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

fellow ohioan wrote: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.

Really? Union membership was around 23% of the workforce in 1970. What is it today? Around 13%. How is that right out of the 1970's?

In the meantime, private-sector unionization has declined from over 80% of unionized positions to less than 50% today. Public-sector union positions have taken up the slack, and by virtue of their situation they are not allowed to strike. Doesn't sound like the 1970's to me!

If anything, it sounds like the the current system is tilted against unionized employees - unlike before. There are less of them today and most can't strike.

How toothless can you get? Yet somehow they're "the problem?"

As for "structural defects," are these the ones like at G.E. where the company used retirement accounts to leverage future investments? You know. So they could take additional risks. Or are they the ones that legislators over-promised on and mismanaged?

You'll notice that none of these problems were an issue prior to the recession.

If anything, unions are a boogieman that the Right uses as a scapegoat for our fiscal problems. Nevermind that these problems can be explained without invoking said boogieman.

Think about it. I can explain almost any pension and healthcare defect by: 1) noting that a millions of 401ks tanked in 2008, 2) recognizing that these pension plans included "AAA" mortgage mortgage-backed securities, and 3) admitting that healthcare, fuel, and college education inflation have outstripped past expectations.

Yet somehow the problem isn't these root causes. It's unionized workers who had the gall to bargain as a collective unit in their own self-interest.

fellow ohioan wrote:

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.

You don't understand how it works. I'm not taking a three year no raise, higher insurance premium + deductable, etc, because of anyone's retirement benefits. It's because the local revenue stream is drying up - mostly because of declining property values and, even MORE importantly, the phasing out of certain business taxes, which cause enormous drops in funding in my community (Honda, Scotts L&G).

Couple that would public pressure to provide individualized education to ALL students (IDEA act, circa mid-90s made this LAW), which costs big $$, and you've got a financial crisis. The unions across the state are responding with long-term contracts with zero raises and insurance hikes. Read the paper, man.

Regarding retirement, STRS has made changes to its benefits because of the tanking economy and some lousy investing, not because of union pressure, or anything of the sort. In fact, it was one JOHN KASICH, former Lehman Bro's hack, who brokered the deal with STRS while he was still employed with that demonic company - to the tune of about a billion dollars. Crooks. Can you say securities fraud? Kasich belongs in the slammer, not in the governor's mansion - OR publicly-funded refurbished Westerville compound, whatever.

Further, SB5 does NOT provide any new funding model whatsoever. It merely removes collective bargaining rights, giving local gov'ts the final say in contract negotiations, per the 70's in Ohio. It provides no new revenue source or structure. Period. So, can you say... strikes, enormous class sizes, one-size fits all education, etc, etc, like 30 years ago? I suppose that's what you want, eh? It's cheap! Right?! Maybe someday Ohio will follow Michigan's lead and change its funding model (moving away from local property taxes)... but... the good ole Ohio GOP continues to renig on its obligation to do so, per the DeRoplh case.

In the end, changes are being made because the state, retirement system, and local communities are in major revenue defecits. SO, through collective bargaining, changes are occurring. I'm not sure anything I've said here - on any post - suggests that the solution is to remove those rights to assemble, organize, and bargain as a collective.

You're really a sad sap. You pretend you know, and attempt to fit fabricated (or imagined) details into your warped political view. Keep believing, and keep smokin', m'man... must be some good stuff.

Go Bucks.

Well said, if anyone was wondering why middle class wages have stagnated/declined, you can blame the lack of strong unions in this country. Free trade plays a part as well, but the deunionization of this country exactly coincides with decreases in real wages.

Keith Stone wrote:

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.

Sad that a union represented grocery checker, who swipes barcodes across a scanner, is part of our "middle class". There are so many protections built in to our labor codes, there is no need for unions.

Unions are socialism at it's finest; when farm workers and grocery clerks are American's middle class because of unions, we're doomed.

