Something important from Wisconsin that isn't Aaron Rodgers

[IBCoupe]

So the Governor wants the public sector employees to pay some of their retirement and health benefits? What the hell is so wrong with that? Private sector average for retirement is 7.5% and for health coverage is 20%. They are trying to get public sector employees to pay far LESS than this average, yet still that is unacceptable? Union member employees are such spoiled brats.

Nothing is wrong with that, Stebo, and maybe that's what a contract negotiation would bring. But "negotiation" isn't what's happening. Instead of making the contract the right way, as an agreement between the two interested parties, Wisconsin is seeking to assure their demands, without giving up anything in return.

[bigbadberry3]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41664858/ns/us_news-life

"Walker on Friday ruled out a compromise proposed by a key union to retain collective bargaining rights in exchange for public workers accepting benefit cuts." <---- Indicative of just wanting to break unions not solve the budget. True colors.

[AZhitman]

From my understanding is that a lot of these people (unions) aren't looking for hand outs or raises, they are looking for the money that they are owed for the work they have done over the years. If I did work for someone (public or private) and part of my contract was that I would have money set a side in the future for me, come hell or high water I'd fight for the money.

No, they're pissy because their contribution to their pension is increasing from 5 to 13% (or something like that) and they're being asked to pay SOMETHING towards their health insurance.

We've got a POTUS intervening in a STATE issue with his former cronies (terribly inappropriate). But we all know how his Union thugs do business...

Calling it "arbitration" and "negotiation" is crap. Political spin at its worst. There's no flexibility with these people. Let them function under the same conditions as private sector employees do. They CAN'T. They'd be out on their entitled a$$es in a heartbeat.

Tariq succeeded in missing the point right off the bat, which disappoints me spectacularly.

Back on topic. You blame these workers for fighting for more pay/benefits and not being willing to give back. Would you? If your job asked you to take a 5% pay-cut, or a cut in benefits, would you do that to help benefit the company? I can't think of anyone I know that would gladly agree.

Umm, then you haven't been paying attention. TONS of people have done it in America over the past few years. I took 10 mandatory furlough (unpaid) days this year rather than get laid off.

No, they're SPOILED. Just like the UAW. They don't negotiate, they DEMAND. Then they hold critical services hostage, stage "sick outs" and engage in other thuggish tactics like we're seeing in WI.

Japanese companies waste far more money on trivial crap (testing) than the big three do.

Maybe that's why America has been building junk for 30 years. Testing isn't "trivial crap". Paying some hung-over fat retard $35 an hour to spin on lug nuts IS a waste.

I blame rising obesity and the terribly unhealthy nature of the US population. If we were a healthier nation, "Obamacare" would be a moot point.

How convenient. That pretty much guarantees NO accountability for POTUS and his silly healthcare initiative. We were promised decreased ins costs. Where are they?

Better yet, I'm not fat. I'm quite fit. Why are my rates STILL going up?

Most labor contracts that I have seen account for increased costs of healthcare (typically the employee pays X% of the increase and the employer pays Y%). I don't know the contract as I haven't read it. But I haven't seen any data one way or the other.

You need to look at what they're protesting, then. They DON'T WANT to contribute. They're entitled, and they're being unreasonable.

So the Governor wants the public sector employees to pay some of their retirement and health benefits? What the hell is so wrong with that? Private sector average for retirement is 7.5% and for health coverage is 20%. They are trying to get public sector employees to pay far LESS than this average, yet still that is unacceptable? Union member employees are such spoiled brats.

FINALLY. Someone actually READS.

I love how everyone assumes that somehow these people don't have to "tighten their belts" just like the rest of us have.

And IB, I have an answer to your question ("which state employee..."), but you won't like it - It goes totally against your worldview. Let me just say that just because YOU don't fit that mold, doesn't mean no one else does. No need to project your strengths or limitations onto others.

[bigbadberry3]

AZ I feel you skipped my last post where at least one union has conceded to contributing but the governor says it's too late.

Also AZ, because you run a successful business imo, why does no one ADDRESS THESE ISSUES BEFORE CREATING THE CONTRACTS?!?!

[AZhitman]

I totally agree. But it IS "too late". They tried to play "schoolyard bully" and then wanted to capitulate without getting a sock in the lip. It doesn't work that way. Take the sock in the lip, which was earned and deserved - THEN we're "even".

They're being a bunch of spoiled babies. One attendee at the protests said, "Their benefits are so much better than mine and their pay is so much better than mine, but they are still crying."

