Gov. Walker and WI's master plan

Page 39 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
You're parroting partisan dogma instead of attempting an honest understanding of how the employment market works. Yes, in today's economy there is an oversupply of workers. That means many qualified candidates seeking employment. Demand is low, supply is high, and prices (compensation) tends to drop. That is exactly what we've seen in Wisconsin, where teachers agreed to accept cuts.

Yes, unions do attempt to shift the supply & demand curve in their favor by bargaining as a relatively powerful group rather than largely powerless individuals. So what? This simply levels the playing field a bit with large employers who usually have the advantage. The bottom line remains that in spite of all the huffing and puffing and hysteria about how Wisconsin unions are making employees rich ... the DATA shows otherwise, a fact none of you have been willing to address. Until you can, your cries are empty partisan noise. It's really that simple.

So how does that fit in when it's the gov't? These poor powerless workers need to have the field leveled against the tax-payers?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
So how does that fit in when it's the gov't? These poor powerless workers need to have the field leveled against the tax-payers?
Trying to have a reasoned discussion with you is a waste of both time and electrons. You are an extreme ideologue, incapable of setting aside your bias to consider facts and reason.

Nonetheless, in the employment market there's nothing special about government as an employer. It is competing for qualified workers just like private sector employers. From the employee standpoint, government is first and foremost a paycheck. It is in employees' interests to level the playing field as best they can, whether their employer is public or private.

Taxpayers want to manage employee costs as best they can, just like the owners of private employers. We also want to ensure we are competitive in hiring. Otherwise, service levels will drop and costs may actually increase: one productive employee at $60K per year is less expensive than two unproductive losers at $50K each. Again, this is no different than the private sector.

Now, before you start your inevitable ideological squawking about all the reasons it's different, all the reasons public employee unions are way out of control, all the usual "liberals blah blah blah," I'll point you back to this:

"The bottom line remains that in spite of all the huffing and puffing and hysteria about how Wisconsin unions are making employees rich ... the DATA shows otherwise, a fact none of you have been willing to address. Until you can, your cries are empty partisan noise. It's really that simple."
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
DATA found.

Balance of Power: Walker's union proposal could be major setback for state's Democratic Party



There's some good charts at that link too.

Whether you agree or disagree with Walker, you cannot dispute that the Democrats get a lot of money from labor unions, and Republicans do not.
Nor did I dispute that. Do you think you're somehow refuting me? That was my second sentence: "Certainly, unions as organizations tend to support Democratic campaigns since Democrats tend to be more supportive of the working class."

I challenged the rest of Werepossum's comments which I believe to be fallacious. I asked for DATA to support them. For example, you repeated some of those same fallacies:

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out the logical link between Democrats voting to give more taxpayer money to unions and union members, and unions and union members giving more money to Democrats.
Proof? We've already seen a study linked in this thread refuting the propaganda that Wisconsin public employees are paid outrageously high compensation. That alone suggests this "sky is falling" crying about "Democrats voting to give more taxpayer money to unions" is more propaganda than reality. What is your factual basis for claiming otherwise, rather than your emotional feeling it must be true?

I also pointed out that unlike normal trade and manufacturing unions, government employees tend to be more white collar and more politically diverse. I'd like to see DATA showing that these employees give disproportionately to Democrats, and that this is materially affected by their compensation changes under Democratic management compared to Republican management.

Finally, I already stipulated that unions (as opposed to employees) tend to contribute more to Democrats than Republicans. Given the pugnacious stance Republican governors like Walker have traditionally taken against their workers, this shouldn't surprise anyone. You and Werepossum both seem to insinuate that increased employee compensation translates into increased campaign contributions to Democrats. Do you have any DATA demonstrating there is a material correlation between the two, e.g., something greater than that seen from the populace as a whole?

My guess is this is just more of the same emotionally-charged propaganda the right likes to spread when they don't have substantive attacks. It keeps their faithful obediently outraged and drowns out any attempts at the intelligent and productive discussions that likely won't go their way. Of course I may be wrong, and I welcome good DATA that supports your allegations.
That's what I thought.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Trying to have a reasoned discussion with you is a waste of both time and electrons. You are an extreme ideologue, incapable of setting aside your bias to consider facts and reason.

Nonetheless, in the employment market there's nothing special about government as an employer. It is competing for qualified workers just like private sector employers. From the employee standpoint, government is first and foremost a paycheck. It is in employees' interests to level the playing field as best they can, whether their employer is public or private.

Taxpayers want to manage employee costs as best they can, just like the owners of private employers. We also want to ensure we are competitive in hiring. Otherwise, service levels will drop and costs may actually increase: one productive employee at $60K per year is less expensive than two unproductive losers at $50K each. Again, this is no different than the private sector.

