Wisconsin schools hiring more teachers now due to elimination of exorbitantly-priced former union medical plan

Russia lost 95% of her banks but survived. Austerity is not the only way out and certainly not all at once, but it's an important piece of the package. Besides, austerity is not the way we are going to get out of this crisis. Since we have no interest in promoting growth but, rather, fighting over the crumbs once all the capital is gone, we're going to debase our currency, a de facto form of default, an we will all, on average, be much poorer for it. Global tax and wage arbitrage is here to stay whether you like it or not, and we need a plan to confront it rather than ignore it. The irony about your painkiller statement is that it aptly applies to what your Keynesianism is doing.

I worked very hard, in school and in the corporate world, suffering through an illness that eventually felled me, all the while listening to many of my colleagues complain about deserving more without actually adding productivity to the company. We have such an entitlement-minded attitude in this country and it's sickening. You want to look more like Europe, which isn't even going to look like itself in a few short years.

Ironically, my HR wife started working on behalf of unions, but quickly saw how workers already had so many rights and that unions were actually a huge hindrance, undermining companies and job creation and encouraging an exodus of capital. Didn't take her long to shift gears. You'll see it when you believe it.

fellow ohioan wrote:

Flagpole, put aside your feelings for Kasich and vote on the merits. It is the same whether you are a teacher, cop or fireman. If they have to now contribute to their healthcare or retirement plan (like the rest of us do) there will be more money in city budgets. This will allow them to hire MORE cops/fireman just like the example Sagarin gives us in Wisconsin. This will save jobs for cops etc.

Plus, I don't like the fact that the unions collect dues and contribute money to politicians who in turn sign the union contracts. A corrupt arrangement. For that reason alone, I'm voting to keep SB5

You make good points, especially about putting aside my feelings about Kasich (man I don't like that guy though, but you're right, I shouldn't let that affect my voting). I am more in favor of unions for firemen and police officers though than I am for teachers. If this were for teachers only, I'd vote for it for sure. For firemen and police officers, I'm not sure I want or need MORE of them necessarily, but I DO want those that are there to be decently compensated as I greatly value the work they do.

Like I said, I've got mixed feelings on this one. I have one buddy (whose wife is a teacher even) who is very much FOR Issue 2 and is very adamant about it, and I have other friends who are teachers who are very AGAINST issue 2, and each side has wanted me to side with them as strongly as they are on that side, and I just can't do it. I think a luke warm NO on issue 2 is going to have to be my vote.

I think it matters not though as the polls say Issue 2 is going to go down in defeat pretty easily.

deleuze wrote:

This is not Sagarin's finest day on letsrun. You can usually count on him for reasonable conservative takes. Maybe he had a bit too much coffee when he posted this one. Sagarin, I'll let you take a mulligan on this one (when you are in a hole, the smart move is to stop digging.)

First of all, way too much coffee... always assume that. Secondly, it should be readily apparent by now that the original words were not my own and I generally never quote anything that could be possibly construed as EXTREME right wing media (whether you like the Examiner or not, I've never sourced it before), but I agree with the merits of this one. As I stated previously, whether you like Walker or thought he was playing fairly, it was clear in the aftermath that the teachers hadn't ACCEPTED everything but doing away with collective bargaining. That's not the case at all.

Teachers serve a very important role in this country. I had a math teacher in high school who spent half the class talking about his miserable life, taught us a little, and did the scantron thing. Then I had another one who I took for comp. sci., calculus, and trig who was exceptional. The latter probably deserved to be making $100,000 per year; the former didn't deserve to even be employed, but my guess is they were paid roughly the same based on the codified, union-protected grid. Same with my biology teacher, who was instrumental in guiding my affinity for microbiology and genetics.

We throw so much money at education, and we get poorer outcomes. But whenever you suggest revamping the system or introducing competitiveness, it brings out that gutteral impulse of protecting one's "rights," no matter what they bring to the table, which will prove our undoing.

fellow ohioan wrote:

Flagpole, put aside your feelings for Kasich and vote on the merits. It is the same whether you are a teacher, cop or fireman. If they have to now contribute to their healthcare or retirement plan (like the rest of us do) there will be more money in city budgets. This will allow them to hire MORE cops/fireman just like the example Sagarin gives us in Wisconsin. This will save jobs for cops etc.

