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

another fellow ohioan wrote:

Never said I didn't like it. I just don't like you and your short-sighted thinking, your penchance to blame the current state of the economy on public employees, and your narcissism.

Let's talk about short term thinking. I'm walking my dog a few month's ago and start chatting up a couple who looked about 50 years old. They say they are both retired teachers. And they have the biggest house in the neighborhood. I'm thinking to myself, WTF? Retired?

So, you cry poor mouth for years and then retire in your early 50s. Double dip on your retirement and whatever new job you end up doing after that. It's a nice life and the sweet deal of the public employee unions. You should appreciate that you got over on the taxpayers and be happy about it.

Mr.Price wrote:

just saying wrote:You obviously don't know what the Dept of Education does. The vast majority of the money goes directly to states. That 15% raise you claim the Department got is probably in reference to the Recovery Act programs. Guess where that money was targeted...STATES. Race to the Top (straight to states), State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (straight to states...look at the title), Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (straight to states), I could go on but I think you can notice the pattern.

This. Btw, Sargin... I'm still waiting for your response *why* the Union had a reason to trust walker during negotiations after his botched rollout.

First of all, in looking at the DOE budget, there's a lot of "bloat" in there. So "this" is no kind of response at all. As to Walker, I honestly don't know the entire story and maybe they didn't have a reason to trust him, but so what? In my mind, that's missing the point. If he wanted to go after collective bargaining too, good for him. As I said earlier, what's a governor to do in a state that's hemorrhaging, largely on the back of union cronyism and contracts that have no basis in reality?

The teachers recruited every unionized group they could find (was anyone actually working?) and intimidated small businesses that did not support their point of view. That's not an appropriate way to respond to any set of adverse circumstances, especially when they don't TRULY understand the gravity of the situation. I'm sorry, but people need to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that the money just simply isn't there. We can only extend and pretend for so long. Corporations get this, and they've been deleveraging. Government? Not so much. I can't wait to see the upcoming circus of the next budget debate.

fellow ohioan wrote:

Let's talk about short term thinking. I'm walking my dog a few month's ago and start chatting up a couple who looked about 50 years old. They say they are both retired teachers. And they have the biggest house in the neighborhood. I'm thinking to myself, WTF? Retired?

So, you cry poor mouth for years and then retire in your early 50s. Double dip on your retirement and whatever new job you end up doing after that. It's a nice life and the sweet deal of the public employee unions. You should appreciate that you got over on the taxpayers and be happy about it.

This is correct, and it happened at all levels of government, where employees banked plenty of overtime and double pay to stack those pensions and get out while the getting was good. That's why these are the people that should be making the sacrifices as per my earlier comments. That's why many states are in such bad shape, because they never prepared for a rainy day fund. The Boomers and their parents mortgaged your future. Why should you subsidize them when their sweetheart deals were based on flawed inputs and assumptions? Talk about getting while the getting was good.

I was with you until the "Faux News" part. Most of the fear mongering on education is from the left. As in "we need to spend more on education, we're falling behind all the other countries in the world" fear mongering. Under what context do you see this used by the right?

fellow ohioan wrote:

Let's talk about short term thinking. I'm walking my dog a few month's ago and start chatting up a couple who looked about 50 years old. They say they are both retired teachers. And they have the biggest house in the neighborhood. I'm thinking to myself, WTF? Retired?

So, you cry poor mouth for years and then retire in your early 50s. Double dip on your retirement and whatever new job you end up doing after that. It's a nice life and the sweet deal of the public employee unions. You should appreciate that you got over on the taxpayers and be happy about it.

Apparently you pay no attention to the news or current events, and you just rely on old information on which to base your opinions. STRS has raised the retirement age, dumb***. You can't retire after 30 years of service. I'll teach 38 years - to age 60 - before that's even possible, and when I do, it won't be nearly close to what was offered previously. I'll accept a lower percentage of my FAS (final average salary) and pay more for my health care.

So... you're living in the past, bro. Times have changed. There are no "fat cat" retired teachers in their early 50's in Ohio. Maybe those neighbors use a lot of Oil Olay and are actually 64. Who knows?

Bottom line? There have been major changes lately to education/teaching in Ohio. And these changes, these concessions, these responses to public budgetary needs, were ALL done through collective bargaining or self-directed initiatives.

But you'd like to think otherwise, to fit your political stance, and to justify your attacks on public employees. I get it.

It does make you a tool, though.

Mr. "future indictment for securities fraud" himself...

I'm not going to deny that the DOE budget (likely) has some waste. That, unfortionately, is a given. And, arguing that Walker needed to do something about Wisconsin's budget problems? Again. That's a given.

The question is how to go about fixing it.

My point was that the linkage between collective bargaining (as a right that the teachers union could retain) was, completely divorced from the state budget in this instance. This was the point that the Union made. Repeatedly.

Walker countered that he needed flexibility to deal with the budget, so collective bargaining had to go. In turn, the Union responded that they would be willing to forgo that right for two years. What did Walker do? He didn't respond. At all. He ducked the issue.

As I said earlier, the Union also agreed in public to all of his cuts. What did he do? Instead, he tried to pivot back to the flexibility point mentioned earlier. Again. Not a way to earn trust. So, the protests were on. It was a display of force on both sides.

Given every opportunity to shape the budget (in a way he wanted), Walker continued to focus on eliminating collective bargaining. So, that more-or-less shows the issue. It wasn't the budget alone as you imply. It was, very possibly, the exploitation of the sitiuation as an excuse to bust the Union.

The bottom line is, Walker could have avoided this entire fiasco if he was willing to preserve collective bargaining. The Union, in turn, wanted to keep that because it was their protection against strong-arm politicans.

