What do you guys thiink of the teachers strikes going on in Wisconsin?

[gatorsmom]

This has been huge news around here. My kids are in private school so it hasn't affects us, but the enormous state budge deficit is a huge problem here. Interestingly enough, we just moved here from Minnesota and that state has the same problems. They are searching for ways to balance their budget as well.

The state budget deficit here is a real problem and the governor is taking a very strong stance on reducing it. He is probably trying to weaken the unions here too. Not sure how I feel about that. But most the people I've been discussing this with are either republicans or democrats leaning right in this issue. I was wondering what the far left thought about this. Thoughts?

[Indianamom2]

I'm definitely not far left...or left at all, but I think the governor is making some tough decisions to try to help the state. Tough decisions are rarely popular or easy.

Interestingly, I think something pretty similar is starting to happen in Indiana...and I hear Ohio is right behind.

[ellies mom]

This isn't about balancing the budget. It is about breaking the union. But not all the unions, note that the police and fire unions are not included (which are conveniently enough the unions that tend to support Republicans unlike the unions under fire).

The unions were willing to make concessions on benefits but he refused so that tells me that that this isn't really about the money especially when he was pretty free-handed with tax breaks earlier in the year (just over a month ago actually).

I found this to be rather interesting...
(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/20/947446/-Politifact:-Rachel-is-Wrong-about-WI-Deficit,-but-Walkers-Pants-are-on-Fire)

ETA- So yeah, I don't have an issue with the teachers protesting. And considering by some measures, Wisconsin has really good schools (ranks 2nd in SAT/ACT scores), I'm not sure why you would want to mess with what isn't broken.

[brittone2]

I'm interested in seeing if the Koch brothers benefit from the no bid provisions, considering their PAC was a major donor.

I agree w/ Ellie's mom that I don't think this is about money as much as union busting.

[SnuggleBuggles]

I admit that I am not a fan of unions. I think that they had their place and have really greatly improved things for workers. My g'pa was a factory worker in the first half of the 1900s and was union. The improvements like better work conditions, hours and benefits are great- like people aren't forced to work 20 hour days in dangerous conditions. But, some of those things are typical now. I also have some issues with teachers' unions enabling bad teachers to keep their jobs. So, I am interested to see how things go in WI.

Beth

[AnnieW625]

I'm definitely not far left...or left at all, but I think the governor is making some tough decisions to try to help the state. Tough decisions are rarely popular or easy.

As a state employee in California whose union hasn't done a whole lot for us in the last 10 yrs (2 true 2.5% COL raises since 2001) I agree with that statement. I would be happy in a sense if they totally redid the collective bargaining with state employees in my state.

I also agree with Snuggle Buggles 100%.

[AngelaS]

I agree with SnuggleBuggles too. It's time to break the unions down, fire the teachers that suck (or the ones that choose to not show up for work) and balance the budget. The teachers get fabulous benefits and should have to chip in towards those--the rest of us in the real world do.

And not all WI schools are good. The ones here suck. Big time.

[[email protected]]

He has it backwards. He should look to the federal model--the unions can't negotiate on pay or benefits but absolutely get a say in working conditions and discipline procedures (essential for protecting staff when administrations change).

[sste]

I am more pro-union in general than I am pro-teacher's unions specifically. I think unions have a place, and even an important place, for physical laboring type of jobs where the pay is all about seniority, employment is at will, and employees are extremely vulnerable to being used and "discarded" once they are not quite so young (and more expensive). And there aren't alot of other options out there because the person's experience is in a factory or laboring job and they don't have transferable skills. There can be a social benefit to legal and union protection in these cases because we want people to work at these jobs and not be thrown out and subject to long-term unemployment.

But, teacher's unions have lead to some very stupid policies that have substantially harmed public education and benefited a group of people who do have transferable skills. I am not sure if my issue is with unionization per se or the specific path the teacher's unions have decided to take and the issues they have emphasized . . .

[wellyes]

I think it is about union busting too. There are definitely cons as well as pros to teachers unions, I have issues with them myself, but this is a cheap and dishonest way to address those issues. Opportunistic, politically motivated. The safety of your job and benefits should not be based on who you vote for.

[bubbaray]

Its union busting couched in the cloak of fiscal responsibility. The political agenda has nothing to do with money from the reports I've read.

It IS possible to balance public budgets and have strong unions. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

It is also possible to have strong unions and GREAT teachers. There needs to be discipline and termination procedures for the rare bad teacher, but getting rid of teachers unions is NOT going to keep the good teachers.

[citymama]

I am APPALLED by what's going on in Wisconsin and Ohio. If I could be sitting with the protesters, I would be. It represents an evisceration of workers' rights and I absolutely am in solidarity with the protesters.

[citymama]

Its union busting couched in the cloak of fiscal responsibility. The political agenda has nothing to do with money from the reports I've read.

It IS possible to balance public budgets and have strong unions. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

It is also possible to have strong unions and GREAT teachers. There needs to be discipline and termination procedures for the rare bad teacher, but getting rid of teachers unions is NOT going to keep the good teachers.

:yeahthat: I couldn't agree more!

[JBaxter]

I admit that I am not a fan of unions. I think that they had their place and have really greatly improved things for workers. My g'pa was a factory worker in the first half of the 1900s and was union. The improvements like better work conditions, hours and benefits are great- like people aren't forced to work 20 hour days in dangerous conditions. But, some of those things are typical now. I also have some issues with teachers' unions enabling bad teachers to keep their jobs. So, I am interested to see how things go in WI.

Beth

I grew up in a union family father, grandfather uncles etc but when though times hit everyone needs to play by the same rules. the union does not allow that. my DH had taken furlough weeks, pay cut, decreased company contrubution to his 401k etc all to keep people from being laid off from his company. If they were union it would not have been allowed and a big chunk of people would be laid off.
I agree with Beth

[ray7694]

It's time to break the unions down, fire the teachers that suck (or the ones that choose to not show up for work) and balance the budget. The teachers get fabulous benefits and should have to chip in towards those--the rest of us in the real world do.

And not all WI schools are good. The ones here suck. Big time..


I don't think the WI deficit is because of teachers that suck. More like politicians that suck.

[jenfromnj]

Its union busting couched in the cloak of fiscal responsibility. The political agenda has nothing to do with money from the reports I've read.

It IS possible to balance public budgets and have strong unions. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

It is also possible to have strong unions and GREAT teachers. There needs to be discipline and termination procedures for the rare bad teacher, but getting rid of teachers unions is NOT going to keep the good teachers.

I agree with bubbaray. I know here in NJ the governor has taken strong aim at the teachers union and the teachers/union seem to be receiving a disproportionate amount of blame for our state's current fiscal crisis, and it has created some real ugliness. I do agree that sometimes unions can complicate things, and sometimes union leadership does not always keep the best interest of all the workers in mind (seemingly), but that does not necessarily mean that unions aren't worthwhile or valuable.

[arivecchi]

I thought this was an insightful column on the subject from someone on the right side of the spectrum:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/opinion/22brooks.html?_r=1&hp

[crl]

I am pro union. I was a union steward for our union when I was an attorney working for the federal government. We negotiated things like actually receiving comp time if we worked more then 40 hours a week. And things like using low voc paint when they were doing construction work in our offices. I think those are ongoing issues that are the central mission of unions, making sure people get paid for their work and have safe work environments.

In general, I think people who try to blame unions and want to bust unions are just too damn lazy to do their jobs and negotiate with unions. For example, when I complained about the non stop changes in bus drivers for my ds in SF (he was special Ed and had a crying melt down everytime the driver changed, which was every two weeks), the head of transportation blamed the bus drivers' union because their contract called for rebidding the routes every two weeks based on seniority. When I called bs and said you should have negotiated a different contract, I am positive there is something else they wanted you can have used to negotiate some stability for the students, he got all flustered and started blustering about other things.

All that is a very long way of saying I don't know the details of this well enough to comment specifically, but I refuse to assume that unions are wrong or bad or to blame for unfortunate situations.

Catherine

[larig]

This is totally about busting the union, not about budget saving measures. The govenor took office with a surplus, and gave tax breaks to businesses that caused the deficit. this is a deficit of his own making. NOW, to fix his mess, he wants to break the unions.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wisconsin-gov-walker-ginned-up-budget-shortfall-to-undercut-worker-rights.php

I'm surprised how anti-union people seem to be. We owe unions much gratitude. Like the 40 hour work week? Thank a union. Like child labor laws, thank a union. People seem to think that businesses and corporations have workers' best interests at heart, well, they don't, they're about making money. Workers alone have NO power. Together they have a little, but if many people have their way the unions, upon whose backs most middle class people's lives have been built, will exist no more. It's a sad state of affairs when the very workers who need protecting are bad mouthing them.

And if you want some education on what a teachers' union really means to teachers read this post by a guy who is an AP history teacher in Maryland and a union officer (a teacher of the year. It's a sad read as he discusses the very real possibility that he may not be able to afford to continue teaching.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/08/942036/-A-terrible-reality

And let's face it, unions are doing their best to keep their members' heads above water. Annie, CA is in terrible shape, if you hadn't had a union things would be far worse for government employees there. The unions didn't put us in this position--bad governmental decisions, poor economy, etc., did.

And I keep reading people talk about how unions are protecting bad teachers, well, I just have to say respectfully that I doubt you fully understand how tenure works. School law is very complicated--there are classes in it (for educators), lawyers specialize in it, and the laws vary from state to state. Unions do not want to keep bad teachers around--it reflects badly on all of us, but they do want people's due process rights protected. There are perfectly good ways to fire people--and if an administrator is too inept to get it done, then maybe he/she is the one who should be fired. But seriously, this is one reason why I never want to teach again. This talk makes me as a former educator want no part in the thankless job of teaching people's children who have these attitudes toward teachers and their unions. I'm seriously pissed. I wish I'd never set foot in this thread. It's very hard to be an educator (even a former one) and read this crap from people I respect in so many other ways.

And yeah, if I was anywhere close to Madison I'd be right there with them. SOLIDARITY!

[bubbaray]

I'm surprised how anti-union people seem to be. We owe unions much gratitude. Like the 40 hour work week? Thank a union. Like child labor laws, thank a union. People seem to think that businesses and corporations have workers' best interests at heart, well, they don't, they're about making money. Workers alone have NO power.


:yeahthat:

I'm considered pretty right wing politically, but I completely disagree with union busting. Virtually EVERYONE who works for a living and is not royalty or landed gentry should thank their lucky stars that unions changed the shape of the Industrial Revolution. Things that we consider "normal" working conditions (paid vacation, workplace safety, child labor laws etc) did NOT exist prior to unions forming.

I done management side collective bargaining "against" a VERY powerful union in a highly adversarial labor and economic context. We negotiated a fair deal that everyone at the table could live with and averted a nasty strike. It CAN be done.

[larig]

:yeahthat:

I'm considered pretty right wing politically, but I completely disagree with union busting. Virtually EVERYONE who works for a living and is not royalty or landed gentry should thank their lucky stars that unions changed the shape of the Industrial Revolution. Things that we consider "normal" working conditions (paid vacation, workplace safety, child labor laws etc) did NOT exist prior to unions forming.

I done management side collective bargaining "against" a VERY powerful union in a highly adversarial labor and economic context. We negotiated a fair deal that everyone at the table could live with and averted a nasty strike. It CAN be done.

:yeahthat: it's about fairness for me.

[bubbaray]

That article on the rule of 92 is insane. I don't want my children being taught by a 71 year old teacher, especially a 71 year old teacher who is essentially forced by crazy pension rules to keep working!

[arivecchi]

The safety of your job and benefits should not be based on who you vote for. I think this is the crux of the issue.

[larig]

That article on the rule of 92 is insane. I don't want my children being taught by a 71 year old teacher, especially a 71 year old teacher who is essentially forced by crazy pension rules to keep working!

I know, this is another reason I may not go back to teaching after I finish my PhD. I've taken almost 10 years off for school and kid. Illinois (where my pension is) has huge pension problems too.

[citymama]

Larig, you said it very well in your original post, as did a few others (crl, bubbaray, ray7694). This is all about union busting not the budget. this is about gutting workers rights.

The argument that unions are no longer needed is sort of like arguing we're in a post-feminist or post-racial world and so no longer need feminists or civil rights leaders. Don't believe it.

[larig]

The argument that unions are no longer needed is sort of like arguing we're in a post-feminist or post-racial world and so no longer need feminists or civil rights leaders. Don't believe it.

well said.

[ellies mom]

The argument that unions are no longer needed is sort of like arguing we're in a post-feminist or post-racial world and so no longer need feminists or civil rights leaders. Don't believe it.

Exactly, the only reason we don't "need" unions is because we still have them. Without them, it wouldn't take long for us to need them again.

[SnuggleBuggles]

Exactly, the only reason we don't "need" unions is because we still have them. Without them, it wouldn't take long for us to need them again.

Really? I just don't buy that. What more do unions want also? Do they want more compensation, benefits, different conditions? Truly curious what they are still out there trying to get, Like I said, I really am glad for the things unions achieved in the past but I do not see the current need for them.

Dh's job and industry aren't union. He has vacation, reasonable hours, benefits...he does not have a pension but I don't think a lot of people have that luxury nowadays.

Beth

[crl]

Really? I just don't buy that. What more do unions want also? Do they want more compensation, benefits, different conditions? Truly curious what they are still out there trying to get, Like I said, I really am glad for the things unions achieved in the past but I do not see the current need for them.

Dh's job and industry aren't union. He has vacation, reasonable hours, benefits...he does not have a pension but I don't think a lot of people have that luxury nowadays.

Beth
I worked for the federal government. The only reason I had a 40 hour work week was our union. When I went on temporary assignment to another agency that was not unionized, my boss actually called and said, you can only have her if she works a 40 hour week because I'm not taking her back with a million comp hours at the end of the year. And the people who worked at that other, non-unionized, agency permanently? They worked waaaayyy more than 40, most of them around 60 hours a week. So, yeah, my union was directly and absolutely responsible for my reasonable work hours.

Catherine

[boolady]

Dh's job and industry aren't union. He has vacation, reasonable hours, benefits...he does not have a pension but I don't think a lot of people have that luxury nowadays.

Beth

I am always curious why a pension is considered such a luxury, when I am forced to contribute almost 10% of my paycheck to mine. I have no ability to opt out, and given my state's gross mismanagement of the pension fund, including borrowing billions for non-pension related things, I might. The pension fund in my state is due to run out in 2017, largely because the billions borrowed several governors ago was never paid back from what is largely workers' money. I would just as soon take my 10% and save it on my own...then at least I know it will be there.

Are there pension systems that people aren't forced to contribute to? I am not saying that to be snarky, I don't know. I just talk to many people who seem to think that it's a free perk of being a public employee, but it's far from free.

[fedoragirl]

Well, we (teachers) are not allowed to have a union in our state. We have NCAE which does nothing for you unless you ask for a lawyer if a parent goes after you, etc. Their fee is more than $300/year. The amount the teachers here make pretty much ensures that most don't join the NCAE. It is too national an organization that a LOT of teachers here don't think it makes any difference in policies or lobbying for anything teacher related.
I will also not return to public school teaching because it is indeed a thankless job. There is no job protection or any kind of protection. I easily worked 50 hours a week and I didn't complain about $$ because I knew my expectations. However, when parents go after you with lawyers because you happened to give their "little Susie" a C in English and ruined her chances of a college career, then a union would be helpful. The attitude of parents towards teachers is appalling and it trickles down to the kids and they come in with the attitude, "Oh you couldn't get any other job so you teach."
If I had a dime for all the kids who said that to me or in earshot to another teacher, I would never have to work again.
This is probably off-topic but unions ensure that teachers are protected and get the basic human conditions to work. I couldn't be in a union, hated the administration and policies, loved my kids, and eventually, left to raise a family. I doubt I'll ever return.
By the way, our state's statistics on new teachers who leave the occupation: 80% of new graduates leave teaching within 4 years. That is a LOT of new talent, creativity, current pedagogy, enthusiasm, and love for the profession being thrown away.

[Globetrotter]

I can't speak to the situation in WI because I don't know the facts.

I was strongly pro-union until my kids entered public school in CA. It has been an eye-opener for me. I'm not saying they are no longer necessary because they have served an important function, but I have to wonder who signed off on these contracts and procedures that make it practically impossible to fire a poor-performing tenured teacher (I've seen this firsthand, so it IS happening.). Something has to give..

[Ceepa]

I worked for the federal government. The only reason I had a 40 hour work week was our union. When I went on temporary assignment to another agency that was not unionized, my boss actually called and said, you can only have her if she works a 40 hour week because I'm not taking her back with a million comp hours at the end of the year. And the people who worked at that other, non-unionized, agency permanently? They worked waaaayyy more than 40, most of them around 60 hours a week. So, yeah, my union was directly and absolutely responsible for my reasonable work hours.


Wow. I know a number of people who work/ed for the federal government who have not experienced anything close to this. And none of them were union. Not discounting your story, just saying your experience was different than the other federal workers I know.

[ray7694]

I am forced by the state of IL to have a pension. NO social security. So if I don't have a pension I have NO retirement. How is that a luxury considering the state can't pay their bills now not alone when I retire in 25 years.

[AngelaS]

Since I'm very anti-union, it makes more sense why I totally back this bill doesn't it??


I hate unions. Bust 'em up Scott Walker!

[boolady]

(Oh and my dh does NOT work 40 hours a week, nor have a pension -- he works more like 60 to 70 and has to contribute to his own retirement. We also have sucky insurance. He really should be a teacher. The LIBRARIAN at the local school makes more than he does!)


Except that public employees, at least in my state, contribute significanlty to the pension, and, as I noted above, don't have the ability to opt out. I'm contributing almost 10% of my salary whether I like it or not. So I am contributing to my own retirement, too, because after the 10% comes out of my gross salary, I don't have anything left to save privately, at least now. I'm still curious...are there places that pensions are a free perk, because if so, I'm not aware of it.

[sste]

Hmmm . . . now worried I have offended teachers and former teachers. Here is my issue with the teachers' unions which I have seen through my sister's perspective - - she works as an elementary school teacher in Mass.

1. Hiring is seniority driven. So, schools are often constrained from hiring an excellent student intern when she graduates because they have a mediocre "long-term substitute" who has been there a year and a half. And if there is another long-term substitute who has been there for three years she is hugely favored in perm. hiring, to the point of it being a shoe-in, over the 1.5 year long term sub and the excellent student intern. Similarly, teachers who wish to change schools or switch specialties typically have priority in hiring over all new hires. This can frequently lead to a situation where bright, motivated people are shut out because the school needs to accomodate a person who is less than stellar, or even has issues that have lead them to want to change schools/specialties.

2. Firing is too difficult. This would be less of a problem if *hiring* was unconstrained. But, as I describe above schools are often limited in hiring the best people and then they can never.get.rid.of.them.

3. The benefits have gone waaaay downhill at least in some regions. For many areas, there is good evidence that your retirement plan/pension/raises and COL adjustments are really poor - - much worse than many non-unionized, private sector jobs for workers at comparable levels of education.

4. The working conditions are often pretty bad. Every teacher I know works way more than a 40 hour week without additional compensation - - the reason is class prep. My sister has 1 twenty minute break in her 9 hour day during which she frantically eats, sometimes standing up. And she has one class prep period of which she must use every minute of to have a hope of doing at least half of her preparation during the school day and taking home two or less hours of prep work.

Is this a story of union success? I think something has gone seriously awry with teachers' unions, at least the ones in the areas I am familar with. You can be pro-union (and not support the actions described in the OP) and still think teachers' unions have been monumentally ineffective for both the teachers and the public.

[AngelaS]

In my dh's old company, he could contribute however much he wanted to his retirement account. There were no matching funds tho. At the end of the year, he'd contributed more that the average of the other employees tho and got money back, which was then taxed.

[ray7694]

Since I'm very anti-union, it makes more sense why I totally back this bill doesn't it??

We lost our business due to the union. You cannot ask if someone's union when you hire them and if you have a majority of employees that are union in your shop, they can demand (and get) a contract and union wages. So, if you bid the job at non union wages, but have to pay out union wages... you're screwed. We lost almost 6 figures--all my inheritance money from a relative because of the !#$% union.

I hate unions. Bust 'em up Scott Walker!

(Oh and my dh does NOT work 40 hours a week, nor have a pension -- he works more like 60 to 70 and has to contribute to his own retirement. We also have sucky insurance. He really should be a teacher. The LIBRARIAN at the local school makes more than he does!)

You think this is similar to what education unions do? Sorry I don't see it.

[ellies mom]

Really? I just don't buy that. What more do unions want also? Do they want more compensation, benefits, different conditions? Truly curious what they are still out there trying to get, Like I said, I really am glad for the things unions achieved in the past but I do not see the current need for them.

Dh's job and industry aren't union. He has vacation, reasonable hours, benefits...he does not have a pension but I don't think a lot of people have that luxury nowadays.

Beth

My last industry (semiconductor) wasn't union either and I had great benefits and all of that. But I also know that they did not want to be unionized. So rather than the union busting tactics of the Walmarts of the world, their response was to treat us well enough that we did not want to be unionized. So even though I did not pay into a union, I still benefited from a union. And all of those pesky OSHA regulations that kept us safe are the result of unions pushing for safe working conditions. So once again, I benefited from union activities. The vast majority of employees in the US have benefited in some way from unions.

I do think that unions can be unwieldy. I do think that sometimes the union and management develop relationships that are too adversarial because ultimately they should be on the same team. But if there were not unions, most companies would engage in a rapid race to the bottom when it comes to how they treat employees, especially in an economy like there is now where people are desperate for work. And trust me it will not be limited to the manufacturing related industries such as the semiconductor industry.

As far as complaining that unions prevent bad employees from being fired. That is often the fault of the management. A friend of mine was the union rep for his company and he told me that the biggest reason bad employees aren't fired is because the manager did not follow procedures. If the proper procedures are followed, then it is no problem. But think about it. How many crappy employees stick around for ages at non-union jobs? Why aren't they fired immediately? Because management/HR doesn't want to for whatever reason. The only difference it that managers at union jobs have a scapegoat.

[WolfpackMom]

I am forced by the state of IL to have a pension. NO social security. So if I don't have a pension I have NO retirement. How is that a luxury considering the state can't pay their bills now not alone when I retire in 25 years.