Plus, I don't like the fact that the unions collect dues and contribute money to politicians who in turn sign the union contracts. A corrupt arrangement. For that reason alone, I'm voting to keep SB5

Correct.

Now, you are back on track. You are one of the posters that gives me hope that behind much of the wackiness of the right (the left has its own share) there is still some reasonable ground.

I bolded the last part of your paragraph because I agree with it whole-heartedly. The discourse of rights is like a wrench in the political works. Every now and then the works does need a wrench thrown into it in order to shake it up, but the rights discourse is hugely over-used and is a symptom of our general lack of imagination (and will to listen to alternatives) when it comes to working through tough problems.

Sagarin wrote:As I stated previously, whether you like Walker or thought he was playing fairly, it was clear in the aftermath that the teachers hadn't ACCEPTED everything but doing away with collective bargaining. That's not the case at all.

I'm still waiting for your response on this. Walker came out of the gate guns blazing and gave no indication that he wanted to settle. If you judge the teachers union based on it's actions, that's fine. But, if you judge those actions you also have to recognize that by the point they fought back there wasn't a reason to trust Walker anyway.

The union’s representatives said, multiple times mind you, that they were willing to agree to the cuts... if they were guaranteed a right to collectively bargain. Walker never came back with a counteroffer.

There is some merit to that, but the fact is it wasn't necessary to bust the unions to do that. Busting the unions was a political power grab, nothing else, and has absolutely nothing to do with finance.

But it's OK for business to give money to politicians who turn around and "privatize" public functions, then use the profits from that to pay off politicians? Privatization is twice as corrupt because the money goes to fewer people, but conservatives call for that every day. Why have 100 gainfully employed union workers making $100,000 a year with benefits when you can have a CEO making $50,000,000 a year, giving a $1,000,000 of it back as "donations" that hired 75 people making minimum wage?

fellow ohioan wrote:

If they have to now contribute to their healthcare or retirement plan (like the rest of us do) there will be more money in city budgets. This will allow them to hire MORE cops/fireman just like the example Sagarin gives us in Wisconsin. This will save jobs for cops etc.

Plus, I don't like the fact that the unions collect dues and contribute money to politicians who in turn sign the union contracts. A corrupt arrangement. For that reason alone, I'm voting to keep SB5

Fellow Ohioan,

Those benefits (employee healthcare contributions, pension pickups, etc) were NEGOTIATED, fairly, and often granted IN PLACE of salary increases. You can't compare public employees benefits to your private sector ones.

Sure, in theory, the %'s for HC and pension contributions suggested by SB5 sound fair; but if my union previously voted to accept a contract with no salary increases, but with an employee pickup on my pension - because that's what my city NEEDED to do, budget wise (it's cheaper) - then how can you go back on the deal?

If you're forcing me to give up those benefits, then I'd like my raise back, please.

Your argument is nothing more than "pay 'em cheap, stack 'em deep."

How about we just not phase out the tangible property tax for businesses? Maybe then we wouldn't be arguing about whether or not my flu shot gets paid for this year...

Sagarin wrote:

Remember the violent and disgusting demonstrations over Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker doing away with collective bargaining for Teacher's unions?

As someone who witnessed every day of the protests as I walked to and from school and work, I can confidently say that the only threat of violence during the protests came from Scott Walker himself, who admitted that he thought about planting "troublemakers" in the crowd in order to harm the protesters' credibility.

Say what you will about the merits of unions, but any governor that would even CONSIDER inciting a riot and putting his citizens in harms way is a f*cking scumbag.

Keith Stone wrote:

But it's OK for business to give money to politicians who turn around and "privatize" public functions, then use the profits from that to pay off politicians? Privatization is twice as corrupt because the money goes to fewer people, but conservatives call for that every day. Why have 100 gainfully employed union workers making $100,000 a year with benefits when you can have a CEO making $50,000,000 a year, giving a $1,000,000 of it back as "donations" that hired 75 people making minimum wage?