Union leaders have characterized Senate Bill 5 as an attack on middle-class workers who need the ability to bargain in order to maintain a fair livelihood and uphold standards for safety and education. They also argue that Ohio's economic downturn, combined with tax cuts phased in over the past six years, are to blame for the state's troubling budget situation, not them.

Whatever. There's already laws governing safety and education. There's no need for redundancy. The mechanisms to ensure that standards are upheld are ALREADY in place.

Then they truck out the "blame game". Hey, I had NOTHING to do with AZ's economic downturn, yet I made 20% LESS this year than I did last year. TWENTY F***ING PERCENT. They're idiots. Go ahead and strike. I hope they all lose their jobs. ALL of them.

The cost of bargaining and the cost of continual wage and benefit increases when the city is not growing are not sustainable. PERIOD.

By the way, for any of you still boo-hooing, let's look at an example out of Ohio:

Cincinnati's personnel costs are GROWING 18 percent annually. The city's contract with police gives officers an average of $87 an hour for working holidays and can let workers retire with six-figure sums for unused leave, totaling $93 million.

All those cushy benefits that they bargain for don't EVER come out. It's unfair to employers, municipalities, the state, and most of all, the taxpayers.

[stebo0728]

This is the start of the next class war I am afraid. The reason this is so big in national minds, is because the unions know they must take a stand here and now to continue their strong hold on industry. If this governor is able to succeed, it wont be long before other states get the same gumption. This notion terrifies union goons. This is Bull Run for union politics.

This is exactly the scenario that can be avoided by NOT giving government employee unions collective bargaining rights at all. Unionization of government employees creates a nasty conflict of interest.

[AZhitman]

...and THAT ^ is someone who understands.

[AZhitman]

...and Allen West spits it much more eloquently than I could. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Alle ... /id/386650

[srellim234]

AZ- I totally agree that they should have to work with the same tools in the private sector. First, to solve the pension fund crises around this country, EVERY public employee, elected, appointed, hired, salaried, hourly, whatever should have the opportunity to put their retirement investment in a 401k or IRA. I'll even let the company (in this case the government) match up to a figure like 6% of what the employee invests of his own paycheck. If that money is voted upon by the union members to be managed by a group like CALPERS or the union, fine. Just NOT the government. The government is not responsible once the matching funds have been paid.

The key? When the employee leaves the job he/she has to move it to a rollover IRA or the new employer's 401k, just like in the private sector. The government is out of the retirement picture. If these union workers want pensions, put pressure on their union leaders and themselves individually to invest or choose a fund manager wisely.

End of all this pension screaming.

[IBCoupe]

No, they're pissy because their contribution to their pension is increasing from 5 to 13% (or something like that) and they're being asked to pay SOMETHING towards their health insurance.

This is the one point I have to disagree with the most: they're not pissy because of the substantive contractual changes. They're pissy because their ability to contract is being taken away. A six percent increase probably wouldn't get unions statewide to show up in solidarity. It's the undermining of the union's very reason for being that's got people up in arms.

If the union's being unreasonable, act like a grown-up, and start laying people off. Let them strike. Hire replacement workers. Do what you have a legal right to do. Don't go out and incite culture wars by changing the rules of the game when they don't suit you. The State of Wisconsin is not powerless, they just like to look that way so that they can make a bogeyman out of their public employees.

You only agree with Stebo because you're both pretending people are pissed off about something they're not. You're missing the point, and I can't tell if it's intentional.

[smockers83]

There are millions of workers who work for big businesses that are perfectly capable of negotiating their pay. The HR department looks at the market rates for all of the positions, determines salary ranges based on the market rates and qualifying experience, and the employee is paid based on the market plus any premium the business may want to place on certain positions.

These people can do that, too. They don't need a union to do that for them that keeps the worst teachers in the system in while kicking the best new ones out, aka tenure, and brings in other millions of dollars in inefficiencies. This is, in my opinion, one of the greatest problems with the US education system. You can't blame Wisconsin either. With the White House's new incentive, this is what teachers across American should begin to expect and I'm glad it's starting to happen.

I was actually surprised by a piece on CNN by one of their liberal writers (Roland Martin) who basically told the teachers to give up your fight.

And to whoever said that no one in their right mind would take a 5% cut in pay to better the business, whoever you are, you are absolutely dead wrong. If a business can't get it's employees to take a cut in pay, they'll cut employees to cut the expenses they need to cut. So anyone in their right mind would take the cut and still have a job instead of being left without a job. The 5% always comes back. Go educate yourself and don't be so naive and stupid.

