones and other monthly bills. An option is to have the payments automatically taken out of your bank accounts. Most employers direct deposit paychecks. Most employers will direct deposit in multiple accounts. Employers are supposed to take taxes out of your check. Employers also deduct garnishments from paychecks. No reasonable person would equate any of these administrative actions as being "like paying protection money to the mob"... Union dues deductions are just another administrative action. If you require the employee to write the check themselves, they will do so just like some do every month for their utility bills and car payments, etc... The reason Unions do not prefer this method is that they will have to follow up with those who neglect to make their payments on time. It becomes an administrative hassle for the Union vs just another direct deduction by the employer. It is simple for the employer to administer and a pain for the Union to administer. Only when the employer wants to cause the Union pain do they refuse to directly deduct the dues form the employees' paychecks. Well then I am not a reasonable person. 
From the Wheeler report: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. Make various changes to limit collective bargaining for most public employees to wages only. Total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the CPI unless approved by referendum. Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until a new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues. Changes effective upon expiration of existing contracts. Law enforcement, fire employees and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from the changes.
Your point on not being able to bargain on wages is wrong. Oh my gosh letting the people have a referendum vote is such a terrible thing (sarcasm) I think it's a good thing to let the people (who are footing the bill) have some say in what these people get paid. It's their/our money. I mean really how often in this world do you get to go to your boss or the person who is paying you and tell them how much money you will be making? Never, unless you are in a union. You know what screw that if the union has to keep up with what their members pay. Give me a effing break man. How dare we inconvenience the all powerful OZ union. Fuck that. Not a pain for the administrator. (massive sarcasm). Really I should give a shit if the union is inconvenienced? You are saying most people would still write the check to the union, so what's the big deal then? Let them write that check. What you are saying is that it's union busting to: Make union members pay their dues on their own. Limit collective bargaining to pay only. Make unions vote to keep their certification as a union in the state. You sir are not a reasonable man if you think this plan is busting the union. Unions can still exist, and serve it's members, unless you can prove to me otherwise, you cannot and will not change my mind. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you believe this, you FAIL at running a business and only proves why the teachers have no clue. The "babysitter" isn't paid by the number of kids baby sat. The business owner is and they have to pay to turn the lights on, salaries, bennies, etc. It just doesn't work that way and this is a flawed arguement. OR if this is true/so good, why don't the teachers go into business for themselves? You fail at analogy 101....
If you want to go down your line of thinking, please tell me what the cost is for each taxpayer to support public schools.... I can tell you that a cheap daycare can easily cost you $7000 per child per week for school aged children. A private school can cost you $6000 or more annually. I guarantee that public schools are a bargain for taxpayers. Paying qualified teachers a good wage should be an expectation of evey parent out there. I certainly do not want a creatin teaching my child just because they are willing to work for less cash.
If all you require for your child is a babysitter, then find a neighborhood dropout and pay them $5 per hour. That can easily run you $50 per day which is far more expensive than a licensed daycare facility. Even at $3 per hour for 8 1/2 hours assuming that you work across the street from your home that is ~$25 per day or $125 per week or ~$6500 per year. I know someone that runs a fully licensed day care in Middleton and charges $47 a day per child, which includes breakfast lucnh and snacks. The person running it is a licensed teacher as well. |
|
Courts across the nation also generally held that collective bargaining by government workers should be forbidden on the legal grounds of sovereign immunity and unconstitutional delegation of government powers. In 1943, a New York Supreme Court judge held:
To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous. |
|
Quoted:
You are saying most people would still write the check to the union, so what's the big deal then? Let them write that check. What you are saying is that it's union busting to: Make union members pay their dues on their own. Limit collective bargaining to pay only. Make unions vote to keep their certification as a union in the state. You sir are not a reasonable man if you think this plan is busting the union. Unions can still exist, and serve it's members, unless you can prove to me otherwise, you cannot and will not change my mind. As I pointed out, making the Union members "write their own check" is not that big of a deal. I didn't say it was Union busting. What I said is that it is incredibly easy for the employer to make the deduction. It is an inconvenience for the Union to have to collect the individual checks and the only reason an employer would demand that is to deliberately add this inconvenience. It is NOT Union busting and I never claimed so. Limiting collective bargaining to wages only IS Union busting. In this case, the ability to bargain wages is regulated to the point that it is not bargaining any more. It really isn't bargaining if the amount of annual wage increase is already set in stone by WI Statutes. I would also argue that benefits and working conditions can be more significant than wages at times. These 2 facts put together leave nothing that is truly bargained if this legislation passes. The Unions will be busted.