I am unfamiliar with how all of this works, do you then not pay into SS? If you pay into it then I totally get being mad, if not, then isnt paying into a pension doing the same thing as having to pay SS with no choice not to?

I see where there is a need for unions to protect individuals, but at the same time though I work in a corporate world where I work way more than 40 hours a week, pay huge amounts of money for health insurance and benefits. Most everyone I know does the same so long as they aren't working for the government in some form. The healthcare benefits that teachers get seem amazing to me, that and the time off, I may "get" 15+ days a year of PTO, but almost no corporation actually lets their employees use all of their PTO, and even if they did, most employees cant because they would fall so far behind. I understand wanting to have collective bargaining rights, but at the same time I highly doubt the majority of union members would be willing to be flexible and pay more for healthcare and other benefits, or to work 50+ hours with no extra pay or extra days off or summers off (or chunks of weeks off if a year round teacher)like nongoverment workers do in exchange for the bargaining rights.

Like I said, Im not educated enough about all of this to really form a valid opinion so this is just a perspective from the outside looking in.

I do think this is kind of messed up right here though: Pro-Union Website Blocked at Capital (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/22/wisconsin.budget/index.html?hpt=T2)

[crl]

Wow. I know a number of people who work/ed for the federal government who have not experienced anything close to this. And none of them were union. Not discounting your story, just saying your experience was different than the other federal workers I know.

Did they work at DOJ? Because there was a lawsuit over the number of hours people worked at DOJ. It was pretty well known that they worked way over 40 hours per week routinely. And I certainly witnessed it first hand for a year. And I was told by multiple people that before our agency lawyers unionized they also often worked more than 40 hours with no comp time or pay. It was the main motivating factor to unionize. I also knew lawyers at DOI who routinely worked over 40.

Catherine

ETA link about DOJ and unpaid overtime: http://www.wc.com/news-archive-2119.html

[crl]

Are there pension systems that people aren't forced to contribute to? I am not saying that to be snarky, I don't know. I just talk to many people who seem to think that it's a free perk of being a public employee, but it's far from free.

When I worked for the federal government, we essentially had a 401k, with matching by the government. So I did not have to contribute. I did to get the benefit though. It was a nice benefit.

Catherine

[marymoo86]

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions

"The political influence of public-sector unions is probably greatest, however, in low-turnout elections to school boards and state and local offices, and in votes to decide ballot initiatives and referenda. For example, two of the top five biggest spenders in Wisconsin's 2003 and 2004 state elections were the Wisconsin Education Association Council and the AFSCME-affiliated Wisconsin PEOPLE Conference. Only the state Republican Party and two other political action committees — those belonging to the National Association of Realtors and SBC / Ameritech — spent more. The same is true in state after state, as unions work to exert control over the very governments that employs their members."

Even FDR was against collective bargaining rights for public sector unions.

[Ceepa]

Did they work at DOJ? Because there was a lawsuit over the number of hours people worked at DOJ. It was pretty well known that they worked way over 40 hours per week routinely. And I certainly witnessed it first hand for a year. And I was told by multiple people that before our agency lawyers unionized they also often worked more than 40 hours with no comp time or pay. It was the main motivating factor to unionize. I also knew lawyers at DOI who routinely worked over 40.

Catherine

ETA link about DOJ and unpaid overtime: http://www.wc.com/news-archive-2119.html

I knew one woman who did, but she left when she had a baby. Everyone else is non-DOJ and I'm glad they aren't. Sounds awful.

[crl]

I knew one woman who did, but she left when she had a baby. Everyone else is non-DOJ and I'm glad they aren't. Sounds awful.

It is actually why I returned to my agency at the end of my temporary assignment. I was offered a job at DOJ, but planned to have children so I did not stay. The work was interesting and I liked the people, but I was not prepared to work those hours for a government salary, especially when I planned to have a family.

Catherine

[egoldber]

DOJ is pretty notorious for being an awful place to work.

[boolady]

Did they work at DOJ? Because there was a lawsuit over the number of hours people worked at DOJ. It was pretty well known that they worked way over 40 hours per week routinely. And I certainly witnessed it first hand for a year. And I was told by multiple people that before our agency lawyers unionized they also often worked more than 40 hours with no comp time or pay. It was the main motivating factor to unionize. I also knew lawyers at DOI who routinely worked over 40.

Catherine

ETA link about DOJ and unpaid overtime: http://www.wc.com/news-archive-2119.html

See, I don't work for a federal agency involving lawyers, but for a more localized equivalent to the DOJ, if you will. None of the attorneys here, including me, work 40 hours a week, ever. As you likely know, there are witnesses that can't be interviewed during day hours/the work week, prep work and briefs that need to be completed regardless of how many hours you're supposed to work. I'm actually okay with not getting overtime (or at least I was before reading the article you linked to:)), because I see it as part of my responsibililty as an attorney. Unlike your article, though, it's never explicitly tracked or used in reviews, though, like any other professional, your performance and track record certainly are, and you've got to be as prepared as an attorney in the private sector.

We also don't have any sort of employment protection and are all at will employees, and I'm okay with that too. I came to this job because I wanted to do some good, and I understood that with the decision to work in the office I do, salary wouldn't be as good as in the private sector, etc. And, no, I'm not working 100 hours a week like lots of private sector attorneys, but there has to be a breaking point. I get tired of all unions/public sector employees who will collect a pension being portrayed as nothing but a bunch of inept losers counting the days until they retire on someone else's dime.

[BabbyO]

It's definitely about busting unions. Not to mention it is affecting more than teachers unions. My brother (a corrections officer) will be affected by this. Both he and his wife expect to either lose their jobs (because Gov. Walker has a plan to privatize the prison system and bring in private security companies to run the prisons) or to have to take a dramatic pay cut and have to pay more for their benefits.

Interestingly enough my brother told me he hasn't received a pay raise in 4 years and what the unions did for him was negotiate so that they wouldn't have a significant increase in their contributions toward benefits (although there was an increase) in exchange for giving up their annual pay raise.

IME it seems that the people most affected by this are in positions that typically have really good benefits, but lower pay...and that is the trade off. Now they are going to lose the benefits, negotiating power, AND still have low pay.

I won't even get into what I think it is going to do for the quality of education in our state overall. Of course there are areas where it is lower than others...that is true of any state...but I think his actions are going to greatly affect the quality of our education system in a negative way.

As for his plan to bring jobs into WI...I think he means all those people replacing the current public servants who are about to lose their job...so net gain is ZERO.

That's just my 2 cents....

[Cam&Clay]

The LIBRARIAN at the local school makes more than he does!)

Feeling the need to chime in here, as an elementary school librarian. Is there some reason why the librarian shouldn't be making a decent salary? That is, of course, greater than or equal to that of a teacher.

In order to be a LIBRARIAN (as you put it), I have to have my certification to teach. So, I have a bachelor's degree with certification to teach K-8. In addition, I have to have a master's degree in library science. So, my salary is equal to any other teacher who happens to have a master's degree.

I am just wondering (with steam coming out of my ears), why on Earth you would choose to use the LIBRARIAN as your example here?

[Globetrotter]

Hiring is seniority driven.

Yes, that is another big problem. Some of our favorite teachers were let go in favor of tenured ones, including some who were nowhere near as effective.

Here we have the Willie Brown act that allows teachers to take off half the year. copied from CA state teacher's retirement website:

Reduced Workload Program
A feature under which eligible members may reduce their workload from full time to part time (a minimum of 50 percent of full time) and still receive a full year of service credit. Members may participate in this program for up to 10 years before retirement.

how can the same teachers take this year after year until they reach the ten year limit? Unfortunately, the ones who did this were the poor performing teachers who pretty much did nothing in class, also, to the detriment of their students. In our school, parents in those classes sent their kids to after school tutoring! (imagine in a low income neighborhood..)

As for firing, yes the admin. certainly plays a key role and must be tough to get anything done. however, there is a provision that requires a two year commitment from a parent, and any disgruntled parents have to meet face to face with the teacher one at a time. What if the teacher refuses to meet with you? Yes, this happened to my friend. I know that the teachers also need protection, but unfortunately it's gone the other way. How on earth do these provisions get written into the union contract?

I am not for union busting, but we need to take a long hard look at the situation and make some changes! Change is hard for everyone, but people in non-union positions have had to make sacrifices, too.

[larig]

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions

"The political influence of public-sector unions is probably greatest, however, in low-turnout elections to school boards and state and local offices, and in votes to decide ballot initiatives and referenda. For example, two of the top five biggest spenders in Wisconsin's 2003 and 2004 state elections were the Wisconsin Education Association Council and the AFSCME-affiliated Wisconsin PEOPLE Conference. Only the state Republican Party and two other political action committees — those belonging to the National Association of Realtors and SBC / Ameritech — spent more. The same is true in state after state, as unions work to exert control over the very governments that employs their members."

Even FDR was against collective bargaining rights for public sector unions.

I'm not sure I get the objection here. You don't think that teachers and government workers (ETA: originally put "shouldn't") should be active in elections? How did you feel about the Citizens United verdict? Corporations can now spend as much as they want on elections, and since you brought it up, I'd argue that part of the reason Walker is going after the unions is because killing them puts the state GOP one step closer to killing the Democratic party in the state of Wisconsin.

And I'd like to see that FDR reference you have. I found this (quoted below), which really suggests that it is the striking that he has a problem with. The organizing though he seems fine with if you read the whole letter. Anyway FDR got a lot right, but his army was still segregated. KWIM. Things change.



112 - Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service
August 16, 1937

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

[citymama]

Did you guys see this on Facebook, or do I just have a lot of friends who are teachers? (and parents of kids in school?)

This seems to be a public note posted by someone: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=666995678863&id=71209634

"Are you sick of highly paid teachers?

Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or10 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. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).

What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year.

Wait a minute -- there's something wrong here! There sure is!
The average teacher's salary (nation wide) is
$50,000. $50,000/180 days= $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student
--a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!)

WHAT A DEAL!!!!"

[marymoo86]

Fdr's quote is in the article - collective bargaining and organizing are not the same.

from the article: "Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: "Meticulous attention," the president insisted in 1937, "should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." The reason? F.D.R. believed that "[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable."

[larig]

Did you guys see this on Facebook, or do I just have a lot of friends who are teachers? (and parents of kids in school?)



I've been seeing a lot of that.

[crl]

FWIW, federal government employees cannot strike. And many cannot unionize at all (military and I believe there are national security provisions that prevent unionizing and possibly others--not my area of expertise).

Catherine

[citymama]

Really? I just don't buy that. What more do unions want also? Do they want more compensation, benefits, different conditions?

First of all, let's not forget unions are collectives of workers. it's not about what *unions* want. It's about what workers want collectively. Many of us might have problems with the way that a large group of individuals is organized and operates, with the internal politics of those groups, with their political impact (or lack thereof) - but that large group represents hard working men and women of America.


Like I said, I really am glad for the things unions achieved in the past but I do not see the current need for them.

Aha, now that's the crux of the biscuit. (Any Frank Zappa fans here? Maybe not.) This is why I compared unions to feminists and civil rights organizations. We've come a long way, baby. A long way since slave labor and child labor and sweatshops and worker abuse. But just as we don't have a gender neutral or race-blind society, we don't have a pro-workers' rights society either. Are employers all benevolent masters, looking for the best interests of their workers? Would we all automatically get the raises we want, the vacation days, the health benefits, etc., if there weren't unions and the legislation they have helped bring to protect workers' rights? Should we put our faith in corporate America (and other employers) to make the best decisions for us? Hmm, not so fast. As someone who has been on both sides of the bargaining table, and now on the management side, I'll say NO WAY. My very benevolent not for profit, do gooder previous employer had no maternity leave until staff pushed for it. We were busted from forming a union with exactly that claim - we're such great employers, what more could you want? We worked 70 hour weeks without comp time or maternity leave or SD benefits. And this was a lovely employer in many other ways. Without spokespeople for workers' rights, I'm afraid to say those rights will get weaker and weaker and weaker.


Dh's job and industry aren't union. He has vacation, reasonable hours, benefits...he does not have a pension but I don't think a lot of people have that luxury nowadays.

Pensions should NOT be a luxury, but sadly, they are increasingly rare. (I wish I was a member of a union that had won a pension plan!) I take it your DH is not a member of the "working class" but in a white collar job. He (and I, also in a non-unionized white-collar workplace) are fortunate for the decades of sweat by workers' rights groups and unions in getting the basics in place. He and I are lucky to stand on the shoulders of the workers of decades past who were not as fortunate, and to easily have the rights they fought so hard to get.

Let's not forget for one minute that this is a fight about workers' rights. This is not just about what one of us thinks about that annoying unionized teacher who really should be fired, or the fact that many of us have job benefits without unions, or what side of the political spectrum we sit. Watch this fight closely if there is any chance your kids will be in the American workforce (in anything but high management positions) in the future.

[larig]

Fdr's quote is in the article - collective bargaining and organizing are not the same

Absolutely they are not the same, as I am well aware. Your comment seemed pretty condescending, BTW--not sure how else to read it. My link contained the entire letter for context, which I will copy here, so you know what I'm talking about. The linked article you posted had a very chopped up version of the text from this letter below. I will bold the parts that were cut and put in your linked article. In the letter as a whole FDR talks about organizing and it being okay for people to do in the government. I'd argue that he'd be fine with them organizing for political purposes, which your post was mostly about, I was relating what FDR would say about what YOU brought up, as your FDR comment was tangential to your original argument about them spending all the money on elections.


My dear Mr. Steward:
As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

Very sincerely yours,

Mr. Luther C. Steward,

President, National Federation of Federal Employees,

10 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.

[larig]

First of all, let's not forget unions are collectives of workers. it's not about what *unions* want. It's about what workers want collectively. Many of us might have problems with the way that a large group of individuals is organized and operates, with the internal politics of those groups, with their political impact (or lack thereof) - but that large group represents hard working men and women of America.



Aha, now that's the crux of the biscuit. (Any Frank Zappa fans here? Maybe not.) This is why I compared unions to feminists and civil rights organizations. We've come a long way, baby. A long way since slave labor and child labor and sweatshops and worker abuse. But just as we don't have a gender neutral or race-blind society, we don't have a pro-workers' rights society either. Are employers all benevolent masters, looking for the best interests of their workers? Would we all automatically get the raises we want, the vacation days, the health benefits, etc., if there weren't unions and the legislation they have helped bring to protect workers' rights? Should we put our faith in corporate America (and other employers) to make the best decisions for us? Hmm, not so fast. As someone who has been on both sides of the bargaining table, and now on the management side, I'll say NO WAY. My very benevolent not for profit, do gooder previous employer had no maternity leave until staff pushed for it. We were busted from forming a union with exactly that claim - we're such great employers, what more could you want? We worked 70 hour weeks without comp time or maternity leave or SD benefits. And this was a lovely employer in many other ways. Without spokespeople for workers' rights, I'm afraid to say those rights will get weaker and weaker and weaker.



Pensions should NOT be a luxury, but sadly, they are. I take it your DH is not a member of the "working class" but in a white collar job. He (and I, also in a non-unionized white-collar workplace) are fortunate for the decades of sweat by workers' rights groups and unions in getting the basics in place. He and I are lucky to stand on the shoulders of the workers of decades past who were not as fortunate, and to easily have the rights they fought so hard to get.

Let's not forget for one minute that this is a fight about workers' rights. This is not just about what one of us thinks about that annoying unionized teacher who really should be fired, or the fact that many of us have job benefits without unions, or even what our politics are. Watch this fight closely if there is any chance your kids will want jobs (in anything but high management positions) in the future.
:applause::applause::applause::applause:
seriously, this is just right on. well said. There's a reason why the firemen and policemen are standing with their fellow government employees in WI, and that is that it is about workers' rights.

[marymoo86]

Absolutely they are not the same, as I am well aware. Your comment seemed pretty condescending, BTW--not sure how else to read it. My link contained the entire letter for context, which I will copy here, so you know what I'm talking about. The linked article you posted had a very chopped up version of the text from this letter below. I will bold the parts that were cut and put in your linked article. In the letter as a whole FDR talks about organizing and it being okay for people to do in the government. I'd argue that he'd be fine with them organizing for political purposes, which your post was mostly about, I was relating what FDR would say about what YOU brought up, as your FDR comment was tangential to your original argument about them spending all the money on elections.

maybe i misread your post but I don't recall saying i was against union organizing as the issue in Wisconsin is about collective bargaining?

fwiw - i do believe unions have undue influence on our gov't but i feel that way about corporations as well

[kijip]

First of all, let's not forget unions are collectives of workers. it's not about what *unions* want. It's about what workers want collectively.

Let's not forget for one minute that this is a fight about workers' rights. This is not just about what one of us thinks about that annoying unionized teacher who really should be fired, or the fact that many of us have job benefits without unions, or what side of the political spectrum we sit. Watch this fight closely if there is any chance your kids will be in the American workforce (in anything but high management positions) in the future.

:yeahthat:

If anyone thinks we will, out of the goodness of industry heart's, keep our union won working standards (like a weekend! Like a sick day!) in a post union labor market, they are delusional. Look at all the non-union workers who don't have sick days and don't have overtime or comptime and tell me that unions are worthless.

[misshollygolightly]

Others have already voiced the reasons better than I could myself, so I'll just weigh in to say that I support the unions and the protesters. Wholeheartedly. This debate is unfolding in my state as well, and I'll be watching carefully and/or participating here.

[larig]

maybe i misread your post but I don't recall saying i was against union organizing as the issue in Wisconsin is about collective bargaining?

fwiw - i do believe unions have undue influence on our gov't but i feel that way about corporations as well

Your big block quote in your post was about the political influence of union organizing--the money. You didn't say it, but you quoted someone who did, so I supposed that you were pointing that out as a reason to do away with unions. (quoted below)


"The political influence of public-sector unions is probably greatest, however, in low-turnout elections to school boards and state and local offices, and in votes to decide ballot initiatives and referenda. For example, two of the top five biggest spenders in Wisconsin's 2003 and 2004 state elections were the Wisconsin Education Association Council and the AFSCME-affiliated Wisconsin PEOPLE Conference. Only the state Republican Party and two other political action committees — those belonging to the National Association of Realtors and SBC / Ameritech — spent more. The same is true in state after state, as unions work to exert control over the very governments that employs their members."

[MontrealMum]

I am just wondering (with steam coming out of my ears), why on Earth you would choose to use the LIBRARIAN as your example here?

I am wondering this as well. That was a highly offensive comment.

[bubbaray]

If anyone thinks we will, out of the goodness of industry heart's, keep our union won working standards (like a weekend! Like a sick day!) in a post union labor market, they are delusional.


:yeahthat:

Just because unions fought hard for basic working conditions does NOT mean that unions cease to perform an important function in society.

[wellyes]

The question to me isn't are unions good or bad, it is: does the governor have the right to say unions will be stripped of their collective bargaining rights? That is not dealing with a financial crisis (self made or no). It is management flexing muscle over it's workers. The teachers response is entirely appropriate, in my opinion.

[brittone2]

The question to me isn't are unions good or bad, it is: does the governor have the right to say unions will be stripped of their collective bargaining rights? That is not dealing with a financial crisis (self made or no). It is management flexing muscle over it's workers. The teachers response is entirely appropriate, in my opinion.
:yeahthat:

[AngelaS]

I chose the librarian, because I've talked to her the most. She's often whining and I see her role with kids and how she interacts with them. Honestly, she's the best teacher. But she's been there over 20 years so she won't be going anywhere soon.

Another teacher I often hear is the one who's forever screaming at her class or berating one child or another. But, she too is old and well....she's not going to be fired either.

[larig]

I chose the librarian, because I've talked to her the most. She's often whining and I see her role with kids and how she interacts with them. Honestly, she's the best teacher. But she's been there over 20 years so she won't be going anywhere soon.

Another teacher I often hear is the one who's forever screaming at her class or berating one child or another. But, she too is old and well....she's not going to be fired either.

I think the point about the comment being offensive still stands. Your comment still raises the same question with me...why shouldn't we pay our teachers (including librarians) more than your husband? Are they less valuable? Less educated?

[mommylamb]

I am unfamiliar with how all of this works, do you then not pay into SS? If you pay into it then I totally get being mad, if not, then isnt paying into a pension doing the same thing as having to pay SS with no choice not to?


My mother is a retired teacher. While she was a teacher, she did not pay into social security. But, she worked for a long time in other jobs before becoming a teacher, and payed into SS for that entire time, and all of that was for naught because she'll never get SS because she gets her teacher pension. She had to pay into her pension too. Its not like the state is giving that to her for nothing. It's her money.


The question to me isn't are unions good or bad, it is: does the governor have the right to say unions will be stripped of their collective bargaining rights? That is not dealing with a financial crisis (self made or no). It is management flexing muscle over it's workers. The teachers response is entirely appropriate, in my opinion.
:yeahthat:

ETA: And the LIBRARIAN comment was totally offensive.

[Cam&Clay]

I think the point about the comment being offensive still stands. Your comment still raises the same question with me...why shouldn't we pay our teachers (including librarians) more than your husband? Are they less valuable? Less educated?

:yeahthat:

I'm still trying to figure this out. If she is the "best teacher," why would you say that it is not right that she makes more than your DH? Why would you not want her to go anywhere?

Attitudes like this, about all teachers (specialists like librarians, reading teachers, music, art, PE, special ed, etc.) are what makes it so difficult to BE a teacher these days. It is very hard to get the pay and respect we deserve when people honestly feel this way.

And to be honest, I work in a right-to-work state, so my union does not do much more than complain when we don't get raises or our benefits get reduced. Not all unions have the power to strike and make the demands that the ones in Wisconsin are.

[AngelaS]

I'm terribly sorry that I made an example of school librarians. Yes, it's an important job.

I still don't agree with the unions or their tactics. I fully support the bill and hope it passes so that everyone can get back to work educating the next generation.

And now I will crawl back into my homeschooling hole where I belong.

