To me, what the Dems are doing here is cowardly, cry-baby obstructionism. Should generate some interesting debate! God forbid teachers pay 14% of healthcare costs (everyone else pays 30% - 40%).

Missing Wisconsin Democrats Who Skipped Anti-Union Vote Left the State, Senator Says - FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/17/teachers-march-wisconsin-capitol-senate-moves-curtail-union-rights/)

I thought elections had consequences? That's what all the Dems were saying aftre 2008?

And I've had all I can take with these unbelievably greedy teachers acting as if they are taking a vow of poverty for the good of the kids. The Gov of Wisconsin is asking that teachers increase the portion of their healthcare plans to 12.6 percent, WHICH IS LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT THE AVERAGE TAXPAYER IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR PAYS for their healthcare.

In other words, the governor is proposing that teachers pay HALF AS MUCH for their healthcare as the rest of us, and - GASP! - the teachers are all calling in sick, forcing schools to close.

Tell me again why I'd be wrong for calling these teachers blood-s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g parasites? They're not willing to pay HALF of what everyone else has to pay?

And these legislators get to flee the state, and presumably still get paid for their services? And Republicans get called obstructionists?

To me, what the Dems are doing here is cowardly, cry-baby obstructionism. Should generate some interesting debate! God forbid teachers pay 14% of healthcare costs (everyone else pays 30% - 40%).

Missing Wisconsin Democrats Who Skipped Anti-Union Vote Left the State, Senator Says - FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/17/teachers-march-wisconsin-capitol-senate-moves-curtail-union-rights/)

I thought elections had consequences? That's what all the Dems were saying aftre 2008?
The dems are doing what their voter-base wants.

The best line I heard from this:
Union Person: We're going to have our voices heard come the next election. These officials will be put out of office because of this.
The Republican Response: We feel as though the voters got their point across on November 2 when they elected us to fix these problems because the Democrats weren't.

We've gotten into many long threads about the Unions. I'll be very interested in what comes from this. Wisconsin isn't the only place that this is happening - New York, New Jersey and a few others are putting together similar actions, with some Democratic support in many of those cases.

I'll take a matching, insurance raise, come on, let's get a reality check for the rest of commercial business.

The dems are doing what their voter-base wants.

The best line I heard from this:
Union Person: We're going to have our voices heard come the next election. These officials will be put out of office because of this.
The Republican Response: We feel as though the voters got their point across on November 2 when they elected us to fix these problems because the Democrats weren't.

We've gotten into many long threads about the Unions. I'll be very interested in what comes from this. Wisconsin isn't the only place that this is happening - New York, New Jersey and a few others are putting together similar actions, with some Democratic support in many of those cases.

"The dems are doing what their voter-base wants."

BBut why do liberals, unless they are in a union, want to be taxed into oblivion so that a few folks can get rich?

I'd love anyone here who supports the union workers, to answer ONE question...Given the economic situation where are all on, how can unionized employees complain about paying less than half of what everyone else pays? Why do unionized employees deserve such preferential treatment.

The dems are doing what their voter-base wants.

The best line I heard from this:
Union Person: We're going to have our voices heard come the next election. These officials will be put out of office because of this.
The Republican Response: We feel as though the voters got their point across on November 2 when they elected us to fix these problems because the Democrats weren't.

We've gotten into many long threads about the Unions. I'll be very interested in what comes from this. Wisconsin isn't the only place that this is happening - New York, New Jersey and a few others are putting together similar actions, with some Democratic support in many of those cases.

Another thing Johnny? I know you have the respect of many here (including me), and I know you own your own business. If your employees got together and said "Johnny, we demand that you give us pensions for life, and we're only willing to pay 0.2% of the cost, so you pay the other 99.8%. We also want health insurance, wnd we're only willing to pay 6% of the cost, so you pay the other 94%">

Could you absorb that cost? Would you be able to pass that cost onto your customers? I didn't catch what type of business you own, so maybe it's not applicable to you, but I'm curious...

The dems are doing what their voter-base wants.



they all hopped on a bus and left the state...this is hilarious...I guess their voters want them to leave?

we will enjoy two years of this class warfare and public sector and union thug unrest from the "ME PARTY" until the Community Organizer is reelected...:uhuh:

Only one word for the democrats of Wisconsin,

"COWARDS!"

Only one word for the democrats of Wisconsin,

"COWARDS!"

You left out selfish.

They can balance their budget without raising taxes, if the unions would be willing to pay half as much for their benefits as everyone else.

And they respond by throwing a tantrum.

I agree that the proposed bill is unfair, because I don't see why unionized workers shouldn't pay THE SAME as everyone else. Why should the taxpayers bear that burden? Anyone?

"The dems are doing what their voter-base wants."

BBut why do liberals, unless they are in a union, want to be taxed into oblivion so that a few folks can get rich?

I'd love anyone here who supports the union workers, to answer ONE question...Given the economic situation where are all on, how can unionized employees complain about paying less than half of what everyone else pays? Why do unionized employees deserve such preferential treatment.
Unless specifically stated, everything below is just my opinion from observations and educated guesswork. This is going to be a long one, so sorry in advance.

I believe there are two main groups in play that contribute to the large number of people that are supporting the unions:
1. The "What about the children?" group. This group (I'm speculating) consists of your cliche 'bleeding-heart liberals', non-property owners and, to be expected, people with children.
These people feel as though teachers make major sacrifices in their lives "because they care about the kids." They don't look at the big picture - in some areas (like WI) teachers are paid less than average *but* receive killer benefits, the pension, shorter work days and other contract-dictated protections.

2. The anti-establishment group. These are your typical Democrat that believes Unions protect 'the little guy'. My guess is that this group consists mostly of middle income people, may or may not own a home or younger folks especially college age or just after college. This group believes that the towns (and all businesses) will abuse the little guy at ever chance they can get. The mindset of these people is (and this was actually said to me yesterday when I told them I'm anti-Union): "Well, I hope you get stuck in some non-Union job in the private sector and your boss walks in one day and tells everyone they are cutting pay by 50% across the board." When I asked for an example of this ever happening, I was told "You just don't get it."
Essentially, I consider this group misguided. They have a philosophical difference from me. To argue with them and try to change their opinion would be as futile as debating with someone why my religion is better than yours. Unless there is an epiphany, philosophical differences won't be resolved.

There are a few commonalities between both these groups. They are small picture type of people, tunnel-visioned on only the exact subject at hand without looking at the broader ramifications. They don't think "how are we going to pay for this?". They don't understand why using today's employees to pay yesteryear's retirees
is unsustainable. More likely than not, they don't understand how a pension works or what the dollar-value is on the Cadillac plans these Unions argue for.

Another thing Johnny? I know you have the respect of many here (including me), and I know you own your own business. If your employees got together and said "Johnny, we demand that you give us pensions for life, and we're only willing to pay 0.2% of the cost, so you pay the other 99.8%. We also want health insurance, wnd we're only willing to pay 6% of the cost, so you pay the other 94%">

Could you absorb that cost? Would you be able to pass that cost onto your customers? I didn't catch what type of business you own, so maybe it's not applicable to you, but I'm curious...
I don't deserve any more respect than the next guy.

To your question, I'd fire all of them. Done. Looking at that large an increase in overhead, I'd keep only my managerial staff and subcontract all the other positions because it would be cheaper. Then I'd tell the staff remaining that if they wanted to pull that crap, they're the next ones gone. Legal? Very questionable, but it sure as hell would get the point across. Most of my staff gets paid better and with more schedule flexibility (8hr day inc. paid lunch, rarely a 'no' if they ask to leave early, never asked to try to come in during bad weather) than any of my competitors pay and they know it.

Loyalty and paying for high quality and excellent service has gone away in my industry. As such, any additional costs have to be absorbed.

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;837903]Unless specifically stated, everything below is just my opinion from observations and educated guesswork. This is going to be a long one, so sorry in advance.

I believe there are two main groups in play that contribute to the large number of people that are supporting the unions:


one more...politicians that are afraid of losing their base of support or having them show up on the lawn of their home terrorizing their family.....great analysis JD

hey, there was a story here yesterday of an ambulance co. that was having to lay off a slew of workers because of reductions in either medicare or medicaid reimbursements, can't remember which...are you affected by cuts like those with your operation?

File this under the category of "you cannot make this up".

Turns out the 14 Democratic senators who fled the state (remember, they fled the state because they were opposed to these union cuts) are staying in a hotel in Illinois.

THEY ARE STAYING IN A NON-UNION HOTEL.

In other words, when these azzholes are spending their own money, they have no intention of absorbing the cost of insane union demands. But these SAME JERKS think all of the taxpayers should be forced to pay that which these clowns won't pay themselves.

Nancy Peolisi is siding with the unions. Nancy Pelosi owns vineyards and hotels in California, zero of which are unionozed.

And I get criticized for saying liberalism is a mental disorder.

one more...politicians that are afraid of losing their base of support or having them show up on the lawn of their home terrorizing their family.....great analysis JD
Honestly, I don't even bother considering politicians. They will do/say whatever they need to in order to appease their voting base. None of them have any backbones... not a single one.

hey, there was a story here yesterday of an ambulance co. that was having to lay off a slew of workers because of reductions in either medicare or medicaid reimbursements, can't remember which...are you affected by cuts like those with your operation?
Haven't been on an ambulance in almost 2 years. I keep my emt credentials current, do continuing education and things like that as a fallback plan should anything happen with my company. Turnover is typically high at ambulance companies so it's pretty easy to find a job with at least one of the 4-5 companies in the area.

Costs me up to $500/year to keep my credentials current and 50 hours of classroom time but I consider it a small price to pay to have a fall back plan should the s#$% hit the fan and I need new employment or to pick up a second job.

Honestly, I don't even bother considering politicians. They will do/say whatever they need to in order to appease their voting base. None of them have any backbones... not a single one.


Haven't been on an ambulance in almost 2 years. I keep my emt credentials current, do continuing education and things like that as a fallback plan should anything happen with my company. Turnover is typically high at ambulance companies so it's pretty easy to find a job with at least one of the 4-5 companies in the area.

Costs me up to $500/year to keep my credentials current and 50 hours of classroom time but I consider it a small price to pay to have a fall back plan should the s#$% hit the fan and I need new employment or to pick up a second job.

oh, I was under the impression that your company was an ambulance co.

I agree that the proposed bill is unfair, because I don't see why unionized workers shouldn't pay THE SAME as everyone else. Why should the taxpayers bear that burden? Anyone?

Should they pay more? sure.
Should they lose their right to collective bargining? No. that is the crux of this right now. Funny how the police and fire unions were conviniently left out this time around....

"Assault on the unions." spoken once again from a great intellect.

Guess who.

Here is a hint: Spoke out aganist Cambridge police.

He can not balance his own budget, why would he want to speak out aganist the Gov. of Wiscosin?

On another note, It is illegal for teachers and firemen to be protesting on strike in Wisconsin. Fire any teachers or firemen that do not have a letter from their doctor stating that they were sick.

No school, "they really are in it for the kids." Oh really.

Governor and legislators should hang tuff.

Should they pay more? sure.
Should they lose their right to collective bargining? No. that is the crux of this right now. Funny how the police and fire unions were conviniently left out this time around....