|
|
Quoted:
I know someone that runs a fully licensed day care in Middleton and charges $47 a day per child, which includes breakfast lucnh and snacks. The person running it is a licensed teacher as well. Is that for a school aged child during the summer when they are there full time? Is so, then child care in Middleton is more expensive than the average in Green Bay. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are saying most people would still write the check to the union, so what's the big deal then? Let them write that check. What you are saying is that it's union busting to: Make union members pay their dues on their own. Limit collective bargaining to pay only. Make unions vote to keep their certification as a union in the state. You sir are not a reasonable man if you think this plan is busting the union. Unions can still exist, and serve it's members, unless you can prove to me otherwise, you cannot and will not change my mind. As I pointed out, making the Union members "write their own check" is not that big of a deal. I didn't say it was Union busting. What I said is that it is incredibly easy for the employer to make the deduction. It is an inconvenience for the Union to have to collect the individual checks and the only reason an employer would demand that is to deliberately add this inconvenience. It is NOT Union busting and I never claimed so. Limiting collective bargaining to wages only IS Union busting. In this case, the ability to bargain wages is regulated to the point that it is not bargaining any more. It really isn't bargaining if the amount of annual wage increase is already set in stone by WI Statutes. I would also argue that benefits and working conditions can be more significant than wages at times. These 2 facts put together leave nothing that is truly bargained if this legislation passes. The Unions will be busted.
Do you believe that government workers make what is reasonable and fair, right now? Do you believe that what government workers benefits are, are reasonable and fair, right now? |
|
Quoted:
3) I call BS on the "2nd year teacher up north in a small rural district" making $58k per year. No way, not with a bachelor's and 2 years experience. Maybe 2 years in the district with prior experience and a Master's degree. Hell, you couldn't pay me to be a teacher in some districts (Milwaukee, for example), regardless of the pay. On the other hand, some suburban districts pay extremely well...because that's how they get the very highly qualified teachers those residents want––and can afford. Those are *very* competitive jobs, and get *very* qualified teachers. Call it what you will, but I did not make up the figures. If they're wrong, then blame the JS website I got them from. In all fairness, I did do some research. Yes, the lowest paid teacher I used as an example DOES have a masters degree. As for prior experience before coming to this district, I haven't been able to determine what, if any, she has. The district website lists her qualifications only, not experience. I determined her length of service here by the fact that when my grand-daughter, a few years older than my grand-son, was in kindergarten, she had a differant, much older, teacher. For the sake of argument, let's say she has 10 yrs, or even 20 yrs experience elsewhere (she's not that old... but whatever) to go along with the masters degree. She's still the lowest paid teacher in my district (that I can find from the figures available on that website). So maybe all the rest have numerous masters and 40 years experience in order to be paid more? I don't know, I didn't "investigate" them, nor do I plan to. In a district where the average wage is under $20K, unemployment is at 11%, do we need, or more importantly can we afford, a $70K per year kindergarten teacher? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are saying most people would still write the check to the union, so what's the big deal then? Let them write that check. What you are saying is that it's union busting to: Make union members pay their dues on their own. Limit collective bargaining to pay only. Make unions vote to keep their certification as a union in the state. You sir are not a reasonable man if you think this plan is busting the union. Unions can still exist, and serve it's members, unless you can prove to me otherwise, you cannot and will not change my mind. As I pointed out, making the Union members "write their own check" is not that big of a deal. I didn't say it was Union busting. What I said is that it is incredibly easy for the employer to make the deduction. It is an inconvenience for the Union to have to collect the individual checks and the only reason an employer would demand that is to deliberately add this inconvenience. It is NOT Union busting and I never claimed so. Limiting collective bargaining to wages only IS Union busting. In this case, the ability to bargain wages is regulated to the point that it is not bargaining any more. It really isn't bargaining if the amount of annual wage increase is already set in stone by WI Statutes. I would also argue that benefits and working conditions can be more significant than wages at times. These 2 facts put together leave nothing that is truly bargained if this legislation passes. The Unions will be busted.
I don't care how "incredibly easy" it may be for the state to make the union dues deduction. When you're talking about 100,000+ paychecks, how "easy" can it be? As far as I'm concerned, doing the union's work is not what I pay taxes for. If it takes one state accountant, one hour, once per month, AND the taxpayers are paying that accountant's salary, that's still too much. If the union members have direct deposit of their paychecks, then let the union members do like the rest of us do, and set up an automatic bill pay for their dues, like they do with their electric bill. The union has the state doing the deductions so the union members are forced to pay their dues on time. It's not done for "convenience"... it's more of a "collections" action, like a wage garnishment. Who you trying to kid?