That is false to say that private and charter schools get better results, and this is a good example of why people attack the messenger with regard to conservatives. When a source with a clearly stated and strongly evidenced ideological bias has a long history of false and misleading stories, and I'm not talking about one in a thousand stories here, it is entirely legitimate to attack the source. And in your case, we can legitimately discount your claims because we have seen that they are ideological and repeatedly false. Charter schools in the latest study performed worse than public schools when correcting for socioeconomic background of students. And we do know that every step to making teaching less attractive pushes more people away from the field. By removing power from teachers, as Walker did, he made the job less attractive and he made teachers less effective. High deductible plans are a terrible deal for most adults and removing our constitutional rights to negotiation, our free market rights, and many of our unionization rights backed by a long history of judicial and legislative acts, only harms education. Why would you get into teaching at all if you could be fired at any moment for any reason, the job requires a lot of education and a long credentialing process, it pays little, and your professional autonomy is greatly curtailed in teaching your class? If Rick Scott pushes through his attempts to abolish university tenure in Florida, you will see an exodus of quality faculty and a sharp decline in the quality of these research universities. The economic effects will be significant.

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?

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, I am a lifetime Democrat. Don't assume that just because I am anti-union I am a lock-step conservative. I have a mountain of issues with the Right. But this thread is about teachers unions. And I recognized this BS over 20 years ago as a high school kid working with Teamsters in the summer. And my communism comment was spot on. You are a teacher. I know you can think of the similarities between communism and organized workers unions.

The bottom line is this: My kids go to public school. Spin it any way you want, but when teachers organize, they organize against the students. This is immoral and unacceptable.

eyestoned wrote:

When teachers organize, they organize against the students. This is immoral and unacceptable.

Wow. Just... aw cripes, nevermind.

Precious Roy wrote:

It has always been the plan of the right to destroy public education to create a two tiered society where the rich have excellent private schools (funded by vouchers) and everyone else gets minimal education to be able to function in the service sector.

You.ve seen right through us. The problem with your conspiracy theory is that the places were there are two_tiered schools as you describe are places where liberals have a monopoly!

new york city wrote:

You.ve seen right through us. The problem with your conspiracy theory is that the places were there are two_tiered schools as you describe are places where liberals have a monopoly!

No, it's in places where conservatives have set up a system of local control, so that poorer areas are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to resources to build buildings, purchase technology, hire AND RETAIN accomlished teachers, etc.

Case in point: in my state, a teacher in the 'burbs can earn 75K after 10 years and masters, teach in building with cutting edge technology, and enjoy class sizes of 17-18. In rural areas, that same teacher tops out at 43K, and teachings in a dilapidated building with 1986 World Book encylopedias still on shelves. With class sizes of 30.

The way my state funds education clearly establishes a HAVE and HAVE NOT model of schools. But, if you live in one of the HAVE districts, life's all good, eh?

Issue 2 gets smashed in Ohio - 61% to 39%.

http://news.yahoo.com/banner-night-democrats-high-profile-ballot-initiatives-blue-084500032.html

You payin' attention, Mr. Walker?

Told ya.

another fellow ohioan wrote:

Issue 2 gets smashed in Ohio - 61% to 39%.

http://news.yahoo.com/banner-night-democrats-high-profile-ballot-initiatives-blue-084500032.html

You payin' attention, Mr. Walker?

Told ya.

As did the Obamacare mandate. Say goodbye to more jobs in Ohio. Unions are of, for, and by themselves anymore and KILL jobs in the long run. Why would anyone want to set up shop in Ohio?

Sagarin wrote:

As did the Obamacare mandate. Say goodbye to more jobs in Ohio. Unions are of, for, and by themselves anymore and KILL jobs in the long run. Why would anyone want to set up shop in Ohio?

Well, you don't live here, for one. That alone makes it a pleasant place.

But.. if you could, please explain how collective bargaining rights kills jobs again?

And while you're at it, if you could explain how deregulation, corporate tax loopholes, outsourcing, exorbitant tax cuts for the rich, and the financial undermining of the middle class (increased tax burden, loss of social protections, privatization of medicare, ELIMINATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINAING, etc, etc), actually CREATE jobs, I'm all ears...

Congratulations. Your union protection racket gets to be reinstated.

not a mobster wrote:

Congratulations. Your union protection racket gets to be reinstated.

Racket?

I think you're confusing public school teachers and cops with fraudelent, SEC-dodging, hedge fund manager/hacks.

Or, as you would call them, "heroes"...

another fellow ohioan wrote:

Well, you don't live here, for one. That alone makes it a pleasant place.

But.. if you could, please explain how collective bargaining rights kills jobs again?

