Pick a Side Wisconsin

Veteran

292

Wisconsin

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

Pector55 - 2011-02-23 8:57 AM

feh - 2011-02-23 9:38 AM

feh - 2011-02-23 6:28 AM

If you think this is about balancing the budget, you are blind. Its purpose is to neuter the unions.

They've agreed to increasing their contributions to health insurance and pensions, yet Walker still says they must give up collective bargaining rights. It's obvious.

Which is necessary for the long term financial health of the State of WI, otherwise this whole process starts all over again in 2 years.

Long term problems can NOT be fixed with short term solutions.

No, it's not necessary. They could simply show up at the bargaining table and say "We don't have money for this. You either need to kick in more for your benefits, or X number of people will be laid off. You decide."

It's obviously not about that. Public unions are a major force against Walker's party, which is why he's trying to kill them.

Every member of that union still has a vote. He isn't somehow taking that away.

Has a vote for what? The bill removes their collective bargaining rights.

Or are you more concerned about the union power? That's a pretty disturbing perspective if that is the case.

One of the best things about the state of WI is its public schools. While the teacher's union has some practices that I'm not fond of, they are also a major reason we have good teachers and high quality learning environments. I don't want to see larger class sizes and lesser-quality teachers.

Edited by feh 2011-02-23 9:08 AM

My Training Log My Race Log

Champion

34263

Chicago

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

feh - 2011-02-23 9:01 AM

mr2tony - 2011-02-23 8:56 AM

feh - 2011-02-23 8:38 AM

feh - 2011-02-23 6:28 AM

If you think this is about balancing the budget, you are blind. Its purpose is to neuter the unions.

They've agreed to increasing their contributions to health insurance and pensions, yet Walker still says they must give up collective bargaining rights. It's obvious.

Which is necessary for the long term financial health of the State of WI, otherwise this whole process starts all over again in 2 years.

Long term problems can NOT be fixed with short term solutions.

No, it's not necessary. They could simply show up at the bargaining table and say "We don't have money for this. You either need to kick in more for your benefits, or X number of people will be laid off. You decide."

It's obviously not about that. Public unions are a major force against Walker's party, which is why he's trying to kill them.

And do you think the unions will make the necessary cuts and concessions in the best interest of balancing the budget? That kind of makes me giggle.

Let the union decide between cuts and layoffs. Either way, the state spends less. In the current situation, they've already agreed to the requests, so your giggling seems misplaced.

Not really. It's amusing to me to hear someone say that the unions do what's best for the budget when, in fact, they do what's best for their members. That's kind of the point of the unions.

And any cuts need to be meaningful, and allowing the unions to decide what to cut will likely lead to cuts that are UNmeaningful.

My Race Log

Veteran

292

Wisconsin

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:04 AM

Let me see if I undersand you correctly, you think the Unions (employees) should be in charge of deciding how the government (business) should be run?

That's hyperbole. They want a say in how things are run; that's the purpose of unions.

My Training Log My Race Log

Extreme Veteran

799

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

feh - 2011-02-23 9:01 AM

Let the union decide between cuts and layoffs. Either way, the state spends less. In the current situation, they've already agreed to the requests, so your giggling seems misplaced.

This is exactly my problem with problem with public unions. The tax paying public should decide if there are cuts, decrease in salary (including benefits) budgets, or increases in these areas.

My Race Log

Veteran

292

Wisconsin

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

mr2tony - 2011-02-23 9:07 AM Not really. It's amusing to me to hear someone say that the unions do what's best for the budget when, in fact, they do what's best for their members. That's kind of the point of the unions. And any cuts need to be meaningful, and allowing the unions to decide what to cut will likely lead to cuts that are UNmeaningful.

They've already agreed to the exact cuts as specified in the bill. How is that not meaningful?

My Training Log My Race Log

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

feh - 2011-02-23 7:10 AM

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:04 AM

Let me see if I undersand you correctly, you think the Unions (employees) should be in charge of deciding how the government (business) should be run?

That's hyperbole. They want a say in how things are run; that's the purpose of unions.

In your earlier post you said it should be the unions decision if there should be paycuts or layoffs.

I'm a little confused, could you clarify your statements for me?