[AppleBonker]

Back on topic. You blame these workers for fighting for more pay/benefits and not being willing to give back. Would you? If your job asked you to take a 5% pay-cut, or a cut in benefits, would you do that to help benefit the company? I can't think of anyone I know that would gladly agree.

Umm, then you haven't been paying attention. TONS of people have done it in America over the past few years. I took 10 mandatory furlough (unpaid) days this year rather than get laid off.

Whoa, I guess I didn't explain well enough. I took furlough as well. But I can honestly say I wasn't happy about it. Sure, it's better than getting laid off, but it's still not enjoyable. And, you still had the ability to negotiate your furlough. You might not have gotten anywhere, but you could've tried. This bill is attempting to remove the negotiation ability. Rather than sitting at a table and negotiating the terms of the contract, we're changing the negotiating rules so we can do whatever we want. They have a legitimate complaint.

Maybe that's why America has been building junk for 30 years. Testing isn't "trivial crap". Paying some hung-over fat retard $35 an hour to spin on lug nuts IS a waste.

I didn't say ALL testing was trivial (actually, I didn't specify well enough). I meant SOME testing was trivial. Examples: gravel resistance on SUV roof-rails, gasoline resistance on GPS/sat-radio antenna covers. Look, if you've got gravel on the roof of your SUV, the paint is the least of your worries (I'm guessing your car is upside down). If you're spraying gas onto the roof of your car, again, the paint shouldn't be your first concern (obtaining a basic understanding of how to fill a gas tank is). This all costs time and money to perform the testing and I fail to see any benefit in either of those cases.

How convenient. That pretty much guarantees NO accountability for POTUS and his silly healthcare initiative. We were promised decreased ins costs. Where are they?

Better yet, I'm not fat. I'm quite fit. Why are my rates STILL going up?

Accountability on health should start with the individual. I'm healthy too (and younger than you - no offense) yet my health costs keep increasing as well. I'm with you on that - pissed off! However, the healthcare bill isn't the biggest of my concerns. If the rest of the country actually got healthy, the rates would plummet. Your rates increase because everyone else is costing more. The insurance companies need to make their money somewhere. And if Fatty T. McFatass is costing them money, they'll make up for it with you (regardless of any bill past by the government).

[stebo0728]

Score one for FDR

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... tor-unions

[IBCoupe]

The alternative to Walker's budget was kicking 200,000 children off Medicaid.

Or, y'know, not handing out $140 million to corporate interests when he got in the door.

Governor Walker’s plan reasserts voter control over government policy. Voters’ elected representatives should decide how the government spends their taxes.

Individual citizens have a right to organize and petition their employers with the greater leverage that comes from being organized, unless, of course, those individuals happen to work for the government.

[IBCoupe]

I want to explain what Teacher Tenure is; I did it on another thread, but it came up here.

TEACHER TENURE IS NOT THE SAME AS TENURE FOR COLLEGE PROFESSORS.

It is not a job for life.

If you are a teacher and are a recent hire, you do not have tenure. You can be fired at any time for any reason, without any appeal (save for statutory protections, like those found in the Civil Rights act of 1964).

If you are a teacher and have worked in that position long enough (usually three years), there is a system of appeals available to you that you can go through to appeal your firing. That's teacher tenure. It is not impossible to get rid of bad teachers, and anyone who says that to you is trying to get your vote.

[smockers83]

I'm pretty well aware of what tenure is, thank you. It's not impossible, but it for what it's worth, it's pretty damn hard to fire a teacher.

[IBCoupe]

If they challenge it, but most fired teachers don't.

Here, have a link while I go back to class.

[audtatious]

Isn't NYC paying millions in teachers salaries for "dismissed" teachers because of the union?

Ah...here's a Faux news report: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528780,00.html

Firing a tenure teacher can be difficult in some cases:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25430476/ns ... education/

[bigbadberry3]

Why should firing a person be easy? Just cause it's easier to when you work private sector?

[audtatious]

Why should someone have to continue paying another who is either not needed anymore, unable to perform, or simply incompetent?

[bigbadberry3]

Tenure just makes you prove those things in order to be fired.

[AZhitman]

Rather than sitting at a table and negotiating the terms of the contract, we're changing the negotiating rules so we can do whatever we want. They have a legitimate complaint.

I still disagree. Then again, I believe individuals should do the negotiating for themselves. I'm not gonna round up all the Special Investigators in AZ and go stand in the Governor's lobby until she pays us all market rate. That's stupid.

What I *WILL* do is find another employer who will pay me what I'm worth, and walk the hell out.