"Should they lose their right to collective bargining? No."

There is no consensus in this country that we have a fundamental right to collective bargaining.

"that is the crux of this right now."

The hell it is. The unions are screaming that the proposed cuts (excluding the loss of CB) are too stiff.

Fine, let use the cost angle alone.

You love to use the analogy of the increasing taxes to pay for the unions and public workers you clearly demise. Joe taxpayer has a budget, then his taxes double and he can't afford his house anymore, sound familiar?

Lets flip the coin. These people have budgets and expenses etc.. and the govenor et al., want that to change significantly, drasticly increasing their costs to what you pay in the private sector. (FWIW, We have family benefits from a private insurer. We don't pay anywhere near 30-40% of health care costs. When my son was born the largest bill was for the cable in the hospital room.)

How do you expect the teachers to react? Oh no problem, we'll jump onboard. No, they will try and fight for what they percieve to be right. I forgot, your wife, when she goes back to taching will take the pension in the meantime because it is whats best for your family, while lobbying for it to change to a 401K.

I'm not saying either side is right, but it doesn't make either side wrong. Joe blow losing his house because taxes went up, ot Joe teacher losing their house because their health care costs went up.

then again, all those teachers are rich grady-white owning scam artists anyways :smash:

have a good weekend.

And JohhnyD, I like your posts, but if you really believe most teachers work shorter days, comeone... less days, yes, shorter, not really, and I'm a property owning, kid having left center liberal, where does that put me? :D

no idea where to even start with that one but I think they're being asked to pay 12% of their hc premiums and contribute to their pensions....draconian :uhuh:

I think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton just showed up...it's not a real protest till they arrive.....

Fine, let use the cost angle alone.

You love to use the analogy of the increasing taxes to pay for the unions and public workers you clearly demise. Joe taxpayer has a budget, then his taxes double and he can't afford his house anymore, sound familiar?

Lets flip the coin. These people have budgets and expenses etc.. and the govenor et al., want that to change significantly, drasticly increasing their costs to what you pay in the private sector. (FWIW, We have family benefits from a private insurer. We don't pay anywhere near 30-40% of health care costs. When my son was born the largest bill was for the cable in the hospital room.)

How do you expect the teachers to react? Oh no problem, we'll jump onboard. No, they will try and fight for what they percieve to be right. I forgot, your wife, when she goes back to taching will take the pension in the meantime because it is whats best for your family, while lobbying for it to change to a 401K.

I'm not saying either side is right, but it doesn't make either side wrong. Joe blow losing his house because taxes went up, ot Joe teacher losing their house because their health care costs went up.

then again, all those teachers are rich grady-white owning scam artists anyways :smash:

have a good weekend.

And JohhnyD, I like your posts, but if you really believe most teachers work shorter days, comeone... less days, yes, shorter, not really, and I'm a property owning, kid having left center liberal, where does that put me? :D

"You love to use the analogy of the increasing taxes to pay for the unions and public workers"

It's not an analogy, that's literally what happens. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for these benefits?

"We don't pay anywhere near 30-40% of health care costs. When my son was born the largest bill was for the cable in the hospital room.)"

You need to get the facts. No one is saying that folks in the private sector pay a 30% co-pay. But we do pay 30% of the cost of our healthcare insurance policy through work. That's what we're talking about. We pay 30% of the premiums, teachers in WI pay 6%. That's fair!!

"How do you expect the teachers to react?"

(1) I expect them to show up for work the next day, or make room for those who will
(2) I expect them to thank their lucky starts that the proposal still only asks them to pay half what everyone else pays
(3) I expect them to thank their lucky stars that they still have pensions, which no one else has
(4) I expect them to say, "gee, you all went through this same thing 15 years ago? Now I almost know how you feel, but not quite, since I still have tenure, a pension, I'm still exempt from social security...

"I forgot, your wife, when she goes back to taching will take the pension in the meantime because it is whats best for your family, while lobbying for it to change to a 401K. "

You're damn right we'll lobby for 401(k)'s. That's clearly what's right, and in Wisconsin, these cuts are what the public voted for. That's what we call "democracy", you see. Although, she probably won't go back.

The Republicans did not like Sonia Sotomayor, so they asked her tough questions during her hearings. They didn't sabotage the democratic process. Yet they were still called "obstructionists" by lefty morons.

no idea where to even start with that one but I think they're being asked to pay 12% of their hc premiums and contribute to their pensions....draconian :uhuh:

.....

Yeah, I thought Lincoln freed the salves????

Fine, let use the cost angle alone.

You love to use the analogy of the increasing taxes to pay for the unions and public workers you clearly demise. Joe taxpayer has a budget, then his taxes double and he can't afford his house anymore, sound familiar?

Lets flip the coin. These people have budgets and expenses etc.. and the govenor et al., want that to change significantly, drasticly increasing their costs to what you pay in the private sector. (FWIW, We have family benefits from a private insurer. We don't pay anywhere near 30-40% of health care costs. When my son was born the largest bill was for the cable in the hospital room.)

How do you expect the teachers to react? Oh no problem, we'll jump onboard. No, they will try and fight for what they percieve to be right. I forgot, your wife, when she goes back to taching will take the pension in the meantime because it is whats best for your family, while lobbying for it to change to a 401K.

I'm not saying either side is right, but it doesn't make either side wrong. Joe blow losing his house because taxes went up, ot Joe teacher losing their house because their health care costs went up.

then again, all those teachers are rich grady-white owning scam artists anyways :smash:

have a good weekend.

And JohhnyD, I like your posts, but if you really believe most teachers work shorter days, comeone... less days, yes, shorter, not really, and I'm a property owning, kid having left center liberal, where does that put me? :D

I do not know where you live, but, a teacher is not losing their home where I live and properties are not cheap here. The teachers here go to a 2nd job for the summer, at least those that want to work.

I exspect them to act sencesibily. When most Americans in the private sector pays 60/40 for health insurence, they should have no qualms paying 12-14 percent.

I do not pay 30-40 percent either, the company that I work for pays the whole premium, I do pay the first 1,000.00 of a hospital bill visit and the insurence pays everything else the rest of the year. My first visit this year cost 6,000, I paid the 1,000, my second visit the other day was 3,000.

In Wisconsin the average pay is 68,000 and with benifits is 86,000 not bad for 180 days. When I went to school 180 days is a half year, maybe you use modern math today.

I have expenses also and I do not sleep on the job for 24 hours like a fireman and then go to my day job for the next three days before retuning to my fire job get hurt on the day job and claim it on my city job.

You left out selfish.



No!, I did not leave out selfish.

I was talking about the dems, they are Cowards.

Yes!, the workers are selfish.

Dylan - the times they are a changin'- what is interesting is that changes must aand will be made.

Preliminary observation on my part - Democrats not facing reality and Republicans coming on too heavy could ruin a great game plan.

Republicans could score big if they soften their edge by 25%

Democrats have too big an adjustment to make on this IMO.

absolutely, the good thing is that we are having this conversation and all is on display, I hope that they show up at every capitol and state their grievances and one by one we can bring the contracts in line with the reality of the rest of the country and decrease the power held by the unions over the various levels of government, it won't be easy, might get ugly but these things need to be addresssed, people are going to be upset but there is just no way to continue to fund these benefits and entitlements as constituted....and the Justice Brothers will have something to keep them busy :rotf2:

I do not pay 30-40 percent either, the company that I work for pays the whole premium, I do pay the first 1,000.00 of a hospital bill visit and the insurence pays everything else the rest of the year. My first visit this year cost 6,000, I paid the 1,000, my second visit the other day was 3,000.

In Wisconsin the average pay is 68,000 and with benifits is 86,000 not bad for 180 days. When I went to school 180 days is a half year, maybe you use modern math today.

I have expenses also and I do not sleep on the job for 24 hours like a fireman and then go to my day job for the next three days before retuning to my fire job get hurt on the day job and claim it on my city job.

your company factors the cost of insuring you into your total compensation...you might recieve a larger salary if you were not being insured, these teachers etc. don't look at it that way in my opinion, it is an entitlement to them, they rarely talk about total compensation...only the salary...they just expect full health benefits with little or no out-of-pocket on their behalf and expect a pension payment till they depart

the figures that I read were average teacher salary $56,594.61 ...on benefits there was a discrepancy between what the state reported and the schools but it was either around 32k(According to William Johnston, the district’s executive director of business, teachers during the 2008-09 school year received an average of $31,507.97 in benefits, an $11,000-plus discrepancy compared with state data....
or 42k(According to Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction data, the average fringe benefit for Unified teachers was worth $42,666 )...
so total average teacher compensation is/was about 90-100k

please browse these numbers...imagine if every city and town published these???? total cash compensation is mind bogglingEmployees Salaries Lookup (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/salary/)

"The dems are doing what their voter-base wants."

BBut why do liberals, unless they are in a union, want to be taxed into oblivion so that a few folks can get rich?

I'd love anyone here who supports the union workers, to answer ONE question...Given the economic situation where are all on, how can unionized employees complain about paying less than half of what everyone else pays? Why do unionized employees deserve such preferential treatment.

First no one in a union is getting rich.

Second instead of all of this anger towards union employees, whether public sector of private sector for what they have, shouldn't you all be saying if they can get it, why shouldn't I ?

Just out of curiosity, if all of this taxes goes to employees and benefits how is everything else payed for?
Are you for Social Security?

Are you for Medicaid? Are you for public assistance?

your company factors the cost of insuring you into your total compensation...you might recieve a larger salary if you were not being insured, these teachers etc. don't look at it that way in my opinion, it is an entitlement to them, they rarely talk about total compensation...only the salary...they just expect full health benefits with little or no out-of-pocket on their behalf and expect a pension payment till they depart

the figures that I read were average teacher salary $56,594.61 ...on benefits there was a discrepancy between what the state reported and the schools but it was either around 32k(According to William Johnston, the district’s executive director of business, teachers during the 2008-09 school year received an average of $31,507.97 in benefits, an $11,000-plus discrepancy compared with state data....
or 42k(According to Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction data, the average fringe benefit for Unified teachers was worth $42,666 )...
so total average teacher compensation is/was about 90-100k

please browse these numbers...imagine if every city and town published these???? total cash compensation is mind bogglingEmployees Salaries Lookup (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/salary/)


Buying just think if they got rid of buying back accrued sick time on retirement how much that would save?

What is going on in Wisconsin will soon be brought to RI, these unions are killing the states and must be brought down. The problem is there are few politicians willing to take the incredible media assault that will surely follow. For you bleeding heart liberals who think teachers are underpayed figure out their hourly rate based on a F/T job with more that 3-months off.

If I were Governor I would give these Teachers one more chance to get back to work or they are suspended without pay, don't like that then you are fired! The same could be said for the Union bought and payed for Democrat Representatives.

Have taught in New England for 38 years, 26 in Massachusetts.

A non-ending war since 2001 has gutted our taxbase and put government spending into the ozone. I respect and admire the active duty people who go above and beyond to carry out their missions. Do we need to bash Unions to bail out the politicians?

My association pays 25% of health care and I do not have a Cadillac plan.

Just a working shlep, looking to fish.

Have taught in New England for 38 years, 26 in Massachusetts.

