As American as Union Busting

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Anyone consider this... Repugs bust up unions > Less union dues come in > Less union donations for demcrap party > Less campaign money for demcraps > More power for repugs.

Meanwhile... Repugs vote to allow unlimited campaign contributions by corporations.

Where do you think middle-class america fit in this scenario??? Who's left to speak for us???

Originally posted by ohioriver
When the public union employees are bargaining for more more more, who do you think pays for it?

THe teacher unions in WI conceded to every financial demand that walker asked them to.

The public unions members that get paid out of the taxpayers pocket is getting posh benefits that most taxpayers will never see.

Watching WAY too much Fox..."posh benefits"???...for the love of God, most teachers are required to have Masters Degree and start by earning barely above the poverty level. Healthcare and chance at retirement someday is not "posh benefits". oooo yah all those teachers driving those fancy cars...wtf....seriously.??

It's like a self-perpetuating whirlpool of ignorance...Ignorance that actually causes more ignorance by decimating our already struggling educational system.

Lets just give Wall Street Billions as a reward for robbing us blind and then we can stick it to teachers for choosing the one career that has the least to do with greed.

WTF???? What happened to the USA?

If the public thought the teachers did a good job with their children none of this would be an issue for the public would see this as money well spent. Most think teachers suck at being their surrogates while theyre away at their ninunion jobs, and they want a change so they can buy some decent education on the private market
That public education is generally considered overlyexpensive and under performing for good reason,it is the issue and it's not the money but the conditions of employment that need to change. Public education is indoctrination anymore and any reality based education happens at home, by accident or not at all.
Funny that so many here want to expose their increasingly noneducated children to gubmint indoctrination factories yet see gubmint conspiracy everything else. This I find somehow contradictory.

reply to post by maybereal11


The bamster and hs cohorts gave the bankers that surround him still the money. Nobody I know thought it would work or wanted it, Yet bammy is not asking banksters to pony up or give back a penny, and heck their kids go to private schools, he's asking those that had their pocket picked clean to do..

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by ohioriver
When the public union employees are bargaining for more more more, who do you think pays for it?

THe teacher unions in WI conceded to every financial demand that walker asked them to.

The public unions members that get paid out of the taxpayers pocket is getting posh benefits that most taxpayers will never see.

Watching WAY too much Fox..."posh benefits"???...for the love of God, most teachers are required to have Masters Degree and start by earning barely above the poverty level. Healthcare and chance at retirement someday is not "posh benefits". oooo yah all those teachers driving those fancy cars...wtf....seriously.??

It's like a self-perpetuating whirlpool of ignorance...Ignorance that actually causes more ignorance by decimating our already struggling educational system.

Lets just give Wall Street Billions as a reward for robbing us blind and then we can stick it to teachers for choosing the one career that has the least to do with greed.



WTF???? What happened to the USA?

Yes posh benefits. In todays economy that is posh benefits. And while yes they did agree to pay cuts, it was only in the short term. With the collective bargaining they had they would have just waited for the next politician more favorable to unions and gotten them back plus some. How is that fair to the average taxpayer?

teacherportal.com...

Starting Salary: $25,222
Average Salary: $46,390

The starting salary for Wisconsin teachers is $25k; the average salary is $46k, yet 100% of them are required to have at least a bachelor's degree,

Hardly poverty level for one person. And remember that is for 9 months not a whole years salary. Add onto that healthcare and retirement benefits and you see why it is not fair to the taxpayer who pays for it yet gets poor results from the teachers.
And why should we let the teachers union rob us just like wall street did? Apparently greed is good to the teachers.

Notice at no point did I insult you, your intelligence or person. Why can't you show me the same courtesy?

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by whaaa

 

There is no right to bargain for more of the taxpayers money.

Yes there is. It's all outlined in the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

There's your right to bargain.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

And there's your right to organize.