If the rest of the country actually got healthy, the rates would plummet.

I was told by a handsome, eloquent Black man on TV that my healthcare costs would go down under *his* plan. Was he being dishonest with me? Maybe there was a clerical error in my Payroll Department. I mean, it must be - I don't know what I'll do if I can't have faith in that smart young man from Chicago...

[AZhitman]

Tenure just makes you prove those things in order to be fired.

Actually, it's more than that.

I fire people for a living, I'd know. Unfortunately, it also bogs down the system and ties up progress, even when the person being fired is CLEARLY in the wrong. They still get paid during the termination proceedings, appeals, and hearings.

Wrongful termination is SO rare, it's almost laughable when someone alleges it. The attorneys have made us ALL fear it - we do our homework nowadays.

[IBCoupe]

Aud, I'm well aware of NYC's rubber rooms, which no longer exist. Your first link is old.

But this came from your second link:

He said part of the reason for the drawn-out process is staff cuts in the state education department. Department representatives did not respond to calls seeking comment.

"I'm not looking to shortchange anybody's due process. I'm looking at a system that would allow us to move through at a reasonable pace, that would allow the district to move forward and the employee to move forward," the superintendent said.

And the fact that the process takes a while in NYC is no surprise. Have you ever tried to go through the NYC court system? I caught a whiff of it when my then-fiancee and I went to the City Clerk's office to get a marriage license. There were people waiting to go to the Court in the other half of the building, standing in a line outside for upwards of an hour (I'm not exaggerating - we got in the wrong line at first) on a very cold January morning.

1. Due process takes a bit.
2. If you have antiquated or unmaintained systems in place to provide it, it takes even longer.

And if y'all really think that we shouldn't provide public employees due process, just remember that their employer is The Government™.

[audtatious]

No, I have not gone through the NYC court system and you know I'm not stating that public employees should not have due process. Are you saying that public employees should have more rights than I simply because they work for the Gov?

[AppleBonker]

I still disagree. Then again, I believe individuals should do the negotiating for themselves. I'm not gonna round up all the Special Investigators in AZ and go stand in the Governor's lobby until she pays us all market rate. That's stupid.

And that's a legitimate position to have. However, you can't have a set of rules in place where a contract is negotiated (and BOTH parties agree) and then down the line have one decide they no longer like the terms and use force to nullify the contract. That's not how it should work. Regardless of my position on unions, this isn't the right way to go about making the desired changes.

I was told by a handsome, eloquent Black man [...] from Chicago...

Um, I'm not black...

But really? A politician promised you something that didn't quite work out? Stop the presses.

In all seriousness, I don't believe that the healthcare bill was the proper solution. Sure, it may fix some things down the line, but the primary issue is that people need healthcare (can't change that). However, if we make it less likely that people will need healthcare (or at least less often), the costs of the whole process will go down. It's the same complaint I have about safety "features" on cars. Sure, it's a noble idea to say you want to protect people when an accident occurs. Make that accident far less likely, and the safety systems wont be as taxed (and wont intrude on the driving performance of the car). Maybe it's the engineer in me, but I'd much rather tackle the problem at the source rather than somewhere ten steps down the line...

[stebo0728]

How about we just make all government employees private contractors. We pay them for their services, and anything else they handle on their own. Then theres nothing to negotiate other than wages, they could still get together and bully the tax payers that way if they wanted to, but the only point of contention would be payment for contracted services.

[stebo0728]

And while we're on unions, another thought that occurred to me yesterday. I hear complaints from right wing employees about their dues going to left wing campaigns. What if it worked this way instead. The union headquarters conducts a survey of political affiliation, and based on that percentage, lets say it turns out 60% democrat, 30% republican, 10% libertarian, just for example sake, then by policy, the union would only be able to contribute 60% of its total contributions to democratic campaigns, and only 30% to republican campaigns, and only 10% to libertarian campaigns. That seems a reasonable solution to handling political contribution, rather than dues just being used just at the behest of the union leaders.

[bigbadberry3]

I've heard that union members have the option of having their dues go or not go to political affiliations.

[stebo0728]

It varies from union to union. If I'm not mistaken that is also part of the change being forwarded in WI. To give the contribution option to union members. Probably one the small unmentioned items. Either that, or it may be that they are trying to make union dues optional altogether, which is a better option IMO. Of course if you dont pay your union dues, dont expect any union representation, thats only fair. Given the choice I would opt out of union dues, and just negotiate for myself (would probably get further in the ranks as non-union, brownie points and such)