A non-ending war since 2001 has gutted our taxbase and put government spending into the ozone. I respect and admire the active duty people who go above and beyond to carry out their missions. Do we need to bash Unions to bail out the politicians?

My association pays 25% of health care and I do not have a Cadillac plan.

Just a working shlep, looking to fish.


:thanks:

What is going on in Wisconsin will soon be brought to RI, these unions are killing the states and must be brought down. The problem is there are few politicians willing to take the incredible media assault that will surely follow. For you bleeding heart liberals who think teachers are underpayed figure out their hourly rate based on a F/T job with more that 3-months off.

If I were Governor I would give these Teachers one more chance to get back to work or they are suspended without pay, don't like that then you are fired! The same could be said for the Union bought and payed for Democrat Representatives.

Probably illegal to fire them as they have a right to job actions, unless they have something like a "No Lay#^&#^&#^&#^& clause.

The problem is not the unions, it is the people who manage and agree to the contracts the union presents. The union bashing really needs to stop. If you had a job at Home depot, and one day the manager comes in and says to you 'John you now have to pay 60 a week for your health insurance instead of 15, would you be ticked? I bet you would, no one wants to take a step back from where they are.What you need to realize is this happens to people who work for companies with no bargaining. They chose that job, or career and they are now stuck with it. These people could band together and organize any time they want to, but they choose not to do it.

If we are in such dire straits in this country, why are millionaires like John Kerry drawing taxpayer paychecks. Let's face it they are not doing the job for the money, it is all the perks and benis. Free healthcare for life, pensions, free air travel, networking, partying etc. How come no one is bashing the politicians for all of their perks and beni's?

it appears that what the majority of Americans find offensive is the behaviour of the teachers...the unions are the problem, most Americans have dealt with teachers and/or unions and union workers in some form and understand the game and are quite tired of it :uhuh:

Are you sick of high paid teachers? Teachers’ hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year! It’s time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - baby sit! 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 do they teach in 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 peryear. (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!)

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10100447924173300&id=13909370

To bad you failed to add up all the other perks you get along with the near $300.00 a day (for 7 hours of work). Lets see here every and any holiday off, two weeks off for Christmas, another week in Spring and usually a 5 day weekend for Thanksgiving. Lets not forget the long Easter weekend. Don't forget the 10 weeks for summer vacation (are you telling me there is nothing these teachers could be doing at the school for this time, hell they are being payed for it) Now lets look at the Pension, what's the going rate for RI after 25 years 60%-80% of your best years gross, for the rest of your life all on the tax payers dime. Lets talk about medical, maybe not the best plan but a very good plan for little or nothing out of your pocket. How about the workday, starts at 8:00am most wrap up by 3:00 at the latest.

Now lets say we have a bad teacher in the mix, maybe verbally or physically assaults the children, maybe has a drinking or drug problem, maybe preaches her/his political views in the classroom, maybe sexually assaults a student, can we fire that teacher, hell no they have union protection. I know only 3 teachers in RI and each of them have been lifelong drug addicts, do you think the school department would do drug testing, no because the union says we can't.

And with all the above, these folks still feel the need to strike, complain, riot, and hold our kids hostage for more, Well you will never get pity from me, what you would get from me if I could do it would be a kick in the ass right out the front door, then I would hire somebody from the real world who would actually appreciate the job.

that's Obama math....total compensation per teacher..let's use Wisconsin..is between 90-100k, I suspect that it is quite a bit higher in other areas...somehow the benefits etc always get left out of the earnings figures...arguing that teachers don't make enough money or that they shouldn't have to contribute tiny amounts like 12.6% of their healthcare premiums has really lost any merit...

don't mind highly paid teachers as long as they are deserving, the system provided by the union makes it impossible to get rid of bad teachers, a crappy teacher is as highly paid as an exceptional teacher simply because of longevity, you can't move in good new teachers because others have been gumming up the works longer and when they finally decide to go they have to be supported for life....I mentioned before my wife is a teacher(non-union) my parents were teachers and I know a ton of teachers..I get it...I guess private school teachers are really getting screwed by the man using your analogy....if the NJ cost per pupil is 17k+ a year...

I'd be willing to bet that the good, quality teachers are sitting home watching this disgusted and wishing they could get back to their students and have an actual grasp of the reality of the situation...the crappy teachers are the ones holding the misspelled protest signs, the offensive slurs locked arm in arm with union thugs, Jesse Jackson and the various communist, marxist and other radical leftist perpetual protest brigade :uhuh:

oh, my daughter came home for school the other day and told me that for gym the teacher put a Taebow(sp) tape in and that was the class...babysitting at it's best:rotf2: probably has his Masters and everything

I basically agree with the legislators but, it is wrong for them to exclude the firemen, local police and state police. It should be done across the board.

Why are they excluded? They voted for the governor.

I basically agree with the legislators but, it is wrong for them to exclude the firemen, local police and state police. It should be done across the board.

Why are they excluded? They voted for the governor.

and paid into the war chest

I basically agree with the legislators but, it is wrong for them to exclude the firemen, local police and state police. It should be done across the board.

Why are they excluded? They voted for the governor.

Since ballots are secret, nobody knows who the firemen and policemen voted for. There is, on record, that out of the 314 police and firefighter unions in the State only FOUR endorsed him. The rest supported his opponent.

I think that I recall his rationale for not including the police and fire workers in the cuts is that he knew there would be resistance and possible strikes and blue flue type of reasons not to show up for work, and that their service was too critical to have that happen. May be a lame reason, don't know, but the reason is not because the police and fire workers supported him.

I know only 3 teachers in RI and each of them have been lifelong drug addicts, do you think the school department would do drug testing, no because the union says we can't.

Wow.
that certainly is indicative as the profession as a whole.:smash:

The problem is not the unions...The union bashing really needs to stop.

Thge last year my wife taught, all the teachers in our town got a letter from the union. The letter instructed all the teachers from serving "hall duty", which means that during the 5 minute break between classes, teachers were asked (by the school) to peer out into the hallway and make sure the kids were OK.

The union told the teachers to stop doing it, because that requirement was not specified in the contract, nor were the teachers getting paid for it.

So the union wasn't willing to let the teachers get off the rear-ends for 5 minutes to make sure the kids weren't killing each other.

Than there was that school in Rhode Island where 99% of the kids were performing below their grade level. The school asked the teacjhers to spend 1 lunch break per week tutoring kids, and the union sain "no, not unless weg get paid extra".

LIKE HELL the unions aren't the problem. Like hell.

Labor unions are following the same path that the civil rights movement, and the women's rights mvement, played in thsi country. These groups all fought some very important battles. When the important battles were won, instead of simply going away, these groups are not part of the problem.

These unions really overplayed their hands in WI. They have forced the governor to go "all in", but fortunately for him, he's got a royal flush, and the unions are holding crap. There might have been political room for the Governor to compromise a week ago...now he has to stand his ground...if he compromises at all, he looks weak.

The problem is not the unions...The union bashing really needs to stop.

The last year my wife taught, all the teachers in our town got a letter from the union. The letter instructed all the teachers to stop serving "hall duty", which means that during the 5 minute break between classes, teachers were asked (by the school) to peer out into the hallway and make sure the kids were OK.

The union told the teachers to stop doing it, because that requirement was not specified in the contract, nor were the teachers getting paid for it.

So the union wasn't willing to let the teachers get off the rear-ends for 5 minutes to make sure the kids weren't killing each other.

Then there was that school in Rhode Island where 99% of the kids were performing below their grade level. The school asked the teachers to spend 1 lunch break per week tutoring kids, and the union said "no, not unless we get paid extra".

LIKE HELL the unions aren't the problem. Like hell. They won't move a muscle unless they get paid extra for it.

Labor unions are following the same path that the civil rights movement, and the women's rights mvement, played in thsi country. These groups all fought some very important battles. When the important battles were won, instead of simply going away, these groups are now part of the problem.

These unions really overplayed their hands in WI. They have forced the governor to go "all in", but fortunately for him, he's got a royal flush, and the unions are holding crap. There might have been political room for the Governor to compromise a week ago...now he has to stand his ground...if he compromises at all, he looks weak.

Wow.
that certainly is indicative as the profession as a whole.:smash:

don't think that's what he said, he simply pointed out one(or three) example(s) of unions/policies protecting members that should not be in the profession

there were just posts stating that " (they)firefighters and police voted for the governor" of Wisconsin and "paid into his war chest"

your comment would be more appropriately directed to those blanket statements "as a whole" than to clearly anecdotal comments about the influence of the union which allows the types of things stated to continue:uhuh:

Since ballots are secret, nobody knows who the firemen and policemen voted for. There is, on record, that out of the 314 police and firefighter unions in the State only FOUR endorsed him. The rest supported his opponent.

I think that I recall his rationale for not including the police and fire workers in the cuts is that he knew there would be resistance and possible strikes and blue flue type of reasons not to show up for work, and that their service was too critical to have that happen. May be a lame reason, don't know, but the reason is not because the police and fire workers supported him.


Anyway, it is wrong to exclude them. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Anyway, it is wrong to exclude them. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

no argument there, maybe they needed the p&f to deal with the protesters, get this done and then tell the p&f unions that they need to make similar concessions.....after the others have finally accepted reality the pressure on those remaining would/will be tremendous...probably didn't want teachers, police and fire all calling in sick at the same time...

This makes interesting reading...


Are Wisconsin Public Employees Over-compensated? (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/6759/)

Seems they are not making the money some are saying, even with benefits factored in. They pay 6% of their healthcare cost to.


Public workers by the numbers (http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_d89a1ae2-3a5a-11e0-a028-001cc4c002e0.html)

They pay 6% of their healthcare cost to.


Public workers by the numbers (http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_d89a1ae2-3a5a-11e0-a028-001cc4c002e0.html)

And the taxpayers that pay them pay, on average, 30% of their healthcare premiums, and they don't have pensions...
No reason why the benefits that labor unions negotiate should be that much richer than what's available to everyone else, is there?

This makes interesting reading...


Are Wisconsin Public Employees Over-compensated? (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/6759/)

Seems they are not making the money some are saying, even with benefits factored in. They pay 6% of their healthcare cost to.


Public workers by the numbers (http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_d89a1ae2-3a5a-11e0-a028-001cc4c002e0.html)

very interesting reading.....

•02/15/11 - Wisconsin public versus private employee costs: Why compare apples to oranges?
•02/10/11 - Are Indiana Public Employees Over-compensated?
•02/10/11 - Are Wisconsin Public Employees Over-compensated?
•02/10/11 - Are Ohio Public Employees Over-compensated?
•02/03/11 - Are Michigan Public Employees Over-compensated?
•09/15/10 - Debunking the Myth of the Over-compensated Public Employee
•07/30/10 - Are New Jersey Public Employees Overpaid?


no theme there :)

you understand that they are not paying 6% of their healthcare costs...right?...6% of the insurance premium..maybe...but not 6% of healthcare cost...there's a difference that seems to be lost in the fog...it's the entitlement thing...if you'd ever actually had to pay your actual healthcare costs or high deductibles out of pocket you'd recognize the difference immediately

The hell it is. The unions are screaming that the proposed cuts (excluding the loss of CB) are too stiff.

Well, the union met the governor on much of the costs...

still seems like this is the sticky wheel is collective bargaining.

