Forums >Off the Beaten Path>On Wisconsin!
http://maciverinstitute.com/2011/02/union-negotiated-work-rules-for-public-employees-cost-taxpayers-dearly/ and for purposes of presenting balance, here is an article written by my cousin. I'm not saying either side is 100% right. And I'll probably disagree with Brian on this plenty. But, at least anyone interested in this has a little more information than you'll get out of a 30 second spot on the news.
http://maciverinstitute.com/2011/02/union-negotiated-work-rules-for-public-employees-cost-taxpayers-dearly/
and for purposes of presenting balance, here is an article written by my cousin. I'm not saying either side is 100% right. And I'll probably disagree with Brian on this plenty. But, at least anyone interested in this has a little more information than you'll get out of a 30 second spot on the news.
Whoa whoa whoa... there's a MacGyver institute?! All those wasted years in grad school...
"Because in the end, you won't remember the time you spent working in the office or mowing your lawn. Climb that goddamn mountain."
Jack Kerouac
In WI, it seems like they could come to some sort of compromise where the employees will gradually pay more of their benefits.
My understanding is that the state doesn't want to compromise. The unions are indicating the GOV is saying there is no negotiation possible.
Here in Seattle, we have clam chowder places called Ivar's. I thought it was perhaps that. Mmmmm.
In WI, it seems like they could come to some sort of compromise where the employees will gradually pay more of their benefits. There are other areas the government can cut and it doesn't need to be on the backs of these employees all at once. Phase in the contributions and if they don't like it, they can start looking in another state for a job.
It sounds like that is what the public employees are trying to do, but the Gov doesn't want to compomise at all.
We have agreed to wage freezes and cost sharing of health insurance premiums for the last 3-4 years where I work. During out last contract negotitations, we agreed to a wage freeze and two furlough days (day off without pay) so we didn't have to have an employee that we work with get laid off.
Nearly every bargaining unit agree to those terms except one. That department had two employees laid off. How would you like to work with people like that? They knew from a seniority list who would be the first to go and let it happen for two days pay and a 1% raise.
The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff
2014 Goals:
Stay healthy
Enjoy life
yup.
http://www.wisn.com/politics/26940872/detail.html
frankly I don't see how it's anything beyond union busting. Not that I have a problem with union busting. In fact I used to do a little union busting back in my day.
We can't bust heads like we used to. But we have our ways. One trick is to tell stories that don't go anywhere. Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for m'shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where was I... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time. You couldn't get white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701151/quotes
12-week layoff
I am a teacher. All of my insurance costs were increased this year, after four years of no pay raises, zero dollars of classroom money, increased class sizes, and the list of budget cuts goes on and on.
If you want me to pay a "fair" amount for insurance, fine.
Pay me what I would make in the private sector for my master's degree, and I'll be happy to shell out more for insurance.
There are people driving dump trucks who make more than I make. Fine, I chose my career knowing how much it pays. But I also chose it knowing that the benefits somewhat make up for the low pay, and now you're trying to change the rules of the game on me. People who whine about the unfair teacher's insurance rates don't seem to make a peep about the low salary compared with the education requred for the job.
I know that the economy is terrible, and I do without pay raises while conditions worsen at school. When the economy is better, then my salary will go up. Since our governor has announced a possible proration of 3% for this year, and up to 11% for 2012, it's not going to be soon. That affects my bottom line for the rest of my life, but there's no one to blame for that.
But the amount for insurance I will be paying will never go down, even when the economy inproves. That's a permanent pay cut. I do a hard, thankless, and very important job, and it sucks.
When the economy is better, then my salary will go up. Since our governor has announced a possible proration of 3% for this year, and up to 11% for 2012, it's not going to be soon. That affects my bottom line for the rest of my life, but there's no one to blame for that. But the amount for insurance I will be paying will never go down, even when the economy inproves. That's a permanent pay cut.
But the amount for insurance I will be paying will never go down, even when the economy inproves. That's a permanent pay cut.
Honest clarifying question: What is a "possible proration"?
As for the insurance never going down, yes. That does suck. It's something pretty much everyone faces. Although sometimes, "they" will swap out plans such that premiums only go up a little... but actual benefit goes down. Healthcare is complicated, and health insurance has been a longstanding pokey poke across almost all businesses, public, private, and martian.