My Race Log

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

feh - 2011-02-23 7:10 AM

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:04 AM

Let me see if I undersand you correctly, you think the Unions (employees) should be in charge of deciding how the government (business) should be run?

That's hyperbole. They want a say in how things are run; that's the purpose of unions.

In your earlier post you said it should be the unions decision if there should be paycuts or layoffs.

I'm a little confused, could you clarify your statements for me?

My Race Log

Veteran

292

Wisconsin

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:29 AM

feh - 2011-02-23 7:10 AM

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:04 AM

Let me see if I undersand you correctly, you think the Unions (employees) should be in charge of deciding how the government (business) should be run?

That's hyperbole. They want a say in how things are run; that's the purpose of unions.

In your earlier post you said it should be the unions decision if there should be paycuts or layoffs.

I'm a little confused, could you clarify your statements for me?

Choosing betweens cuts and layoffs != "being in charge".

My Training Log My Race Log

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

feh - 2011-02-23 7:34 AM

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:29 AM

feh - 2011-02-23 7:10 AM

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:04 AM

Let me see if I undersand you correctly, you think the Unions (employees) should be in charge of deciding how the government (business) should be run?

That's hyperbole. They want a say in how things are run; that's the purpose of unions.

In your earlier post you said it should be the unions decision if there should be paycuts or layoffs.

I'm a little confused, could you clarify your statements for me?

Choosing betweens cuts and layoffs != "being in charge".

If you are saying the unions should have the ability to decide in work force reduction or pay reduction (which you have). Are you also saying they would have no other say in how the entity should be run?

Possibly you could share which decisions the Union should have and which the entity should have control over. I think that would clear it up for me.

My Race Log

Master

1440

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

feh - 2011-02-23 10:10 AM

]

That's hyperbole. They want a say in how things are run; that's the purpose of unions.

They are not entitled to a say in how things are run. They are not the leaders. And further the purpose of the union is to get as much money, benefits, and time off for their employees a possible.
It used to be that unions were conderned with safety, not it is about power.

My Race Log

Veteran

292

Wisconsin

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:40 AM

feh - 2011-02-23 7:34 AM

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:29 AM

feh - 2011-02-23 7:10 AM

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:04 AM

Let me see if I undersand you correctly, you think the Unions (employees) should be in charge of deciding how the government (business) should be run?

That's hyperbole. They want a say in how things are run; that's the purpose of unions.

In your earlier post you said it should be the unions decision if there should be paycuts or layoffs.

I'm a little confused, could you clarify your statements for me?

Choosing betweens cuts and layoffs != "being in charge".

If you are saying the unions should have the ability to decide in work force reduction or pay reduction (which you have). Are you also saying they would have no other say in how the entity should be run?

Possibly you could share which decisions the Union should have and which the entity should have control over. I think that would clear it up for me.

I'm not interested in getting into such details. Besides, I don't think that's the core issue. The bill is simply a power grab. Weaker unions means less resistance for Walker's party.

I'm not even pro-union in general; in some cases they are advantageous, and in others they do harm. I've never been a member of a union.

IMO, this bill is pure politics, in the guise of budget issues.

My Training Log My Race Log

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

feh - 2011-02-23 7:52 AM

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:40 AM

feh - 2011-02-23 7:34 AM

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:29 AM

feh - 2011-02-23 7:10 AM

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:04 AM

Let me see if I undersand you correctly, you think the Unions (employees) should be in charge of deciding how the government (business) should be run?

That's hyperbole. They want a say in how things are run; that's the purpose of unions.

In your earlier post you said it should be the unions decision if there should be paycuts or layoffs.

I'm a little confused, could you clarify your statements for me?

Choosing betweens cuts and layoffs != "being in charge".

If you are saying the unions should have the ability to decide in work force reduction or pay reduction (which you have). Are you also saying they would have no other say in how the entity should be run?

Possibly you could share which decisions the Union should have and which the entity should have control over. I think that would clear it up for me.

I'm not interested in getting into such details. Besides, I don't think that's the core issue. The bill is simply a power grab. Weaker unions means less resistance for Walker's party.