Well, the union met the governor on much of the costs...

still seems like this is the sticky wheel is collective bargaining.

You are 100% correct, latest reports say that the unions proposed to agree to all of the financial concessions, if the state would leave collective bargaining in place, and the gov gave them an emphatic "no".

As I said earlier, I htink the unions overplayed their hand terribly, and put the governor in a position where if he backs off anything, he looks weak. 3 months into his term, he won't want to appear weak.

I hope he destroys this union, and that other states follow suit. You should either give your customers (in this case, taxpayers) a non-union alternative, or get rid of the union. Why can't these folks negotiate their pay with their employer just like veeryone else does? I don't get it.

As I said earlier, I htink the unions overplayed their hand terribly, and put the governor in a position where if he backs off anything, he looks weak. 3 months into his term, he won't want to appear weak.

OR

The gov overplayed his hand and it backfires on him.

they agreed to 100% of the costs. 100% as long as they can keep the right to collective bargining.

OR

The gov overplayed his hand and it backfires on him.

they agreed to 100% of the costs. 100% as long as they can keep the right to collective bargining.

RIROCKHOUND, you may be right. However, in my opinion, when people stop looking at the "don't hate me because I'm a teacher" signs, and they realize that all the gov is asking for is for teachers to pay LESS THAN HALF of what the taxpayers have to pay, more people will side with the gov.

Again, why is it unfair to ask teachers to pay 13% of the cost of health insurance, if everyone else pays 30%.

As Obama likes to say (or more correctly, he used to like to say), "elections have consequences". The people in WI voted for Republicans.

One last thing? anyone siding with the Dems who fled the state, has forever forfeited the right to call Republicans "obstructionists".

This is a fascinating event, which I think will have repurcussions way beyond WI.

You know what would be better, if the teachers said screw you and all quit. Then let the parents all stay home from work to watch and home school them.

RIROCKHOUND, you may be right. However, in my opinion, when people stop looking at the "don't hate me because I'm a teacher" signs, and they realize that all the gov is asking for is for teachers to pay LESS THAN HALF of what the taxpayers have to pay, more people will side with the gov.

They just conceeded to exactly what was asked. Now he is looking like he is trying to kill the union, which may have been his first task and ultimate goal.

Specialist:
my very Right leaning gradfather was on an anti-teachers union rant once, and that stopped him in his tracks. Fine, they all get fired or quit, who teaches them?
and will the kids really fare better?

You know what would be better, if the teachers said screw you and all quit. Then let the parents all stay home from work to watch and home school them.

No, what would happen is, parents would get their property taxes back and use that money to enroll their kids in private schools, which are better, cheaper, and NOT coincidentally, have no unions!!

And then the teachers would all go to the private sector, and by 10:00 AM on the first day they'd realize how great they had it.

They just conceeded to exactly what was asked. Now he is looking like he is trying to kill the union, which may have been his first task and ultimate goal.

Specialist:
my very Right leaning gradfather was on an anti-teachers union rant once, and that stopped him in his tracks. Fine, they all get fired or quit, who teaches them?
and will the kids really fare better?

"Now he is looking like he is trying to kill the union, which may have been his first task and ultimate goal."

You may well be right. I wish him luck on this noble quest. He also doesn't want to be seen as someone who can be bullied. If the unions made that offer before all of their histrionics, maybe he would have accepted. But they had to throw a fit like a 3 year-old, so they forced his hand. When I was in the USMC, we had an old saying..."if you're going to pull the trigger, make sure you don't have the gun aimed at your own d**k.". Well, these unions shot themselves in their own you-know-whats.


"they all get fired or quit, who teaches them? "

Do you really believe that NO ONE will want teachers jobs, if teachers are required to pay 13% of their health insurance? People will still kill for those jobs. What part of "13% is half of what everyone else pays" don't you understand?

If these teachers would rather quit than pay 13% of their health insurance costs, then OBVIOUSLY they are only in this for the cushy benefits, and thus they're in the wrong profession to begin with.

They won't quit, because as greedy as they are, they're smart enough to know how much cushier they have it than those in the private scetor.

No one here has mentioned that these parasites all called in sick, shutting down the schools for 3 days. So the parents have to either burn through precious vacation days, or spend $$ on daycare at the last minute.

F**k these teachers and the horses they rode in on. This reminds me of one of my heroes, former Mass Governor Calvin Coolidge. In 1919 I believe, the Massachusetts cops went on strike. Then-governor Coolidge fired them all, with no chance of ever being re-hired. A few years later, he was in the White House.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;838618]No, what would happen is, parents would get their property taxes back and use that money to enroll their kids in private schools, which are better, cheaper, and NOT coincidentally, have no unions!!QUOTE]

Property taxes in round numbers, for me is $3500/year, what % of that is education? Call it 2K. I have one kid, what if I had 5?

Whats the tuition of the average private school? Hendrican is 11K, so is Prout. Maybe grammar school age is cheaper.


The education majors (I was dabbling in an education double major for a bit) I was enrolled with who ended up in Private schools, were not the cream of the crop and couldn't wait to get out b/c the money sucks. The exception are religious heavy schools, were many educators in those schools have something else invested in it.

No, what would happen is, parents would get their property taxes back and use that money to enroll their kids in private schools, which are better, cheaper, and NOT coincidentally, have no unions!!

And then the teachers would all go to the private sector, and by 10:00 AM on the first day they'd realize how great they had it.

Wrong because they get a bargain now, most could not afford private schools How much in tax dollars would they get back? BC high school cost 15g's a year, same as most of the best private schools

"Now he is looking like he is trying to kill the union, which may have been his first task and ultimate goal."

You may well be right. I wish him luck on this noble quest. He also doesn't want to be seen as someone who can be bullied. If the unions made that offer before all of their histrionics, maybe he would have accepted. But they had to throw a fit like a 3 year-old, so they forced his hand. When I was in the USMC, we had an old saying..."if you're going to pull the trigger, make sure you don't have the gun aimed at your own d**k.". Well, these unions shot themselves in their own you-know-whats.


"they all get fired or quit, who teaches them? "

Do you really believe that NO ONE will want teachers jobs, if teachers are required to pay 13% of their health insurance? People will still kill for those jobs. What part of "13% is half of what everyone else pays" don't you understand? Poor parents have to pay for day care, but they can all afford to send their kids to private school right. Teachers do much more than teach the kids, they act as day care as well right?

If these teachers would rather quit than pay 13% of their health insurance costs, then OBVIOUSLY they are only in this for the cushy benefits, and thus they're in the wrong profession to begin with.

They won't quit, because as greedy as they are, they're smart enough to know how much cushier they have it than those in the private scetor.

No one here has mentioned that these parasites all called in sick, shutting down the schools for 3 days. So the parents have to either burn through precious vacation days, or spend $$ on daycare at the last minute.

F**k these teachers and the horses they rode in on. This reminds me of one of my heroes, former Mass Governor Calvin Coolidge. In 1919 I believe, the Massachusetts cops went on strike. Then-governor Coolidge fired them all, with no chance of ever being re-hired. A few years later, he was in the White House.

It's not a question of anyone wanting a teacher job, it is a question of being able to meet the standards to be hired as a teacher.

As far as them calling in sick, what would happen if they all quit, how long would it take for people to fill their shoes, especially after seeing the crap that the govenor is pulling. No one in their right mind would want that job.

Wrong because they get a bargain now, most could not afford private schools How much in tax dollars would they get back? BC high school cost 15g's a year, same as most of the best private schools


OK, Specialist, I hear you. You are right, most parents cannot afford private schools. So according to you then, since teachers have the parents over a barrel, teachers are justified in using their unions to extort unreasonable benefits from the taxpayers? Because they have a perfect monopoly, you are fine with teachers demanding benefits that woudl NEVER be accepted if there was competition?

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;838618]No, what would happen is, parents would get their property taxes back and use that money to enroll their kids in private schools, which are better, cheaper, and NOT coincidentally, have no unions!!QUOTE]

Property taxes in round numbers, for me is $3500/year, what % of that is education? Call it 2K. I have one kid, what if I had 5?

Whats the tuition of the average private school? Hendrican is 11K, so is Prout. Maybe grammar school age is cheaper.


The education majors (I was dabbling in an education double major for a bit) I was enrolled with who ended up in Private schools, were not the cream of the crop and couldn't wait to get out b/c the money sucks. The exception are religious heavy schools, were many educators in those schools have something else invested in it.


In CT, I pay $8,000 a year in property taxes for a 3 bedroom colonial on half an acre. In my town, about 60% of property taxes is for education. Give that money back to EVERYBODY, including people who don't have kids in school, and we couild build some nice non-union schools with that monety.

Wrong because they get a bargain now, most could not afford private schools How much in tax dollars would they get back? BC high school cost 15g's a year, same as most of the best private schools

"because they get a bargain now,"

Here in CT, most people would not say that property taxes are a "bargain". How can it be a "bargian" when the teachers get such insane benefits?

In WI, the governor and GOP legislature were elected specifically because people are realizing thatthese unions are nothing close to a "bargain".

Sorry, elections have consequences.

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;838622]


In CT, I pay $8,000 a year in property taxes for a 3 bedroom colonial on half an acre. In my town, about 60% of property taxes is for education. Give that money back to EVERYBODY, including people who don't have kids in school, and we couild build some nice non-union schools with that monety.

So you could send three kids to private school for $4800? Would you really like the quality of education in that school?
Or is this more of the same; lets make cuts and deal with the consequences later

give me a break. The teachers in WI conceeded to the costs. They want to keep some union rights and the Gov cracks down. that seems to have been the Gov's plan all along.

It's not a question of anyone wanting a teacher job, it is a question of being able to meet the standards to be hired as a teacher.

As far as them calling in sick, what would happen if they all quit, how long would it take for people to fill their shoes, especially after seeing the crap that the govenor is pulling. No one in their right mind would want that job.

"No one in their right mind would want that job"

I could annihilate everything you said, but let's stick to this one inane point.

Teachers in Wisconsin get a salary that is 32% higher than the average salary for that state. On top of that, they only pay 0.2% of pension osts, and 6% of healthcare costs. They get tons of days off. They have a lifetime jog guarantee called tenure, which make it just about impossible to get fired for incompetence. They get guaranteed pensions for life. They are spared from social security, which is ripping everyone else off.

No one in their right mind would want that job? Why do so many people apply for every teaching vacancy that opens up?

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;838629]

So you could send three kids to private school for $4800? Would you really like the quality of education in that school?
Or is this more of the same; lets make cuts and deal with the consequences later

give me a break. The teachers in WI conceeded to the costs. They want to keep some union rights and the Gov cracks down. that seems to have been the Gov's plan all along.

"So you could send three kids to private school for $4800? "

Do you think through anything before regurgitating the liberal talking points? I pay property taxes for LIFE, not just the years that my kids are in school. And it's not just property taxes. A good chunk of my state income tax goes to education, as well as a god chunk of my federal income tax. Gimme all that money back, and there's a great chance it would cover the cost of a great, Catholic education.

If those lifetime tax cuts didn't cover private tuition, it would be close. I'd be willing to kick in the difference. So would most people. And the school would be 10 times better, and I'd know for damn sure that the folks teaching there ain't doing it for the money, because they don't get paid nearly as much as the union counterpartys in public schools.