And while you're at it, if you could explain how deregulation, corporate tax loopholes, outsourcing, exorbitant tax cuts for the rich, and the financial undermining of the middle class (increased tax burden, loss of social protections, privatization of medicare, ELIMINATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINAING, etc, etc), actually CREATE jobs, I'm all ears...

cricket.. cricket... silence... cricket...

another fellow ohioan wrote:

another fellow ohioan wrote:

Well, you don't live here, for one. That alone makes it a pleasant place.

But.. if you could, please explain how collective bargaining rights kills jobs again?

And while you're at it, if you could explain how deregulation, corporate tax loopholes, outsourcing, exorbitant tax cuts for the rich, and the financial undermining of the middle class (increased tax burden, loss of social protections, privatization of medicare, ELIMINATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINAING, etc, etc), actually CREATE jobs, I'm all ears...

cricket.. cricket... silence... cricket...

Deregulation - Regulation adds costs to a business, or adds barriers to entry, making it more difficult for businesses to hire or new businesses to form. Removing some of these regulations could open up funds for hiring or allow new businesses to form. I think most people agree that some regulation is good (like most agree some taxes are good). The question is where the point of over-regulation is.

corporate tax loopholes - Funds not spent on taxes can be spent on jobs. The use of the term "loophole" lends itself to a certain connotation implying crony capitalism. I don't know that anyone is arguing for crony capitalism. One side argues that there wouldn't be crony capitalism if the government didn't have so much power, the other argues that there wouldn't be if corporations didn't have so much.

outsourcing - I don't know that anyone is arguing for outsourcing. Definitely no one is arguing that it creates domestic jobs. Outsourcing is a product of marginal utility abroad being greater than domestic. Until the scales can be pushed the other direction, outsourcing will continue.

exorbitant tax cuts for the rich - How are you defining "exorbitant"? The Bush Tax Cuts lowered the top bracket from 39.6% to 35% I believe. 4.6% may be exorbitant to you, but I think this is much less than most people believe they were. Also, the thought here is that increased capital in the pocket of those that create/run businesses allows for increased investment in business. Increased investment can lead to more jobs.

financial undermining of the middle class - The Bush Tax Cuts lowered taxes on the middle class as well. I don't know that most people are calling for the end of social programs. The reality is that medicare/medicade/social security need to be altered to survive long term. This is being ignored in the classic "kick the can down the road" policy making of government. A fiscally unsound government leads to market instability, which leads to job losses.

ELIMINATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - This thread has touched on this. Basically there are a set number of funds for a school. The lower the cost per teacher, the greater number of teachers can be hired. This is a fact. Whether the net consequence is positive can certainly be debated, as the quality of teacher may decrease with salaries/benefits.

Apologies for typos or errors. I've spent too much time on this already.

Awesomeness... wrote:

Sagarin I suppose you support Michelle Obama's fitness and nutrition in schools initiative's then correct? Or are we supposed to let the free market take care of the food issues because I can't see how that has given us anything but diet related issues.

I didn't read the entire thread so I hope someone already pointed out to 'Awesomeness...' that our food supply and distribution system is currently NOT operating within a free market. Farm subsidies pretty much ruined that and do contribute greatly to diet issues.

Independent thinker wrote:

How are you defining "exorbitant"? The Bush Tax Cuts lowered the top bracket from 39.6% to 35% I believe. 4.6% may be exorbitant to you, but I think this is much less than most people believe they were.

So why does the GOP, Tea Party, et al, scream class warfare when the idea of allowing these tax cuts to expire is mentioned?

well what about this bro wrote:

Independent thinker wrote:

How are you defining "exorbitant"? The Bush Tax Cuts lowered the top bracket from 39.6% to 35% I believe. 4.6% may be exorbitant to you, but I think this is much less than most people believe they were.

So why does the GOP, Tea Party, et al, scream class warfare when the idea of allowing these tax cuts to expire is mentioned?

I agree. I think the argument is rather silly. I do agree that raising taxes during a down period and a shaky recovery is ill-advised though, as does Bill Clinton. Eventually it's a no brainer, as balancing the budget will need revenues and cuts.

I think much of the class warfare calls are less about the amount of money requested and more in the portrayal of the rich. The GOP feel the rich are being portrayed as the cause of and potential solution to (through taxes - not economic growth) the current economic crises. Whether you think this is true or not, the GOP feel it is an intentional demonization of the rich. This creates a level of animosity between the different classes, which is where the class warfare calls are from.