[vludmilla]

This is totally about busting the union, not about budget saving measures. The govenor took office with a surplus, and gave tax breaks to businesses that caused the deficit. this is a deficit of his own making. NOW, to fix his mess, he wants to break the unions.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wisconsin-gov-walker-ginned-up-budget-shortfall-to-undercut-worker-rights.php

I'm surprised how anti-union people seem to be. We owe unions much gratitude. Like the 40 hour work week? Thank a union. Like child labor laws, thank a union. People seem to think that businesses and corporations have workers' best interests at heart, well, they don't, they're about making money. Workers alone have NO power. Together they have a little, but if many people have their way the unions, upon whose backs most middle class people's lives have been built, will exist no more. It's a sad state of affairs when the very workers who need protecting are bad mouthing them.


Unions do not want to keep bad teachers around--it reflects badly on all of us, but they do want people's due process rights protected. There are perfectly good ways to fire people--and if an administrator is too inept to get it done, then maybe he/she is the one who should be fired. But seriously, this is one reason why I never want to teach again. This talk makes me as a former educator want no part in the thankless job of teaching people's children who have these attitudes toward teachers and their unions. I'm seriously pissed. I wish I'd never set foot in this thread. It's very hard to be an educator (even a former one) and read this crap from people I respect in so many other ways.

And yeah, if I was anywhere close to Madison I'd be right there with them. SOLIDARITY!

Very well said. I couldn't have said it as well. I agree completely.

[bubbaray]

I'm puzzled (in an honest way, not a snarky way) by this thread, and in particular the *venting* (my word, just trying to sum up what my "take home" message is from some of the posts) about teachers.

There is not a day that goes by on this forum that we don't discuss/whine/complain (and, very rarely, compliment or rave) about the education our children are getting from (mostly) public school teachers. Do people here really think that targeting teachers unions is going to *attract* highly qualified and motivated people to teach?

As for the other public sector workers, people really need to think long and hard about exactly *what* those people are doing and if you would want to do that job for the pay and benefits people earn in those jobs. Do you *really* want to be a corrections officer and get attacked (verbally, physically) by prisoners in a super max prison? How a social worker who has to seize abused children from crack houses? What about working at a land fill or a sewage treatment facility?

There are lots of jobs that public sector employees do that are pretty icky jobs that don't pay particularly well. But they are jobs that society needs to have performed. Even big business needs to flush their toilet waste somewhere.

PS - and Angela, I'm sorry to hear about your business experience with a union. Not all unions operate like that.

[vludmilla]

:yeahthat:

If anyone thinks we will, out of the goodness of industry heart's, keep our union won working standards (like a weekend! Like a sick day!) in a post union labor market, they are delusional. Look at all the non-union workers who don't have sick days and don't have overtime or comptime and tell me that unions are worthless.

:yeahthat: Indeed. I think if unions disappear we will see a progressive worsening of working conditions for ALL workers over time. Of course, workers in professional or highly specialized fields will feel the worsening the least but the more average professionals, tradesmen, and service people will really feel the pinch.

Katie, I love your new signature line. :)

[vludmilla]

[QUOTE=bubbaray;3049118]There is not a day that goes by on this forum that we don't discuss/whine/complain (and, very rarely, compliment or rave) about the education our children are getting from (mostly) public school teachers. Do people here really think that targeting teachers unions is going to *attract* highly qualified and motivated people to teach?

QUOTE]

Absolutely. Teaching children is a tough job but dealing with myriad parent expectations and minimal respect makes it even more difficult. I see no possibility of attracting the "best and brightest" to teaching if we simultaneously denigrate the teachers we have and eliminate the benefits that do exist in teaching.

[WolfpackMom]

My mother is a retired teacher. While she was a teacher, she did not pay into social security. But, she worked for a long time in other jobs before becoming a teacher, and payed into SS for that entire time, and all of that was for naught because she'll never get SS because she gets her teacher pension. She had to pay into her pension too. Its not like the state is giving that to her for nothing. It's her money.


:yeahthat:

ETA: And the LIBRARIAN comment was totally offensive.

Thanks for the explanation, she should get the SS she has paid in to, that's crazy!

[citymama]

For Jon Stewart's "Cliff Notes" version of what's going on in Wisconsin:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-21-2011/crisis-in-dairyland---revenge-of-the-curds

(Thought we could use a little humor here as well as an explanation of exactly what is going on. As usual JS nails it, IMO.)

[kijip]

I will say that I support unions generally, but not universally, and that I think that this is the Gov. using one thing- the deficit- to get another thing entirely. Because the union is willing to start paying towards benefits, his goal is pretty blatantly not about the deficit.

That said, it is time that politicians, especially those in my own party, take a cold hard look at some of the issues with teacher's tenure and long firing processes for even the grossest malfeasance. I am all for reforms here. They are long overdue. And anyone who says badly performing teachers are exceedingly rare or few and far between is not being intellectually honest. Are they the majority? No, but they are not rare and they do hurt education outcomes considerably. Merit based pay, higher pay scales for harder to fill positions and the like are critically needed. I am a union girl, but some of the contract provisions that the teacher's unions cherish are in my opinion hurting our education system. I am hardly alone in this opinion. That is a separate, larger, discussion from this Wisconsin issue however. We spend a lot of money on education and we get very mediocre to downright bad graduation and competency outcomes. The future of our skilled workforce is in jeopardy because of this. I don't think that teacher unions should end, I don't think bargaining rights should end but I do think that tenure should not be thought of it the same way as it is now.

[kijip]

For Jon Stewart's "Cliff Notes" version of what's going on in Wisconsin:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-21-2011/crisis-in-dairyland---revenge-of-the-curds

(Thought we could use a little humor here as well as an explanation of exactly what is going on. As usual JS nails it, IMO.)
:hysterical:

Especially his reaction to the idea that the protests are akin to Cairo.

[jenfromnj]

I'm puzzled (in an honest way, not a snarky way) by this thread, and in particular the *venting* (my word, just trying to sum up what my "take home" message is from some of the posts) about teachers.

There is not a day that goes by on this forum that we don't discuss/whine/complain (and, very rarely, compliment or rave) about the education our children are getting from (mostly) public school teachers. Do people here really think that targeting teachers unions is going to *attract* highly qualified and motivated people to teach?



This is an excellent point. I've heard so much (not just here, but all over--here in NJ teachers and other public employees are being targeted a great deal by the current governor and his administration) bashing of and complaining about teachers and other school personnel.

I can only speak for things here in NJ, but I know that teachers are paid a reasonably good salary and have good benefits. But seriously, they are doing a very important job, and from what I know of my BFF, sister and other friends who are teachers, the expectations set by parents, school administrators and others are high. I don't understand why people are so resentful of teachers.

We should want really bright and motivated people to enter the teaching profession, and the current light teachers are being painted in (as well as the erosion of their benefits and pension) is definitely not the way to accomplish that. I do understand the frustration with the tenure system, but there are so many good teachers out there that are being soured to the profession by everything that's going on--I know several of them personally.

[Globetrotter]

That said, it is time that politicians, especially those in my own party, take a cold hard look at some of the issues with teacher's tenure and long firing processes for even the grossest malfeasance. I am all for reforms here. They are long overdue. And anyone who says badly performing teachers are exceedingly rare or few and far between is not being intellectually honest. Are they the majority? No, but they are not rare and they do hurt education outcomes considerably. Merit based pay, higher pay scales for harder to fill positions and the like are critically needed. I am a union girl, but some of the contract provisions that the teacher's unions cherish are in my opinion hurting our education system. I am hardly alone in this opinion. That is a separate, larger, discussion from this Wisconsin issue however. We spend a lot of money on education and we get very mediocre to downright bad graduation and competency outcomes. The future of our skilled workforce is in jeopardy because of this.

My point, exactly. I also think it's unfair to all the teachers who DO put in the hours. I've heard some of our favorite, top notch teachers complain about having to pay union dues as they do not support these policies that hurt the children. Reform is long overdue.

[SnuggleBuggles]

For Jon Stewart's "Cliff Notes" version of what's going on in Wisconsin:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-21-2011/crisis-in-dairyland---revenge-of-the-curds

(Thought we could use a little humor here as well as an explanation of exactly what is going on. As usual JS nails it, IMO.)

:thumbsup: really enjoyed that. I can't figure out why I don't watch the DS every night b/c it rocks. I wish I could listen to the Daily Show in the car vs NPR sometimes. :)

Beth

[larig]

I think there are some big misconceptions about tenure and schools out there--much of it promoted by the movie Waiting for Superman. There is a great piece about the inaccuracies in the film by the same guy I linked to above ("teacherken"--his writing on education really resonates with me). I'd encourage people to read it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/16/910716/-This-teacher-reacts-to-seeing-Waiting-for-Superman

Another education scholar, Diane Ravitch (she is an ed. historian, and worked as asst. sec of ed for both GHW Bush & Clinton) talks about tenure in this way in an interview (link to entire interview follows). http://www.good.is/post/q-a-diane-ravitch-skewers-every-education-reform-sacred-cow/

GOOD: Are there adjustments needed in the way unions roll out tenure or react to teacher evaluations?

DR: Unions don't write the rules. Wherever you have a contract, it's signed by both parties. Management and unions sit together and negotiate the contract. If management doesn't like the contract, it should insist on changing the rules. Tenure doesn't mean you have lifetime employment. Tenure means after you've taught for a certain number of years—in most places it's three years and in some it's four—someone in management decides that you're good enough that you get due process rights.

Teachers don't give themselves tenure. Management gives them tenure. Management has three to four years to say, you're not a good teacher; you're fired. That's not what they do in other countries. What they do in other countries is they get teachers help—they get support, they get mentored.

We have a problem in this country. We have 3.5 million teachers and about 300,000 leave the teaching profession every year. Some of them retire, some of them are fired, some of them leave voluntarily because they think it's not for them. They don't feel successful. The working conditions are miserable and they haven't had any support.

One of the academic experts in Waiting for "Superman" says we should be firing six to ten percent more teachers every year. That would mean we'd have to find 500,000 new teachers every year. That's really hard because there are only 1.5 million college graduates every year. We're doing very little to create a strong and resilient teaching profession.

Instead we're creating a revolving door where we say if you're no good, you're out and let's bring in Teach For America. They'll send in 8,000 kids to stay for two years and then they're gone. This is no way to build a profession. What we'd do if we're serious about education—which I think we're not—would be to develop a strong teaching profession. That's what they've done in other countries that we look at enviously, like Finland and Korea and Japan.

And a big :yeahthat: to bubbaray!

[thomma]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mommylamb
My mother is a retired teacher. While she was a teacher, she did not pay into social security. But, she worked for a long time in other jobs before becoming a teacher, and payed into SS for that entire time, and all of that was for naught because she'll never get SS because she gets her teacher pension. She had to pay into her pension too. Its not like the state is giving that to her for nothing. It's her money.


Thanks for the explanation, she should get the SS she has paid in to, that's crazy!

This is me...no SS for me...it's considered double dipping. Another one of those teacher "perks".

[Fairy]

Good golly MIss Molly, how long is this thing, I only made it to page 6. So, here are some of my thoughts:


DOJ is pretty notorious for being an awful place to work.

This has been my understanding from those that work there, as well. I believe that entirely.


... I am just wondering (with steam coming out of my ears), why on Earth you would choose to use the LIBRARIAN as your example here?

I am not a librarian, but when I read this I was like what now? I am not sure how this was intended, and I don't want to assume intent of the poster. But the caps of the work LIBRARIAN seemed to conote something pretty specific to me. All I know is that I couldn't be a librarian to save my life. They know where everything is, how to get it, why it's not there anymore, and just are informational gurus. I know several. They deserve far more than every penny they earn.


FDR got a lot right, but his army was still segregated. KWIM. Things change.

ITA. I know alot about Presidential history, and FDR was inarguably one of the best presidents the country has ever had. Probably the #2 most important best president. Ever. Ain't no one's perfect tho. He got stuff wrong. Just like they all did.


Aha, now that's the crux of the biscuit. (Any Frank Zappa fans here? Maybe not.) This is why I compared unions to feminists and civil rights organizations. We've come a long way, baby. A long way since slave labor and child labor and sweatshops and worker abuse. But just as we don't have a gender neutral or race-blind society, we don't have a pro-workers' rights society either. Are employers all benevolent masters, looking for the best interests of their workers? Would we all automatically get the raises we want, the vacation days, the health benefits, etc., if there weren't unions and the legislation they have helped bring to protect workers' rights? Should we put our faith in corporate America (and other employers) to make the best decisions for us? Hmm, not so fast. As someone who has been on both sides of the bargaining table, and now on the management side, I'll say NO WAY. My very benevolent not for profit, do gooder previous employer had no maternity leave until staff pushed for it. We were busted from forming a union with exactly that claim - we're such great employers, what more could you want? We worked 70 hour weeks without comp time or maternity leave or SD benefits. And this was a lovely employer in many other ways. Without spokespeople for workers' rights, I'm afraid to say those rights will get weaker and weaker and weaker.

Holy. Jeez. I could not have ever come up with this amazing post. The bottom line is that we HAVE come a long way, baby. And if the unions went away, I am quite sure the watchdog effect would plummet and abuse of labor would return.

==================

I am pro-union. I hate aspects of them, like stupid tenures and the inability to fire crappy teachers. That's just plain wrong. But don't cut off your nose to spite your face. The fact is that we pay teachers far too little. Mid-level managers who show up to work and play Angry Birds all day are being paid $150k for their pedigrees and white collars. The people entrusted to nurture our children with knowledge and education are working their asses off coming up with lesson plans day in and day out for 10 straight months, deal with the social issues of those children (If I taught junior high I'd jump off a bridge), being treated badly by parents, and putting their own money into alot of their job for supplies and the like and getting paid less than half of that, if they're lucky. Why is that?

It's about union busting, not about balancing the budget. And another cog in the great wheel that turns a little more every single day whose purpose is to wear away the middle class into oblivion.

[Fairy]

I'm terribly sorry that I made an example of school librarians. Yes, it's an important job.


Just found this after I previously posted. Okeydoke.


I'm puzzled (in an honest way, not a snarky way) by this thread, and in particular the *venting* (my word, just trying to sum up what my "take home" message is from some of the posts) about teachers.

There is not a day that goes by on this forum that we don't discuss/whine/complain (and, very rarely, compliment or rave) about the education our children are getting from (mostly) public school teachers. Do people here really think that targeting teachers unions is going to *attract* highly qualified and motivated people to teach?

As for the other public sector workers, people really need to think long and hard about exactly *what* those people are doing and if you would want to do that job for the pay and benefits people earn in those jobs. Do you *really* want to be a corrections officer and get attacked (verbally, physically) by prisoners in a super max prison? How a social worker who has to seize abused children from crack houses? What about working at a land fill or a sewage treatment facility?

There are lots of jobs that public sector employees do that are pretty icky jobs that don't pay particularly well. But they are jobs that society needs to have performed. Even big business needs to flush their toilet waste somewhere.

PS - and Angela, I'm sorry to hear about your business experience with a union. Not all unions operate like that.

Yep on all counts.

[gatorsmom]

And another cog in the great wheel that turns a little more every single day whose purpose is to wear away the middle class into oblivion.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. What do you mean by this? (not being snarky. I really don't understand.)

[Fairy]

Lisa, I just feel like the middle class is evaporating. You've got more and more have's and have-nots (richer and poorer), and not so many in the middle. Firefighters, cops, utilities workers, people with vocations (as opposed to degrees), blue collars, teachers, people who traditionally made up the middle class. Union busting is another step on the path to whittling it away. Cuz I believe that if the unions go away, worker abuse will happen, people will be paid less, benefits will diminish, healthcare will get worse, and these people will mainly end up on the low end of the socio-economic spectrum. The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, and the ones in the middle will end up mostly with the poorer. That's just how I feel about things.

[citymama]

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. What do you mean by this? (not being snarky. I really don't understand.)

I can't speak for Fairy, but I think she is saying something along the lines of Paul Krugman's column today. He wrote:

"You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy."

For the entire op-Ed piece, see: http://nyti.ms/gv1l75

[lurksalot]

I grew up in a union family father, grandfather uncles etc but when though times hit everyone needs to play by the same rules. the union does not allow that. my DH had taken furlough weeks, pay cut, decreased company contrubution to his 401k etc all to keep people from being laid off from his company. If they were union it would not have been allowed and a big chunk of people would be laid off.
I agree with Beth

I have to chime in here...this simply is not true. My union negotiated furlough days and increased benefit contributions, the teacher's in my son's district just did the same thing mid-year after already agreeing to major concessions over the summer. They just agreed to a 10% reduction in pay and this is after they already took a hit last summer....so that is two pay reductions in pay in less than 1 year.

Also, what I wouldn't give for employer contributions to a 401K. Yes, I contribute to my pension each pay cycle, but that comes out of my advertised annual salary (I don't pay taxes on it, but it does considerably lower my pay). This allows communities to say that they pay their teachers an average of 50K a year, but really they don't because a large chunk of that goes right to their pension. Again, I think we should contribute to our pensions, but it is communicated to the public like we don't.

I am not thrilled with my union's determination to protect cruddy teachers, I work damn hard at my job, every day, while I watch my colleagues with more seniority work less than 5 hours a day and make 20K more annually than I do...I am not sure what the answers are, but from what I am reading and hearing the WI governor is taking advantage of the economic climate for political reasons...not to improve the quality of education.

[gatorsmom]

"You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy."



Fairy and Citymama, I don't disagree that the poor are getting poorer or the rich, richer. I can see examples of both ends right in my own family. But it appears to me that you are both vilifying the wealthy. Not all the rich want to step on the little man to stay ahead. The smart people in this country- rich or poor- know that their quality of life is directly affected by the quality of life of those arround them. If some lose, we all lose.

Changing directions though, the thing I can't stop thinking is, that isnt' it because of unions that companies are moving jobs overseas where labor is cheaper? Or maybe its everyone's greed that is causing this. I've seen this happen to my mom who was a garment factory worker in the 60's and 70's. Clothes were cheaper to make overseas so there went the jobs. Airplane mechanics in the Twin cities (for NorthWest airlines) saw their jobs move overseas essentially because the airline had to take cost-cutting measures and they couldn't afford the mechanic's salaries. One of the biggest factories in my home town fought for years with their union and all those jobs have gone overseas. So, the richest executives still have their jobs, but the middle class are unemployed. Was it because they wanted too much? (Maybe we should put up more import tarifs to protect our own homemade products?) Whatever the cause, companies couldn't afford the labor costs here in the U.S whether because of union demands, or because Americans dont want to pay for higher cost goods made by other Americans. We are willing to pay for cheap goods made in China though. And that supports the Chinese workers, but keeps our neighbors unemployed. ok, getting tired and losing my train of thought.

No one in this mess is innocent, imo.

[lurksalot]

I have to also add that when the times are tough we are all asked to sacrifice, but when the times are great, we unions do not benefit, I do not see stock options, bonuses, employer contributions to 401K, etc.

[Fairy]

Fairy and Citymama, I don't disagree that the poor are getting poorer or the rich, richer. I can see examples of both ends right in my own family. But it appears to me that you are both vilifying the wealthy. Not all the rich want to step on the little man to stay ahead. The smart people in this country- rich or poor- know that their quality of life is directly affected by the quality of life of those arround them. If some lose, we all lose.


YOU don't want to step on the little man to stay ahead. That I believe (I dunno if you're wealthy, but if you were, I am quite sure this would be true!). Of that I have no doubt. And I believe alof of wealthy people are the same, don't mind paying a little more, are philanthropic and giving, etc. No question. But alot of them aren't. And the politicians working to bust unions are undoubtedly, for me, representing the best interests of wealthy constituents who very likely feel otherwise.

[gatorsmom]

YOU don't want to step on the little man to stay ahead. That I believe (I dunno if you're wealthy, but if you were, I am quite sure this would be true!). Of that I have no doubt. And I believe alof of wealthy people are the same, don't mind paying a little more, are philanthropic and giving, etc. No question. But alot of them aren't. And the politicians working to bust unions are undoubtedly, for me, representing the best interests of wealthy constituents who very likely feel otherwise.

We are higher middle class, I'd say. And we do everything we can to improve the lives of our employees and tenants. However, I am starting to think more and more that private sector unions have in the last 20 years, hurt businesses more than helped them. If the labor is too expensive here and jobs go abroad, the jobs go away. Only when labor is less expensive here will people be employed again at many blue-collar industries OR when Americans choose American made over foreign made.

[crl]

Well, the jobs go overseas, I guess. But I sure as heck do not want to live like a Chinese factory worker. That's just a race to the bottom. Back to where we were before unions. Maybe the answer is that they ought to unionize too (pausing here to acknowledge that the political realities of China may prevent this). And then we will all have to pay more for our stuff.

Catherine

[kara97210]

If the labor is too expensive here and jobs go abroad, the jobs go away. Only when labor is less expensive here will people be employed again at many blue-collar industries OR when Americans choose American made over foreign made.

The average worker in southern China makes about $.75/hr. In my industry (computers) the average Chinese employee makes $300/month, so $3600/year. These are highly valued jobs in China. Agree with you that the only way American manufacturing can continue is for people to place a value on products made here, because it's unrealistic to expect wages here to go that low.

[gatorsmom]

And then we will all have to pay more for our stuff.



The sad thing is that if we were all willing to pay more for our stuff now, more American people would be employed now. There would be fewer people needing social aids. I don't have a problem with welfare or social subsidies set up to help the poor. Thank goodness for them! But, in my experience, most people would rather work that ask for a handout. I think people feel more dignity in working to provide for their family than having to stand in an unemployment line or soup kitchen line to provide for their family.

I remember a time when people would save money until they had enough to pay the actual cost of an item. But our society has gotten impatient. We want stuff NOW. And we all want a deal. We are kidding ourselves if we think that getting a bargain means that the store selling our stuff is not making as much of a profit. Companies will find a way to keep their profit margins. And one way of doing this is to move their operations overseas, since labor is typically the biggest production cost.

[gatorsmom]

The average worker in southern China makes about $.75/hr. In my industry (computers) the average Chinese employee makes $300/month, so $3600/year. These are highly valued jobs in China. Agree with you that the only way American manufacturing can continue is for people to place a value on products made here, because it's unrealistic to expect wages here to go that low.