Proration is cutting the education budget after the budget has been set, teachers have been hired, and plans have been made. In other words, it's cutting the budget once the fiscal year has begun. I probably should have said 3% proration for this year, and a possible 11% budget cut for next year. Even though the economy is improving, the way that Alabama funds schools is based on a combination of property/sales taxes, and it will take a couple of years for the state coffers to fill again to fund schools. The oil spill didn't help us any.
I understand why my insurance costs had to go up, but I don't like all of the indignant whining from people who don't know anything about my salary, probably make more money than I do with only a high school diploma, and think it's unfair for state employees who make a low salary to be compensated in other ways.
What a state. We had blizzards every other weekend and months after electing a new govenor 55,000+ people show up to protest the stuff he is trying to pass.
Unions are a huge thing in this state. Not just teachers unions but we have many manufacturing companies (Kohler, Bucyrus, Manitowoc, Harley Davidson, etc...) and they all have unions for the factory workers. This is more than just about the teachers. Its about a precedent. Thousands of manufacturing jobs here in Wisconsin over the last few years have gone to China. People in unions across the board are scared they are going to have to accept a lot less. In manufacturing when the company did not accept the union's demands they simply shipped the factory to China. In education I think that people finally feel like they have a chance to make a difference with a massive protest.
That being said I think school would be more effective if it was 10-11 months a year. I am also a little unsure of the purpose of unions in today's society. 100 years ago it was about safe working conditions and a reasonable number of working hours. I feel we have solved most of those problems. I also feel that the world is catching up the United States in many respects and we do not have the luxury of enjoying 25 years of retirement because of our thick salaries. Although Warren Buffet could probably fund 100,000 pensions himself...
If the unions win then hooray for the little people. If the unions lose then hooray for my cousin who just graduated with a teaching degree and no job, maybe something will open up. Which is better long term? How should I know? The global economy is certainly going to affect the public employee pay and compensation in this country and I have no idea how big the Asian economy will be compared to us in two years let alone 20.
an amazing likeness
There are people driving dump trucks who make more than I make. Fine, I chose my career knowing how much it pays. But I also chose it knowing that the benefits somewhat make up for the low pay, and now you're trying to change the rules of the game on me. People who whine about the unfair teacher's insurance rates don't seem to make a peep about the low salary compared with the education requred for the job. I know that the economy is terrible, and I do without pay raises while conditions worsen at school. When the economy is better, then my salary will go up. Since our governor has announced a possible proration of 3% for this year, and up to 11% for 2012, it's not going to be soon. That affects my bottom line for the rest of my life, but there's no one to blame for that.
If you weren't under a collective bargaining arrangement, you could pursue pay increases with your employer. Or, take your services elsewhere adn get the salary the market will bear for your services.
Given what you present above, I don't see what value your being in a union provides. I say this seriously, and not in "baiting" manner -- it is something I can't understand.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
[snip] And for the record I'm not a conservative in almost any way except when it comes to organized labor. I'm a registered Independent voter from Massachusetts who votes Democrat about 90% of the time. I voted for Obama and would do it again, but I think he's wrong on this one. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for unions and I think most people don't. That's what I think the leaders of this movement are missing and it was a misread on their part. They're trying to make this about their right to collectively bargain and expecting an outpouring of support from the general public and it's not there. Why should public employees have the basic right to something that 90% of the general public doesn't have? When your position on an issue is this far to the left of a liberal from Massachusetts, it might be time to at least consider that it's out of line with mainstream America. Unions became obsolete 60 years ago. Workers basic rights are protected by law. All unions do is make companies less competitive, less able to react to changing economic conditions and cost tax payers money. Look to Detroit and it's 29% unemployment rate if you want to see what unions run amok will do. GM unleashed the largest corporate bankruptcy in the history of the world on us with it's $179m in liabilities (a lot of in pensions) and $80m in assets. The only reason it was able to go on for so long was that for the longest time the auto industry was considered "too big to fail." In rest of the private sector, companies have been figuring this out for the past 30 years, or they've been going out of business. It just takes longer in the government. [snip] That's the big incongruity for me in all this: unions are ultimately bad for the employee. I love the teachers in my town but I can't stand the Mass Teacher's Association--I hold them more responsible for the fact that we've laid off 22 teachers in the last 5 years than anyone. I hate their whole approach--saying they advocate for children and quality education. They're a trade union--they advocate for pay and benefits for their members, period, so why not just say so? It's disingenuous. I'd be insulted by that if I was a teacher. Public employees are professionals and deserve to be compensated as such, but there's already plenty of incentive to do so. It's less expensive to pay competitive salary and benefits to attract and retain quality people than it is to have high turnover and always be training new people. But that doesn't mean you give benefits packages that are way out of whack with what most people get and what the public can afford.