So, "what's a governor to do in a state that's hemorrhaging, largely on the back of union cronyism and contracts that have no basis in reality?" A good start would have been to focus on the budget and not try and tack on political "gimmies" to appease your party.

Sagarin wrote:The teachers recruited every unionized group they could find (was anyone actually working?) and intimidated small businesses that did not support their point of view. That's not an appropriate way to respond to any set of adverse circumstances, especially when they don't TRULY understand the gravity of the situation.

Normally, I would agree except for this was done after Walker revealed his hand. When your back is up against the wall, sometimes all you can do is fight. As an aside, I'm not sure that calling for boycotts really ammounts to intimidation. You seem to be reaching here.

Yes, times have changed... which is good. I don't think that's the point of contention. I know a former university employee in CA, as well as a former public defender, both of who were able to retire in their mid-to-late 50s. Both receive well over $100,000 in pension, full medical, and collected enormous capital gains on their houses as well. One of them moved out of state, which should automatically trigger a stepdown in my opinion and the other I'm not sure about. Those are the people that should be making the sacrifices, not you. You should be reassessing your life here subsidizing these people who were able to exploit public sector stupidity.

Here's another take on "austerity" in the public sector or lack thereof, but you have to get past page one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281911/washington-dems-clueless-jobs-deroy-murdock?pg=1

Pretty awesome post. I couldn't agree more.

another fellow ohioan wrote:

Bottom line? There have been major changes lately to education/teaching in Ohio. And these changes, these concessions, these responses to public budgetary needs, were ALL done through collective bargaining or self-directed initiatives.

You're making my point. Now you're stuck paying the price for the sweet deals public employee unions made in the past. And you have to do this under the status quo structure of union/schoolboard negotiations which is how you ended up in your predicament

That is the point of the thread. These new laws can give governments new funding models for schools and free up budget dollars. You may end up having to subsidize my neighbors' retirements to a lesser extent than you would under the status quo.

Teacher/Union debates are always interesting to me. I think we can all agree teachers play a HUGE role in our society. But we can also all agree there are a lot of REALLY bad teachers out there who only have jobs because they are tenured. The teacher unions only exist to protect teachers. Unintended consequences are that students and districts often lose. Ironically enough, if the unions were eliminated, the profession would become much more competitive and all the things the unions say they are fighting for would happen naturally. Salaries would go way up and bad teachers would leave the profession. Unions by their very nature are communistic. You are paid mostly based on seniority, eliminating merit and competition. And if you are wondering where this is all going, fix your gaze on Detroit and the American auto industry. The UAW destroyed the workers it was trusted to protect. But teachers (and all public employees) unions are far worse. Teachers are entrusted with the future of this country. When it comes to America's children, collective bargaining is complete b.s. and should be eliminated ASAP.

No, NOT an awesome post. It's a sad, sad post. If what this poster says about himself is true, then he should be compensated fairly for his abilities. But he has been taken for a chump by his teachers union. Ass-kicking teachers like this should be leading the charge against unions, and I feel bad for this guy. Teachers like him are the big losers in the teacher unions game. The unions protect the crap at the bottom. They protect a lifetime crap teacher who has been getting raises for 40 years, taking huge amounts of money out of the pot and giving nothing in return.

Original poster, if the unions were eliminated you would be making double your salary and having a great impact on the youth of this nation. Defending your union puts you on the wrong side of this fight.

fellow ohioan wrote:These new laws can give governments new funding models for schools and free up budget dollars.

No you don't. You remove their ability to collectively bargain. Which, in and of itself, has no causal relation to salaries. If you want a "new funding model" negotiate and take your case to the public. Justify the cuts and reform. Don't cut people out employees from having a say.

Collective bargaining only ensure that people have the power to influence decisions in the workplace. Otherwise, they're left to the whims of elected politicians or bureaucrats.

Keep living in the 1970's, guys. American wages are stagnating for average folks but not for everyone else. If people want to get out there and fight for a better wage, what's wrong with that?

eyestoned wrote:Unions by their very nature are communistic. You are paid mostly based on seniority, eliminating merit and competition. And if you are wondering where this is all going, fix your gaze on Detroit and the American auto industry. The UAW destroyed the workers it was trusted to protect.

What are you smoking? The Right likes to talk about how businesses have the right to organize, and act, in their self interest. Hell, they even claim that letting people look out for #1 promotes the public good! But, the moment teachers freely organize to act in their self-interest it's Communism? Can you say double-standard?

Do you legitimately think that competition is the only thing that makes the public school system work? Bulls*it. Cooperation works just as well. We need both. Not idealistic, Ronald Reagan prescriptions that fit your 1970's set-in-stone worldview.

Mr.Price wrote:

eyestoned wrote:Unions by their very nature are communistic. You are paid mostly based on seniority, eliminating merit and competition. And if you are wondering where this is all going, fix your gaze on Detroit and the American auto industry. The UAW destroyed the workers it was trusted to protect.

What are you smoking? The Right likes to talk about how businesses have the right to organize, and act, in their self interest. Hell, they even claim that letting people look out for #1 promotes the public good! But, the moment teachers freely organize to act in their self-interest it's Communism? Can you say double-standard?

I don't think you understand the right's arguments.

Mr.Price wrote:

Keep living in the 1970's, guys. American wages are stagnating for average folks but not for everyone else. If people want to get out there and fight for a better wage, what's wrong with that?

The current system is right out of the 70s. And look where that has taken you. Hoping you will get more stimulus dollars to postpone the structural deficits of your union contracts.

Sagarin wrote:

...

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.

What was your illness?

What is an "HR wife"? Did you mean "my wife who works in HR"?