No, it's not ok, jack. That's why we need serious reform to the tax code, so that power brokers in both the public and private sectors don't hold sway. Get it now? Obama is part of the other 1%, has accepted more in donations from Wall Street than any politician before him, fully supported TARP, misallocated the stimulus money to special interests rather than putting it to tangible work, and has an administration up to its eyeballs in cronyism, but hypocritically leverages the OWS crowd (which should be occupying DC) to stir up more class warfare bull$shit rather than roll up his sleeves and actually get to work on things that WORK. It cuts both ways.

Sagarin wrote:

It seems that the insurance company that provided all the "so-called" benefits to the teachers was an insurance company owned and operated by the teacher's union. Since the outfit was guaranteed to get the insurance business from the teachers, and the State had to pay for it (not the teachers) the insurance company was increasing annual costs every single year to become the most expensive insurance company in the state.

I think a lot of you are missing the point above. They didn't save money by "slashing" teacher's benefits. They saved money because they were no longer held hostage to purchase health insurance from the teacher's union. The Appleton school district saved more than $3 million.

And I certainly hope the Wisconsin State Journal isn't going to be labeled a conservative publication.

Bingo.

another fellow ohioan wrote:

Fellow Ohioan,

Those benefits (employee healthcare contributions, pension pickups, etc) were NEGOTIATED, fairly, and often granted IN PLACE of salary increases. You can't compare public employees benefits to your private sector ones.

S

Were they negotiated fairly? The same people signing the contracts are getting money from the unions. Who's looking out for the taxpayer?

Why can't I compare public vs. private? Do you know if I had a raise in the past 3 years? Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. A lot of private sector workers have forgone salary increases and have had to pay in more to their healthcare. If you haven't noticed, the economy has been pretty bad since 2008.

Sorry, I hope your sweet deals and corrupt bargains come to an end.

asdgfh wrote:I think a lot of you are missing the point above. They didn't save money by "slashing" teacher's benefits. They saved money because they were no longer held hostage to purchase health insurance from the teacher's union. The Appleton school district saved more than $3 million.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/opinion/editorial/article_17b066ac-ace1-11e0-bc50-001cc4c002e0.html

And I certainly hope the Wisconsin State Journal isn't going to be labeled a conservative publication.

Actually, if you read the article, you will see that teacher's benefits did get cut. This is rationalized through an analogy with other private sector cuts, but of course one of the primary reasons that teachers go into teaching is the benefits. [They don't choose it for the salary.]

Also, traditionally, teaching has been a profession for non-traditional workers [i.e., single women] who actually need the benefits more than other sorts of workers because they don't have other forms of social support--marriage, etc. Of course, those days have passed more or less culturally.

Much of the debate between left and right is over priorities. What's more important: excellent benefits that provide the basis of a safe and healthy middle class life (win for workers)? Or hiring more teachers (win for students) and saving taxpayers money (win for taxpayers)? Probably your answer to this depends on whether you are a teacher or not.

All of these things are, of course, important--which is why there was a big fight about it. It is a bit disingenuous to declare the debate solved now; this argument continues, as both the Republican campaigns and the OWS protests remind us.

fellow ohioan wrote:

Were they negotiated fairly? The same people signing the contracts are getting money from the unions. Who's looking out for the taxpayer?

Why can't I compare public vs. private? Do you know if I had a raise in the past 3 years? Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. A lot of private sector workers have forgone salary increases and have had to pay in more to their healthcare. If you haven't noticed, the economy has been pretty bad since 2008.

Sorry, I hope your sweet deals and corrupt bargains come to an end.

Yes, they were negotiated by ELECTED officials (school board) and my administration, hired by those officials. It's as fair as fair can be. See, elections are determined by a public vote. This is where the taxpayers (of which I'm one, btw) can speak up, be heard, etc.

Also, so you've forgone salary increases - due to the current state of the economy. I get that. However, in the mid-90's, when the DOW was kickin' and you were hauling it in, nobody was approaching the teachers union here, suggesting we get a 10% salary bump. You know, to match the private sector. Where were you then? Tying my raises to a booming economy?

