No class in WI as teachers protest union-busting governor

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Define "earn their keep."

Not necessarily arguing with you here, just want to know where you're going with that.

I would think it's much harder to get that clause in that says you're getting fired if you don't pay your dues w/o collective bargaining.

[archibaldcrane]

From what I remember, WI is not one of the states in dire economic troubles, eg. like IL and CA. However, if WI can't meet their budget through taxation or spending cuts

Wisconsin had a 54M surplus heading into this year, but as soon as Scott Walker was elected he gave a bunch of big-business tax cuts that cost the state 170M.

[archibaldcrane]

Or they actually have to earn their keep.

Wouldn't a union earning it's keep mean that they constantly push for the best wages and benefits for their members at all times? That's what the union dues are being paid for...

This legislation prevents them from bargaining for ANY benefits, and cuts effective wages by ~8% - so it makes it pretty impossible for a union to "earn it's keep", which is the point - to render unions worthless. That's why Walker spent and tax-cut the state into a deficit - so he could do that very thing.

[Kuya]

Sounds like class warfare.

[Bingbong]

Wouldn't a union earning it's keep mean that they constantly push for the best wages and benefits for their members at all times? That's what the union dues are being paid for...

This legislation prevents them from bargaining for ANY benefits, and cuts effective wages by ~8% - so it makes it pretty impossible for a union to "earn it's keep", which is the point - to render unions worthless. That's why Walker spent and tax-cut the state into a deficit - so he could do that very thing.

I think Swamp was talking about the actual membership earning their keep.
As opposed to the system in place that says regardless of how shitty a teacher you are, you still get the same wages as everyone else.

[Not Kuno]

As opposed to the system in place that says regardless of how shitty a teacher you are, you still get the same wages as everyone else.

And how do you define if a teacher is shitty or not? If the students like them? If the students grades improve? The problem is people are trying to take something qualitative like teaching and turn it quantitative which doesn't work.

[Kuya]

Unions = better than nothing.

Deal with it

[Plow]

I agree with Kuya.

[Kuya]

That's one reason not to trust libertarians with power. Although, libertarians are all over the place, which says a lot about their ideology.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So the unions were willing to give up their worker's incomes but not their own. Taken together with the fact that they aren't willing to have be re-certified every year, who's interests are they looking out for?

Also, considering unions give more to politicians than corporations, by liberal logic, shouldn't their power be curtailed?

[Demosthenes11]

Puppetmasters?

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/20...public-unions/

ur dumb. glenn beck has you covered though, don't worry. he knows the real architects behind these protests

[Kuya]

So the unions were willing to give up their worker's incomes but not their own.

huh

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

huh

W/o collective bargaining the union doesn't get the provision that says workers can be fired for not paying their dues.

[Kuya]

You're saying that if the union can't bargain collectively, they also can't fire workers for not paying their dues?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You're saying that if the union can't bargain collectively, they also can't fire workers for not paying their dues?

Unless someone else decides to institute such a provision, then yes.

[Kuya]

I gather you think the unions shouldn't be able to force membership.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Pretty much.

[Kuya]

That's all well and good, but if unions have no mechanisms to force members into line or keep them, it makes unions weaker. Which might be what you want anyway so it doesn't matter.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

That is correct.

As to the weaker part, I don't know if I want that per se, but as it stands, public sector unions sit on both sides of the table which isn't right either.

[Ksandra]

Someone posted this on facebook which I thought was kinda fun:

Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or10 months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit!

We can get that for less than minimum wage.



That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan-- that equals 6 1/2 hours).



Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.

However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.

LET'S SEE....

That's $585 X 180= $105,300

per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).



What about those special

education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an

hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year.

Wait a minute -- there's

something wrong here! There sure is!

The average teacher's salary

(nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days

= $277.77/per day/30

students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student--a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!

Now granted, not many people get paid per product (commission if you will) but comparing it to babysitting/daycare is quite appropriate imo considering I often hear that as a reason to cut teacher salaries. food for thought anyways for those thinking they get overpaid.