Now, before you start your inevitable ideological squawking about all the reasons it's different, all the reasons public employee unions are way out of control, all the usual "liberals blah blah blah," I'll point you back to this:

"The bottom line remains that in spite of all the huffing and puffing and hysteria about how Wisconsin unions are making employees rich ... the DATA shows otherwise, a fact none of you have been willing to address. Until you can, your cries are empty partisan noise. It's really that simple."

Uh, nice strawman but it's your MO. I'm not claiming they are getting rich - however, the DATA does show they make more than the private sector. When you factor in benefits then the gap gets wider.

You never answered the question on why the employees would need to level the playing field against the taxpayers. You yapped about competition and crap like that but YOU used the argument that they need to level something yet refuse to back it up.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Its nice to see the GOP try and compromise and have the Democrat puppets reject any compromise.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Uh, nice strawman but it's your MO. I'm not claiming they are getting rich - however, the DATA does show they make more than the private sector. When you factor in benefits then the gap gets wider.
Only if you swallow the previously discredited "retarded" view that it is meaningful to compare the salaries of a well-educated white collar workforce with one with considerably lower qualifications, including all the "high school drop-outs working at Wal-Mart and McDonalds." Are you relying on that retarded comparison?


You never answered the question on why the employees would need to level the playing field against the taxpayers. You yapped about competition and crap like that but YOU used the argument that they need to level something yet refuse to back it up.
That is the answer, whether you can comprehend it or not.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Only if you swallow the previously discredited "retarded" view that it is meaningful to compare the salaries of a well-educated white collar workforce with one with considerably lower qualifications, including all the "high school drop-outs working at Wal-Mart and McDonalds." Are you relying on that retarded comparison?



That is the answer, whether you can comprehend it or not.

well educated? Sure, some are but many are not - especially when you move away from focusing on just the teachers.

More BS and bluster isn't an answer. Repeating your contention isn't an answer either. You stated it, now please show why an employee would need to level the playing field with the tax payers.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Its nice to see the GOP try and compromise and have the Democrat puppets reject any compromise.

Exactly, there seems to have been talks and compromise on the table very early on in this yet all we hear about from the libs is how he won't compromise - when it's now being shown that it's the fleebaggers who won't compromise. It makes one get the feeling that this isn't about the union members but rather about power.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,898
7,426
136
Seems like the Dems are now in a much stronger position to negotiate with Walker. It also seems like the Dems want things to stew a little more to lean things even more in their favor. The trend at present is that the longer this crisis gets drawn out, the more people find out what's really going on. That's led to some pretty serious rebound in the Dems favor. That's politics for 'ya.

Looks like the Dem legislators are going to go for maximum leverage before making a final settlement on this issue.

http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_17568956?source=rss&nclick_check=1
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Seems like the Dems are now in a much stronger position to negotiate with Walker. It also seems like the Dems want things to stew a little more to lean things even more in their favor. The trend at present is that the longer this crisis gets drawn out, the more people find out what's really going on. That's led to some pretty serious rebound in the Dems favor. That's politics for 'ya.

Looks like the Dem legislators are going to go for maximum leverage before making a final settlement on this issue.

http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_17568956?source=rss&nclick_check=1

Hopefully WI Dems will bust the union busters :)
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,507
136
Seems like the Dems are now in a much stronger position to negotiate with Walker. It also seems like the Dems want things to stew a little more to lean things even more in their favor. The trend at present is that the longer this crisis gets drawn out, the more people find out what's really going on. That's led to some pretty serious rebound in the Dems favor. That's politics for 'ya.

Looks like the Dem legislators are going to go for maximum leverage before making a final settlement on this issue.

http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_17568956?source=rss&nclick_check=1

The governor must be absolutely flabbergasted that the state dems didn't collapse like a wet cardboard box like the national dems always do.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Walker needs to just fold his tent and lay off enough state employees to balance the budget. That way everybody's happy, Pubbies have a balanced budget and Dems have their campaign deductions deducted from state workers' salaries.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Walker needs to just fold his tent and lay off enough state employees to balance the budget. That way everybody's happy, Pubbies have a balanced budget and Dems have their campaign deductions deducted from state workers' salaries.

The unions have already stated their willingness to implement all the budget cuts that he asked for, what would laying off workers do?
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,898
7,426
136
The governor must be absolutely flabbergasted that the state dems didn't collapse like a wet cardboard box like the national dems always do.