"The teachers in WI conceeded to the costs."

For now. And then next year, the union would start demanding more and more, and then we're back in the same boat.

The gov proposed that public employees would get annual cost-of-living increases automatically (better than what the private sector offers). If public employees wanted increases bigger than COLA, they'd have to get public approval, which is obviously reasonable, since it's the public's money. But the union REFUSED. Why refuse that?

"No one in their right mind would want that job"

I could annihilate everything you said, but let's stick to this one inane point.

Teachers in Wisconsin get a salary that is 32% higher than the average salary for that state. On top of that, they only pay 0.2% of pension osts, and 6% of healthcare costs. They get tons of days off. They have a lifetime jog guarantee called tenure, which make it just about impossible to get fired for incompetence. They get guaranteed pensions for life. They are spared from social security, which is ripping everyone else off.

No one in their right mind would want that job? Why do so many people apply for every teaching vacancy that opens up?

If the jobs are so good why don't you put your money where your mouth is. Take one in CT. at a lower wage than the status quo, pay more for your health insurance, and pension, then see how long you last.

JUst out of curiosity, you say you have the highest property taxes in the nation, what is your house assessed at?

Mine is assessed at 353,000. , what do you think I pay in property taxes?

Have taught in New England for 38 years, 26 in Massachusetts.

A non-ending war since 2001 has gutted our taxbase and put government spending into the ozone. I respect and admire the active duty people who go above and beyond to carry out their missions. Do we need to bash Unions to bail out the politicians?

My association pays 25% of health care and I do not have a Cadillac plan.

Just a working shlep, looking to fish.

Some people would rather lump all of you in one pile, and make guesses about figures.

Seems Connecticut is not in the top 30 on Forbes list....
Table: Who Pays America's Highest Property Taxes? - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/taxes-homes-property-forbeslife-cx_mw_0122realestate_table.html)

If the jobs are so good why don't you put your money where your mouth is. Take one in CT. at a lower wage than the status quo, pay more for your health insurance, and pension, then see how long you last.

JUst out of curiosity, you say you have the highest property taxes in the nation, what is your house assessed at?

Mine is assessed at 353,000. , what do you think I pay in property taxes?


"Take one in CT. at a lower wage than the status quo"

The wages are NOT lower than the status quo. Can you stop making stuff up?

"pay more for your health insurance, and pension,"

Everyone pays more than they did a few years ago. The WI proposal didn't ask the unionized employees to pay anywhere near as much as what they'd have to pay in the private sector. Do you understand that? Do you get that 13% is less than 30%?

"you say you have the highest property taxes in the nation, what is your house assessed at?"

First of all, I never said I have the highest property taxes in the nation, no idea where you got that. I'm not sure what my "assessed" value is. Market value is around $450,000, and I pay $8200 in property taxes.

"what do you think I pay in property taxes?"

No idea. But you need to consider all taxes, not just property taxes.

Seems Connecticut is not in the top 30 on Forbes list....
Table: Who Pays America's Highest Property Taxes? - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/taxes-homes-property-forbeslife-cx_mw_0122realestate_table.html)

I have said that CT has one of the highest total tax rates in teh nation...

The Tax Foundation - State and Local Tax Burdens: All Years, One State, 1977-2008 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/335.html)

In the drop down box that says "select your state", if you pick CT, you can see my state's tax rank (1 is highest). Since 1995, CT's tax rank has always been in the top 3. As high as those tax rates are, it's not NEARLY enough to pay for what the unions demanded, as we have massive unfunded liabilities for healthcare and retirement benefits to public employees.

Seems to me that if we have high tax rates, and still not nearly enough to pay for those benefits, that the benefits must have been very rich indeed. Please tell me where I'm wrong?

"Take one in CT. at a lower wage than the status quo"

The wages are NOT lower than the status quo. Can you stop making stuff up?

"pay more for your health insurance, and pension,"

Everyone pays more than they did a few years ago. The WI proposal didn't ask the unionized employees to pay anywhere near as much as what they'd have to pay in the private sector. Do you understand that? Do you get that 13% is less than 30%?

"you say you have the highest property taxes in the nation, what is your house assessed at?"

First of all, I never said I have the highest property taxes in the nation, no idea where you got that. I'm not sure what my "assessed" value is. Market value is around $450,000, and I pay $8200 in property taxes.

"what do you think I pay in property taxes?"

No idea. But you need to consider all taxes, not just property taxes.

Umm all you talk about is property taxes, if you want to talk about all taxes, then spill it. We pay excise taxes on our vehicles that we paid sales tax on.

What is the status quo for a teacher in Connecticut?

Umm all you talk about is property taxes, if you want to talk about all taxes, then spill it. We pay excise taxes on our vehicles that we paid sales tax on.

What is the status quo for a teacher in Connecticut?

Fair question...I looked it up..

In CT, the average teacher salary is $59,304.

In CT, the average salary overall is $51,000.

When you throw in benefits (particularly healthcare and retirement), that difference widens considerably.

Public servents should not make that much more than everyone else. If the benefits are so rich that current tax levels fall far short of fubnding them, then the benefits are not reasonable.

All this talk of taxes...

Interesting, that in Wisconsin the corperate tax cuts recently enacted is in the same order of magnitude as the budget shortfall that predecated these cuts...

just saying....
have a good debate guys, I've wasted enough time on it. :smash:

http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf

Take a look at chart 2 and 3 anyone with a High School diploma or better working in the public sector makes less money than in the private sector in Wisconsin. This includes all total compensation( Paid Day's off, vacation, benefits etc.)

All this talk of taxes...

Interesting, that in Wisconsin the corperate tax cuts recently enacted is in the same order of magnitude as the budget shortfall that predecated these cuts...

just saying....
have a good debate guys, I've wasted enough time on it. :smash:

Rockhound/Specialist, could one of you fill in the blank to my statement below? To me, this is all that matters in this issue...

Nationally, people pay on average 30% of their health insurance premiums. The governor of Wisconsin is askingh unionized mployees to pay 13% of that cost, which is less than half of the national average. I think that what the governor is asking is unfair because _____________________________.

I'm a very reasonable guy. Please tell us why you think the governor is being unreasonable...

http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf

Take a look at chart 2 and 3 anyone with a High School diploma or better working in the public sector makes less money than in the private sector in Wisconsin. This includes all total compensation( Paid Day's off, vacation, benefits etc.)

Specialist, I can provide 100 studies that show that public employees make more than average private scetor employees. WHo knows what's in those numbers. Here is one study...

Government Workers Make 45 Percent More Than Private Sector Employees | OrthodoxNet.com Blog (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2010/02/09/government-workers-make-45-percent-more-than-private-sector-employees/)

So how do we know which to believe? I don't know. I do know that a couple on my streeat are in their mid 40's, both are public teachers, combined salary is about $150,000, with benefits that dwarf anything available in the private sector.

I do know that in CT, cops can retire after 20 years with no age minimum, my cousin retired at 43. His pension reflects his best 3 years including overtime. I know that is completely insane and indefensible.

I also know that just about every city and state in the country has massive unfunded liabilities to public employees, and those liabilities are NOT UNFUNDED because the government forgot to collect the taxes. They are unfunded bacause as high as taxes are, they aren't nearly enough to pay for the benefits demanded. That tells me that the benefits promised were very, very rich.

What do you think?

Rockhound/Specialist, could one of you fill in the blank to my statement below? To me, this is all that matters in this issue...

Nationally, people pay on average 30% of their health insurance premiums. The governor of Wisconsin is askingh unionized mployees to pay 13% of that cost, which is less than half of the national average. I think that what the governor is asking is unfair because _____________________________.

I'm a very reasonable guy. Please tell us why you think the governor is being unreasonable...

I think that what the governor is asking is unfair because he has recieved these terms and is moving forward with trying to end the teachers union.

You didn't see me say it was unfair to ask them to pay a share, although IMHO the combination of corp. tax cuts and the sudden increase to the teachers could have been handled better...

If he had proposed that that 13% be stepped up over 3 or 4 years, I would say it was pretty fair. but right now, one of the teachers I saw on the news said it was a sudden, $500/mo decrease in his paycheck.

You know what would be better, if the teachers said screw you and all quit. Then let the parents all stay home from work to watch and home school them.

thanks for illustrating why collective bargaining should be eliminated...

All this talk of taxes...

Interesting, that in Wisconsin the corperate tax cuts recently enacted is in the same order of magnitude as the budget shortfall that predecated these cuts...

You didn't see me say it was unfair to ask them to pay a share, although IMHO the combination of corp. tax cuts and the sudden increase to the teachers could have been handled better...





one has no effect on the other as Rachel Maddow and others have been trumpeting

Politifact :Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.

More on that second point in a bit.

The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.

A court ruling is pending in that matter, so the money might not have to be transferred until next budget year.

To be sure, the projected shortfall is a modest one by the standards of the last decade, which saw a $600 million repair bill one year as the economy and national tax collections slumped.

But ignoring it would have meant turning away eligible Medicaid clients, which was not an option, Lang said.

This same situation has happened in the past, including during the tenure of Doyle, a Democrat. In January 2005, a fiscal bureau memo showed a similar surplus, but lawmakers approved a major fix of a Medicaid shortfall that would have eaten up that projected surplus.

Reporters who cover the Capitol are used to doing the math to come up with the bottom-line surplus or deficit, but average readers are not. (The Journal Sentinel’s Stein addressed these and other budget questions in a follow-up story.)

So why does Lang write his biennial memo in a way that invites confusion?

Lang, a veteran and respected civil servant working in a nonpartisan job, told us he does not want to presume what legislative or other action will be taken to address the potential shortfalls he lists.

Admittedly, the approach this time created the opportunity for a snappy -- and powerful -- political attack.

But it is an inaccurate one.

Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?

Lang’s fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.

The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.

Here’s the bottom line:

There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.

We rate Maddow’s take False.

Fair enough. I like politifact as a source.

So, for this year, it doesn't matter.

Next year, if and when the Gov proposes another 185mil in teacher/police/fire cuts, then the point might be valid.

Fair enough. I like politifact as a source.

So, for this year, it doesn't matter.

Next year, if and when the Gov proposes another 185mil in teacher/police/fire cuts, then the point might be valid.

UNBELIEVEABLE :doh:

Unbelievable?

So next year when the Gov decides, healthcare goes to 26% for the teachers, AND his corporate tax cuts go into effect, it wouldn't be a valid discussion that the tax cuts were not a good idea... ?

Fair enough. I like politifact as a source.

So, for this year, it doesn't matter.

Next year, if and when the Gov proposes another 185mil in teacher/police/fire cuts, then the point might be valid.

But isn't there at least a possibility that those tax cuts will be stimulative? What I mean is, just because corporate tax rates are cut, does not mean that corporate tax dollars collected will decrease. If you cut the corporate tax rate by x%, but corporate profits grow by more than X%, then tax dollars collected will be higher, even though the rate is lower.

Put another way. If I own a Honda dealership, would I be correct in assuming that if I charge $1 zillion for a Honda Accord, I'll be rich? No, because I won't sell any. Because there is something called the "demand" curve, which despite what liberals hold so dear, is not a flat line. Demand moves inversely with price. I don't think liberals understand this, which is why they see no ramifications with perpetual tax increases. The problem with that is, like the guy charging $1 zillion for an Accord, eventually, you stifle demand...