I've wondered why we don't put higher tariffs on foreign-made goods. It seems to be an easier way to make foreign-goods cost more and make American-made goods more attractive. I'm not an economist though, i'm not even good with money, so I'm probably totally missing some major piece of that puzzle! :D

[crl]

I've wondered why we don't put higher tariffs on foreign-made goods. It seems to be an easier way to make foreign-goods cost more and make American-made goods more attractive. I'm not an economist though, i'm not even good with money, so I'm probably totally missing some major piece of that puzzle! :D

I'm not an economist or good with money either. But isn't the basic problem with tariffs that then they impose tariffs on our goods and we can't export? Someone will undoubtedly explain this to us.

Catherine

[niccig]

I think the point about the comment being offensive still stands. Your comment still raises the same question with me...why shouldn't we pay our teachers (including librarians) more than your husband? Are they less valuable? Less educated?

Compensation is market driven. You can get paid what the market thinks it's worth. I'm a librarian too, and I get paid more than some other librarians as I have a legal background and get paid for that in addition to my librarian graduate qualifications. My DH has his bachelors and gets paid way more than I do because the market he is in sets that salary. Doesn't mean he's anymore valuable. He is less educated if you look at qualifications, but he has skills that are more sought after, and he gets paid more for those skills.

Frankly, I think my kid's teachers should get paid more.

[MontrealMum]

The US government does impose tariffs. It's been a big deal here north of the border for years, the softwood lumber dispute being only one example...
CBC softwood lumber (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/softwood_lumber/)
Financial Post (http://www.financialpost.com/related/topics/Harper+disappointed+with+softwood+lumber+tariff/1478035/story.html)

[citymama]

Lisa, I promise you I'm not trying to be facetious and have Jon Stewart do all the talking for me. But in answer to your question about why American jobs are going overseas, I'm going to ask Jon to step in with a more entertaining (and alas, accurate) reply than I could ever give.

But before I do, my more mundane response to your question: unions are only responsible for sending jobs overseas in that they've fought for benefits, safe working conditions, decent wages and health care - small things companies don't have to worry about in China or Bangladesh or many other places where they are going so they can save a few bucks. Why buy protective gear for that pregnant woman or protect her job in the US when you know you can just fire her in Mexico? I'm acutely aware of my role in this "race to the bottom" each time I find that great bargain product that's MIC and a third the price of its Made in USA counterpart.

But I knew my response would be a bummer, so here's Jon instead. ;) Watch it - this is one of his best!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-21-2011/american-workforce-makeover?xrs=share_fb

[gatorsmom]

Lisa, I promise you I'm not trying to be facetious and have Jon Stewart do all the talking for me. But in answer to your question about why American jobs are going overseas, I'm going to ask Jon to step in with a more entertaining (and alas, accurate) reply than I could ever give.

But before I do, my more mundane response to your question: unions are only responsible for sending jobs overseas in that they've fought for benefits, safe working conditions, decent wages and health care - small things companies don't have to worry about in China or Bangladesh or many other places where they are going so they can save a few bucks. Why buy protective gear for that pregnant woman or protect her job in the US when you know you can just fire her in Mexico? I'm acutely aware of this each time I find that great bargain product that's MIC and a third the price of its Made in USA counterpart. As a consumer, I know I play a small role as well in this "race to the bottom."

But I knew my response would be a bummer, so here's Jon instead. ;) Watch it - this is one of his best!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-21-2011/american-workforce-makeover?xrs=share_fb


:rotflmao: You are right, it was good. :)

So, what is the answer then? I've gone off on a tangent on my own thread, but with regards to private-sector unions, it seems we are damned if we do have them, damned if we dont'. What is the answer? How do we convince/force Americans to buy domestically? How do we convince people that all our lives will be better if we all just agree to spend a little more and support each other?

Have I ever mentioned I'm a romantic and a dreamer? :)

[kijip]

I think there are some big misconceptions about tenure and schools out there--much of it promoted by the movie Waiting for Superman.

I am sorry, but I have personally seen the hugely side of tenure and seeing it difficult to fire teachers guilty of gross malfeasance. People do not oppose the teacher unions because of a movie that I and most other people have never seen.

Teachers I know personally have been guilty of everything from theft to sexual harassment of students yet received pay and benefits, and in some cases years of more access to students. Unions have at times rejected higher pay and merit bonuses in favor of keeping tenure. I can't let my pro-union family history and value system swallow the line that teachers unions are innocent when it comes to the overall depressing quality of education in this country, because I have seen the union here go to the mat to protect teachers who were not only bad teachers but a flat out danger to kids. If this were a one time thing, I could say it was an anomaly, but I need two hands to count the number of teachers I know
who were unequivocally guilty of crap that in any other job, union or not, would them fired. And does not even begin to count the number that might just not be the most effective folks for their jobs. I, like many college educated women of my age group, have a a lot of friends who have left teaching or opted not to after training for it. Most of them have left either because they were math and science types who could make far more in industry and/or they were discouraged by the entrenchment of crappy teachers. I used to stick to the same pro union, anti charter line with teaching that I had been taught to embrace. Then one day the list of teachers I had been taught by who were beyond bad hit me and I knew I needed a paradigm shift. And my school district is not one of the worst ones by any stretch and I went to a selective magnet program within it. I can no longer adhere to the party line in this topic. It is beyond appalling. And once I add in the teachers I just know of, as opposed to directly know and were taught by whose criminal actions were not adequately addressed and stopped, I just wonder how anyone can see this from only one side. There is plenty of fault here wrt a bad education system- with politicians, with administrators, with parents and with teachers. Far too often I see teachers acting like they are as a group blameless and I just don't get it. No one can be blameless in such an system. No one.

[MoJo]

This is a huge topic here. DH is a public school teacher (intervention specialist); we are both very conservative; and we are in Ohio, where there are also demonstrations over collective bargaining at the statehouse this week.

I absolutely think good teachers and other school personnel are worth their salaries and more. It bothers me to hear other conservatives talking about how easy teachers have it. Most of those conservatives didn't get up at 2:30 a.m. to do work after working all evening (like my DH did this morning), and many of them don't leave the house before 6 a.m. every day. Most don't have an average of three meetings each week AFTER their official work hours are over, not to mention the lesson plans, grading, IEPS, and report cards & the charts that go with them. Most don't have meetings BEFORE their 7 a.m. start time, and more meetings during the supposed lunch/planning period nearly every day.

DH does get a wonderful summer break. Other breaks are typically spent working from home. As others have said, he is required to put a full 10% of his stated salary into the pension plan (that he may never get). He will not be eligible for any SS, even though he contributed to SS for almost two decades before becoming a teacher. We do have excellent health insurance. . . and our portion of the premiums are by far the highest line item in our family budget except our mortgage.

The unions have gotten all of us a lot of good things. However, I fully believe they are now strangling us in many ways. At least in DH's district, they are unwilling to be flexible. The district is out of money. Teachers are being laid off. The whole school may close in a few years. And while the current system benefits those who are already in, it hurts everyone who gets cut off. If the school closes, DH likely won't be able to get another teaching job, in spite of near perfect performance reviews from his principal. The union agreements in our area state that a district needs to pay DH a certain rate for his military service + his teaching experience + his master's degree, and most districts would rather hire a 22 year old straight out of college simply because it costs them a lot less.

Other unions have dramatically hurt our area. For instance, I can think of two very large employers that ended up closing in the past five years. The unions weren't willing to accept lower pay. . . and everyone who worked there ended up out of a job. And that's a big part of why the school districts are now hurting so much.

I don't fault the unions for getting what they could for their members. I don't fault the administration for giving what they could when times were good. But times aren't good, and they aren't likely to be good for a long time. If the unions win, I think ultimately we'll all lose.

[wellyes]

Having a pension doesn't (or doesn't always) mean you can't collect social security. My dad worked in the private sector for 10 years then had a federal job (SSA, actually) for 20. After retiring with a good pension he got a part time job to earn enough 'quarters' of work to get his social security check on top of his pension.

Anyway. Unions. I have a suspicion that the superrich looooove the fact the most private sector workers resent the pay and benefits of unionized workers ..... instead of questioning why our own benefits are decreasing over time as CEO packages get more absurdly bloated.

[Laurel]

Anyway. Unions. I have a suspicion that the superrich looooove the fact the most private sector workers resent the pay and benefits of unionized workers ..... instead of questioning why our own benefits are decreasing over time as CEO packages get more absurdly bloated.

Exactly! As I have been following this thread I have been waiting for someone to make this point. Divide, conquer and get people to vote against their own economic interests- this is the goal.

[larig]

Having a pension doesn't (or doesn't always) mean you can't collect social security. My dad worked in the private sector for 10 years then had a federal job (SSA, actually) for 20. After retiring with a good pension he got a part time job to earn enough 'quarters' of work to get his social security check on top of his pension.

Anyway. Unions. I have a suspicion that the superrich looooove the fact the most private sector workers resent the pay and benefits of unionized workers ..... instead of questioning why our own benefits are decreasing over time as CEO packages get more absurdly bloated.

I think that PPs are referring to the Windfall Elimination Provision, or the Government Pension Offset Provision, which essentially reduces SS. Here is the explanation from the IL teachers' retirement system.
http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/members/pubs/booklets/pub20.pdf

A big :yeahthat: to your union paragraph.

And as for tenure, kijip, I never claimed the system was perfect, but I certainly don't agree that our education system is failing. Yes, it fails some kids, and NO that's not okay, but to characterize the whole system as "failing" I think is just not accurate and unfair to the people in the trenches working hard to educate our children. Clearly your experience and the teachers you know are nothing like my experiences and the teachers I know.

Again, tenure is not a guaranteed job for life, just a guarantee to due process and something that takes 3-4 years to even earn. Furthermore, an administration has to grant tenure.

And, yes, I'm one of those math/sci type girls that left teaching (I taught AP calculus AB & BC + precalc, & was our building math tech leader). But not for reasons you listed. I left to get a PhD in education so I would either (a) be a better teacher when I returned to the classroom or (b) so I could teach future h.s. math teachers at a Uni. Honestly, I'm so depressed over the dim view people have of the job that I will likely not return nor will I seek a position teaching teachers. Why should I bother? Not for the big fat pay checks or huge amounts of respect and thanks I got--totally not worth it.

[brittone2]

Anyway. Unions. I have a suspicion that the superrich looooove the fact the most private sector workers resent the pay and benefits of unionized workers ..... instead of questioning why our own benefits are decreasing over time as CEO packages get more absurdly bloated.

I"ll just follow you around on this thread with my :yeahthat: signs. I agree.

[oneplustwo]

Anyway. Unions. I have a suspicion that the superrich looooove the fact the most private sector workers resent the pay and benefits of unionized workers ..... instead of questioning why our own benefits are decreasing over time as CEO packages get more absurdly bloated.


I"ll just follow you around on this thread with my :yeahthat: signs. I agree.

Well, I've been saying a mental :yeahthat: each time I've read the posts you both have written, so figured it was time for me to chime in. :)

[mommylamb]

My goodness... my day job is seriously impeding my ability to keep up with this discussion!



I remember a time when people would save money until they had enough to pay the actual cost of an item. But our society has gotten impatient. We want stuff NOW. And we all want a deal. We are kidding ourselves if we think that getting a bargain means that the store selling our stuff is not making as much of a profit. Companies will find a way to keep their profit margins. And one way of doing this is to move their operations overseas, since labor is typically the biggest production cost.

There was a time when people would save up for something before buying it, and while that makes sense in most situations, it's also not always good. Let's take homeownership for example. Since the 1920s there have been a lot of changes in how homeownership works-- some risks were good risks, and some risks weren't-- but in the end, our society decided that homeownership is a good thing and something that the government should incentivise. So the FHA was created, and a secondary mortgage market was created, and the result was that people could put a downpayment down on the purchase of a home and NOT have to save the full amount.

Also, just wanted to point out that your statement above about companies not sacrificing their profit margin is absolutely correct. Unions may have contributed some to jobs moving oversees, but their contribution is dwarfed by the other factors at play (globalization). And, I don't necessarily think globalization is a bad thing. The fact is jobs in this country are different than they were 50 years ago, and our workforce isn't reacting fast enough to that change. No amount of "Buy America" government requirements or popular sentiment is going to make the textile jobs come back. And, I think it's arguable as to whether those are the jobs we want here.


I've wondered why we don't put higher tariffs on foreign-made goods. It seems to be an easier way to make foreign-goods cost more and make American-made goods more attractive. I'm not an economist though, i'm not even good with money, so I'm probably totally missing some major piece of that puzzle! :D

What you're talking about here is called protectionism, and most economists across the political spectrum think it's a bad thing overall for our economy and the world economy. There are serious consequences to protectionism and while I don't support dumping and think there needs to be protections put in place to prevent it, one person's dumping is another person's free trade.

The more protectionist we are, the more protectionist others will be too (a major cause of the great depression). There is a whole world out there of consumers that we cut off to our exports when we raise tariffs here.

See, I'm a good democratic girl in most instances, but I'm a free trade supporter. It is harmful to a lot of people, but I think it's less harmful to the population as a whole than a protectionist trade policy.

[Fairy]

My goodness... my day job is seriously impeding my ability to keep up with this discussion!


I know, how dare it! I have that problem every day! Stupid job! I need a 12-step.

[mousemom]

I could not help but respond to this thread as it is a very important topic. The education system is a total failure in the US right now. According to the US Department of Education, only 30% of 8th graders are proficient in reading and 32% in Wisconsin are. If we are leaving 7 out of 10 children unable to read, we are failing them. (I use the we there - teachers, parents, administrators, politicians, everyone - it is a national discrace!) The 8th grade proficiency in math is 25%. Think about that - 25%! When you pick up your kids at school look around the classroom and think that 2/3 of them won't be able to read by 8th grade and 3/4 won't be able to do math. Teachers have to take some accountability for this!

Also, I wanted to illustrate the problem with a defined benefit plan for public employees with some numbers. Suppose a teacher was hired 33 years ago at $30,000 per year when they graduate at 22 years old. Then when they are 55, they are making $70,000 per year and able to retire. If they were paying 10% of their salary to the public pension every year, then they paid about $165,000 to the pension. (50,000 average x 10% x 33 years) Note that over the past 30 years, most employees were not paying anything to their retirment and those that were are paying significantly less than 10%. (I believe PA is 6.5% and Illinois is about 8%) Then if they retire, at 55, they get about 70% of pay as a pension in many states or $46,000 per year. (2.0 multiplier x 33 years x final average pay of $70,000) Note if the multiplier is higher as it is in many states, the pension payment goes up. Then assume that 55 year old dies at 80 years old. That means the person would collect almost $1.2 million over the 25 years in retirement. (25 years x $46,000 per year) And that assumes no COLA in the pension payment - if you add a COLA they would get even more money. The average person has no way to get that amount of money or anywhere near it. (Yes the numbers make heads spin - that's what unions are counting on so people don't see how much these employees are making in retirement.) What happens if they live to 85 or 95 or 100??? They get even more!

Therefore, the employee is not getting "their" money back, but instead getting almost 8 times the amount of money they put in back. Or viewed another way - for the pension plan to work, they need their coworkers to die shortly after retirment so they can get the co-worker's money. I don't believe it is my coworker's responsibility to fund my retirement...

[mommylamb]

While I totally support the right to assembly (and I have general support for unions), there are so many picketers outside my office right now that they've closed down the street. I'm just glad I brought lunch in today! ;)

[ellies mom]

Therefore, the employee is not getting "their" money back, but instead getting almost 8 times the amount of money they put in back. Or viewed another way - for the pension plan to work, they need their coworkers to die shortly after retirment so they can get the co-worker's money. I don't believe it is my coworker's responsibility to fund my retirement...

That kind of sounds a lot like social security.

[boolady]

I could not help but respond to this thread as it is a very important topic. The education system is a total failure in the US right now. According to the US Department of Education, only 30% of 8th graders are proficient in reading and 32% in Wisconsin are. If we are leaving 7 out of 10 children unable to read, we are failing them. (I use the we there - teachers, parents, administrators, politicians, everyone - it is a national discrace!) The 8th grade proficiency in math is 25%. Think about that - 25%! When you pick up your kids at school look around the classroom and think that 2/3 of them won't be able to read by 8th grade and 3/4 won't be able to do math. Teachers have to take some accountability for this!

Also, I wanted to illustrate the problem with a defined benefit plan for public employees with some numbers. Suppose a teacher was hired 33 years ago at $30,000 per year when they graduate at 22 years old. Then when they are 55, they are making $70,000 per year and able to retire. If they were paying 10% of their salary to the public pension every year, then they paid about $165,000 to the pension. (50,000 average x 10% x 33 years) Note that over the past 30 years, most employees were not paying anything to their retirment and those that were are paying significantly less than 10%. (I believe PA is 6.5% and Illinois is about 8%) Then if they retire, at 55, they get about 70% of pay as a pension in many states or $46,000 per year. (2.0 multiplier x 33 years x final average pay of $70,000) Note if the multiplier is higher as it is in many states, the pension payment goes up. Then assume that 55 year old dies at 80 years old. That means the person would collect almost $1.2 million over the 25 years in retirement. (25 years x $46,000 per year) And that assumes no COLA in the pension payment - if you add a COLA they would get even more money. The average person has no way to get that amount of money or anywhere near it. (Yes the numbers make heads spin - that's what unions are counting on so people don't see how much these employees are making in retirement.) What happens if they live to 85 or 95 or 100??? They get even more!

Therefore, the employee is not getting "their" money back, but instead getting almost 8 times the amount of money they put in back. Or viewed another way - for the pension plan to work, they need their coworkers to die shortly after retirment so they can get the co-worker's money. I don't believe it is my coworker's responsibility to fund my retirement...


Your numbers make a lot of assumptions that are not across-the-board accurate. You're assuming that folks are retiring at 55 with a 70% pension-- not in my case, for sure. In my public sector job, you could retire at 20 years with 50%, but you wouldn't have the age until you were 55. Folks in my plan don't retire with 70% unless they've got 30 years in, and that's only some of the people in my office (different unions, different categories). Most don't make it that far. Also, although I don't work for a state, I work for a county, but we contribute to the consolidated public employee retirement system for our state. In my county, everyone contributes to the pension, and always has, so your conclusion that public workers in most states don't contribute to their pensions and that "those that were are paying significantly less than 10%." Wrong again.

Also, I'm not sure where you're getting that most people, if they started saving in their early twenties, couldn't save an equivalent amount on their own, via a 401(4) from their employer (with or without matching) or other retirement savings. There are plenty of folks with private sector jobs who save at least what you've named, which is making a lot of assumptions that everyone is retiring at 55 with 70% and living for another 25 years or more.

Finally, maybe you're talking primarily about teachers, but where I work, many, many folks will never make $70,000, even if they stayed for 30 years until they were 65. It disgusts me that people would begrudge my secretary, who will probably never make more than $35,000 max, her 50% of that when she retires.

[boolady]

There is not a day that goes by on this forum that we don't discuss/whine/complain (and, very rarely, compliment or rave) about the education our children are getting from (mostly) public school teachers. Do people here really think that targeting teachers unions is going to *attract* highly qualified and motivated people to teach?

As for the other public sector workers, people really need to think long and hard about exactly *what* those people are doing and if you would want to do that job for the pay and benefits people earn in those jobs. Do you *really* want to be a corrections officer and get attacked (verbally, physically) by prisoners in a super max prison? How a social worker who has to seize abused children from crack houses? What about working at a land fill or a sewage treatment facility?

There are lots of jobs that public sector employees do that are pretty icky jobs that don't pay particularly well. But they are jobs that society needs to have performed. Even big business needs to flush their toilet waste somewhere.

PS - and Angela, I'm sorry to hear about your business experience with a union. Not all unions operate like that.


This is what I don't understand-- do you want no teachers, court personnel, trash collectors, clerks' offices, what? I realize the answer is no, we want them, we just want them all to make even less than they already do. Well, it doesn't work that way. There's no competitor for some of the government services Melissa pointed out-- you don't have private social workers, etc. There are jobs that must exist, if we are going to have courts, and police officers and firefighters, and public schools. I personally don't see who is getting this great windfall from being a public employee. As someone else pointed out, better benefits to public employees started out as a way to compensate for the lower income. So now, I guess, the answer is that public employees get paid like dirt and have poor benefits? Why? Don't you want quality employees performing jobs that need to be done, by (just about) anyone's account?
I promise you-- we don't all have the plague and aren't just people who couldn't find work in the public sector. I very specifically went to law school to do the public sector work I do. There is no private option, and I hazard a guess that if you ever need assistance from my office, you'd prefer to have folks who have a clue what they're doing, do it.

The rank-and-file, average public worker, at least where I work, isn't getting rich off of anyone. Far from it.

[ray7694]

I could not help but respond to this thread as it is a very important topic. The education system is a total failure in the US right now. According to the US Department of Education, only 30% of 8th graders are proficient in reading and 32% in Wisconsin are. If we are leaving 7 out of 10 children unable to read, we are failing them. (I use the we there - teachers, parents, administrators, politicians, everyone - it is a national discrace!) The 8th grade proficiency in math is 25%. Think about that - 25%! When you pick up your kids at school look around the classroom and think that 2/3 of them won't be able to read by 8th grade and 3/4 won't be able to do math. Teachers have to take some accountability for this!

Also, I wanted to illustrate the problem with a defined benefit plan for public employees with some numbers. Suppose a teacher was hired 33 years ago at $30,000 per year when they graduate at 22 years old. Then when they are 55, they are making $70,000 per year and able to retire. If they were paying 10% of their salary to the public pension every year, then they paid about $165,000 to the pension. (50,000 average x 10% x 33 years) Note that over the past 30 years, most employees were not paying anything to their retirment and those that were are paying significantly less than 10%. (I believe PA is 6.5% and Illinois is about 8%) Then if they retire, at 55, they get about 70% of pay as a pension in many states or $46,000 per year. (2.0 multiplier x 33 years x final average pay of $70,000) Note if the multiplier is higher as it is in many states, the pension payment goes up. Then assume that 55 year old dies at 80 years old. That means the person would collect almost $1.2 million over the 25 years in retirement. (25 years x $46,000 per year) And that assumes no COLA in the pension payment - if you add a COLA they would get even more money. The average person has no way to get that amount of money or anywhere near it. (Yes the numbers make heads spin - that's what unions are counting on so people don't see how much these employees are making in retirement.) What happens if they live to 85 or 95 or 100??? They get even more!

Therefore, the employee is not getting "their" money back, but instead getting almost 8 times the amount of money they put in back. Or viewed another way - for the pension plan to work, they need their coworkers to die shortly after retirment so they can get the co-worker's money. I don't believe it is my coworker's responsibility to fund my retirement...

Can you tell me where your information is coming from? I don't think many of these numbers are accurate at all.

[boolady]

Can you tell me where your information is coming from? I don't think many of these numbers are accurate at all.

They're not.

[ray7694]

They're not.


I find it really hard to believe that 7 out of 10 kids aren't reading by 8th grade. Maybe you should visit a school like ours where intense reading recovery programs try to get kids back on track when their parents have failed to do their job. What can we do when the kids don't even come to school.

[o_mom]

I find it really hard to believe that 7 out of 10 kids aren't reading by 8th grade. Maybe you should visit a school like ours where intense reading recovery programs try to get kids back on track when their parents have failed to do their job. What can we do when the kids don't even come to school.

A quick search seems to show that the PP is pulling from the DOE website on the NAEP test. The main issue seems to be the interpretation of the result of 'Proficient'. This is a specific level of achievement on the test, the three reported levels being Basic, Proficient and Advanced. You can see summaries of what those mean at each grade level here: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieveall.asp#2009ald
and for math: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/achieveall.asp

Not being "Proficient", in this context does not mean "unable to read" or "unable to do math" as the PP implied.

You can look at the data here: http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2009/summary.asp
http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/summ.asp

While the results are not spectacular, they are not showing that 2/3 of kids "can't read" and 3/4 "can't do math".

[Kindra178]

I have followed this thread closely but this is my first post. There is no doubt that teachers are an undervalued profession. They do the most important job. However, people get frustrated by teachers' unions. Here are a few real life examples:

(1) In Chicago Public schools, teachers have negotiated the shortest school day AND school year of any district in the entire country. Many (most?) schools do not have recess and this is because the teachers' union was able to negotiate a shortened day.

(2) In New Jersey, teachers do get Social Security AND get a pension. The teacher pays a portion of the pension, but the district matches it. Here are some other benefits of NJ teachers: after a teacher achieves tenure, health insurance is free for the teacher's whole family, including vision and dental. Prior to tenure, the teacher must pay for health insurance for the family, but not for the teacher himself/herself. When a teacher retired (although this changed slightly under Christie) he or she got a check for all unused days. People used to get checks for $20,000 upon retirement. Christie wanted to cap that at $15,000. (I am not a Christie fan, by the way).

This kind of thing doesn't happen in private industry, and that's where some frustration lies. I write this not to get in trouble, but just to provide some perspective as to why teachers' unions have a bad reputation.

[marymoo86]

This is what I don't understand-- do you want no teachers, court personnel, trash collectors, clerks' offices, what? I realize the answer is no, we want them, we just want them all to make even less than they already do. Well, it doesn't work that way. There's no competitor for some of the government services Melissa pointed out-- you don't have private social workers, etc. There are jobs that must exist, if we are going to have courts, and police officers and firefighters, and public schools. I personally don't see who is getting this great windfall from being a public employee. As someone else pointed out, better benefits to public employees started out as a way to compensate for the lower income. So now, I guess, the answer is that public employees get paid like dirt and have poor benefits? Why? Don't you want quality employees performing jobs that need to be done, by (just about) anyone's account?
I promise you-- we don't all have the plague and aren't just people who couldn't find work in the public sector. I very specifically went to law school to do the public sector work I do. There is no private option, and I hazard a guess that if you ever need assistance from my office, you'd prefer to have folks who have a clue what they're doing, do it.

The rank-and-file, average public worker, at least where I work, isn't getting rich off of anyone. Far from it.

I would interpret the issue to be that the benefits no longer mirror what the private sector has and is far stripping state gov'ts ability to pay. Just look at California. Add to that performance based anything is routinely denounced by public sector unions how do you demonstrate quality? How is change affected to streamline and reduce waste when people's jobs could be affected?

[crl]

Well, those kinds of pay outs do happen in private industry, on a much, much bigger scale. Think of all the CEOs, etc who get huge bonuses even when their companies are failing.

I think one important point here is that the other side signed the contracts with the unions. So blaming the unions is a bit, well, odd to me. Why not blame the people who negotiated so badly on the other side?

Catherine

[marymoo86]

Well, those kinds of pay outs do happen in private industry, on a much, much bigger scale. Think of all the CEOs, etc who get huge bonuses even when their companies are failing.

I think one important point here is that the other side signed the contracts with the unions. So blaming the unions is a bit, well, odd to me. Why not blame the people who negotiated so badly on the other side?

Catherine

How do you negotiate with someone that can effectively stop your business. If teachers are on strike - who is teaching the kids? If IIRC this is why the air traffic controllers union was decertified under Reagan.

Also referencing CEO's - sometimes it is better to pay a large sum of money to get rid of someone that isn't doing the best job so you can make room for someone that can. When a business is losing millions in opportunity cost makes sense to pay someone to leave.

[boolady]

I would interpret the issue to be that the benefits no longer mirror what the private sector has and is far stripping state gov'ts ability to pay. Just look at California. Add to that performance based anything is routinely denounced by public sector unions how do you demonstrate quality?

Everything in my office is performance-based-- every raise, every promotion, you name it. And, let's be honest--you don't know if you need to use a government service if you're satisfied with this service, if someone has responded in a way that you consider efficient, etc? What is the incessant need to portray public sector employees as do-nothings?

[fedoragirl]

Just want to clarify that I taught 8th grade reading, and there is no way I would agree that 7 out of 10 kids are not reading proficient. That is an insult to the entire education system. Moreover, why should teachers take accountability for what parents have failed to do repeatedly? It's not like one year in 8th grade is going to miraculously make them read at grade level? Gee! It's people like this that make me realize that I'm better off not teaching.
By the way, I met a few of my former high school students working odd jobs as college students often do to make some $$$. They all complained that they would have gone into an education major but the recent "hatred" towards the profession has made them rethink their majors, and they all chose something else. I also remember these three girls being the brightest in my class. It's SO sad that my child won't have the brilliant teachers I am hoping will stick around even after being lambasted in the media, politics, and society.

[marymoo86]

Everything in my office is performance-based-- every raise, every promotion, you name it. And, let's be honest--you don't know if you need to use a government service if you're satisfied with this service, if someone has responded in a way that you consider efficient, etc? What is the incessant need to portray public sector employees as do-nothings?

But does your office refused to consider how to do things better if that means someone may lose a job? No one said ps employees are do nothings. But the stigma is there than performance gains and efficiency are not the hallmarks of unions. I'm sure there is just as many great employees in unions as there are ones that aren't. Sadly it is the union mgt and its portrayals that color many peoples thoughts.

[boolady]

But does your office refused to consider how to do things better if that means someone may lose a job? No one said ps employees are do nothings. But the stigma is there than performance gains and efficiency are not the hallmarks of unions. I'm sure there is just as many great employees in unions as there are ones that aren't. Sadly it is the union mgt and its portrayals that color many peoples thoughts.

No, they don't refuse to consider anything that would improve how things run in this office. There's too much at stake not to.

[ellies mom]

A quick search seems to show that the PP is pulling from the DOE website on the NAEP test. The main issue seems to be the interpretation of the result of 'Proficient'. This is a specific level of achievement on the test, the three reported levels being Basic, Proficient and Advanced. You can see summaries of what those mean at each grade level here: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieveall.asp#2009ald
and for math: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/achieveall.asp

Not being "Proficient", in this context does not mean "unable to read" or "unable to do math" as the PP implied.

You can look at the data here: http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2009/summary.asp
http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/summ.asp

While the results are not spectacular, they are not showing that 2/3 of kids "can't read" and 3/4 "can't do math".

Basic for eighth grade is

Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to locate information; identify statements of main idea, theme, or author's purpose; and make simple inferences from texts. They should be able to interpret the meaning of a word as it is used in the text. Students performing at this level should also be able to state judgments and give some support about content and presentation of content.

In my mind that is being able to read. That would mean that 2/3 of the 8th grade students can read. While that may not be as high as I would like, is a far cry from 1/3.

And for the record, that puts Wisconsin at 80% of 8th graders being able to read.

[citymama]

My goodness... my day job is seriously impeding my ability to keep up with this discussion!

Seriously true!


See, I'm a good democratic girl in most instances, but I'm a free trade supporter. It is harmful to a lot of people, but I think it's less harmful to the population as a whole than a protectionist trade policy.

Oh, the Dems du jour are almost all free traders of the Clinton school. The Dems are not exactly the economic softies they're portrayed as being. Me on the other hand, just call me bleeding heart...;)...I'll wear that label with pride.


This is what I don't understand-- do you want no teachers, court personnel, trash collectors, clerks' offices, what? I realize the answer is no, we want them, we just want them all to make even less than they already do. Well, it doesn't work that way. There's no competitor for some of the government services Melissa pointed out-- you don't have private social workers, etc. There are jobs that must exist, if we are going to have courts, and police officers and firefighters, and public schools. I personally don't see who is getting this great windfall from being a public employee. As someone else pointed out, better benefits to public employees started out as a way to compensate for the lower income. So now, I guess, the answer is that public employees get paid like dirt and have poor benefits? Why? Don't you want quality employees performing jobs that need to be done, by (just about) anyone's account?
I promise you-- we don't all have the plague and aren't just people who couldn't find work in the public sector. I very specifically went to law school to do the public sector work I do. There is no private option, and I hazard a guess that if you ever need assistance from my office, you'd prefer to have folks who have a clue what they're doing, do it.

The rank-and-file, average public worker, at least where I work, isn't getting rich off of anyone. Far from it.

You are absolutely right. That's what The Economist says as well, in this piece: "Don't Join the Government to Get Rich" (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/wisconsin_public_unions)

Excerpt: "One of the memes being thrown around over the past few years by advocates of reducing the power of public-sector unions has been the claim that public-sector workers are overpaid in comparison to their private-sector counterparts. I've always considered this an odd claim to hear, as I've been in the labour market for quite a long time and can't recall ever hearing anyone say they were going to work for a government bureaucracy because they wanted to make a lot of money."

[crl]

How do you negotiate with someone that can effectively stop your business. If teachers are on strike - who is teaching the kids? If IIRC this is why the air traffic controllers union was decertified under Reagan.

leave.

The same way you negotiate with any union who can stop a business. They are not getting paid while they strike. They don't want to strike. They want a contract.

Catherine

[marymoo86]

No, they don't refuse to consider anything that would improve how things run in this office. There's too much at stake not to.

That's excellent but unfortunately not what is portrayed in the media - and usually the teacher's union is the target of that. Even sadder when there are teachers out that that what and can do more but are stymied in their efforts by their own union.

The famous teacher in Stand and Deliver comes to mind.

http://reason.com/archives/2002/07/01/stand-and-deliver-revisited/2

[boolady]

That's excellent but unfortunately not what is portrayed in the media - and usually the teacher's union is the target of that. Even sadder when there are teachers out that that what and can do more but are stymied in their efforts by their own union.

The famous teacher in Stand and Deliver comes to mind.

http://reason.com/archives/2002/07/01/stand-and-deliver-revisited/2

I'm well aware of how things are portrayed in the media. I also don't believe everything I read. You asked me a very pointed question, and I answered.

[marymoo86]

The same way you negotiate with any union who can stop a business. They are not getting paid while they strike. They don't want to strike. They want a contract.

Catherine

But is that as easily done with teachers as controllers? Would gov't allow that to happen? Would think there would be immense pressure to prevent and given that unions spend mightly to get their politicians elected - isn't basically ensuring they get their benefits? Not saying good/bad, right/wrong but just it is what it is.

Mainly why I like a divided gov't - another set of checks and balances.

[marymoo86]

I'm well aware of how things are portrayed in the media. I also don't believe everything I read. You asked me a very pointed question, and I answered.

Sorry I'm thinking in broader terms whereas yours is personal experience which seems to be vastly different than most.

[citymama]

The same way you negotiate with any union who can stop a business. They are not getting paid while they strike. They don't want to strike. They want a contract.

Catherine

Yep, exactly.


But is that as easily done with teachers as controllers? Would gov't allow that to happen?

I sure as heck hope so. Or do what IN has just done and drop this unfair and half-baked plan to wreck workers' rights and thereby prevent a strike.

[crl]

But is that as easily done with teachers as controllers? Would gov't allow that to happen? Would think there would be immense pressure to prevent and given that unions spend mightly to get their politicians elected - isn't basically ensuring they get their benefits? Not saying good/bad, right/wrong but just it is what it is.

Mainly why I like a divided gov't - another set of checks and balances.

I don't think unions dominate politics in the way you are describing. And I think that the right to strike is pretty well-balanced with the need to get paid for the most part so that neither side has an unfair advantage in negotiations.

Catherine

[babychi]

I apologize if this has already been addressed, but I haven't read through all 14 pages of the thread...

BUT, didn't the governor run on this platform during the election and the people of WI elected him?

[boolady]

Sorry I'm thinking in broader terms whereas yours is personal experience which seems to be vastly different than most.

You asked me about my office. I answered. I don't think anything here is "vastly different" from most. I think it's different from what people want to believe.

[wellyes]

I apologize if this has already been addressed, but I haven't read through all 14 pages of the thread...

BUT, didn't the governor run on this platform during the election and the people of WI elected him?

Budget cuts were the platform. The controversy/surprise is his curtailing the future rights if the unions. And the exclusion of republican friendly unions (police and firefighters) from his proposal.

[babychi]

Budget cuts were the platform. The controversy/surprise is his curtailing the future rights if the unions. And the exclusion of republican friendly unions (police and firefighters) from his proposal.

Thank you. I haven't been following this closely but knew he ran on a budget-cut platform. Didn't know there were certain unions excluded.

[jenfromnj]

Also, I wanted to illustrate the problem with a defined benefit plan for public employees with some numbers. Suppose a teacher was hired 33 years ago at $30,000 per year when they graduate at 22 years old. Then when they are 55, they are making $70,000 per year and able to retire. If they were paying 10% of their salary to the public pension every year, then they paid about $165,000 to the pension. (50,000 average x 10% x 33 years) Note that over the past 30 years, most employees were not paying anything to their retirment and those that were are paying significantly less than 10%. (I believe PA is 6.5% and Illinois is about 8%) Then if they retire, at 55, they get about 70% of pay as a pension in many states or $46,000 per year. (2.0 multiplier x 33 years x final average pay of $70,000) Note if the multiplier is higher as it is in many states, the pension payment goes up. Then assume that 55 year old dies at 80 years old. That means the person would collect almost $1.2 million over the 25 years in retirement. (25 years x $46,000 per year) And that assumes no COLA in the pension payment - if you add a COLA they would get even more money. The average person has no way to get that amount of money or anywhere near it. (Yes the numbers make heads spin - that's what unions are counting on so people don't see how much these employees are making in retirement.) What happens if they live to 85 or 95 or 100??? They get even more!

Therefore, the employee is not getting "their" money back, but instead getting almost 8 times the amount of money they put in back. Or viewed another way - for the pension plan to work, they need their coworkers to die shortly after retirment so they can get the co-worker's money. I don't believe it is my coworker's responsibility to fund my retirement...

I know others have responded to the other portion of your post regarding the math and reading stats, so I'll just reply above to your discussion of pension contributions.

This example is deeply flawed, if nothing else because it completely fails to account for any return on investment and ignores the time value of money. Even the most conservatively invested pension funds will be worth MANY TIMES more than the amount of the original contribution going forward 30 years (or 50 or 60 years, in your example where people are living to be 100). It's simply unfair to categorize such contributions any other way.

[jenfromnj]

(2) In New Jersey, teachers do get Social Security AND get a pension. The teacher pays a portion of the pension, but the district matches it. Here are some other benefits of NJ teachers: after a teacher achieves tenure, health insurance is free for the teacher's whole family, including vision and dental. Prior to tenure, the teacher must pay for health insurance for the family, but not for the teacher himself/herself. When a teacher retired (although this changed slightly under Christie) he or she got a check for all unused days. People used to get checks for $20,000 upon retirement. Christie wanted to cap that at $15,000. (I am not a Christie fan, by the way).

This kind of thing doesn't happen in private industry, and that's where some frustration lies. I write this not to get in trouble, but just to provide some perspective as to why teachers' unions have a bad reputation.

But in the case of many of the benefits you mention (health insurance, retirement payouts), weren't all these things negotiated into the teachers' contracts? I just don't get why there's so much animosity (not from you, Kindra, but generally) toward teachers and other government workers (or more specifically, their unions) for having negotiated what is perceived by most people as a "good deal" with respect to benefits, etc.

Also, to reference something else that's been going on in NJ, the fact that people are demanding that some of the union contracts be opened and renegotiated in the middle of the contract term is just outrageous to me. I get that times are tough, but a contract is a legally binding document, presumably considered carefuly by all sides, and to expect to reopen and renegotiate midway through, essentially casting aside some basic principles of the legal system, just leaves me scratching my head. If anything, people should be outraged at those who negotiated to permit such provisions to be obtained by the teachers/workers.

[larig]

I know others have responded to the other portion of your post regarding the math and reading stats, so I'll just reply above to your discussion of pension contributions. This example is deeply flawed, if nothing else because it completely fails to account for any return on investment and ignoring the time value of money. Even the most conservatively invested pension funds will be worth MANY TIMES more than the amount of the original contribution going forward 30 years (or 50 or 60 years, in your example where people are living to be 100). It's simply unfair to categorize such contributions any other way.

Exactly, the Teachers' Retirement System of Illinois, in a publication linked below, has 74% revenue from investments (like the mall in my home town, in which it has a stake). see page 12 in link
http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/members/pubs/memberguide/guide.pdf

[larig]

That's excellent but unfortunately not what is portrayed in the media - and usually the teacher's union is the target of that. Even sadder when there are teachers out that that what and can do more but are stymied in their efforts by their own union.

The famous teacher in Stand and Deliver comes to mind.

http://reason.com/archives/2002/07/01/stand-and-deliver-revisited/2

I'm not getting the Escalante thing? I was confused so I looked for more sources...

from the nyt escalante obit.


Success, acclaim and the celebrity status that came with “Stand and Deliver” brought strife. Mr. Escalante butted heads with the school’s administration and fellow teachers, some jealous of his fame, others worried that he was creating his own fief. The teacher’s union demanded that his oversubscribed calculus classes be brought down in size.

The teachers' union was trying to keep his class size down for the benefit of both teacher and STUDENT. I know most parents on this board would prefer LOW class sizes. How this equates to the union tying his hands, I don't understand. In your article a union VP was quoted as saying he was a loner and that "he didn't get along with some of the other teachers." It seems like his undoing was the work of his poor relationship with the building principal, from the link you provided. Administrators can make a teacher's life easy or difficult. I had the benefit of having outstanding administrator support, as well as outstanding union support.

Also, it's just so ironic that you use Escalante, an AP calculus teacher as an example. I was an AP Calculus teacher, I know the work well. Let me tell you how my union stymied me.

Well, when our school didn't have BC calculus, they made sure that I could access the school as late as 10pm, so that I could open my classroom to teach my AB (a semester of college calc) students who wanted to take the BC test the extra material that was on the test. (no, I didn't ask for nor was I given any compensation beyond my normal salary for this).

They made sure that I could hold review sessions for my students from March to May outside of class time, but on school grounds (in the evenings). Contrary to the way you portray unions as stifling, I found them to be supportive.

NO teachers discouraged me from doing this. On the contrary, the math department thought it was great for us. They thought it was great that we were providing a new opportunity for our kids.

[boolady]

Also, to reference something else that's been going on in NJ, the fact that people are demanding that some of the union contracts be opened and renegotiated in the middle of the contract term is just outrageous to me. I get that times are tough, but a contract is a legally binding document, presumably considered carefuly by all sides, and to expect to reopen and renegotiate midway through, essentially casting aside some basic principles of the legal system, just leaves me scratching my head. If anything, people should be outraged at those who negotiated to permit such provisions to be obtained by the teachers/workers.

And should be outraged over the fact that a large part of NJ's pension funding problem is that several governors, including our current governor, took billions from the pension fund for non-pension issues and haven't paid it back. I realize people want to argue that it's not money that belongs to people who have been contributing to it for 25 or 30 years, but it is. It really is.

ETA: Before someone posts that it must be okay to do this, apparently, a majority of NJ voters don't think so, because it was a ballot question in November that this never be able to be done again, and the voters said it can't be done again.

[Rainbows&Roses]

This is exactly what it is all about. He is a puppet of big business. He does not care about his constituents.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110223/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

[mousemom]

This example is deeply flawed, if nothing else because it completely fails to account for any return on investment and ignores the time value of money. Even the most conservatively invested pension funds will be worth MANY TIMES more than the amount of the original contribution going forward 30 years (or 50 or 60 years, in your example where people are living to be 100). It's simply unfair to categorize such contributions any other way.

This is a fair way to consider it though. Yes I ignored time value of money; however, I also assumed that the person earned the average salary for every year in their career. In the early years, when they have the longest time to compound money, they are making the smallest contributions. (i.e. in year 1, they are only putting in 3000.) The big advantage teachers have is that they can retire earlier than those putting money in private plans and they are guaranteed their return. (I can't take withdrawals from my IRA until I am 59 1/2 I believe without paying penalties and no one is going to ensure my money won't run out.) Plus most plans of COLA adjustments which makes my analysis even more spot on because the COLA means their payments grow even after they retire.

I just used a very simple example that if anything is overestimating the amount teachers put into the retirement and underestimating the multipliers. As I said in PA they put in about 6.5% and in Illinois 8%. In PA the multiplier is 2.5 - meaning that if someone works 30 years they get 75% of their final pay for life.

As for the literacy rates, the National Institute for Literacy defines literacy as

"The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 defines literacy as 'an individual's ability to read, write, speak in English, compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to function on the job, in the family of the individual and in society.'

The national report card is that if you are reading below proficient, you cannot meet the FEDERAL definition of literacy. A basic level at the 8th grade indicates that by federal standards, you are illiterate.

All of those stats that I gave are from the Nation's Report Card for 2009. We can argue about whether or not the numbers seem right from our experiences, but those are the numbers that the federal government is using.

[Cam&Clay]

An honest question...

I've read a few people mention that you could not collect retirement and social security? Why is that? I know that teachers here that retire collect both. Is this a state by state thing?

And a thought...

One thing DH always says about teachers and pay that rings so true. People complain about our "automatic raises" and benefits. The truth is that teaching is a profession that has no real avenue for promotion UNLESS you want to get out of the classroom and into curriculum or administration. Yes, you can earn a little more by getting advanced degrees, but there's no promotion to fight for. Unfortunately, I have seen many of the most talented teachers I know decide to move out of the classroom in order to make decent money.

[fivi2]

This is what I don't understand-- do you want no teachers, court personnel, trash collectors, clerks' offices, what? I realize the answer is no, we want them, we just want them all to make even less than they already do. Well, it doesn't work that way. There's no competitor for some of the government services Melissa pointed out-- you don't have private social workers, etc. There are jobs that must exist, if we are going to have courts, and police officers and firefighters, and public schools. I personally don't see who is getting this great windfall from being a public employee. As someone else pointed out, better benefits to public employees started out as a way to compensate for the lower income. So now, I guess, the answer is that public employees get paid like dirt and have poor benefits? Why? Don't you want quality employees performing jobs that need to be done, by (just about) anyone's account?
I promise you-- we don't all have the plague and aren't just people who couldn't find work in the public sector. I very specifically went to law school to do the public sector work I do. There is no private option, and I hazard a guess that if you ever need assistance from my office, you'd prefer to have folks who have a clue what they're doing, do it.

The rank-and-file, average public worker, at least where I work, isn't getting rich off of anyone. Far from it.

:yeahthat:
Thank you for this post!

[mommylamb]

An honest question...
One thing DH always says about teachers and pay that rings so true. People complain about our "automatic raises" and benefits. The truth is that teaching is a profession that has no real avenue for promotion UNLESS you want to get out of the classroom and into curriculum or administration. Yes, you can earn a little more by getting advanced degrees, but there's no promotion to fight for. Unfortunately, I have seen many of the most talented teachers I know decide to move out of the classroom in order to make decent money.

I totally agree. And, you get a raise if you had a master's degree only if it's part of the union-negotiated contract.

[jenfromnj]

This is a fair way to consider it though. Yes I ignored time value of money; however, I also assumed that the person earned the average salary for every year in their career. In the early years, when they have the longest time to compound money, they are making the smallest contributions. (i.e. in year 1, they are only putting in 3000.)



Ignoring time value of money and compound interest is NOT made fair by averaging the contribution. If you run the calculation for the value of $3000 looking ahead 30 years, and the calcuation for the value of $5000 looking ahead 15 years (to use the examples you cited), the return for the 3000 over 30 years FAR exceeds the return for the 5000 over 15 years.

I'm just pointing out that the numbers some people are citing to make it seem like teachers are taking many, many times more than what they put in, fail to consider basic principles of investment and accounting that make the actual value of the teachers' contributions far in excess of the figure being quoted. That's not even an opinion, just literally running the numbers based upon the example you cited. And that's aside from the fact that all these contributions and multipliers weren't just pulled out of thin air by the unions and applied unilaterally, they (at least in the states with which I'm familiar) were negotiated for.

[mousemom]

Ignoring time value of money and compound interest is NOT made fair by averaging the contribution. If you run the calculation for the value of $3000 looking ahead 30 years, and the calcuation for the value of $5000 looking ahead 15 years (to use the examples you cited), the return for the 3000 over 30 years FAR exceeds the return for the 5000 over 15 years.


I said that it works out to be pretty close to assume an average $5000 contribution for 33 years vs. actually starting out at 3000 in the first year and then being close to $7000 in the last few years. If the person contributes $5000 / year and gets an average return of 5%, at the end of 33 years, they would have about $400,000. If they started at $3000 and their pay grew by 3% per year, they would have about $355,000 again assuming a return of 5% per year. (The idea that you can get 8% by investing in a mix of bonds and stocks over the long-term doesn't really hold true anymore.) Those are relatively close. Even if you argue they are not close, my simplified example actually provides a higher value to the participant than the actual return they would receive. Either way the fact that they can then draw $45,000 a year for 25-40 years means they are drawing way more than they are putting into the account.

[dogmom]

An honest question...

I've read a few people mention that you could not collect retirement and social security? Why is that? I know that teachers here that retire collect both. Is this a state by state thing?



Some states/workers put the money that would go into the Social Security tax (both the employer and the employee portion) into the pension. These years DO NOT count towards your 40 quarters/10 years of paying SS that you must do to collect. This is also true if you work for the Federal Government. My DH worked for the state from for 10 years. He did not qualify for SS until he 6 years ago. If he died before then our children would not get survivor benefits. If an employee makes works those 10 quarters before or after working for the state/federal/local government they can qualify for SS. My Dad retired from the Postal Services, he gets a federal pension (not lavish) and a small SS check since it is based on his max income, which was 50 years ago.

[kmkaull]

I apologize if this has already been addressed, but I haven't read through all 14 pages of the thread...

BUT, didn't the governor run on this platform during the election and the people of WI elected him?

I'm a teacher in Wisconsin. I can tell you that we were all worried when he was elected, but I don't think any of us saw the elimination of collective bargaining coming. It is a scary time for us all.

[MontrealMum]

Either way the fact that they can then draw $45,000 a year for 25-40 years means they are drawing way more than they are putting into the account.

However, considering that the average life expectancy in the US is 77.8 there are very few teachers that are going to be collecting pensions for 40 years.


(I can't take withdrawals from my IRA until I am 59 1/2 I believe without paying penalties and no one is going to ensure my money won't run out.)


You might be interested to know that the average age of teacher retirement nationally is 58.

Here's your state's Education Association website: http://www.psea.org/general.aspx?ID=1794 and some interesting information I found there about retirement eligibility:

For Early Retirement

•With fewer than five years of credited service, you are eligible only for the return of your own contributions.
•With more than five years of service, penalties are assessed based on the benefit formula in the retirement code.
For Normal Retirement

•With 35 years of service, you can retire at any age.
•With 30 years of service, you can retire at age 60.
•At age 62, you can retire with one or more years of service.
•With 25 years of experience, you can retire at age 55 with a reduced penalty.
With Disability

•You can retire with disability before you are eligible for a normal retirement if you have at least five years of service.
Short-term exceptions:

•Legislative "windows" provide early retirement incentives which may reduce requirements and penalties for years of service and age.

I don't know what state you're getting your figures from for retirement with full benefits ("Normal Retirement"), but it's highly unlikely that teachers that weren't child prodigies or skipped several grades are retiring with full benefits at age 55 in Pennsylvania. Especially since most teachers are women, who are more likely to have interrupted careers, and therefore hit retirement age much later than the age of 57 that you get if you add your estimated graduation age (22) to a minimum of 35 years of service for normal retirement.

[larig]

I said that it works out to be pretty close to assume an average $5000 contribution for 33 years vs. actually starting out at 3000 in the first year and then being close to $7000 in the last few years. If the person contributes $5000 / year and gets an average return of 5%, at the end of 33 years, they would have about $400,000. If they started at $3000 and their pay grew by 3% per year, they would have about $355,000 again assuming a return of 5% per year. (The idea that you can get 8% by investing in a mix of bonds and stocks over the long-term doesn't really hold true anymore.) Those are relatively close. Even if you argue they are not close, my simplified example actually provides a higher value to the participant than the actual return they would receive. Either way the fact that they can then draw $45,000 a year for 25-40 years means they are drawing way more than they are putting into the account.

You're forgetting that they don't draw that money out all at once, they are only taking out (using your numbers quoted above) $45000/ year. Over the 25-40 years that they will live beyond retirement the money they have paid in would continue to grow, while they drain small amounts (relative to the lump sum) one month at a time.

FYI, your info is a little out of date. Illinois' teachers, beginning in 1998 had their contributions raised to 9%, and then in 2005 this rate was changed to 9.4%. But really that is neither here nor there, just something that needed to be corrected.

Like jenfromnj I think your example makes little sense when you throw in the way money grows over time. You are essentially saying that teachers shouldn't get that much money in retirement. EVEN if they can grow that money themselves, which is what IL TRS does. IL TRS relies on 74% of its revenue coming from investments that it has made over its history to pay retired teachers (that's that whole money growing over time thing that is SO crucial). That means that teachers aren't just taking tons and tons of state money to accomplish this, like you seem to be suggesting.

So, what I don't get is why are you complaining? It's not your money, they earned it, they paid in, their pension system invested it.

Do you only begrudge teachers this kind of pension, or is it all government workers? What about police? firemen?

[larig]

I'm a teacher in Wisconsin. I can tell you that we were all worried when he was elected, but I don't think any of us saw the elimination of collective bargaining coming. It is a scary time for us all.

:grouphug: big hugs. For what it's worth, I'm totally pulling for you guys (as if you couldn't tell). I'm sorry you're having to deal with this. I think it's totally unfair. Thanks for the work you do teaching our kids!! :cheerleader1:

[larig]

However, considering that the average life expectancy in the US is 77.8 there are very few teachers that are going to be collecting pensions for 40 years.



You might be interested to know that the average age of teacher retirement nationally is 58.

Here's your state's Education Association website: http://www.psea.org/general.aspx?ID=1794 and some interesting information I found there about retirement eligibility:

For Early Retirement

•With fewer than five years of credited service, you are eligible only for the return of your own contributions.
•With more than five years of service, penalties are assessed based on the benefit formula in the retirement code.
For Normal Retirement

•With 35 years of service, you can retire at any age.
•With 30 years of service, you can retire at age 60.
•At age 62, you can retire with one or more years of service.
•With 25 years of experience, you can retire at age 55 with a reduced penalty.
With Disability

•You can retire with disability before you are eligible for a normal retirement if you have at least five years of service.
Short-term exceptions:

•Legislative "windows" provide early retirement incentives which may reduce requirements and penalties for years of service and age.

I don't know what state you're getting your figures from for retirement with full benefits ("Normal Retirement"), but it's highly unlikely that teachers that weren't child prodigies or skipped several grades are retiring with full benefits at age 55 in Pennsylvania. Especially since most teachers are women, who are more likely to have interrupted careers, and therefore hit retirement age much later than the age of 57 that you get if you add your estimated graduation age (22) to a minimum of 35 years of service for normal retirement.
:yeahthat:

[bubbaray]

Teachers I know personally have been guilty of everything from theft to sexual harassment of students yet received pay and benefits, and in some cases years of more access to students. Unions have at times rejected higher pay and merit bonuses in favor of keeping tenure.


I really have to disagree. Teacher discipline issues (for cause) should not determine the issue of union strength. The two are very different, separate issues IMO.

[o_mom]

As for the literacy rates, the National Institute for Literacy defines literacy as

"The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 defines literacy as 'an individual's ability to read, write, speak in English, compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to function on the job, in the family of the individual and in society.'

The national report card is that if you are reading below proficient, you cannot meet the FEDERAL definition of literacy. A basic level at the 8th grade indicates that by federal standards, you are illiterate.

All of those stats that I gave are from the Nation's Report Card for 2009. We can argue about whether or not the numbers seem right from our experiences, but those are the numbers that the federal government is using.

I think the problem here is not if those numbers are right (that those % scored the "Proficient" level on the NAEP), but scoring below "Proficient" on that test is not equivalent to being illiterate. The NCLB/federal definition of "proficiency" is not what is used to set the achievement levels on the NAEB.

The NAGB published a booklet (http://www.nagb.org/publications/readingbook.pdf) (linked on the national report card website as a reference for the achievement levels) in which they say:

"Unlike most assessments, there are no individual scores on NAEP. Achievement levels define performance, not students. Notice that there is no mention of “at grade level” performance in these achievement goals. In particular, it is important to understand clearly that the Proficient achievement level does not refer to “at grade” performance. Nor is performance at the Proficient level synonymous with “proficiency” in the subject. That is, students who may be considered proficient

in a subject, given the common usage of the term, might not satisfy the requirements for performance at the NAEP achievement level. Further, Basic achievement is more than minimal competency. Basic achievement is less than mastery but more than the lowest level of performance on
NAEP. Finally, even the best students you know may not meet the requirements for Advanced performance on NAEP."

A more in-depth review of this is here: http://www.pareonline.net/pdf/v12n5.pdf

Could the scores be better? Certainly. Should we be concerned that 25% are scoring below "Basic"? Absolutely. I don't think, however, that it is reasonable to conclude from that data that 2/3 of eighth graders are illiterate (absolutely or functionally).

[niccig]

Also, just wanted to point out that your statement above about companies not sacrificing their profit margin is absolutely correct..

We're seeing this firsthand where DH works. It was a private company and DH started there when it was a start-up. It then became largest company in it's field, still privately owned. They owners sold it to a huge corporation for a tonne of money.

Now, it's run by people who have to make sure they meet their profit margins and quarterly reports. They are busy, too much work, and they just had another round of layoffs. The next week, they had to hire freelances to cover all the work they have. But freelances don't have have benefits and something about how the accounting is done. They've had 4 pay cuts in 2 years (we're down 30%), increased work hours, pressure to do the work and not put in for overtime, and the company is making a lot of profit. The workers are being screwed over, and they are fed up. Consequence for that is many of their top talent are leaving/being head hunted and in an creative industry with personal relationships, clients will go with the staff that are leaving. They're already not getting the same caliber of projects. Word out is that it has 2-3 years before it folds. Other companies are expanding and getting the good work now.

Private corporations don't care about the people working for them. It's how can we make more money, and they'll screw the workers over if they have to do that.

[crl]

I'm a teacher in Wisconsin. I can tell you that we were all worried when he was elected, but I don't think any of us saw the elimination of collective bargaining coming. It is a scary time for us all.

I am really sorry you are facing this. Thank you for being a teacher.

Catherine

[larig]

I just found out that "teacherken" to whom I have linked previously in this thread published a piece on this topic today at CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/23/berstein.labor.unions/index.html

[ellies mom]

Also referencing CEO's - sometimes it is better to pay a large sum of money to get rid of someone that isn't doing the best job so you can make room for someone that can. When a business is losing millions in opportunity cost makes sense to pay someone to leave.

See, this statement baffles me.

I've seen comment after comment about how unions make it impossible to fire bad employees. But now, you're suggesting that it is OK to pay an incompetent CEO a large sum of money to go away. So unions requiring managers to follow the rules they agreed to is bad but paying off someone who is driving a company into the ground is good?

Why not just fire them? If almost anyone here botched things as badly as some of these CEO's, we'd be fired. But these guys, who make boatloads of money get more?

And on this subject why does someone making millions of dollars a year need a housing allowance or a company car? When someone makes as much as some of these CEOs make, don't you think they can afford their own car? When these people make in a year more than the payout of the average union worker's pension (even if they lived to be a 100), why aren't people concerned about what that does to the company's bottom line?

[niccig]

I just found out that "teacherken" to whom I have linked previously in this thread published a piece on this topic today at CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/23/berstein.labor.unions/index.html

I agree with this. It wasn't the teachers or the garbage workers who caused the economic crisis. It was greedy banks and corporations and no regulations to stop them. Instead of doing something about that, let's give tax cuts to the rich and take away a teacher's pension.

[citymama]

I'm a teacher in Wisconsin. I can tell you that we were all worried when he was elected, but I don't think any of us saw the elimination of collective bargaining coming. It is a scary time for us all.

Thank you for everything you do as a teacher. I am sorry your governor has no appreciation for hard working public employees, especially educators. I hope his plan is shelved asap.

[bubbaray]

I agree with this. It wasn't the teachers or the garbage workers who caused the economic crisis. It was greedy banks and corporations and no regulations to stop them. Let's give tax cuts to the rich and take away a teacher's pension.


Another vote in agreement. It wasn't the working class that tanked the US economy. It was the greedy CEOs in the financial industry.

[gatorsmom]

See, this statement baffles me.

I've seen comment after comment about how unions make it impossible to fire bad employees. But now, you're suggesting that it is OK to pay an incompetent CEO a large sum of money to go away. So unions requiring managers to follow the rules they agreed to is bad but paying off someone who is driving a company into the ground is good?

Why not just fire them? If almost anyone here botched things as badly as some of these CEO's, we'd be fired. But these guys, who make boatloads of money get more?

And on this subject why does someone making millions of dollars a year need a housing allowance or a company car? When someone makes as much as some of these CEOs make, don't you think they can afford their own car? When these people make in a year more than the payout of the average union worker's pension (even if they lived to be a 100), why aren't people concerned about what that does to the company's bottom line?

CEO compensation packages are high with outrageous perks in order to attract the best talent to run the company. Sometimes this pays off and you have a fantastic leader. Sometimes it doesn't. Many of these compensation packages are come with employment contracts or clauses that make it very comfortable for the CEO (or whichever high level manager) to get out of the job for various reasons. Wellyes is higher level HR (IIRC) so maybe she has some more info on that and can chime in (I was middle management level HR back in my day. I never recruited or set up compensation packages for vice presidents or above so I'm not certain on all this). But maybe this is what Marymoo means when she says we pay off bad CEOs to leave the company. If the CEO has a prearranged agreement, then it might just be cheaper to pay him and get him outta there as quickly as possible.

[Clarity]

...and I hear Ohio is right behind.


I'm in Ohio and will be directly affected by passage of Senate Bill 5. I just want to share my reality a bit. I am paid via the state budget and I work in a union environment. I have a Master's degree, am in management, have been at my position for 9 years and I brought home....oh, about $36,000 last year.

Because I'm management, I'm not part of our collective bargaining unit but I do benefit from being part of environment where there is a union operating. I thank our union every day for my fabulous health care and my benefits package. You see, my "salary package" is heavy on the benefits and light on salary. I think it's a fair trade off. (FWIW, I get stellar annual reviews and have never, in 9yrs been offered a "merit raise".)

What bothers me most about Senate Bill 5 in Ohio is that the top-level administrators keep getting wealthier all the while demanding sacrifices from everyone else. Our new Republican governor took office and promptly gave all of his new staff raises - significant raises (Kasich's Chief of Staff makes $47,000 MORE than the previous governor's COS.) Meanwhile, my employer has doubled the number of administrators over the last 10 years. We have the same size service base and twice the administrators. As the state budget tightens, those administrators implement hiring freezes, take money from departmental budgets and ask us to do more with less.

What I would really like to see is for our leaders to lead. Set the example. Take a pay cut. Cut YOUR staff, cut YOUR budget, eliminate YOUR healthcare, YOUR benefits. Then come ask us to do the same. I have no doubt that we would. None.

Sadly, there ARE some people that don't deserve to be protected by the union. Those are the ones everyone hears about. Most of the people that I work with care about their jobs, want to serve our target population, and don't make unreasonable demands. You just don't get to hear about that. Squeaky wheel and all.

[tiapam]

Having a pension doesn't (or doesn't always) mean you can't collect social security. My dad worked in the private sector for 10 years then had a federal job (SSA, actually) for 20. After retiring with a good pension he got a part time job to earn enough 'quarters' of work to get his social security check on top of his pension.

Anyway. Unions. I have a suspicion that the superrich looooove the fact the most private sector workers resent the pay and benefits of unionized workers ..... instead of questioning why our own benefits are decreasing over time as CEO packages get more absurdly bloated.

I haven't finished reading the thread so maybe someone else already pointed this out (and you probably do know this but are generalizing) but not all public employees are union and there are private sector employee who are union. I have been employed by two municipal governments and was not represented by a union at either. The only time I was represented by a union was when I worked at a grocery store.

A few other thoughts - if there were not pensions, then salaries would most likely be higher so people could save for their own retirement. So there would not really be this big savings if you eliminate pensions.

Also, if so many posters here think teachers have it so great - why didn't you go into teaching?

[citymama]

I agree with this. It wasn't the teachers or the garbage workers who caused the economic crisis. It was greedy banks and corporations and no regulations to stop them. Instead of doing something about that, let's give tax cuts to the rich and take away a teacher's pension.

You said it.

And Scott Walker is being bankrolled by the nasty billionaire Koch brothers who have made union-busting one of their missions. See today's NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/opinion/23wed1.html?_r=1&hp

[Naranjadia]

I thank our union every day for my fabulous health care and my benefits package. You see, my "salary package" is heavy on the benefits and light on salary. I think it's a fair trade off.

I like this way of putting it! I teach at a University of Wisconsin university and one of the ways we attract good scholars and teachers is because of our benefits. We do not compare well, salary-wise, with other comparable institutions. When we recruit, we always stress the benefits package.

I'm sorry to have only read a few pages of this thread. It's been so busy the last two weeks, I haven't had time to visit the boards. :crying: We've been calling reps, DH went to Madison, and we've been organizing things locally. Our city council and county board both passed resolutions against the bill, as did our School board.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but part of the Budget-Repair Bill shifts a large portion of control of Medicaid from the legislature to the executive branch. This affects what we call BadgerCare, which is a program that provides health and dental care to children. So augmenting the protests is a large outcry over this provision.

Walker seems determined not to budge, despite concessions by the unions. The infamous phone call demonstrates that.

[Naranjadia]

I apologize if this has already been addressed, but I haven't read through all 14 pages of the thread...

BUT, didn't the governor run on this platform during the election and the people of WI elected him?

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel points out that he never spoke about removing collective bargaining rights until after the election:
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/

[niccig]

Another vote in agreement. It wasn't the working class that tanked the US economy. It was the greedy CEOs in the financial industry.

I was listening to Left, Right and Center on NPR the other day, and one of the people...can't remember who it was, so don't know if it was from the left, right or center...said that the government bailed out AIG for about 170 billion. Wisconsin has shortfall of 3 billion. Someone else then said, but all the states have a shortfall, and the first person said, yes all together it's 150 billion. We the taxpayers gave that to ONE corporation, and we can't find a way to help the states that are suffering because of the decline in property taxes from housing crash that was caused by the banks. Instead they're going to cut people's pensions and poor people's healthcare. They went on to say that the defence budget is over $600 billion, but that will never be cut because of the defense industry that has grown up. That then got into can't cut while in 2 wars...and yes it's all complicated and inter-tangled.

I'm just paraphrasing, but it did get my attention about what we are spending our money on. Like any household budget, there's a certain amount to go around, where is it going and why there and not somewhere else???

[niccig]

What I would really like to see is for our leaders to lead. Set the example. Take a pay cut. Cut YOUR staff, cut YOUR budget, eliminate YOUR healthcare, YOUR benefits. Then come ask us to do the same. I have no doubt that we would. None.


