The WI Bill - Real Analysis

[charrison]

So then your beef is with the state government, not the teachers. The teachers aren't getting the money, the state government is now collecting your taxes and not paying them. Glad we got to the bottom of this.

No my beef is taxpayers have payed for a service and the teachers unions are denying that important monopoly service.

 

[IBMer]

No my beef is taxpayers have payed for a service and the teachers unions are denying that important monopoly service.

Are the kids not able to go to private schools?

 

[fskimospy]

No my beef is taxpayers have payed for a service and the teachers unions are denying that important monopoly service.

Right, and they have gotten all the teaching they have paid for thus far. Further teaching would require further expenditures of wages to teachers that will not happen if they strike. The idea that the government continuing to collect taxes is some sort of theft of service by the teachers union or whatever is preposterous.

 

[Red Dawn]

No my beef is taxpayers have payed for a service and the teachers unions are denying that important monopoly service.

Because they are being asked, no demanded to work for terms the don't agree with. If it was you iin your occupation you wouldn't do it, why should they?

 

[fskimospy]

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

That isn't what goes on in business every day.

Unions existed to mitigate employers mistreatment of workers. Unless you can definitively prove that Wisconsin is mistreating its workers, then the union's lust for taxpayer funded exorbitant benefits is an asymmetrical coercion through CB (extortion). To say that any of these workers are mistreated is laughable considering they are isolated from economic issues through CB, long-term contracts and pensions, none of which 90% of the country has.

Mistreatment my ass.

Unions existed and continue to exist in order to represent the interests of their members, not to combat mistreatment. (although the two frequently went hand in hand) As I said before, union members in other businesses enjoy similar benefits to what their public counterparts do. (although you are somewhat right, it's close but not quite as good)

What that seems like evidence for to me is not that unions are mean and somehow extortionists (they aren't), but that other people are fools for not belonging to unions.

 

[charrison]

Are the kids not able to go to private schools?

Most people could not afford to send their kids to private school as they have already paid in taxes for their public school

and second

there would not be private school capacity to handle a widespread public school strike in the short term.

 

[charrison]

Because they are being asked, no demanded to work for terms the don't agree with. If it was you iin your occupation you wouldn't do it, why should they?

If it was me, I would go find something better to do. And actually that fairly describes my current work situation and I will be gone from current position in the near future as I do not like the terms of the agreement that was forced on me.

Sounds like they need to find work they can enjoy as well.

 

[charrison]

Right, and they have gotten all the teaching they have paid for thus far. Further teaching would require further expenditures of wages to teachers that will not happen if they strike. The idea that the government continuing to collect taxes is some sort of theft of service by the teachers union or whatever is preposterous.

It is a govt run monopoly and tax payers are being bilked by denial of service paid for. Fir them all and provide the service with those willing to do the job.


Striking teachers is not going win the hearts of taxpayers.

 

[Red Dawn]

If it was me, I would go find something better to do. And actually that fairly describes my current work situation and I will be gone from current position in the near future as I do not like the terms of the agreement that was forced on me.

Sounds like they need to find work they can enjoy as well.

Yeah without the politics of some asshole looking to make a name in his party based on their sacrafice.

 

[charrison]

Yeah without the politics of some asshole looking to make a name in his party based on their sacrafice.

Which asshole is that? The governor who has a gap to file, the taxpayers that cant pay anymore, or the unions that dont want to give anything up?


Take you pick...

 

[fskimospy]

It is a govt run monopoly and tax payers are being bilked by denial of service paid for. Fir them all and provide the service with those willing to do the job.

Striking teachers is not going win the hearts of taxpayers.

If that's the case, it's due to the government continuing to collect these taxes, not the teachers striking. The teachers have never made any such agreement with those that the government collects taxes from. Again, your beef in this case is with the government, you should encourage the residents of Wisconson to petition for a tax credit.

I'm not sure if you're really thinking this through.