Walker cuts the corporate tax rate, maybe some corporations move to Wisconsin from states with higher tax rates...

Unbelievable?

So next year when the Gov decides, healthcare goes to 26% for the teachers, AND his corporate tax cuts go into effect, it wouldn't be a valid discussion that the tax cuts were not a good idea... ?

If and when healthcare goes to 26% for teachers, they STILL HAVE IT BETTER THAN THE REST OF US WHO PAY 30%.

Geez...

Teachers need to stop framing this debate in terms of "what did I get last year", and ask themselves "what would I get anywhere else working 80% of a full-time job?"

Unbelievable?

So next year when the Gov decides, healthcare goes to 26% for the teachers, AND his corporate tax cuts go into effect, it wouldn't be a valid discussion that the tax cuts were not a good idea... ?

if, when, might.......nothing to do with you initial contention or the current discussion

The problem is not the unions, it is the people who manage and agree to the contracts the union presents. The union bashing really needs to stop.
I'm forced to deal with multiple different unions throughout the country. Every single encounter I have with them reaffirms the stereotype. They take longer to do the job and have stifling restrictions on clients. If we are working with a Union, the labor budget needs to be increased by 50% - consistently.

I have clients that have stopped hosting conferences in places like NYC, Chicago and San Francisco because the Unions are more expense, provide poor service and do a bad job.

The "well, we have to get paid too" mentality is the problem. The managers aren't the problem, the Union philosophy of Entitlement is the problem.

It used to be that state and municipal jobs were coveted because of the security and better benefits they provided, even though the pay was less than in the private sector. The slightly less than average salaries, at the time, were more than compensated by the lifetime job security, better pensions, and superior health care packages.

Unionization was discouraged, and strikes were illegal. The payoff was a stable, secure, source of income and life style.

At about the 1960s unionization and strikes by state and municipal employees began to be accepted by some states. Union leaders know how to bargain hard and understand incremental gains. Backed by the liberalized thinking of the era, there was a view that the public sector required more preparation for entry, and was so much more responsible for the well-being of society, that comparative wage scales needed to be more equalized. It made no sense that factory laborers made more than teachers (never mind that it took lots of overtime or seniority to make it so). And if you wanted better teachers, and police, and firefighters, and administrators, you, obviously, had to pay them more. The hue and cry at the time was that the falling quality of educational outcome, for example, was mostly due to the poor pay of teachers. If we wanted the best and brightest to teach our kids, we must be willing to attract those "best" away from the private sector by paying them more. Overlooking the obvious irony that those wanting the pay increase were admitting that they were not the "best and brightest" and, according to their logic, must be the problem, what actually happened was the private sector outbid them in the ensuing wage war for talent. So the existing pool of, apparently not the "best and brightest," wound up getting the better wages, and nothing changed except for the price of the ticket--which steadily rose with every ensuing three year negotiation.

The same results occurred throughout the rest of the public sector. Now we have unionized public workers bargaining under the premise that they not only deserve the better pensions and bennies than the private sector that pays for it which they used to get but also the better pay. All the discussion of whether they deserve it or not is dwarfed by whether that premise can be afforded.

Seems about right:
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7500/202sm1.jpg

If we are working with a Union, the labor budget needs to be increased by 50% - consistently.



Any rational person, unless they get their money from labor unions, will say the same thing.

And why do these labor unions get to force people to join them? If I want to be a public schoolteacher, why am I forced to join a damn union? Why do I have to pay dues to an uber-liberal organization, which gives zillions of dollars to liberal politicians (the more liberal, the better) and liberal causes like Planned Parenthood?

Anyone want to tell me how that's fair?

(the more liberal, the better) and liberal causes like Planned Parenthood?

Jim,
You're improving.
page 3 before you took the abortion u-turn

Jim,
You're improving.
page 3 before you took the abortion u-turn
:rotflmao::rotflmao:
I can't give him crap though because he and I are on the same page when it comes to the ridiculousness of Unions.

What is going on in Wisconsin is just the beginning of a sort of class warfare arising between unionized gov't workers and the private sector. Much has changed in the private sector even before the 2008 economic crash in terms of job loss, wage freezes and reductions, and reduced benefits (or increased personal contribution to benefits) in the private sector.

People in the private sector no longer wish to pay taxes for benefits that they cannot afford for themselves. A friend said to me (on another website), "Don't forget gov't employees pay taxes too!" However, this is not the point, it's like two guys pay a $5 cover charge to enter a nightclub and for one guy (union) it's an open bar and the other guy (private) still has to pay for every drink.

Some statistics from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

2010, median earnings of unionized government workers were 25% higher than earnings of private workers and 17% higher than non-unionized gov’t workers. (and yes, I've heard the questionable argument about adjusting for education levels)

95% of unionized gov’t workers have a defined benefit pension plan compared to only 21% of private sector workers -- over 4 times as many! Defined plans can be worth many 10's of thousands of dollars lifetime, depending on wage scale.

Health and dental plans: Unioned gov’t workers (95% and 71% respectively). Private sector workers (71% and 46% respectively).

Further, private sector workers (when they do have such benefits) typically have to contribute more into the plan than unionized gov't workers.

Finally, another argument that pro-union gov't workers tout is that many gov't workers do not qualify for social security (this varies from state to state). However, those who don't qualify never paid in FICA! Would I love to have not paid in FICA for the last 35 years and put that into personal retirement plan? You damned straight I would.

I hope the Governor of Wisconsin shuts those unions down..and would love to see major reform in the "commonwealth" of Massachusetts. :fury:

and would love to see major reform in the "commonwealth" of Massachusetts. :fury:
Will never, ever happen. The state and towns will go bankrupt, yet still not see a need for changes.

Nice post Paul.

Will never, ever happen. The state and towns will go bankrupt, yet still not see a need for changes.

JohnnyD, when did you become so cynical? :)

I'm counting on your generation to march on Beacon Hill and fight for change!

By the way, I just read that Guitarist Tom Morello (Rage Against the Machine) called Governor Walker "the Mubarak of the Midwest." Now, let's see, Mubarak enriched himself on the backs of everyday workers and afforded his small, elite group of friends benefits not available to others. So, I ask you, who looks more like Mubarak, the governor or the unions?

JohnnyD, when did you become so cynical? :)

I'm counting on your generation to march on Beacon Hill and fight for change!

By the way, I just read that Guitarist Tom Morello (Rage Against the Machine) called Governor Walker "the Mubarak of the Midwest." Now, let's see, Mubarak enriched himself on the backs of everyday workers and afforded his small, elite group of friends benefits not available to others. So, I ask you, who looks more like Mubarak, the governor or the unions?
Being a rockstar doesn't make you an authority on anything, I wish Bono would realize that. Unfortunately, you have the MTV generation who thinks that just because a person is on tv, that they know what they're talking about.

When a celebrity speaks, the Sheeple will follow.

You know me well enough, I've always been cynical. People are lazy and unless their their hand is forced, nothing will change. The British had to lay of 100,000 government workers. Why? Not because they foresaw problems, but because they were out of money.

Jim,
You're improving.
page 3 before you took the abortion u-turn

If I get banned from this board, so be it, I'm tired of this dance...

Rockhound, instead of changing the subject, how about answering my god-damned question? Is that too much to ask?

Yeah, I know, I get worked up about silly little things like the whosale slaughter of 4000 babies a day. I'm always making something out of nothing.

Since you didn't even attempt to address the question I asked, I'll take that to mean you have no answer. Because no one should have their pay involuntarily confiscated and given to political causes that are contrary to your ethics.

People in the private sector no longer wish to pay taxes for benefits that they cannot afford for themselves. :

Bingo.

These unions like collecvtive bargaining? Really?

I have news for them. The taxpayers of Wisonsin did some collective bargaining of their own last November, it was called an "election". The majority of the citizenry voted for the party who said they would cut union benefits, and guess what, that's what they're doing.

What's good for the goose...

Hey Mass. isn't that hopeless, they elected Scott Brown, right?

\
Hey Mass. isn't that hopeless, they elected Scott Brown, right?

What's he turning into now.. Book Deal, Major Speaking bucks, Insider Deals. They all turn into trough feeding plutocrats, living off the sheeple

Bingo.

These unions like collecvtive bargaining? Really?

I have news for them. The taxpayers of Wisonsin did some collective bargaining of their own last November, it was called an "election

Two thumbs up to Jim!! :buds:

If I get banned from this board, so be it, I'm tired of this dance...Rockhound, instead of changing the subject, how about answering my god-damned question? Is that too much to ask?

What question? For the record, you changed the subject with the leap between union dues and planned parenthood

Unions typically fund those that help the unions. Just like the Koch give money to those that support their causes. Where is the link between the public employees union and planned parenthood?

Seriously, you're like arguing with the dog from Up, but instead of getting distracted by a squirrel, it's the 'Abortion' right turn.

Do I think everything about every union is fair? Of course not. Do I think that when a union supports a politician they all run out and vote for said pol? No. Do I think the benefit to the workers, in things like healthcare and worker rights outweigh the dues, in most cases, yes.

As far as getting banned, this isn't the other site, and I'm more apt to ignore list people than report them.

What question? For the record, you changed the subject with the leap between union dues and planned parenthood

Unions typically fund those that help the unions. Just like the Koch give money to those that support their causes. Where is the link between the public employees union and planned parenthood?

Seriously, you're like arguing with the dog from Up, but instead of getting distracted by a squirrel, it's the 'Abortion' right turn.

Do I think everything about every union is fair? Of course not. Do I think that when a union supports a politician they all run out and vote for said pol? No. Do I think the benefit to the workers, in things like healthcare and worker rights outweigh the dues, in most cases, yes.

As far as getting banned, this isn't the other site, and I'm more apt to ignore list people than report them.

well, union dues and membership generally are not voluntary and neither is abortion(for the aborted).....
isn't planned parenthood an inaccurate name?...shoudn't it be "unplanned"...and....anything but "parenthood"?
they both, through their actions, produce a lot of democrat voters for life:uhuh:

only because you asked Bry :)

my favorite argument against abortion came from one of the founders of the suffrage movement "women's rights" who said, (paraphrasing) we've worked very long and hard to reach a time when we are not treated by society as property, it would be wrong to treat our unborn children as property...you get the idea....

ask yourself...which will land you in more trouble currently? stepping on a piping plover..... or aborting a/your child?


what is "the Koch"?

well, union dues and membership generally are not voluntary

The 2 places where I've worked in a Union environment neither was Mandatory to join the union.

of the 2, GE did require you to pay a fee to the union if you didn't join that was equal to the Union Dues.

The Shipyard, where I am currently working, is completely voluntary, no fee charged if you decide to not to join.

I'm not %100 sure but I think it is Illegal to force somebody to join a Union. I'll see igf I can find something on the Internet about it.

Scott,

This is not an abortion debate, and planned parent hood does more than abortions. but thats not for this thread

Jim:
You made the connection, show me the money. Where did a major union give money directly to PP?

The 2 places where I've worked in a Union environment neither was Mandatory to join the union.

of the 2, GE did require you to pay a fee to the union if you didn't join that was equal to the Union Dues.