[snip]
And for the record I'm not a conservative in almost any way except when it comes to organized labor. I'm a registered Independent voter from Massachusetts who votes Democrat about 90% of the time. I voted for Obama and would do it again, but I think he's wrong on this one. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for unions and I think most people don't. That's what I think the leaders of this movement are missing and it was a misread on their part. They're trying to make this about their right to collectively bargain and expecting an outpouring of support from the general public and it's not there. Why should public employees have the basic right to something that 90% of the general public doesn't have? When your position on an issue is this far to the left of a liberal from Massachusetts, it might be time to at least consider that it's out of line with mainstream America.
Unions became obsolete 60 years ago. Workers basic rights are protected by law. All unions do is make companies less competitive, less able to react to changing economic conditions and cost tax payers money. Look to Detroit and it's 29% unemployment rate if you want to see what unions run amok will do. GM unleashed the largest corporate bankruptcy in the history of the world on us with it's $179m in liabilities (a lot of in pensions) and $80m in assets. The only reason it was able to go on for so long was that for the longest time the auto industry was considered "too big to fail." In rest of the private sector, companies have been figuring this out for the past 30 years, or they've been going out of business. It just takes longer in the government.
That's the big incongruity for me in all this: unions are ultimately bad for the employee. I love the teachers in my town but I can't stand the Mass Teacher's Association--I hold them more responsible for the fact that we've laid off 22 teachers in the last 5 years than anyone. I hate their whole approach--saying they advocate for children and quality education. They're a trade union--they advocate for pay and benefits for their members, period, so why not just say so? It's disingenuous. I'd be insulted by that if I was a teacher.
Public employees are professionals and deserve to be compensated as such, but there's already plenty of incentive to do so. It's less expensive to pay competitive salary and benefits to attract and retain quality people than it is to have high turnover and always be training new people. But that doesn't mean you give benefits packages that are way out of whack with what most people get and what the public can afford.
Well expressed (more articulate than I could do) version of my viewpoint as well.
So, as they say, +1.
If you weren't under a collective bargaining arrangement, you could pursue pay increases with your employer. Or, take your services elsewhere adn get the salary the market will bear for your services. Given what you present above, I don't see what value your being in a union provides. I say this seriously, and not in "baiting" manner -- it is something I can't understand.
I am commenting on the insurance part of the arguement, not so much the union part. I was part of the union, but the state just passed a law making it illegal to collect dues for the NEA and AEA by using a payroll deduction, as retaliation for the AEA's part in seeing that the GOP's chosen candidate for governor was not elected. Or some such nonsense. Anyway, I have not switched over to the bank draft, but I'll join the union again later.
I don't think any pay raise increases could be pursued at this time, and I'm not asking for one at this time. About a year ago, our county narrowly passed a tax that saved teacher's jobs, among other things that it did. Part of the reason that the AEA opposed the election of Bradley Bourne for governor is that he publically opposed the tax, and he is a resident of my county.
The taxpayers would not support a pay raise at this time, and we would be fools to ask.
I would also be a fool to leave a stable job in this economy. I know I could get paid more to do other things...but I love my job. There's always that.
I am commenting on the insurance part of the arguement, not so much the union part.
Apologies for having missed that point. It really is simple. Health insurance costs will continue to rise as long as (1) medical claim costs increase; and (2) health insurance remains a dictacted payment, non-insurance product. (In insurance, the low, predictable premiums of the many pay for the unexpected large losses of the few)
Like I've been saying--it's the politics of envy! The linked HuffPo piece talks about a lot of the stuff I've been saying: pitting middle class against each other for corporate/big money gains, the willingness to compromise without tantrums but meeting a wall, etc.
And then there's this piece about how things aren't so cushy for public employees.
Does my little heart good to see this stuff roll into my Facebook feed.
Call me Ray (not Ishmael)
Stuff removed. Ah fuck it. Whatever. All I will say is that the first linked piece didn't resonate with me at all, and I consider myself to be somewhat left-leaning.