 

[fskimospy]

Which asshole is that? The governor who has a gap to file, the taxpayers that cant pay anymore, or the unions that dont want to give anything up?


Take you pick...

Huh, so that $100 million tax cut that he passed earlier was because the taxpayers just couldn't pay it this year? Interesting.

 

[charrison]

If that's the case, it's due to the government continuing to collect these taxes, not the teachers striking. The teachers have never made any such agreement with those that the government collects taxes from. Again, your beef in this case is with the government, you should encourage the residents of Wisconson to petition for a tax credit.

I'm not sure if you're really thinking this through.

The govt and the schools are one in the same.

 

[fskimospy]

The govt and the schools are one in the same.

The schools and the teachers are very different things, and the government and the teachers are not one in the same, in any way, shape, or form.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

If that's the case, it's due to the government continuing to collect these taxes, not the teachers striking. The teachers have never made any such agreement with those that the government collects taxes from. Again, your beef in this case is with the government, you should encourage the residents of Wisconson to petition for a tax credit.

I'm not sure if you're really thinking this through.

Its fraud because they are using paid sick leave when they are not sick.

 

[PeshakJang]

Its fraud because they are using paid sick leave when they are not sick.

Who is The Drizzle??

 

[charrison]

Huh, so that $100 million tax cut that he passed earlier was because the taxpayers just couldn't pay it this year? Interesting.

There is a $3b gap...

 

[charrison]

The schools and the teachers are very different things, and the government and the teachers are not one in the same, in any way, shape, or form.

Are public school govt run or not? are the teachers govt employees?

 

[davmat787]

So you believe that private employees threatening to quit without a raise are committing extortion, just without the criminal component?

In that case, the business could simply turn around and hire anyone else willing to work at that wage. With public employee unions, can you do that?

 

[1prophet]

Unions existed and continue to exist in order to represent the interests of their members, not to combat mistreatment. (although the two frequently went hand in hand) As I said before, union members in other businesses enjoy similar benefits to what their public counterparts do. (although you are somewhat right, it's close but not quite as good)

What that seems like evidence for to me is not that unions are mean and somehow extortionists (they aren't), but that other people are fools for not belonging to unions.

You mean like all those fools who had their jobs outsourced, the same outsourcing you claimed to be "efficient".

 

[Fern]

-snip-
As I said before, union members in other businesses enjoy similar benefits to what their public counterparts do. (although you are somewhat right, it's close but not quite as good)

If recent studies are to be believed, it's not close; not even remotely.

Their average wage for similar work is substantially higher, and their benefits are substantailly higher.

Nor are they being laid off anywhere near the rate that private workers suffer.

It's this huge disparity that's causing the issue, it ain't "close", not by a longshot.

What that seems like evidence for to me is not that unions are mean and somehow extortionists (they aren't), but that other people are fools for not belonging to unions.

Public worker unions and private worker unions are NOT similarly situated. (Edit: I orginally left out the word "not")

The private unions must negotiate with stakeholders - ther person(s) they'll be getting the money from. It's a 'fairer fight'.

Whole different matter with Public employee unions. For one thing they wield great political power and they're negotiating with who? Exactly, a politician. I.e., Public union can coerce sweetheart deals. For another, the politican negotiating with the union isn't a stakeholder. It ain't his/her money.

That's the reason we're in this sopt, all the leverage is there to coerce the politican to fold and hand over taxpayers' money, with the additional conflict of interest if (s)he does than he'll get campaign funds (bribe?) directly from those very unions.

In case someone wants to claim that the politician are accountable due to voting - come on, we all know that ain't exactly working out like it's supposed to.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

If recent studies are to be believed, it's not close; not even remotely.

Their average wage for similar work is substantially higher, and their benefits are substantailly higher.

Nor are they being laid off anywhere near the rate that private workers suffer.

It's this huge disparity that's causing the issue, it ain't "close", not by a longshot.