The Shipyard, where I am currently working, is completely voluntary, no fee charged if you decide to not to join.

I'm not %100 sure but I think it is Illegal to force somebody to join a Union. I'll see igf I can find something on the Internet about it.

I said "generally" I believe one of the Wisconsin issues would allow teachers out of the union....dues are not optional in many instances


NPR
Weakening Labor, Weakening Democrats

If you ask labor professor Paul Mishler from Indiana University in South Bend, this battle is only nominally about state budgets.

"What they see as a fiscal crisis is really an excuse to go after the social and political strength of the unions," he says.

The impetus for change is chiefly coming from Republican legislators who realize if they can weaken the unions, they also weaken the Democrats, who are often backed by labor.

Mishler also sees it as another front in the struggle between businesses and workers.

In Indiana, the Chamber of Commerce is a driving force behind efforts to make paying union dues optional. Republican Rep. Gerald Torr ushered that bill through a key committee Monday.

"If the union is providing a good service ... and all of those employees decide to continue paying dues, this bill will have zero effect on them and they will still have the same collective bargaining rights that they have today," Torr says.

Actually, in the 22 states where union dues are voluntary, unions are exceptionally weak. People tend not to volunteer to pay union dues any more than they volunteer to pay taxes.

Richard Vedder, an economist at Ohio University, says so-called right-to-work states, where union dues are voluntary, do tend to see more job growth.

Scott,

This is not an abortion debate, and planned parent hood does more than abortions. but thats not for this thread



sorry buddy, just tryin' to help :love::rotf2:

actually, if you want a link, the Wisconsin governor is under assault from planned parenthood and the abortion brigade in conjunction with the unions...google unions planned parenthood

also...

Washington, DC – Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business, has added five new board members of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, its political arm. The new members have curious ties to unions, left-wing billionaire George Soros, and the Democratic Party.

One of the top Planned Parenthood recruits is Michael Vachon, an adjunct associate professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs who is an advisor to billionaire left-wing political activist George Soros.

Minyon Moore heads the state and local affairs practice at the Dewey Square Group but she is also the former CEO of the Democratic National Committee and was an assistant to pro-abortion President Bill Clinton as director of White House Political Affairs.

Irma Esparza is the chief of staff for Washington, D.C. councilmember Kwame Brown but she was previously associated with the labor union AFSCME.


AFSCME came under fire in 2003 for co-sponsoring a pro-abortion march that abortion advocacy groups, including Planned Parenthood, planned for April 2004.

Officials from the group’s Washington headquarters appeared along with abortion advocacy organizations at a June press conference announcing the pro-abortion march but would not respond to questions about why the division of AFL-CIO would endorse the pro-abortion march.

Joanne Egerman is another new board member for Planned Parenthood who comes from its affiliate ranks, as she serves on the board of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. However, she is also a member of the regional and national boards of the Anti-Defamation League and the gay and lesbian group Mass Equality.


And Naomi Aberly, the fifth new board member for the abortion business’ political advocacy group, has been active in Obama for America, has been a Democratic fundraiser and involved in local Planned Parenthood abortion businesses.


“At this crucial political juncture, we need the judgment and experience that each one of these five prominent individuals brings to our organization,” Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said. “They will play a very important role in supporting the Action Fund’s execution of its political program this fall.”

From Lawyers.com about Unions.....Strictly Informational

Your New Job and Joining a Union - Lawyers.com (http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/Your-New-Job-and-Joining-a-Union.html)

When starting a new job there are several decisions you could be faced with. One of these involves whether or not to join a union. Groups of employees have the right to form unions in order to bargain collectively with employers and to protect their rights. Unions thrive in every level of society and encompass many different types of jobs, including manufacturing, teaching, and film production. When faced with the decision to join a union, make sure you know your rights.

It is illegal to coerce you to join a union. This can be a thin line. It is true that a union cannot force you to join. However, you might find that it is clearly in your best interest to join. Actors cannot get roles in major motion pictures unless they are part of the Screen Actor's Guild or they can somehow convince the production company to pay a fine for using a non-union actor. While no one can force you to join a union there may be practical considerations that make it very difficult to not join if you want to work in a particular industry.

You are always covered by a union's collective bargaining. Whether or not you choose to become a union member, the collective bargaining will benefit you. You will receive all the same benefits as a union member except for any that are designated as solely member benefits. However, if the union gets better pay and better benefits, it is for all employees union or not.

Even though you may not be forced to join a union it is possible you may be forced to pay dues. Some states have passed Right to Work laws which prevent educators and others from being forced to pay union dues when they are not union members. In states that have not passed one of these laws educators and others may not be forced to join the union, but they will be forced to pay the union fees.

A union cannot charge excessive dues. The dues charged by a union can't be too high.

The union can't force an employer to punish a worker for not being a union member. Once again this can be a tricky point. You cannot be penalized by an employer who has already hired you, but, depending on your industry, you might find it difficult to find work.

It is illegal for a union to use threats, intimidation or violence.

A union must bargain with an employer in good faith. A union is not allowed to make demands so unreasonable that they know there is no way the employer could ever capitulate. There must be actual effort to work something out that both sides can agree to.

Remember, it is your choice whether or not you join a union. Get the facts beforehand about what benefits membership will give you and whether or not you will be required to pay dues regardless of whether you join.

also...from National Right to Work

Question: Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?

Answer: You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.

Employment relations for almost all private sector employees (other than those in the airline and railroad industries) are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.

Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee.") Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time.

What is happening in WI is a sign of the times. We more than likely will not see anything like that here in MA because much of our economy is union based and no pol is going to bite the hand that feeds them. More and more though people are getting fed up with going to work every day or lookinog for work every day and supporting a public machine that does little to support them and theirs. We feed the government money to pay salaries and social programs that constantly run askew and just simply don't make sense. Anytime there is any type of budget deficit the same tired argument is rolled out. The first thing they say they are going to cut is education. Then elederly services and then you will hear about how there won't be enough money to put gas in the firetrucks and police cars. Not one politician evertalks about reducing their support staff. Or God forbid here in MA we take away the AAA that welfare recipients get for free or the flexible spending money for things like tobacco and alcohol. My wife is a teacher and I am glad she is because without her overinflated salary of 80k a year plus benefits and extras I would be on welfare and I work 60 plus hours a week keeping a business barely afloat to make sure my employees have paychecks and I can continue to pay my taxes and contribute to unemployment insurance. I now am beginning to see an upswing and could hire people but because I can't predict where the people will be working in six months I choose to work 70 to 80 hours a week instead. Because if I for hire these people and need to lay them off in six months it will cause another increase in my unemployment insurance which could potentially bankrupt me. If the teachers in WI have a problem with the increase in Co pay and loss of collective bargaining tell them to go find another job that pays them to work 6 hours a day 180 days a year and covers 80 percent of their health insurance for them and their families while pulling down an above average salary. I would be willing to bet they will be happy to return to work.

The days of the private sector handing out 100,000 plus dollar jobs is gone. The private sector is absorbing this recession and there needs to be concessions on both sides. It is getting a bit ridiculous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What question? For the record, you changed the subject with the leap between union dues and planned parenthood

Unions typically fund those that help the unions. Just like the Koch give money to those that support their causes. Where is the link between the public employees union and planned parenthood?

Seriously, you're like arguing with the dog from Up, but instead of getting distracted by a squirrel, it's the 'Abortion' right turn.

Do I think everything about every union is fair? Of course not. Do I think that when a union supports a politician they all run out and vote for said pol? No. Do I think the benefit to the workers, in things like healthcare and worker rights outweigh the dues, in most cases, yes.

As far as getting banned, this isn't the other site, and I'm more apt to ignore list people than report them.

"What question?"

I'm sorry, I assumed you read my post before you insulted me for its content. Here is what I wrote...

"why do these labor unions get to force people to join them? If I want to be a public schoolteacher, why am I forced to join a damn union?"

"Where is the link between the public employees union and planned parenthood? "

I have 2 brothers who teach, both have shown me financials from their union that show donations to Planned Parenthood. I don't see why someone who wants to teach kids is forced into giving money to causes that may be reprehensible to them. I think that's a legitimate question.

"it's the 'Abortion' right turn"

I picked Planned Parenthood, which liberals are always saying is about a lot more than abortion, by the way. But I could easily have said, "why are teachers forced to give money to unions who donate to liberal politicians"? It wasn't any right-turn, I'm talking about the insane, absolute power that these unions have.

The 2 places where I've worked in a Union environment neither was Mandatory to join the union.

of the 2, GE did require you to pay a fee to the union if you didn't join that was equal to the Union Dues.

The Shipyard, where I am currently working, is completely voluntary, no fee charged if you decide to not to join.

I'm not %100 sure but I think it is Illegal to force somebody to join a Union. I'll see igf I can find something on the Internet about it.

As far as I know, union membership is mandatory for teachers in every town in CT. And for damn sure it's mandatory in WI, that's one of the things that the Gov is proposing to change, that union membership should be voluntary. Imagine that, giving people a choice as to whether or not they want to join a group, just because they work in a public capacity. Who could disagree with that, right? The unions disagree, loudly.

Scott,

This is not an abortion debate, and planned parent hood does more than abortions. but thats not for this thread

Jim:
You made the connection, show me the money. Where did a major union give money directly to PP?

I'm not going to take the time to ask my brothers to scan their union's financials. Planned Parenthood is not the point, mandatory union membership is the point.

I'm a conservative. Let's say my dream is to teach kids. If I want to be a schoolteacher, why is it fair that in order to teach, I MUST give mopney to the union which will make donations to politicians that I abhor. Why must I go through that, just because I want to teach?

"What question?"

I'm sorry, I assumed you read my post before you insulted me for its content. Here is what I wrote...

"why do these labor unions get to force people to join them? If I want to be a public schoolteacher, why am I forced to join a damn union?"

"Where is the link between the public employees union and planned parenthood? "

I have 2 brothers who teach, both have shown me financials from their union that show donations to Planned Parenthood. I don't see why someone who wants to teach kids is forced into giving money to causes that may be reprehensible to them. I think that's a legitimate question.

"it's the 'Abortion' right turn"

I picked Planned Parenthood, which liberals are always saying is about a lot more than abortion, by the way. But I could easily have said, "why are teachers forced to give money to unions who donate to liberal politicians"? It wasn't any right-turn, I'm talking about the insane, absolute power that these unions have.

Do your 2 brothers schools have sex ed?
Guess where the info comes from.

Do your 2 brothers schools have sex ed?
Guess where the info comes from.

Oh boy, you got me. I guess teachers, by virtue of the fact that they work in a building where sex ed is being taught, have no right to oppose abortion.

Oh, wait. They don't perform abortions during sex ed class, you see. But they do perform abortions, lots of 'em, at Planned Parenthood.

Oh boy, you got me. I guess teachers, by virtue of the fact that they work in a building where sex ed is being taught, have no right to oppose abortion.

Oh, wait. They don't perform abortions during sex ed class, you see. But they do perform abortions, lots of 'em, at Planned Parenthood.

They can complain to their union boss, or just not pay dues to the equivalent of their part of the donation if they feel that strongly.

Problem solved!

They can complain to their union boss, or just not pay dues to the equivalent of their part of the donation if they feel that strongly.