Including Obama? Yes, sadly. I'd like to think there's a whole lot more going on than what's apparent inside the beltway with the Dems, but they sure do look lame trying to be "bipartisan" and all too willing to give up way too much to get just a little.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Wisconsin Republican State Senators go nuclear. Will strip out the CBA into an individual bill and will pass it separately possibly tonight.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The unions have already stated their willingness to implement all the budget cuts that he asked for, what would laying off workers do?
It would settle the issue now, without waiting for Democrat state senators to do their jobs. And it would please me. Never underestimate the importance of that.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,859
4,976
126
Oh shiiiiiiiiiiiit
The crap is going to hit the fan now around here.
It's like a million liberal democrats all crying out at once, and then, suddenly silenced.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Exactly, there seems to have been talks and compromise on the table very early on in this yet all we hear about from the libs is how he won't compromise - when it's now being shown that it's the fleebaggers who won't compromise. It makes one get the feeling that this isn't about the union members but rather about power.


Its always been about power or more specifically who has more, the taxpayers and their elected representatives or the public unions.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Wisconsin Republican State Senators go nuclear. Will strip out the CBA into an individual bill and will pass it separately possibly tonight.

3-10-2011

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110310/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

Wis. GOP bypasses Dems, cuts collective bargaining


The nearly month-long standoff in the Wisconsin Legislature over explosive union rights legislation rocketed toward a dramatic finish Thursday after Senate Republicans outmaneuvered their missing Democratic counterparts and pushed through the bill.

The Senate requires a quorum of 20 to take up any measures that spends money. But a special committee of lawmakers from both the Senate and Assembly voted late Wednesday afternoon to take all the spending measures out of the legislation and the Senate approved it minutes later

"In 30 minutes, 18 state senators undid 50 years of civil rights in Wisconsin. Their disrespect for the people of Wisconsin and their rights is an outrage that will never be forgotten," said Democratic Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller. "Tonight, 18 Senate Republicans conspired to take government away from the people."

==============================================
Democracy does not exist in Amerika
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
One of the lesser known provisions of Walker's budget plan is the call for a statewide student information system. As a public school IT professional, I find that troubling. Having a great deal of experience with state departments like the Department of Public Instruction and Department of Administration, through which this will likely flow, I can think of almost no benefit to this proposal and see, instead, a lot of unnecessary clerical and administrative overhead.

There are probably 3 or 4 decent student information system (SIS) products for K12 schools on the market, all of which adhere to the SIF (schools interoperability framework). Key among the goals of the SIF is to ensure that schools collect, track, and report student data in a way that's portable (for when students transfer from one district to another) and efficient. This seems the correct way to address whatever goals Walker sees with a statewide SIS; from where the problem is by the people who are best equipped to do it... the information systems themselves that vendors sell.

The last thing we need is a state-run, managed, or administered system to do what we're already doing anyway.
 
Last edited:

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
One of the lesser known provisions of Walker's budget plan is the call for a statewide student information system. As a public school IT professional, I find that troubling. Having a great deal of experience with state departments like the Department of Public Instruction and Department of Administration, through which this will likely flow, I can think of almost no benefit to this proposal and see, instead, a lot of unnecessary clerical and administrative overhead.

There are probably 3 or 4 decent student information system (SIS) products for K12 schools on the market, all of which adhere to the SIF (schools interoperability framework). Key among the goals of the SIF is to ensure that schools collect, track, and report student data in a way that's portable (for when students transfer from one district to another) and efficient. This seems the correct way to address whatever goals Walker sees with a statewide SIS; from where the problem is by the people who are best equipped to do it... the information systems themselves that vendors sell.

The last thing we need is a state-run, managed, or administered system to do what we're already doing anyway.

Does his plan require that your schools ditch their district SIS systems in favor of a statewide system or is he just requiring that the district data be available at the state DOE level? If it is replace that really is cracking a nut with a sledgehammer but if it is just a requirement to access all the district SIS data in a statewide system it might make sense given all the reporting requirements foisted onto the state and local DOE's by various Federal programs and initiatives.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Does his plan require that your schools ditch their district SIS systems in favor of a statewide system or is he just requiring that the district data be available at the state DOE level? If it is replace that really is cracking a nut with a sledgehammer but if it is just a requirement to access all the district SIS data in a statewide system it might make sense given all the reporting requirements foisted onto the state and local DOE's by various Federal programs and initiatives.

From: http://www.wasb.org/wasb-preliminary-analysis-of-governor-walkers-proposed-2011-13-state-budget.html

The governor’s budget would also provide $15 million GPR to the DPI over the biennium to create a student information system to provide longitudinal data on the performance of the state’s public education system and its students. The bill would require DPI to fund the ongoing costs of the student information system by implementing a per-pupil charge to districts using the system.

Seems like it's neither of the things you mentioned.. but based on this description I still view it as unnecessary and prone to the usual pitfalls of government bureaucracy.