Public worker unions and private worker unions are similarly situated.

The private unions must negotiate with stakeholders - ther person(s) they'll be getting the money from. It's a 'fairer fight'.

Whole different matter with Public employee unions. For one thing they wield great political power and they're negotiating with who? Exactly, a politician. I.e., Public union can coerce sweetheart deals. For another, the politican negotiating with the union isn't a stakeholder. It ain't his/her money.

That's the reason we're in this sopt, all the leverage is there to coerce the politican to fold and hand over taxpayers' money, with the additional conflict of interest if (s)he does than he'll get campaign funds (bribe?) directly from those very unions.

In case someone wants to claim that the politician are accountable due to voting - come on, we all know that ain't exactly working out like it's supposed to.

Fern

You are thinking of the comparison of public and private employees as a whole, not unionized public vs. unionized private. And even if you don't do that, the difference between public and private is a lot less than you think it is. (hint, those studies don't account for differing education and experience levels for most jobs) As for 'fewer being laid off', that's simply inaccurate. The private sector has been adding jobs for quite awhile now, while the public sector is continuing to shrink.

In addition, for a lot of businesses it isn't the person who owns the business negotiating either, they are negotiating with stockholder's money. Regardless, the principle at stake is the ability of a person to bargain for the value of their labor. If you think that people who work public sector jobs should not be allowed to bargain for this, just say so. I would find such an idea bizarre, but at least I would know where you were coming from.

Strange that you would say that public officials aren't accountable through voting when a record number of politicians were tossed out recently.

 

[Kanalua]

Whoa...OP...are you trying to bring reason and intelligence into this debate?!?!?! This is about EMOTION!!!! Remember...it's not nature of evidence, it's the seriousness of the charge that matters...

 

[the DRIZZLE]

You are thinking of the comparison of public and private employees as a whole, not unionized public vs. unionized private. And even if you don't do that, the difference between public and private is a lot less than you think it is. (hint, those studies don't account for differing education and experience levels for most jobs) As for 'fewer being laid off', that's simply inaccurate. The private sector has been adding jobs for quite awhile now, while the public sector is continuing to shrink.

In addition, for a lot of businesses it isn't the person who owns the business negotiating either, they are negotiating with stockholder's money. Regardless, the principle at stake is the ability of a person to bargain for the value of their labor. If you think that people who work public sector jobs should not be allowed to bargain for this, just say so. I would find such an idea bizarre, but at least I would know where you were coming from.

Strange that you would say that public officials aren't accountable through voting when a record number of politicians were tossed out recently.

My position, and I believe Fern's as well, is that the power dynamics are sufficiently different between the public and private sector that allowing collective bargaining tips the scales too far in to workers favor.

 

[sportage]

This is all about removeing the grass roots vote efforts of unions and their effects on elections..

Right on !!!!!

That is EXACTLY the bottom line. The truth!!!

Since corps and business can pump as much money as they was into elections, now that the right wing controlled US supreme court ruled it to be so, the ONLY competition facing republicans in elections and fund raising are.. wait for it... THE UNIONS!

This is exactly republicans dirty plan to removed the unions and their funding.
Republicans want to control ALL the money, and unions are cutting in on their business to do just that. Remove the unions and their funding, the republican money machine, like that created by Karl Rove funded by billionaires, will make it impossible for democrats to win ANYTHING ANYWHERE for ever and ever.

This stunt in WI is doing exactly that. Kill all unions. I.e. the following too!

This is interesting... it prohibits paycheck deductions for union dues, but also allows employees to refrain from paying dues while remaining in the union. Seems like a great idea to me. Union dues are one of the biggest scams, IMO, so this seems like a good idea.

Yes... a good idea if you are a republican with a plan to kill union precipitation in any election again in our lifetime.

The recall chant they have started in WI... "IS THE WAY TO PROCEED" there.

Go for it WI voters !!!!! Get the votes and RECALL these republican SOB's.