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

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 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.

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:

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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

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.

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=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.

"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=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.

"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=RIROCKHOUND;838631]"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?

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?

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

"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.

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

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?

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.)

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...

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

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?

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.

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

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.