Problem solved!

In CT (as I'm sure in most places), the dues come directly out of the teachers' paycheck, and teachers do NOT have the option of witholding a portion of their dues. If they did, I agree, problem would be solved. But that's not an option.

Unions don't like giving members options, you see, they want guaranteed union dues so they can buy democrats who will reward them with insane benefits.

In CT (as I'm sure in most places), the dues come directly out of the teachers' paycheck, and teachers do NOT have the option of witholding a portion of their dues. If they did, I agree, problem would be solved. But that's not an option.

Unions don't like giving members options, you see, they want guaranteed union dues so they can buy democrats who will reward them with insane benefits.

So sue the union.

So sue the union.

Sure! A humble civil servant, suing the unions, which have all of the politicians in their pockets!

Or, you could do what the taxpayers in Wisconsin did, and vote for Republicans. That's just what they did. Problem is, the unions and the Democrats are undermining the democratic process because in this case, it didn't fit their personal agenda...

As Obama likes to say (or at least, he USED TO like to say this) "elections have consequences".

looks like Indiana democrats are fleeing their state as well :rotf2::rotf2:

interestingly, they need to flee to neighboring states with democrat governors otherwise they can be arrested and returned to their own states...

the Founding Fathers would be proud I'm sure....

From Lawyers.com about Unions.....Strictly Informational

Your New Job and Joining a Union - Lawyers.com (http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/Your-New-Job-and-Joining-a-Union.html)

When starting a new job there are several decisions you could be faced with. One of these involves whether or not to join a union. Groups of employees have the right to form unions in order to bargain collectively with employers and to protect their rights. Unions thrive in every level of society and encompass many different types of jobs, including manufacturing, teaching, and film production. When faced with the decision to join a union, make sure you know your rights.

It is illegal to coerce you to join a union. This can be a thin line. It is true that a union cannot force you to join. However, you might find that it is clearly in your best interest to join. Actors cannot get roles in major motion pictures unless they are part of the Screen Actor's Guild or they can somehow convince the production company to pay a fine for using a non-union actor. While no one can force you to join a union there may be practical considerations that make it very difficult to not join if you want to work in a particular industry.

You are always covered by a union's collective bargaining. Whether or not you choose to become a union member, the collective bargaining will benefit you. You will receive all the same benefits as a union member except for any that are designated as solely member benefits. However, if the union gets better pay and better benefits, it is for all employees union or not.

Even though you may not be forced to join a union it is possible you may be forced to pay dues. Some states have passed Right to Work laws which prevent educators and others from being forced to pay union dues when they are not union members. In states that have not passed one of these laws educators and others may not be forced to join the union, but they will be forced to pay the union fees.

A union cannot charge excessive dues. The dues charged by a union can't be too high.

The union can't force an employer to punish a worker for not being a union member. Once again this can be a tricky point. You cannot be penalized by an employer who has already hired you, but, depending on your industry, you might find it difficult to find work.

It is illegal for a union to use threats, intimidation or violence.

A union must bargain with an employer in good faith. A union is not allowed to make demands so unreasonable that they know there is no way the employer could ever capitulate. There must be actual effort to work something out that both sides can agree to.

Remember, it is your choice whether or not you join a union. Get the facts beforehand about what benefits membership will give you and whether or not you will be required to pay dues regardless of whether you join.


a funny but 100% true story. In a former job, our business cards had to have the GCIU logo in the corner to state that the cards were printed by a union. One of my team visited a union shop and did not have the logo, they had a great meeting and at the end he handed him his card, they saw there was no logo and rudely escorted him out of the building. Its a scam, give your business to union shops or else we wont do business with you.

I can't beleive in this day and age, the Gov (and his STAFF!) fell for this...
pretty funny, even though he really didn't say much of anything controversal....

I can't beleive in this day and age, the Gov (and his STAFF!) fell for this...
pretty funny, even though he really didn't say much of anything controversal....

yes, Murphy is a very funny guy and the newest darling of the unions and the left media :uhuh:


................................
The Wisconsin chapter of the AFL-CIO has released a new television advertisement that highlights portions of a recorded prank call conversation between Gov. Scott Walker and a liberal writer impersonating industrialist David Koch.

Since the prank call, the Koch impersonator has been identified as Ian Murphy, a liberal writer from Buffalo, N.Y.

MSNBC‘s Lawrence O’Donnell seemed happy to shine to the limelight on Murphy Wednesday evening during a primetime interview. However, the left should be wary in crowning Murphy as their new hero. Murphy’s writings at his Buffalo Beast publication are downright despicable. In one article, titled “F**k the Troops,” Murphy unleashes a tirade against American service members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as rapists who “volunteer to murder people.”

(Warning: excerpt contains graphic language.)

So, 4000 rubes are dead. Cry me the Tigris. Another 30,000 have been seriously wounded. Boo #^&#^&#^&#^&ing hoo. They got what they asked for—and cool robotic limbs, too.

Likely, just reading the above paragraph made you uncomfortable. But why?

The benevolence of America’s “troops” is sacrosanct. Questioning their rectitude simply isn’t done. It’s the forbidden zone. We may rail against this tragic war, but our soldiers are lauded by all as saints. Why? They volunteered to partake in this savage idiocy, and for this they deserve our utmost respect? I think not.



The nearly two-thirds of us who know this war is bull#^&#^&#^&#^& need to stop s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g off the troops. They get enough action raping female soldiers and sodomizing Iraqi detainees. The political left is intent on “supporting” the troops by bringing them home, which is a good thing. But after rightly denouncing the administration’s lies and condemning this awful war, relatively sensible pundits—like Keith Olbermann—turn around and lovingly praise the soldiers’ brave service to the country. Why?

What service are they providing? I don’t remember ordering 300,000 dead Iraqis—although I was doing a lot of heavy narcotics back in ‘03. Our soldiers are not providing a service to the country, they’re providing a service to a criminal administration and their oil company cronies. When a mafia don orders a hit, is the assassin absolved of personal responsibility when it’s carried out? Of course not. What if the hit man was fooled into service? We’d all say, “Tough #^&#^&#^&#^&, you dumb Guido,” then lock him up and throw away the key.

As a society, we need to discard our blind deference to military service. There’s nothing admirable about volunteering to murder people. There’s nothing admirable about being rooked by obvious propaganda. There’s nothing admirable about doing what you’re told if what you’re told to do is terrible.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-csXwhja3ynA/TWcHx2CRpBI/AAAAAAAAAM8/nOda-Ty5kdQ/s1600/The%2BBEAST-%2BAmerica%2527s%2BBest%2BFiend_Ian%2Bmurphy_small .jpg
..............................................

But despite his amazingly radical views, CNN also heaped praise on Murphy Thursday:


Given his new-found popularity in leftist circles for “duping” Gov. Walker, will anyone on the left bother to condemn his disparaging remarks?

disgusting. But hey! Lets rail on that crazy dummy Palin!!!!

How about railing on Both of them.....or is that really not an option.

How about railing on Both of them.....or is that really not an option.


Dad, can you honeslty compare them? I guarantee the guy that did this prank was on ALL media outlets and no one mentioned this past article and his disgust for our troops. However every opportunity to ridicule Palin is exploited at every turn. Go ahead an rail on both of them, but I have no doubts this country would be in 1000X better shape if we had more people like Palin and less like this liberal arsewipe.

disgusting. But hey! Lets rail on that crazy dummy Palin!!!!

no, this is just what the left refers to as "critical thinking"....or maybe he was "taken out of context"


he sounds a lot like many of Obama's close friends and advisors :uhuh:

Dad, can you honeslty compare them? I guarantee the guy that did this prank was on ALL media outlets and no one mentioned this past article and his disgust for our troops. However every opportunity to ridicule Palin is exploited at every turn. Go ahead an rail on both of them, but I have no doubts this country would be in 1000X better shape if we had more people like Palin and less like this liberal arsewipe.

That really wasn't my point....it was more just a general...why do we have to pick One over the other...thats all.

I think tthe guy is an ass myself....I was just kinda generalizing. Palin is definitely a better person than that ass hat.....

It just seems that we always have to Pick one OR the other in everything....why can't it be both was kinda my point

like a buffet....:biglaugh:

Don't that in Massachusetts would get you put in prison.

like a buffet....:biglaugh:

You can look at it like that......If all they have is Lima Beans, Brussel Sprouts, and Cauliflower......why do I have to take a vegetable......

*****Actually I like all three of those :hihi:*****

You can look at it like that......If all they have is Lima Beans, Brussel Sprouts, and Cauliflower......why do I have to take a vegetable......

*****Actually I like all three of those :hihi:*****

I'm hungry now :)

What is happening in WI is a sign of the times. We more than likely will not see anything like that here in MA because much of our economy is union based and no pol is going to bite the hand that feeds them.

definitely...or suffer the consequences


Event Description:

The National AFL-CIO, several International Unions and others have called for actions around the country. April 4, 1968 was the day in 1968 when Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis where he had gone to support sanitation workers fighting for a voice at work.

Please join the Greater Boston Labor Council, Boston Teachers Union, Jobs and Justice, Massachusetts AFL-CIO, MTA, 1199SEIU, and SEIU State Council to stand in solidarity with workers in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, New Hampshire and other states fighting corporate politicians seeking to destroy collective bargaining.


closing statement at the rally:

‘And to the Republican party of Massachusetts, if you think this is gonna happen here, it is going to be over thousands of dead people’s bodies.’


I love the Obama era of civility:rotf2:

Unions bad.
Cronyism bad.

Unless it is a key lobbyists son, and then it's only bad when people call you on giving an unqualified crony a job... oops

Unions bad.
Cronyism bad.

Unless it is a key lobbyists son, and then it's only bad when people call you on giving an unqualified crony a job... oops

moral relativity jibberish...that's great:)

No degree, little experience pay off big - JSOnline (http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/119159584.html)

If this was anything more than cronyism, Walker would have stood up and defended his choice, rather than pull the job offer after the backlash.

but damn those unions....

No degree, little experience pay off big - JSOnline (http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/119159584.html)

If this was anything more than cronyism, Walker would have stood up and defended his choice, rather than pull the job offer after the backlash.

but damn those unions....

so I guess you are justifying the rally rhetoric and the left's rhetoric in general, post-fearless leader begging for civility, by pointing out that Walker has someone working in his government that would make a fine Kennedy?

this is from an anti-Walker website...."Walker Watch"
April 5, 2011
“Brian was moved to (the Department of) Commerce at the request of (Regulation and Licensing) Deputy Secretary John Scocos to head up a division that was eventually going to be moved to DRL,” the statement said. “Deputy Secretary Scocos worked with Brian at DRL earlier this year and thought he could help with the transition of the Commerce division to DRL.

“When Governor Walker learned of the details of this agency staffing decision, he directed his administration to move in another direction.”

Spin baby spin.

I'm pointing out that all Pol's are pols, no matter how much they say otherwise.

Spin baby spin.

I'm pointing out that all Pol's are pols, no matter how much they say otherwise.

what spin? I used a freaking quote from a story extremely critical of Walker on a dedicated anti-Walker website that indicates that Walker was unaware of the staffing decision....that's spin?

thanks for the enlightening pol's point.....:uhuh: