On Wisconsin! (Read 2073 times)


Fat butt on couch

    According to another recent thread, parental happiness is apparently more important than parental involvement.

     

    Damn, so this is my problem.

     

    I learn something every day...

    "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

     

    MrH


      According to another recent thread, parental happiness is apparently more important than parental involvement.

       

      It's certainly more important if the well being of the kid isn't factored into it.

      The process is the goal.

      Men heap together the mistakes of their lives, and create a monster they call Destiny.

      Scout7


      CPT Curmudgeon

        Ok. I'm being unclear again.

         

        My original post was to illustrate that public employees routinely make less than a private-sector employee with similar responsibilities. It was a variant of an argument that I've been making for years: military officers don't make jack, even considering the benefits.

         

         

        Yeah, and guess what?  The military isn't unionized.

         

        So let's leave the military out of this entire discussion, because it's not really relevant to the role unions have played in government and public service workers.  Unless, of course, you want to maybe argue that not having a union is an effective way of running a governmental organization.


        Dave

          My original post was to illustrate that public employees routinely make less than a private-sector employee with similar responsibilities. 

           

          Maybe this would clarify it for you.

           

          http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

           

          Makes the superintendent who is paid more than the maximum federal executive pay even more ridiculous.

           

          Private sector executives make significantly more than public sector executives.  Rank and file employees make more in the public sector for perhaps the first time in generations.  Hmmm....

          I ran a mile and I liked it, liked it, liked it.

          dgb2n@yahoo.com
          xor


            I've tried introducing legislation to ban butt-reaming assholes from being allowed to become a father.  It can't get any traction on the floor. 

             

            Weirdisms in the English language have always fascinated me.  The whole concept of "butt-reaming asshole" at a literal level is funky if you don't switch codes on the meaning of asshole from literal asshole to personality asshole.

             

            Speaking of, as being reported here in the pacific northwest, the Wisconsin thing is NOT about government employees wanting solely/only to keep their collective bargaining rights.  Today it is about teachers who don't want to pay for insurance.

             

            Yes, that is how it is being reported, and totally without a "how much?"  I'm smart enough not to take little soundbites as full-on news, which is good because "teachers don't want to pay for insurance" won't get a lot of sympathy from those of us who have had to fund our own insurance for 10+ years. Which is a whole lot of us.  But like I said, I'm blaming the news reporting.

             

            Dear Wisconsin's employees: you might be in the right, but you aren't being done any favors as the story spreads. 

             

              On the public vs. private issue... when the leaders in the private sector get queasy then maybe things are not being handled well. 

               

              http://www.greatermadisonchamber.com/about/press_room/60

               

              The biggest concern in my opinion is they way it's being presented as "my way or the highway".  He's got leverage so the GOV says there is no room for negotiation.  None.  Nothing is negotiable.  The unions are asking to pay more for health care and GOV says no.  We aren't interested in a mutual solution.  The solution is the unions can't negotiate. 

               

              In all honesty I don't know who to believe.  But I'm being told the unions have offered to negotiate about paying more but are told that's not an option. 

               

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-schweber/the-madison-protests-its_b_825794.html?ref=tw

               

              Of course it leads to a battle.  That's what was wanted from the start.  Meanwhile kids stay home from school.  Nice. 

               

              Thankfully by some cosmic fate (unexplained by the fact that the Police Union contributed to GOV's campaign and endorsed the GOV) the Police Union is not affected by this proposal and so Mr. GOV still has the Police on his side to keep order and hunt down the Democrats hiding out. 

               

              At the risk of sounding like a snob, maybe this was not the best time to elect a guy as GOV who never graduated from college.  But the winds of change said whoever won the Republican primary would win the general election.  From his wiki page:

               

              He attended Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin from 1986 to 1990.[8] During his sophomore year, he ran unsuccessfully for president of the student government, promising to solve the school's economic problems. The Marquette Tribune, the student newspaper, did not endorse Walker due to admitted violations of campaigning guidelines.[9][10] During his four years at Marquette, he earned 94 credits with a grade point average in the C's, but he did not complete his degree.[11] Walker explained his reasons in a 2010 interview: "'In the end, I figured I was in school to get a good job,' he said. 'So once I had one, family became more important than getting a degree.'"

               

               

              as it further says on his bio... the citizens knew what they were getting.  So I'm not trying to say Wisconsin didn't ask for this battle either.  Apparently the majority did want it. 

               

               

              As part of his campaign platform, Walker proposed cutting state employee wages and benefits and rolling back 2009 state tax increases on small businesses, capital gains, and income for top earners. Critics said that Walker's proposals would only help the wealthy and that cutting the salaries of public employees would adversely affect state services.[24][25][26

              In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

              http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

               

               

               





                Weirdisms in the English language have always fascinated me.  The whole concept of "butt-reaming asshole" at a literal level is funky if you don't switch codes on the meaning of asshole from literal asshole to personality asshole.

                 

                It is interesting.  A word that otherwise has meaning essentially loses it all when it becomes an expletive, and expresses just raw emotion.  I think it's a sort of mild manifestation of Tourette's in all of us.

                Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

                  I wouldn't exactly call the Madison Chamber of Commerce the leaders of the private sector.

                   

                  Still, I'll admit when I first read about the way the Wisconsin Governor was handling it I thought he was going a bit too far, but I don't know.  I think it's probably an adroit political move right now--the budget crisis demands that employee benefits be reigned in and the taxpayers are tapped out, so he's going to get those regardless.  With union sympathy at an all time low, he sees an opportunity to make a direct assault on the unions' very power to negotiate that led to the current situation.  It makes sense from that perspective.

                  Runners run.

                    I wouldn't exactly call the Madison Chamber of Commerce the leaders of the private sector.

                     

                    In my defense I was calling the president of the Chamber of Commerce a leader within the private sector.   I think the definition fits.  And since it is the city in which the GOV works and the protests are being held it seems a worthwhile opinion.  I grant you Madison is a liberal city.  I don't deny that. 

                    In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

                    http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

                     

                     

                     





                      In my defense I was calling the president of the Chamber of Commerce a leader within the private sector.   I think the definition fits.  And since it is the city in which the GOV works and the protests are being held it seems a worthwhile opinion.  I grant you Madison is a liberal city.  I don't deny that. 

                       

                      No defense needed, I wasn't commenting on the city of Madison but  more the general purpose of a chamber of commerce.  They are a non-profit who, among other things, tries to steer public policy and help members navigate government.  In the case of the Madison chamber, the president is actually full time staff member.

                       

                      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.

                       

                      My own company still has a small segment of the employee base that's union--basically field technicians.  Over time this group has continued to shrink and lay people off as the company has outsourced more to local contractors because our own rates are not competitive due to the union overhead.

                       

                      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.

                      Runners run.

                        Go easy on Walker dropping out of Marquette.  That's a very, very impressive instiution of higher learning and has been called the Harvard/Yale/Princeton of the Midwest by people more than once and that's before you factor in the wind chill.  Just getting accepted to Marquette is a feat few mortals even attempt.

                         

                        Also, he's not a union buster.  He's only busting the unions that didn't support him during the election.  But this is just round one so give him time.

                        "Good-looking people have no spine. Their art never lasts. They get the girls, but we're smarter." - Lester Bangs

                          This pretty much sums up my view (and saves me time by not having to post it here). Smile

                           

                          Also, some actual data on the public’s view of unions.

                          xor


                             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.

                             

                            While I agree at a high level, this is a complex issue, at least in my neck of the woods.  The issue is what one includes in "benefits" and the other things unions act (or *say* that they act) as advocates for... smaller class sizes, ditching silly aspects of nclb, etc etc.  The idea being that advocating for these things increases the quality of education for children.  They can also argue that higher pay has that effect as well.  So, it is complex.

                             

                            But it is kind of funky how they "bargain" here sometimes.  Some of the strikes seem to be holding parents/children hostage and decrease quality of education.  Or so it would seem.

                             

                            It's complicated.

                             

                            I have a lot of friends who are K12 teachers.  Every one of them works super duper hard and gets the shaft in lots of ways.  K12 teaching is one of those "calling" type activities.

                             

                               

                               

                                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.

                               

                               

                              I'm generally pro-union, but this is certainly clearly stated and something to consider.


                              HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                                when the leaders in the private sector get queasy then maybe things are not being handled well. 

                                 

                                More like, when the leaders in the private sector get queasy, that means they're afraid someone is going to find out about the legislators they bought and the nasty little laws they bought and slipped through -- or that means they're seeing their profit margins slip, so it's time for them to get their paid legislators to slip them some more tax breaks or "bailout" profit.

                                It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.