From what I've heard and someone correct me if I'm wrong, Jerry Brown's staff number are less and less pay than Arnold. He also flew SouthWest to get to Los Angeles...not a bad start.

[egoldber]

I teach at a University of Wisconsin university and one of the ways we attract good scholars and teachers is because of our benefits.

The same is true of the federal givernment. I work at an agency where most people have PhDs in a relatively lucrative field. People with the same degree and experience could go into the private sector and make several thousand $$$ a year more. Some even $40-50K a year more. Government lawyers could probably triple or quadruple their salaries in private practice.

But the people who choose federal work often do so because of the benefits, the flexible hours and the relatively short work day/week vs. the private sector. Without these benefits, there is ZERO incentive for bright, talented people to choose public service vs. private sector work. And I think people really do want smart, talented people to work in these jobs. And it is the union I belong to that bargains these incentives with management. Without our right to participate in collective bargaining (and we cannot strike, so that is not an option for us) we would not get this same level of benefits.

[larig]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but part of the Budget-Repair Bill shifts a large portion of control of Medicaid from the legislature to the executive branch. This affects what we call BadgerCare, which is a program that provides health and dental care to children. So augmenting the protests is a large outcry over this provision.

Walker seems determined not to budge, despite concessions by the unions. The infamous phone call demonstrates that.

Now that you mention it, I read somewhere that the BadgerCare/Medicaid thing is what he really wants to kill--even more than collective bargaining. I will have to see if I can find out where that was.

[WolfpackMom]

You said it.

And Scott Walker is being bankrolled by the nasty billionaire Koch brothers who have made union-busting one of their missions. See today's NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/opinion/23wed1.html?_r=1&hp

Did you see in the news where someone called pretending to be a Koch brother and Walker gave his plans for tricking the Democrats into returning and then holding a vote while most were out of the room? I have to find the article...

Also I found this interesting, about the $117m in tax breaks Walker gave to businesses weeks before announcing there was a shortfall of $137m. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanley-kutler/what-gov-walker-wont-tell_1_b_827104.html)

[septmama2b]

I agree with this. It wasn't the teachers or the garbage workers who caused the economic crisis. It was greedy banks and corporations and no regulations to stop them. Instead of doing something about that, let's give tax cuts to the rich and take away a teacher's pension.

:yeahthat:

Been reading this thread all week. Great debate. My comment will not be as well researched, or as well stated.

The reason the state pensions are insolvent is because they bought up the crappy investments of repackaged bad mortgages that people like Goldman Sachs knowingly sold them. The wall street investment firms and big corporate banks get bailed out, their CEO's making million dollar bonuses, and then they blame the budget issues on the middle class. This whole thing makes my blood boil. The middle class needs to take a stand, before they get swallowed up.

So not only did the middle class get screwed by the mortgage crisis, (by dropping housing values, or even worse foreclosure) now they want to screw us again by busting the unions and continuing to take the side of corporations over people.

[brittone2]

:yeahthat:

Been reading this thread all week. Great debate. My comment will not be as well researched, or as well stated.

The reason the state pensions are insolvent is because they bought up the crappy investments of repackaged bad mortgages that people like Goldman Sachs knowingly sold them. The wall street investment firms and big corporate banks get bailed out, their CEO's making million dollar bonuses, and then they blame the budget issues on the middle class. This whole thing makes my blood boil. The middle class needs to take a stand, before they get swallowed up.

Excellent, excellent point.

[Fairy]

The middle class needs to take a stand, before they get swallowed up.


Yes, they most certainly do.

[bcafe]

Actually, it is the program BadgerCare Plus that will be getting the cuts. The previous gov. opened up that program for childless adults aged 19-64 and it is a huge money drain. The teachers salaries are being touted here as "near poverty" and that is simply not true. The salaries can be seen online as well as the benefits packages. As it stands now, the teachers in Wi do not pay into their pension, the taxpayers do. They are being asked to contribute to their own retirement.

[Naranjadia]

As it stands now, the teachers in Wi do not pay into their pension, the taxpayers do. They are being asked to contribute to their own retirement.

And the unions offered that concession and also to pay more into healthcare. But since what the Governor wants is to destroy unions, as made plain in the phone call to the "Koch" brother yesterday, he did not accept the concessions.

In fact, he has refused to talk to the unions at all since he took office.

[Moneypenny]

And the unions offered that concession and also to pay more into healthcare. But since what the Governor wants is to destroy unions, as made plain in the phone call to the "Koch" brother yesterday, he did not accept the concessions.

In fact, he has refused to talk to the unions at all since he took office.

Exactly. And the Wisconsin Retirement System is not at all insolvent. It's one of only four in the nation that is fully funded. It is VERY well managed so other than the initial contribution on the employee's behalf (which will now be cut in half), it doesn't cost the taxpayers to pay out the benefits upon retirement. Another part of the governor's repair bill is to investigate changing this to a 401k style plan. I'm guessing he has some investment buddies he wants to put in charge of it because it makes no earthly sense to change one of the best systems in the nation.

[bcafe]

He has said that there will be education cuts. A big reason that the bill is ridding of collective bargaining is that he wants local districts to have more control. Since state funding to districts will be cut and the local districts will have more control over pay/benefits, there will be more money in each district despite state funding cuts. Property taxes and local taxes won't be increased because the money will still be there, just by a different route.

[new_mom_mry]

As a born and raised Californian, I stand with educators and other public sector employees of Wisconsin!! I spent five most incredible years at UW-Madison for grad school and unions lie at the heart and core of this fine state, and it would be a shame to jeopardize its public education system. I can't speak for all of the schools and universities in the state, but if faculty start leaving UW to join the private sector, what would happen to everyone's beloved university???! I was planning on sending DS there one day so that he would learn that there is a world outside of his sheltered bubble in California and experience the heartland, as hundreds of thousands of out of state students have since 1849 :) I am not surprised that there have been so many marches on the Capitol in Madison, if I was there, I'd be participating in them myself!!!

[bcafe]

Heh, there's a whole 'nother issue of the UW system splitting.

[larig]

He has said that there will be education cuts. A big reason that the bill is ridding of collective bargaining is that he wants local districts to have more control. Since state funding to districts will be cut and the local districts will have more control over pay/benefits, there will be more money in each district despite state funding cuts. Property taxes and local taxes won't be increased because the money will still be there, just by a different route.

Huh?

So, let me see if I'm following the logic here.
1. there will be cuts to education. (I won't even get into the fact that he entered office with a projected surplus and gifted it away in tax cuts--see link in previous post.)
2. getting rid of collective bargaining will give local districts more control--um, well they are one of the two parties who negotiate a contract together already (local unions negotiate with local school boards). So, that doesn't change a darn thing!
3. how is there more money in each district despite state cuts, just from getting rid of collective bargaining? Again, districts already have a say in where that money goes, so why do you presume that they will decide to cut pay and/or benefits?
4. So the money will still be there, because you will cut more and more from the small amount teachers do make, you are suggesting. And that is an elegant solution somehow?

Here's the thing, if there's not collective bargaining, wouldn't that mean that there would be individual bargaining? As a math teacher, wouldn't I be able to say, demand LOTS more money than my history or PE teaching friend. Couldn't we math teachers getting all this extra money just erase any gains? Seems problematic to me.

[bcafe]

(I won't even get into the fact that he entered office with a projected surplus and gifted it away in tax cuts--see link in previous post.)
The state has many major IOU's. On paper, my bank account is higher too. Then subtract the mortgage, car insurance,.....
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

[arivecchi]

Given that he did not finish his college degree and his reasons for doing so, one can surmise that Walker does not value education much.

I also love how some Republicans do tax cuts in times of crisis. Yeah, that makes sense. Haven't we learned by now that trickle-down economics do NOT in fact trickle down - much less in a down economy?

We will see how this all plays out, but methinks he has let the genie out of the bottle and awakened the citizenry of WI, as well as other states, to an extent he had not envisioned.

[ellies mom]

The state has many major IOU's. On paper, my bank account is higher too. Then subtract the mortgage, car insurance,.....
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

Even though that turned out to be inaccurate, if you read down this article (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/20/947446/-Politifact:-Rachel-is-Wrong-about-WI-Deficit,-but-Walkers-Pants-are-on-Fire) a bit, it shows that there still wasn't a "budget emergency'. And in any case, if there was actually a budget emergency why would you start solving it by giving out tax cuts?

[bcafe]

Huh?

So, let me see if I'm following the logic here.
1. there will be cuts to education. (I won't even get into the fact that he entered office with a projected surplus and gifted it away in tax cuts--see link in previous post.)
2. getting rid of collective bargaining will give local districts more control--um, well they are one of the two parties who negotiate a contract together already (local unions negotiate with local school boards). So, that doesn't change a darn thing!
3. how is there more money in each district despite state cuts, just from getting rid of collective bargaining? Again, districts already have a say in where that money goes, so why do you presume that they will decide to cut pay and/or benefits?
4. So the money will still be there, because you will cut more and more from the small amount teachers do make, you are suggesting. And that is an elegant solution somehow?

Here's the thing, if there's not collective bargaining, wouldn't that mean that there would be individual bargaining? As a math teacher, wouldn't I be able to say, demand LOTS more money than my history or PE teaching friend. Couldn't we math teachers getting all this extra money just erase any gains? Seems problematic to me.
Here is a good article that sums of the idea of keeping more money in local districts. http://biggovernment.com/kolson/2011/02/23/wisconsin-unions-insurance-scam-at-stake-in-collective-bargaining-reform/
ETA:Yes, I realize the website has a slant to it, but this is what I heard Walker say in a radio interview. I can't find his interview at the moment.

[bubbaray]

Did you guys see the news story about the prosecutor who tweeted that the riot police should use live ammunition on protesters?

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/26969006/detail.html

Nice. I hope he gets disbarred. That is unbelievable.

[bcafe]

That is in Indiana. Just wanted to point that out since we have been entrenched in WI politics.

[gatorsmom]

Even though that turned out to be inaccurate, if you read down this article (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/20/947446/-Politifact:-Rachel-is-Wrong-about-WI-Deficit,-but-Walkers-Pants-are-on-Fire) a bit, it shows that there still wasn't a "budget emergency'. And in any case, if there was actually a budget emergency why would you start solving it by giving out tax cuts?

Well, I can answer this one. I'm not saying this was the definitive reason behind Walker's tax cuts, but often cities, counties or maybe even states offer cuts in taxes to attract or keep businesses. DH's business is growing in Minnesota. It's doing relatively well- right now. However, we've been watching carefully what the political players are doing. Because of Minnesota's deficit, the state is talking about raising taxes across the board. DH is having a hard time finding loans for some spin off businesses from the one we have now. If taxes are raised it makes it more difficult to grow our business. DH has specifically said that depending on how high taxes are raised, he has no problem moving our company outside Minnesota.

[gatorsmom]

Did you guys see the news story about the prosecutor who tweeted that the riot police should use live ammunition on protesters?

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/26969006/detail.html

Nice. I hope he gets disbarred. That is unbelievable.

It's comments like this that garner sympathy for the protestors. The prosecutor is a creep, but imho he's done some good for the protestors.

[bubbaray]

That is in Indiana. Just wanted to point that out since we have been entrenched in WI politics.


Actually, we've also discussed other states (including Indiana) in this thread. Just wanted to point that out.

[larig]

Here is a good article that sums of the idea of keeping more money in local districts. http://biggovernment.com/kolson/2011/02/23/wisconsin-unions-insurance-scam-at-stake-in-collective-bargaining-reform/
ETA:Yes, I realize the website has a slant to it, but this is what I heard Walker say in a radio interview. I can't find his interview at the moment.

That's the insurance only. That says nothing about any of the other myriad things that collective bargain agreements cover. And, in the article it said this was only saving districts into 6 figures. Okay, so compared to school budgets, that is a DROP in the bucket. That's like 2 teachers' pay (assuming an average pay of $50,000). I mean, it's something, but I'm assuming that 6 figures is a number the author is using to illustrate best case scenario savings (to make the point he wants to make). Anyway, the article to me seems to be less about money and more about being pissed that teachers want to use the Union's insurance plan. If teachers bargain to use that, then they are giving up something somewhere else to gain that right.

Like others have pointed out, THESE ARE NEGOTIATIONS. Unions are not FORCING management/municipalities/school boards/states, etc. to agree to these contracts.

Again, if there was not collective bargaining, it would necessarily be individually done. Nothing says math teachers wouldn't bleed school districts' budgets dry with our high flying life styles!

[bcafe]

Actually, we've also discussed other states (including Indiana) in this thread. Just wanted to point that out.
:thumbsup:Touche

[crl]

Did you guys see the news story about the prosecutor who tweeted that the riot police should use live ammunition on protesters?

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/26969006/detail.html

Nice. I hope he gets disbarred. That is unbelievable.

Really. That is appalling.

Catherine

[crl]

Again, if there was not collective bargaining, it would necessarily be individually done. Nothing says math teachers wouldn't bleed school districts' budgets dry with our high flying life styles!

:hysterical:

Catherine

[bisous]

Interesting points, all.

I have to say (and I've read through the whole thread!) that I have gained some sympathy for some kinds of unions while reading this thread. I think particularly those jobs that are dependent on physical strength it is important to have provisions to help older workers! I come from a pretty anti-union stand but this is in part because I don't know a single person who works in any kind of manufacturing. Almost everyone in my circle is white collar of some kind.

I will say I'm surprised at all the teachers who favor the unions! I know so many teachers and almost none of them like the union they work for. Almost universally they feel that the unions are giving the KIDS a short shrift in many of their policies. I cannot tell you how many times policies have been put in place that benefit the teacher to the detriment of the children. :( My sister is a teacher also and is appalled by the horrifying examples she is surrounded by. She says at her high school (in NoVA) half the teachers are incredibly industrious and hard working, innovative, passionate, etc. and about the other half are so lazy, and incompetent it isn't even funny. She finds the inability to fire teachers to be absolutely terrible! That said, both my sister and mother love what they do. They find a lot of appreciation and respect. Parents know when they have a good teacher and when they don't. I don't think my mom or sister will leave the profession regardless of what happens to the union. At this time, however, they would much prefer that the unions just go away!

[Cam&Clay]

I will say I'm surprised at all the teachers who favor the unions! I know so many teachers and almost none of them like the union they work for. Almost universally they feel that the unions are giving the KIDS a short shrift in many of their policies. I cannot tell you how many times policies have been put in place that benefit the teacher to the detriment of the children. :( My sister is a teacher also and is appalled by the horrifying examples she is surrounded by. She says at her high school (in NoVA) half the teachers are incredibly industrious and hard working, innovative, passionate, etc. and about the other half are so lazy, and incompetent it isn't even funny. She finds the inability to fire teachers to be absolutely terrible! That said, both my sister and mother love what they do. They find a lot of appreciation and respect. Parents know when they have a good teacher and when they don't. I don't think my mom or sister will leave the profession regardless of what happens to the union. At this time, however, they would much prefer that the unions just go away!

Collective bargaining is illegal in Virginia, so I'm surprised at their hatred for unions. Our unions aren't capable of doing much at all. We have 3 to choose from, and all that they can do is complain when class sizes go up or we go another year without a raise. We cannot strike. We can wear the same color t-shirts and show up at school board meetings. Our biggest threat is called "Work to the Rule" which is laughable. When we do this to protest, we all work our contract hours only. Since none of us can do our jobs in 7.5 hours a day, we end up sneaking work at home.

Yes, our unions in Virginia are here to help if a teacher gets a bad evaluation and is marked for termination. I see that, however, as no different from having a lawyer to represent you. Our unions also provide insurance and legal representation if you are accused of harming a student.

Anyway, in right-to-work states, unions are very different from the ones you are hearing about in the news.

[Tracey]

To quote Diane Ravitch:

"As for pension and health-care envy, it is a sad thing when working Americans complain that someone else has benefits, instead of agreeing that everyone should have coverage for their health and old age. It reminds me of an old Soviet joke where a peasant says, 'My neighbor has a cow and I have none, I want his cow to die.' We should not join in this race to the bottom."

[bisous]

Susan,

My sister is in NoVA. Most of the teachers I know are here in southern CA including my mom. What is so interesting to me is that before my mom ever got her teaching credential, she used to protest with the teachers and help them to get raises and reduce class sizes. It was just a part of lobbying what was essentially best for the kids AND for the teachers. Now she is a member of the union (essentially she HAS to be--i.e. they take the deduction from her paycheck whether or not she is a member) and she does use the policies to her benefit even while she acknowledges that they are ridiculous and unfair.

I love teachers. I wish we could pay them WAAYY more. There are so many hardworking individuals. I wish that we could get rid of the lemons. Teachers, you have to admit there are so, so many of those! I feel like many people admire teachers but they can do this AND admit that something needs to be done to get rid of the bad seeds!

[Cam&Clay]

Now she is a member of the union (essentially she HAS to be--i.e. they take the deduction from her paycheck whether or not she is a member) and she does use the policies to her benefit even while she acknowledges that they are ridiculous and unfair.

I don't agree with having to be a member of the union at all. Here, you don't have to be, but it's recommended for the insurance and legal representation. I switched a few years ago to a "budget union" that doesn't do much more than just that. It saved me a few hundred dollars a year. I've heard the dues in real union states can be astronomical.

[bisous]

Susan I'll double check with my mom. There is only one union here for my mom to choose from. If I'm not mistaken, the choice is to have the money go to the union or you can have it go to a charity of your choice. You cannot, in any circumstances, have the money. Since she already donates her income to other charities (she tithes 10 percent to her church) and cannot have the money for any other purpose, she figures she might as well have the "benefits" of the union, although she would opt for the money if she could. I'm calling her today and I'll ask her the union costs. I'm curious now!

[bisous]

OK, just talked to my mom. She is required to pay $100 to the CTA. It is the only union she can choose. Whether or not she is a member, CTA gets that $100 so she figured she might as well get the benefits of the unions since she's paying for it anyway!

[Cam&Clay]

Is that per month or per year? I would think per month, which on a 10 month contract would be $1000.

[ciw]

Cam&Clay and Bisou,

You are both right. Whether you have to pay union dues depend on the state in which you live. If you live in a Right to Work state, you can not be forced to pay union dues. In other states, you can. Hence, the differences you're seeing.

Here's the list: http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm.

[Globetrotter]

I love teachers. I wish we could pay them WAAYY more. There are so many hardworking individuals. I wish that we could get rid of the lemons. Teachers, you have to admit there are so, so many of those! I feel like many people admire teachers but they can do this AND admit that something needs to be done to get rid of the bad seeds!

:yeahthat: I find it bothersome that we can't criticize SOME teachers without being accused of teacher bashing (not specifically on the BBB, but I have seen this trend on forums after Waiting For Superman). Every profession has its lemons (doctors, lawyers, business owners, you name it!) and there must be a way to deal with this. And I do wonder who on earth allows these union contracts to go through - is it purely political? And like a PP, before I knew all this and my kids were affected by this, I too used to hand out pro-union fliers (as a die hard liberal, at that) and I would vote for the candidate who was endorsed by the teacher's union, thinking surely they have the best interest of the kids at heart. Sadly, I was mistaken.

It doesn't mean I don't appreciate teachers. On the contrary, we have had some amazing teachers who are worth their weight in gold, who have gone above and beyond, who knew how to handle my anxious child and bring out my shy one, who challenged my kids, who put in countless hours outside of the school day (and I get very upset with anyone who accuses them of having a cushy schedule - that is one of my pet peeves, in fact, because I know there is work to be done at home also). I think THOSE teachers should be paid way more than they are. However, that doesn't negate the fact that there are some who don't deserve to be there and we do need reform.

[bisous]

Yes, sorry. That is per month. $1000 per year.

[larig]

:yeahthat: I find it bothersome that we can't criticize SOME teachers without being accused of teacher bashing (not specifically on the BBB, but I have seen this trend on forums after Waiting For Superman). Every profession has its lemons (doctors, lawyers, business owners, you name it!) and there must be a way to deal with this. And I do wonder who on earth allows these union contracts to go through - is it purely political? And like a PP, before I knew all this and my kids were affected by this, I too used to hand out pro-union fliers (as a die hard liberal, at that) and I would vote for the candidate who was endorsed by the teacher's union, thinking surely they have the best interest of the kids at heart. Sadly, I was mistaken.


I for one, would never say you (ETA: one, I mean) couldn't criticize bad teachers. In my own posts I said that 'bad teachers make us all look bad, so why would good teachers want them around?'. Where we differ in opinion is that I firmly believe that collective bargaining does not prevent the removal of bad teachers. And seriously, teachers have THREE TO FOUR YEARS of probation. That means a teacher can be fired WITHOUT cause (i.e., because someone didn't like their socks) during that time. What you have problems with and want reformed, based on what you said, is the due process rules that have to be followed to remove a tenured teacher, not tenure itself per se.

It's not political. some people from each side (admin/board + teachers) meet and hammer out the details of the contract. They start with basic laws of the state and work from there. Some issues are easy for them to agree on, others take months and months of talking. There's give and take. It's a NEGOTIATION. After the reps have an agreement, it's presented to membership. Teacher union membership votes as individuals on whether or not to ratify the contract. School boards (your elected representatives) approve contracts with teachers. Both sides have to agree. (ETA: I'm oversimplifying this a bit, but there are times when contracts have to go to mediation--if there's bad blood between the two sides, there's an impasse, etc.)

[kijip]

I just want to jump back in and say I totally support collective bargaining rights. For teachers. For grocery store workers. For aerospace engineers. For clowns. For everyone working in a large setting, I think it can be critical. I don't think that giving workers the right to collectively bargain for pay, workplace rules etc is pretty much ever a bad thing. Unions help balance the power between employers and individual workers and I think that is a good thing. My husband is a union employee, has been all his adult life in two different unions, and we have had a generally positive experience.

[kijip]

I also love how some Republicans do tax cuts in times of crisis. Yeah, that makes sense. Haven't we learned by now that trickle-down economics do NOT in fact trickle down - much less in a down economy?


No, we clearly have not. Which is why I recommend the book: Zombie Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Economics-Ideas-Still-among/dp/0691145822) about bad ideas that have been proven false and still refuse to die.