I'm not even pro-union in general; in some cases they are advantageous, and in others they do harm. I've never been a member of a union.

IMO, this bill is pure politics, in the guise of budget issues.

Are you saying the "power grab" is one sided, the government wants the power to control it's employees and the Union has no vested interest in the "power grab"?

I heard a union worker on the news today and I'll do the best I can to repeat what he said but it was that the unions need to be able to have collective barganing so they can "dictate" the health coverage, pension and pay they receive.

I thought he did a pretty good job of saying what I see the unions doing and wanting to be able to continue to do, dictate to the employer the terms, NOT negotiate, dictate.

That is my biased opinion of course.

My Race Log

Veteran

292

Wisconsin

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 10:00 AM

Are you saying the "power grab" is one sided, the government wants the power to control it's employees and the Union has no vested interest in the "power grab"?

You missed my point. It doesn't matter that Walker's opposition is unions. The only important thing is that they are the opposition. Repubs have the governorship and both chambers. They are taking the opportunity to weaken/squash their opposition.

Nothing but politics.

My Training Log My Race Log

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

feh - 2011-02-23 8:07 AM

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 10:00 AM

Are you saying the "power grab" is one sided, the government wants the power to control it's employees and the Union has no vested interest in the "power grab"?

You missed my point. It doesn't matter that Walker's opposition is unions. The only important thing is that they are the opposition. Repubs have the governorship and both chambers. They are taking the opportunity to weaken/squash their opposition.

Nothing but politics.

I didn't miss your point (I don't necessarily agree with it), but possibly you missed mine

My Race Log

Expert

834

Medina, MN

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

feh - 2011-02-23 10:07 AM

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 10:00 AM

Are you saying the "power grab" is one sided, the government wants the power to control it's employees and the Union has no vested interest in the "power grab"?

You missed my point. It doesn't matter that Walker's opposition is unions. The only important thing is that they are the opposition. Repubs have the governorship and both chambers. They are taking the opportunity to weaken/squash their opposition.

Nothing but politics.

I don't think this is Republicans trying to stick it to a Democratic campaign donor, I think this is the Republicans trying to take back control of the government from the public employee unions, on behalf of the taxpayers. So maybe it's a "power grab" but I don't think it's in the way you meant it.

My Race Log

Expert

1146

Johns Creek, Georgia

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

At the end one man will pay taxes for all if the game continues, so why will he work? PUBLIC SERVICE is just that, not winning the lottery

My Race Log

Champion

5376

PA

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

feh - 2011-02-23 10:07 AM

Pector55 - 2011-02-23 8:57 AM

feh - 2011-02-23 9:38 AM

feh - 2011-02-23 6:28 AM

If you think this is about balancing the budget, you are blind. Its purpose is to neuter the unions.

They've agreed to increasing their contributions to health insurance and pensions, yet Walker still says they must give up collective bargaining rights. It's obvious.

Which is necessary for the long term financial health of the State of WI, otherwise this whole process starts all over again in 2 years.

Long term problems can NOT be fixed with short term solutions.

No, it's not necessary. They could simply show up at the bargaining table and say "We don't have money for this. You either need to kick in more for your benefits, or X number of people will be laid off. You decide."

It's obviously not about that. Public unions are a major force against Walker's party, which is why he's trying to kill them.

Every member of that union still has a vote. He isn't somehow taking that away.

Has a vote for what? The bill removes their collective bargaining rights.

Or are you more concerned about the union power? That's a pretty disturbing perspective if that is the case.

One of the best things about the state of WI is its public schools. While the teacher's union has some practices that I'm not fond of, they are also a major reason we have good teachers and high quality learning environments. I don't want to see larger class sizes and lesser-quality teachers.

You said that Walker is trying to kill the union but each union member still has a vote as to who their elected official will be. He only takes away their ability to receive pay increases at a rate greater than inflation.

Also, throwing money at education has not generated a big bang for the buck. It seems we may just need "better" teachers, not just "higher paid" teachers. Where I live, we have elementary teachers who make over $70k. Considering they teach elementary school and our low cost of living (median income is low $40's) they do extremely well. I believe that a similar bill would be embraced in our state. I just hope that if one is proposed, it happens over the summer so the teachers and unions can vent without disrupting the education of our children. After all, they claim to do it all for the children. ;-)

My Race Log

Champion

5183

Wisconsin

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

wait, what?