|
|
Quoted:
Are unions to blame for Wisconsin's financial crisis? Hardly. What everyone overlooks in the anti-union hysteria is that we have a $3 BILLION dollar deficit, and if Walker gets everything he's asking for, he's taken care of a SMALL bit of that deficit. If just piling on the public employees would fix the deficit, that would be great, but it won't....and Walker has already, repeatedly!, carved out favors to his political allies, and has publicly said he's not going after several kinds of entitlement spending, where the real money is (sounds like Obama, there––ignoring entitlement spending, because that's where votes are). So instead of going after entitlements, after he takes down public employee unions, he can slash state aid to your city and county. Keep Medicaid and welfare, for people not contributing to society, but fire local police, fire, teachers, public works, etc...you know, people who CONTRIBUTE to their community. Sounds like a great recipe for a wonderful utopia, there. The unions have already offered to concede to all Walker's financial requests, but Walker said no. This isn't about the money, it's only about busting unions. I'm now bowing out, as I don't believe I'll change anyone's mind. But the facts of #1-#3 above had to be corrected, and I figured I'd throw out the communist-loving tax leech-on-the-taxpayers opinion on #4. No dogpile here. Walker's made it clear that the reasoning behind the attempt to restrict collective bargaining is because of the MASSIVE CUTS that are coming in state aid to county and municipal governments. What's coming next in the actual state budget is going to be the big show. It's like a sci-fi movie. The union thing going on now is just the showdown with the star cruiser, and then over the horizon, something like the Death Star pops into view... that's the actual budget (battle) coming up next. And while .gov workers and the pub-sector unions are not a big driver for STATE budgets and taxes, they are indeed the single biggest driver for LOCAL budgets. He's giving the local school districts the tools they need to make some tough choices when the state money faucet gets turned off to a trickle soon. Although, all the pragmatic reasons above aside, I will state that I am in favor of (public sector) "union busting". Private sector unions have a right to exist, and whether or not they flourish can work itself out in the private sector. OTOH, the public sector unions, which donate exclusively to Democrats, to the tune of 98%, (and I question the 2% which is going to RINO's at best, left-leaning "independents" at worst...) whom can then legislate more public sector workers, which in turn means more money for the union, and more money to lobby and campaign for Democrats... That's a HUGE conflict of interest that would never be allowed on the private side. The state AG's office has seriously crawled up the ass of any number of politicians and businesses which engage in "pay to play" from the private sector side. I see no reason to allow it on the public-sector side, especially to the point where it's not so much as blatant, but INSTITUTIONALIZED. 
|
|
Quoted:
Do you believe that government workers make what is reasonable and fair, right now? Do you believe that what government workers benefits are, are reasonable and fair, right now? Apparently Walker believes that the wages are in line as he is not proposing any wage cuts. I believe that it is both reasonable and fair for the workers to contribute to both their insurance and retirement funds. The proposal from the Democrats is to agree with the reduction in benefits. They simply do not want the Union busting (eliminating the ability to bargain benefits and working conditions) to go along with it. |
|
Quoted:
I don't care how "incredibly easy" it may be for the state to make the union dues deduction. When you're talking about 100,000+ paychecks, how "easy" can it be? I see you are not familiar with the concept of automatic deductions. A manual entry is made a single time for each employee when they join the Union. I am willing to wager that it takes less than 30 seconds per employee. This is probably one of the most simple actions which HR has to do with a new-hire. Once it is in place there is no ongoing labor involved....
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you believe this, you FAIL at running a business and only proves why the teachers have no clue. The "babysitter" isn't paid by the number of kids baby sat. The business owner is and they have to pay to turn the lights on, salaries, bennies, etc. It just doesn't work that way and this is a flawed arguement. OR if this is true/so good, why don't the teachers go into business for themselves? You fail at analogy 101....
If you want to go down your line of thinking, please tell me what the cost is for each taxpayer to support public schools.... I can tell you that a cheap daycare can easily cost you $7000 per child per week for school aged children. A private school can cost you $6000 or more annually. I guarantee that public schools are a bargain for taxpayers. Paying qualified teachers a good wage should be an expectation of evey parent out there. I certainly do not want a creatin teaching my child just because they are willing to work for less cash.
If all you require for your child is a babysitter, then find a neighborhood dropout and pay them $5 per hour. That can easily run you $50 per day which is far more expensive than a licensed daycare facility. Even at $3 per hour for 8 1/2 hours assuming that you work across the street from your home that is ~$25 per day or $125 per week or ~$6500 per year. I guess they needed to pay my teachers more, because I am still missing the point. Also, I don't and never will have the $7K/per week/per kid. $6K/yr maybe. I must be missing something.  How are public schools a bargain other than spreading the cost out over many people, many of whom don't have kids. (Let's try not to get into the people who don't have kids part, that isn't part of what we are talking about. At least I don't think we are)
|