The large companies that caused this economic crisis (or consolidated/acquired versions of them) are on the whole profitable again. In some cases more profitable than ever before. Yet the middle class is supposed to lie down and accept that "jobless recoveries" just take time. Makes my head hurt, especially since many working class voters are voting against their interests and their families prospects when they vote for people so fixated on small government that the consequences of not paying for certain social programs are not thought through. If people can't eat or have a modicum of shelter for their families, then **** will hit the fan.

[Globetrotter]

And seriously, teachers have THREE TO FOUR YEARS of probation. That means a teacher can be fired WITHOUT cause (i.e., because someone didn't like their socks) during that time. What you have problems with and want reformed, based on what you said, is the due process rules that have to be followed to remove a tenured teacher, not tenure itself per se.


I am not against collective bargaining. I think it's transformed teaching/nursing, etc.. but the "due process" rules have really hurt the children, in my experience - they need to be changed, not eliminated. Yes, certainly don't make it so easy that someone could be fired without proper representation or cause, but why make it practically impossible? There has to be a happy medium here, but I can tell you from my own experience trying to work within this process at our school, that it is practically impossible and many children suffered as a consequence - this is why I am so passionate about this. As i have said before, admin. plays a role in this also, but they have to follow these procedures.

As for tenure, the problem I have seen is that teachers burn out. They might have started fresh and wide eyed, but somewhere along the line a few of them realized they can get away with doing nothing, quite literally. Gosh, i wish I was making this up!

[GvilleGirl]

Hmmm. This sounds too simple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAfsIW6RY8Q

[kijip]

Hmmm. This sounds too simple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAfsIW6RY8Q

Well, my math teachers always taught me that the simplest solution is the best solution. :tongue5:

However, since data was rightfully called into question upthread (pension calculations without the time value of money factored in are worthless), I will point out that the data on that video used for the ACT scoring outcome of non-collective bargaining states is inaccurate at well:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/23/state-democratic-party-wisconsin/labor-union-supporters-say-wisconsin-test-scores-v/

[citymama]

To quote Diane Ravitch:

"As for pension and health-care envy, it is a sad thing when working Americans complain that someone else has benefits, instead of agreeing that everyone should have coverage for their health and old age. It reminds me of an old Soviet joke where a peasant says, 'My neighbor has a cow and I have none, I want his cow to die.' We should not join in this race to the bottom."

Sad, but oh-so-true.

[larig]

To quote Diane Ravitch:

"As for pension and health-care envy, it is a sad thing when working Americans complain that someone else has benefits, instead of agreeing that everyone should have coverage for their health and old age. It reminds me of an old Soviet joke where a peasant says, 'My neighbor has a cow and I have none, I want his cow to die.' We should not join in this race to the bottom."

yeah, I totally meant to :yeahthat: earlier. I tried to write something akin to this myself before you posted this, but never got it to come out quite right. Thanks for posting, Ravitch is a smart lady.

[marymoo86]

No, we clearly have not. Which is why I recommend the book: Zombie Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Economics-Ideas-Still-among/dp/0691145822) about bad ideas that have been proven false and still refuse to die.

The large companies that caused this economic crisis (or consolidated/acquired versions of them) are on the whole profitable again. In some cases more profitable than ever before. Yet the middle class is supposed to lie down and accept that "jobless recoveries" just take time. Makes my head hurt, especially since many working class voters are voting against their interests and their families prospects when they vote for people so fixated on small government that the consequences of not paying for certain social programs are not thought through. If people can't eat or have a modicum of shelter for their families, then **** will hit the fan.

Actually the federal gov't caused this credis due in large part to its policies that encouraged unchecked behavior by corporations and itself. Fiat money supply and interest rates staying so low is the root cause here. If borrowing wasn't so cheap then risky behavior by corporations and consumers wouldn't have occurred to the extent it did. Funny how the gov't involvement due to Fanny and Freddie never seems to be blamed....

Also in regards to trick down - i think is vastly overlooked how people have moved up in the food chain over the last few years. Of course others have taken there place but you can't have a serious discussion about supply side without looking serious at the mobility of the families that constitute the statistics. Just b/c the numbers don't seem to change doesn't mean that there isn't movement in the numbers.

That being said - the Laffer curve works both ways. You can cut taxes to a point where it is no longer beneficial.

Interesting article on benefits in Wisconsin at the WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164290717724956.html?m od=wsj_share_facebook

[mommylamb]

Actually the federal gov't caused this credis due in large part to its policies that encouraged unchecked behavior by corporations and itself. Fiat money supply and interest rates staying so low is the root cause here. If borrowing wasn't so cheap then risky behavior by corporations and consumers wouldn't have occurred to the extent it did. Funny how the gov't involvement due to Fanny and Freddie never seems to be blamed....

Also in regards to trick down - i think is vastly overlooked how people have moved up in the food chain over the last few years. Of course others have taken there place but you can't have a serious discussion about supply side without looking serious at the mobility of the families that constitute the statistics. Just b/c the numbers don't seem to change doesn't mean that there isn't movement in the numbers.

That being said - the Laffer curve works both ways. You can cut taxes to a point where it is no longer beneficial.

Interesting article on benefits in Wisconsin at the WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164290717724956.html?m od=wsj_share_facebook

Are you advocating the gold standard here? I have a hard time understanding how fiat money has anything to do with this. Even people who support the gold standard will admit that they're considered the wingnuts by the vast majority of economists.

And regardless, this comment is so off the mark. There are lots of reasons why companies made bad and risky decisions. While low interest rates may have exacerbated this (maybe), rates in and of themselves and/or with a currency recognized as valuable by the government did not cause this. Lack of regulation, incredibly complex investment vehicles that no one really understood play a bigger role.

I do not know what you mean by credis. Did you mean to say crisis?

As far as people moving up the food chain, pretty much every study shows the gap between rich and poor getting larger, not smaller. That's just not factual at all.

[fedoragirl]

There was an article on the gap between rich and poor getting larger in 2011 in a recent online news web site. I forget but I believe it was reported by the AP press.

[marymoo86]

Are you advocating the gold standard here? I have a hard time understanding how fiat money has anything to do with this. Even people who support the gold standard will admit that they're considered the wingnuts by the vast majority of economists.

And regardless, this comment is so off the mark. There are lots of reasons why companies made bad and risky decisions. While low interest rates may have exacerbated this (maybe), rates in and of themselves and/or with a currency recognized as valuable by the government did not cause this. Lack of regulation, incredibly complex investment vehicles that no one really understood play a bigger role.

I do not know what you mean by credis. Did you mean to say crisis?

As far as people moving up the food chain, pretty much every study shows the gap between rich and poor getting larger, not smaller. That's just not factual at all.


First - investment is dictated by cost to the company or gov't. So interest rates are definitely a major factor here. Any indepth analysis of the crisis will tell you that - from an economic perspective. It spurred consumers to make risky investments in housing, Fannie and Freddie in buying mortages, and banks in CDOs.

Gold standard - not feasible but the Fed in its position and lack of oversight spurred the crisis on through its encouragement. This activity actually began under Clinton administration. Gov't activity has far more damning consequences than private.

Gap - gaps can grow regardless of mobility. Just means that more people are filling in the bottom. Also of note more 2 income earner households are in the top while bottom usually consist of 1.

[arivecchi]

Are you advocating the gold standard here? I have a hard time understanding how fiat money has anything to do with this. Even people who support the gold standard will admit that they're considered the wingnuts by the vast majority of economists.

And regardless, this comment is so off the mark. There are lots of reasons why companies made bad and risky decisions. While low interest rates may have exacerbated this (maybe), rates in and of themselves and/or with a currency recognized as valuable by the government did not cause this. Lack of regulation, incredibly complex investment vehicles that no one really understood play a bigger role.

I do not know what you mean by credis. Did you mean to say crisis?

As far as people moving up the food chain, pretty much every study shows the gap between rich and poor getting larger, not smaller. That's just not factual at all.:yeahthat: The main roots of the crisis were the overvalued real estate market and derivatives. I could not really follow the initial comment. In any event, the crisis had nothing to do with unions. The reason why the economic analysis is relevant is because the brilliant governor from WI blew the suplus with tax cuts, so he created the budgetary crisis. Regardless of what he may think he accomplished with tax cuts, trickle down economics have been largely discredited in the last 20 years. When things get tough, the rich hang on to their money. It does not trickle down.

[jenfromnj]

There was an article on the gap between rich and poor getting larger in 2011 in a recent online news web site. I forget but I believe it was reported by the AP press.

I was trying to stay away from this discussion, but a few people posted this on Facebook this morning, and it relates to this issue of the "gap" growing larger--it cites a number of neutral sources, despite seeming a bit jazzy, LOL:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

[marymoo86]

:yeahthat: The main roots of the crisis were the overvalued real estate market and derivatives. I could not really follow the initial comment. In any event, the crisis had nothing to do with unions. The reason why the economic analysis is relevant is because the brilliant governor from WI blew the suplus with tax cuts, so he created the budgetary crisis. Regardless of what he may think he accomplished with tax cuts, trickle down economics have been largely discredited in the last 20 years. When things get tough, the rich hang on to their money. It does not trickle down.

umm - how did overvalued real estate happen? investment triggered by low interest rates maybe - caused by the Fed and exacerbated by the GSEs and CDO bets by the large banks.

didn't unions had anything to do with it - two different thought streams. the wsj article just posted today and was interesting in terms of salaries/benefits and who bears the cost

rich hang on to their money when investment climate is uncertain as it is now


don't have time to get into an indepth search but here's an Op Ed by a Stanford Econ professor discussing:

How gov't created the Financial Crisis (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123414310280561945.html)

[wellyes]

First - investment is dictated by cost to the company or gov't. So interest rates are definitely a major factor here. Any indepth analysis of the crisis will tell you that - from an economic perspective. It spurred consumers to make risky investments in housing, Fannie and Freddie in buying mortages, and banks in CDOs.

Gold standard - not feasible but the Fed in its position and lack of oversight spurred the crisis on through its encouragement. This activity actually began under Clinton administration. Gov't activity has far more damning consequences than private.

Gap - gaps can grow regardless of mobility. Just means that more people are filling in the bottom. Also of note more 2 income earner households are in the top while bottom usually consist of 1.
I am confused by 'more people filling in the bottom'. Is that not exactly the problem? Lots more poor people and greater economic disparity?http://hypervocal.com/news/2011/must-see-mother-jones-income-inequality-infographics/

Info graphic of the say:

[kijip]

Gap - gaps can grow regardless of mobility. Just means that more people are filling in the bottom. Also of note more 2 income earner households are in the top while bottom usually consist of 1.

Just means that more people are filling the bottom. That's all. Have you stopped to take a look at what life looks like at the bottom recently? You should. Nearly every middle class kid has a serious risk of joining this ever growing bottom by the end of their lifetime if it keeps growing at this pace. There is less mobility, and wil continue to be less as new sectors of the the economy become outsourced or shipped in in this race to the bottom.

Fwiw, the fastest growing segment of homeless people, pretty much the very bottom of the proverbial ladder are previously working and with fairly stable housing families. Families with kids. 1 in 5 homeless people has a job. Just means nothing. That is a lot of meaning.

[larig]

Good article today at Tax.com that explains the benefits (esp. pensions) in Wisconsin and how the media and walker are distorting the truth about how they are financed.

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8EDJYS?OpenDocument

It's long, but informative.

I could seriously quote the whole article here, but I know that would be inappropriate, so here is just 3 paragraphs.

Traditional or defined benefit pension plans, properly administered, increase economic efficiency, while the newer defined contribution plans have high costs whether done one at a time through Individual Retirement Accounts or in group plans like 401(k)s.

Efficiency means that more of the money workers contribute to their pensions - - money that could have been taken as cash wages today - - ends up in the pockets of retirees, not securities dealers, trustees and others who administer and invest the money. Compared to defined benefit pension plans, 401(k) plans are vastly more expensive in investing, administration and other costs.

Individually managed accounts like 401(k)s violate a basic tenet of economics – specialization increases economic gains. That is why the average investor makes much less than the market return, studies by Morningstar show.

[wellyes]

Sorry here is that link http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

The killer for me is the actual distribution of wealth vs what Americans think it is vs what they'd like it to be.

[larig]

Sorry here is that link http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

The killer for me is the actual distribution of wealth vs what Americans think it is vs what they'd like it to be.

HA! I was just going to link to this very piece. It's very informative. And, very sad.

[larig]

Are you advocating the gold standard here? I have a hard time understanding how fiat money has anything to do with this. Even people who support the gold standard will admit that they're considered the wingnuts by the vast majority of economists.

And regardless, this comment is so off the mark. There are lots of reasons why companies made bad and risky decisions. While low interest rates may have exacerbated this (maybe), rates in and of themselves and/or with a currency recognized as valuable by the government did not cause this. Lack of regulation, incredibly complex investment vehicles that no one really understood play a bigger role.

I do not know what you mean by credis. Did you mean to say crisis?

As far as people moving up the food chain, pretty much every study shows the gap between rich and poor getting larger, not smaller. That's just not factual at all.

:yeahthat: (and to arivecci, jenfromnj, kijip...)

[marymoo86]

Just means that more people are filling the bottom. That's all. Have you stopped to take a look at what life looks like at the bottom recently? You should. Nearly every middle class kid has a serious risk of joining this ever growing bottom by the end of their lifetime if it keeps growing at this pace. There is less mobility, and wil continue to be less as new sectors of the the economy become outsourced or shipped in in this race to the bottom.

Fwiw, the fastest growing segment of homeless people, pretty much the very bottom of the proverbial ladder are previously working and with fairly stable housing families. Families with kids. 1 in 5 homeless people has a job. Just means nothing. That is a lot of meaning.

Also means that Americans aren't moving towards filling the needs of the current job market. I wonder what it would have been like between moving from an agrarian society to manufacturing.

[marymoo86]

HA! I was just going to link to this very piece. It's very informative. And, very sad.

And very misleading - why use census data instead of IRS?

"Overall, these data on high-income tax returns appear to confirm that the recent recession had the same diminishing effect on income inequality that most recessions have, and that it occurred for the same reason, a sharp decline in income at the high end. This appears to contradict recent reports based upon Census data suggesting the opposite, that this recession had actually increased income inequality. This inconsistency between IRS data and Census data is explained by a number of factors such as: (1) Census doesn't break down data for the extremely high income tax returns (typically stops at the 5 percent threshold), (2) Census income measures do not account for capital gains realizations, and (3) Census data gathered from household surveys are less reliable for income information at the high end of the income spectrum than IRS data."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

good article on social mobility rather than income inequality as a detriment by Michael Gershon of WaPo

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/12/14/the_simplicity_of_socialism_108232.html

[jenfromnj]

HA! I was just going to link to this very piece. It's very informative. And, very sad.

So funny--I just linked to that article in the previous page, literally right before wellyes did!

[mommylamb]

First - investment is dictated by cost to the company or gov't. So interest rates are definitely a major factor here. Any indepth analysis of the crisis will tell you that - from an economic perspective. It spurred consumers to make risky investments in housing, Fannie and Freddie in buying mortages, and banks in CDOs.


A lot of this is pretty disjointed and I'm having a hard time following your logic, but, from an economic perspective, low mortgage interest rates, when coupled with non-predatory mortgage instruments did not create the housing problem. Lax or non-existent underwriting standards in the primary mortgage market, and the secondary mortgage market's (as a whole, not just the GSEs) rush to buy those mortgages without taking into consideration those lax underwriting standards, and a multitude of investors buying securities without any knowledge of what they were buying are all more culpable contributors to the financial crisis. And why did this happen? Lack of oversight. Lack of adequate capital reserve requirements in lackluster regulations. Low mortgage rates that are used as teaser rates for predatory mortgage products are a different matter entirely, but that wasn't your point (at least, I don't think it was).

And unions really don't come into play here at all.

[marymoo86]

A lot of this is pretty disjointed and I'm having a hard time following your logic, but, from an economic perspective, low mortgage interest rates, when coupled with non-predatory mortgage instruments did not create the housing problem. Lax or non-existent underwriting standards in the primary mortgage market, and the secondary mortgage market's (as a whole, not just the GSEs) rush to buy those mortgages without taking into consideration those lax underwriting standards, and a multitude of investors buying securities without any knowledge of what they were buying are all more culpable contributors to the financial crisis. And why did this happen? Lack of oversight. Lack of adequate capital reserve requirements in lackluster regulations. Low mortgage rates that are used as teaser rates for predatory mortgage products are a different matter entirely, but that wasn't your point (at least, I don't think it was).

And unions really don't come into play here at all.


no unions don't

hyperinvestment (via ultra low interest rates) didn't create the housing bubble? by your statement then a majority of lax standards would have had to been in place. most defaulted mortgages were by investors not by subprime mortagagees

from WSJ:
"Monetary excesses were the main cause of the boom. The Fed held its target interest rate, especially in 2003-2005, well below known monetary guidelines that say what good policy should be based on historical experience. Keeping interest rates on the track that worked well in the past two decades, rather than keeping rates so low, would have prevented the boom and the bust. Researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have provided corroborating evidence from other countries: The greater the degree of monetary excess in a country, the larger was the housing boom."

[jenfromnj]

And very misleading - why use census data instead of IRS?

"Overall, these data on high-income tax returns appear to confirm that the recent recession had the same diminishing effect on income inequality that most recessions have, and that it occurred for the same reason, a sharp decline in income at the high end. This appears to contradict recent reports based upon Census data suggesting the opposite, that this recession had actually increased income inequality. This inconsistency between IRS data and Census data is explained by a number of factors such as: (1) Census doesn't break down data for the extremely high income tax returns (typically stops at the 5 percent threshold), (2) Census income measures do not account for capital gains realizations, and (3) Census data gathered from household surveys are less reliable for income information at the high end of the income spectrum than IRS data."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

good article on social mobility rather than income inequality as a detriment by Michael Gershon of WaPo

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/12/14/the_simplicity_of_socialism_108232.html

Re: The Tax Foundation--my quick research shows that they're owned or at least substantially funded by a conservative group, and that their primary agenda is criticizing and fighting tax increases.

[marymoo86]

Re: The Tax Foundation--my quick research shows that they're owned or at least substantially funded by a conservative group, and that their primary agenda is criticizing and fighting tax increases.

and you find mother jones to be a strong source of tax analysis?

rather than pick on sources - explain then why census data would be preferably than using IRS data?

National Affairs (http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/getting-ahead-in-america) better?

Thus, the inequality debate is not nearly as relevant to the more important question of mobility as it sometimes seems to many advocates and politicians. Inequality is a cloudy lens through which to understand the problems of poverty and mobility, and it does not point toward solutions. Great wealth is not a social problem; great poverty is. And great wealth neither causes poverty nor can readily alleviate it. Only by properly targeting poverty, and by understanding its social, cultural, and moral dimensions, can well-intentioned policymakers hope to make a dent in American poverty — and thereby advance mobility and sustain the American Dream.

[mommylamb]

no unions don't

hyperinvestment (via ultra low interest rates) didn't create the housing bubble? by your statement then a majority of lax standards would have had to been in place. most defaulted mortgages were by investors not by subprime mortagagees

No, most foreclosures are mortgages taken out by families. Yes, there are investors involved too, but the subprime mortgage market (which charges higher interest rates than the prime mortgage market, not lower rates) and predatory mortgage products really started the downward spiral. It wasn't started by families (or investors for that matter) who got prime mortgages from respectable lenders at a low rate. Of course, once the rest of the economy got pulled in and people started losing their jobs, even those who had prime mortgages ended up defaulting. But that's not what started it. And, there are a lot of people who turned to the subprime and/or predatory market who would have been eligible for legitimate mortgage products (especially mortgage revenue bond products), but didn't know it.

[arivecchi]

no unions don't

hyperinvestment (via ultra low interest rates) didn't create the housing bubble? by your statement then a majority of lax standards would have had to been in place. most defaulted mortgages were by investors not by subprime mortagagees While low interest rates played a part, what facilitated the overheating of the housing market was the fact that banks were able to securitize the mortgages and off-load a huge chunk of their credit risk. Therefore, credit standards became more lax. Low interest rates (like they are now) coupled with responsible lending does not wreak havoc. I don't quite know why we are off on this tangent, but wanted to respond.

[o_mom]

I don't quite know why we are off on this tangent, but wanted to respond.

LOL, after 25 pages of responses, I wouldn't be surprised to see that yoga pants and movie popcorn are the reasons for all this. :tongue5:

[arivecchi]

LOL, after 25 pages of responses, I wouldn't be surprised to see that yoga pants and movie popcorn are the reasons for all this. :tongue5:
:hysterical:

[mommylamb]

I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but I also wanted to point out that when there are low interest rates, but strict underwriting standards, the people who get mortgages and benefit from those rates are legitimate borrowers who are in most instances a good risk for banks. Barring some unforeseen circumstance, they pay their mortgages and all is well with the world. Yes, when interest rates are low, more legitimate buyers (and legitimate investors for that matter) enter the market and housing prices go up. But those are legitimate housing values, not bubbles.

OTOH, When there is lax underwriting, lenders (legitimate banks and unscrupulous predatory lenders) give mortgages to people who should never qualify for mortgages. Lots more people enter the market than should, and yes prices skyrocket and cause a bubble, which inevitably bursts. But, this is NOT because of the low rates that legitimate borrowers with good credit track records and stable employment received.

ETA: and this is exacerbated when people (with decent credit or without) get stuck with mortgages with high interest rates that they can't afford.

[crl]

LOL, after 25 pages of responses, I wouldn't be surprised to see that yoga pants and movie popcorn are the reasons for all this. :tongue5:

Yeah! Those darn unions barginning for the right to wear yoga pants to school and eat popcorn in the break room. :hysterical:

Catherine

[larig]

and you find mother jones to be a strong source of tax analysis?

rather than pick on sources - explain then why census data would be preferably than using IRS data?

National Affairs (http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/getting-ahead-in-america) better?



Mother jones didn't do the analysis, they are reporting on others' analysis. the images have sources, most are different--a Havard business school guy + a duke guy; CBO, census, a guy from bard college, a guy from UC, federal reserve.

And, yeah, I think mother jones is known to be liberal, but that doesn't preclude them from being credible. (although, I totally admit having a bit of an intellectual crush on David Corn.)