"Considering they teach elementary school and our low cost of living (median income is low $40's) they do extremely well. "

My Race Log

New Haven, CT

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

against it - cynical power politics. the union agreed to the give backs. declare vistory and move on. walker/GOP now look like D-bags.

of course the dems scurrying accross state lines is silly as are the protesters comparing walker to a dictator. the republicans won, so they get to screw up their state, just like they screwed up the country under W and Reagan before him. elections have consequences we have to live with. be it the tea party or the bizzaro tea party people need to think a bit. be that is far too much to ask - outside of new england of course.

My Race Log

Master

2946

Centennial, CO

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

jsklarz - 2011-02-24 5:18 AM against it - cynical power politics. the union agreed to the give backs. declare vistory and move on. walker/GOP now look like D-bags.

of course the dems scurrying accross state lines is silly as are the protesters comparing walker to a dictator. the republicans won, so they get to screw up their state, just like they screwed up the country under W and Reagan before him. elections have consequences we have to live with. be it the tea party or the bizzaro tea party people need to think a bit. be that is far too much to ask - outside of new england of course.

At least you are able to look at things in an unbiased way.

My Race Log

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

jsklarz - 2011-02-24 4:18 AM against it - cynical power politics. the union agreed to the give backs. declare vistory and move on. walker/GOP now look like D-bags.

of course the dems scurrying accross state lines is silly as are the protesters comparing walker to a dictator. the republicans won, so they get to screw up their state, just like they screwed up the country under W and Reagan before him. elections have consequences we have to live with. be it the tea party or the bizzaro tea party people need to think a bit. be that is far too much to ask - outside of new england of course.

I thought until the last election that for the most part the democrats were pretty much in control in WI?

Or was this another case where the blame was clearly the fault of George Bush?

My Race Log

Expert

1233

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

The outcome of this particular bill really doesn't matter. What we are witnessing now is a more 'dramatic' erosion of the concept of unionism, an erosion that has been occurring since the late 70's. In the near future there will be 'wins' and 'defeats' for both sides, but the power once wielded by the unions will continue to decline. In surveys done in the 70's, the primary reason given by people for why they would join a Union was; "a favorable feeling toward the Union." As in Europe, the US government has been enacting legislation over the years to provide more benefits to workers (Family leave act, OSHA laws, EEOC laws, etc.). The government has actually helped to weaken the favorable impression workers once had of Unions. However, what has really led to the demise is the continuing growth of the ranks of disgruntled ex-union employees. Many people work with, or know an ex-union employee who freely tells how the union didn't meet the member's expectation. The favorable impression is gone, and unions will be a non-entity in twenty years. Look how quickly the change in a favorable impression leads to changes in elections.

Also, does anyone recall the worry that companies had during Obama's election campaign, that he was going to make organizing a work place and joining a Union a very easy thing to do? It is not the big 'Vocal' issues from our politicians that we need to be worried about, it's the silent issues that we don't know about.

Member

52

Brookfield, WI

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

Support the bill in it's current form.

What I don't understand is why all union members, especially teachers, think this is such a horrible thing. One of the possible outcomes here is that certain teachers may end up making even more.

Once the unions have been ferreted out of the school system I think it opens the door to more of a merit based pay system. While we could have a separate debate about what constitutes merit measurement for teachers, it is possible that if you are a good teacher, your earning potential may be significantly higher without the union.

I never understood the union mentality. After all, with the goal of treating everyone similarly, how do you determine your own value? Aren't all union members no more valuable than their worst performing member?

Edited by buckybacker05 2011-02-28 9:25 AM

Veteran

458

Minnesota

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

buckybacker05 - 2011-02-28 9:25 AM

Support the bill in it's current form.

What I don't understand is why all union members, especially teachers, think this is such a horrible thing. One of the possible outcomes here is that certain teachers may end up making even more.

Once the unions have been ferreted out of the school system I think it opens the door to more of a merit based pay system. While we could have a separate debate about what constitutes merit measurement for teachers, it is possible that if you are a good teacher, your earning potential may be significantly higher without the union.