And yes, my union HAS noticed. We've made concessions - a move to HSA, increased deductable and premium, zero raises for three years (no step, no cost of living), and we're paying more to STRS - 12% by 2014.

SO even with my two masters degrees, my 15 years experience, and being an expert in my field, I'm making a whopping.... 48K. And I'll be making that for 2 more years.

So step off. We're making concessions, through collective bargaining, and responding to the needs of our community. Putting tape over the mouths of public employees accomplishes nothing. SB5 is going down hard... I say by 20% pts, minimum. You're in the minority, chief.

Nobody forced you to be a teacher. If you don't like it, do something else. If you are so valuable, you should get rich in the private sector.

Unfortunately, I think you're right. It will go down. Good luck with those teacher layoffs when school boards can't balance the budget. You have 15 years in so you'll probably be safe. You and those crusty old teachers who would have been fired years ago if they had private sector performance reviews.

You're using Russia as an example of "success"? You have to be s**ting me. While it does mirror what's happening in the US, with a small number of people making huge profits through graft and criminal behavior Russia is probably the best example of a corrupt Oligarchy that exists. Entire regions of the country have been decimated by pollution. Water sources used by local residents drained for profit leaving them penniless. If you knew anything about Russia would know that the whole reason there is a resurgence in desire for communism is the populace at large is in deep economic hardship. Is that honestly the model you want to emulate here in the US? Talk about a deep seated desire to screw the common man, that's as good of an example as anything.

There is a big difference between entitlement-mentality and simply wanting a fair shake. That's something that your average conservative is just to plain stupid or understand, or too corrupt to believe. If the current trend continues, where people work hard to get ahead only to see their jobs sent oversees. Who continue to see their livelihood chipped away at by a corrupt upper class. Who see the upper class take more and more of what they had to work for. It's not "entitlement" to expect that you get rewarded for you work and not have that work stolen from you, and I'm not talking about that BS "stealing by taxes" nonsense your kind keeps blurting out.

For example today I am dealing with interesting juxtapositions. I have had to waste much of my time dealing with poorly trained but very inexpensive off-shore workers who replaced the experienced on-shore people we formerly had doing support. Dozens of hard working people who were well paid, trained, and kicked out the door. Those trained people wouldn't have required the hurry up and wait time wasting supervision I needed to provide, although it would have kept me from my nice chat with you if I'd been doing real work today.

Also today I received a commendation from our executives about my crucial role in closing a nine figure deal. I will get a bonus no doubt, but the account exec that sold the deal will get one more than my salary (and I'm paid well) even though that exec didn't do a thing to create the product that was sold. He didn't do the technical presentations to the client, design anything, create anything, or experience the "hard work and personal sacrifice" I was commended for.

Smart people understand that the only reasons unions exist is people are being mistreated. I'm not a big fan of unions as I tend to chafe under all their regulations but I also understand that without them a large chunk of the American middle class wouldn't have existed. When employees are treated fairly unions cannot gain a foothold, but where they have not been unions are strong. That means the only real reason to bust the unions is to hose the workers because if you didn't hose the workers in the first place there wouldn't have been a union.

I teach in WI and I work my but off. I am not making a product where everything is the same. Sag, you say one teacher you loved and one you hated..well, maybe the one you hated got through to someone else and the one you loved sucked ass to everyone else. We are all different.

I have been teaching, coaching, doing lunch duty, bus duty, getting a masters degree, continuing my education for the past 15 years and I make about 50,000. Some how I am the one making the state poor...ya, whatever.

I do not feel that I am under paid but I certainly do not feel that I am over paid.

When the economy was going strong and private workers were raking in the money I recieved no raise...I am not complaining but I do think it's funny that now teachers are the enemy. If it's so easy and they are paid so well why didn't everyone want to be a teacher?

madtownisonian wrote:

Or perhaps you were thinking of the violence depicted by Fox News. Oh, wait. That was a clip of protesters from California with palm trees in the background (see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOzerRfB27o

.

Thanks. Good stuff. Can O'Reilly be more of a douche?