I never understood the union mentality. After all, with the goal of treating everyone similarly, how do you determine your own value? Aren't all union members no more valuable than their worst performing member?

Here is where this bill could lead and why many teachers don't like it

1. Loss of job security even if you are a good teacher.
2. Loss of pay, even if you are a good teacher.
3. Loss of of benefits, even if you are a good teacher
4. Less say it what is taught and how it is taught.
5. Decline in teacher quality (good teachers leaving profession and others never entering).

The problem with education is that poor decisions are being made at the top. Systems like No
Child Left Behind and Race to the Top will continue to fail because they are ill conceived and backward thinking. Merit pay has a lot of issues -- how do you measure teacher quality across a wide range of schools and students, who is responsible for assessing teachers, and how is the integrity of this system maintained?

It is interesting that Minnesota, a state at the top of the nation in ACT scores and producing teachers, will be passing legislation to provide alternative teaching licenses. The reason is that they cannot find enough qualified teachers for low-income and inner city schools.

As for the union mentality, I guess most teachers aren't defined personally or professionally by being a member of a union. None of the teachers I know and work with went into education so their value could be determined by being in the teacher's union.

Pro

3906

Libertyville, IL

Subject: RE: Pick a Side Wisconsin

TriJedi - 2011-02-28 12:17 PM

buckybacker05 - 2011-02-28 9:25 AM

Support the bill in it's current form.

What I don't understand is why all union members, especially teachers, think this is such a horrible thing. One of the possible outcomes here is that certain teachers may end up making even more.

Once the unions have been ferreted out of the school system I think it opens the door to more of a merit based pay system. While we could have a separate debate about what constitutes merit measurement for teachers, it is possible that if you are a good teacher, your earning potential may be significantly higher without the union.

I never understood the union mentality. After all, with the goal of treating everyone similarly, how do you determine your own value? Aren't all union members no more valuable than their worst performing member?

Here is where this bill could lead and why many teachers don't like it 1. Loss of job security even if you are a good teacher. 2. Loss of pay, even if you are a good teacher. 3. Loss of of benefits, even if you are a good teacher 4. Less say it what is taught and how it is taught. 5. Decline in teacher quality (good teachers leaving profession and others never entering). The problem with education is that poor decisions are being made at the top. Systems like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top will continue to fail because they are ill conceived and backward thinking. Merit pay has a lot of issues -- how do you measure teacher quality across a wide range of schools and students, who is responsible for assessing teachers, and how is the integrity of this system maintained? It is interesting that Minnesota, a state at the top of the nation in ACT scores and producing teachers, will be passing legislation to provide alternative teaching licenses. The reason is that they cannot find enough qualified teachers for low-income and inner city schools. As for the union mentality, I guess most teachers aren't defined personally or professionally by being a member of a union. None of the teachers I know and work with went into education so their value could be determined by being in the teacher's union.

Not trying to shoot down anything here but rather state that I dont understand how in the private sector there is the ability to rate employees based on performance but there is a fear to do this in the public sector. I dont know, maybe its just an unknown and the mechanism doesnt exist yet so there is a fear factor, but why wouldnt there be a way to better rate teachers? I have some say this would fall on the principal, but understanding there are other duties he/she must attend to, perhaps a layer is added that would be responsible for teams of teachers, maybe by grade or specialty. I get that there are differences in necessary skill sets to teach different subjects or different types of students (i.e. those with special needs) but there has to be a structure that could better assess the abilities of a teachers and compensation than simply being there longer or having a more advanced degree (which doesnt necessarily translate to competence). Everything I have seen about the concept of merit pay seems to throw up the hands and say it cant be done. Really? I have a staff that has differing duties. In rating them, take those duties and how proficient they are at them and how they tie into the bigger picture and make assessments on how well they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. There isnt an expectation that their job demands are all the same and they are producing, but they are graded on effectiveness in their roles. Why cant that be done in the public sector? I dont get it.

My Race Log

Pick a Side Wisconsin
Option	Results
Yes
No

Pick a Side Wisconsin (Page 4)

REGISTER TODAY