Also, once it leaves your hand, it is no longer your money. This is a pretty basic concept, HaveAnotherOne. if the money paid to teachers is "taxpayer money" then so is the money that teachers pay to their local supermarket. And then so is the money that that supermarket pays its employees. And then the money that produce dude spends at a strip club is ALSO taxpayer money.

Why are you paying for strip clubs, HaveAnotherOne?

If they are unhappy with what the taxpayers provide them, they are more than free to try their hand in the private sector.

Or they could use their rights to bargain with their employers - which happens to be the school district, not the public. They're not congressmen, you know.

reply to post by ohioriver


The starting salary for Wisconsin teachers is $25k; the average salary is $46k, yet 100% of them are required to have at least a bachelor's degree,



Oh wow, $46k a year. Who can live off that and how much can you by for that? Not a whole heck of a lot. That's nothing! You'd have to have a very, very small house payment in order to live off that and buy gas, electric and groceries and try to have a little entertainment money left over.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Let me educate you a little bit since you seem a tad ignorant of how the Constitution works.

a) The first Amendment clearly states government cannot stop you from speaking. Nowhere does it say you have the right to force someone to listen to you.

b) Sure you can assemble, assemble until youre blue in the face. That doesnt mean your assembly must be heard or granted their "demands" lol.

c) The particular argument you should go with here is the portion of the first where the people have a right to seek a redress of grievances. Unfortunately for you and your ilk, wanting more than $75k a year in total compensation is not a proper grievance to take to the government.

The taxpayers have more say in how their money is spent than do the people paid with it.

If you want to argue the Constitution on this site, it would help if you actually knew something about how it worked.

reply to post by queenofsheba


Remember also, that salary figure includes pension. In effect, their salary is a bit lower, due to the pension being taken out and set in trust; and they don't get that pension money until they retire.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Uh, the average Wisconsin teacher compensation package is over $75,000 including pension and benefits.

In Milwaukee its over 100k.

Yet again, you are wrong.

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Let me educate you a little bit since you seem a tad ignorant of how the Constitution works.

a) The first Amendment clearly states government cannot stop you from speaking. Nowhere does it say you have the right to force someone to listen to you.

b) Sure you can assemble, assemble until youre blue in the face. That doesnt mean your assembly must be heard or granted their "demands" lol.

First off, someone who doesn't know how to use an apostrophe has no business criticizing teachers.

Second, of course the constitution doesn't force anyone to listen to you. Employers listen to their employees because it's a good idea, not because any law compels them to. Tell your employees to get bent, and times are going to get very hard for whatever business you're running.

However, this is not the issue. When a legislature passes a law that outlaws collective bargaining, they are in, absolute terms, outlawing freedom of speech. Do you know what "collective bargaining" is, HAO? I don't think you do, and since I've seen so much ignorance about the term of late, allow me to explain the concept.

Collective bargaining is when the employees get together, discuss among themselves what they would like to ask for, and then take it to the negotiating table. That's it. That's collective bargaining. When you say "You cannot collectively bargain" you are outlawing people's ability to discuss with each other. I can't think of any more blatant violation of the first amendment, short of declaring this country a theocracy and having the military burn all the printing presses.

c) The particular argument you should go with here is the portion of the first where the people have a right to seek a redress of grievances. Unfortunately for you and your ilk, wanting more than $75k a year in total compensation is not a proper grievance to take to the government.

Actually no, it's a guarantor of freedom of association and assembly, HAO. Basically you can hang out with who you want, form any organization you want, and talk to whoever you want. Trying to redefine that into some narrow and terribly exclusive form as you are doing here is not only ignorant it is, dare I say, counter to American ideals.

And even if in the wild blue yonder of possibility that your position were accurate, there is no statute that says what you can and cannot ask of your government; such a restriction would be - get this - a violation of your right to seek redress!

The taxpayers have more say in how their money is spent than do the people paid with it.

Actually no. Teachers are not your employees. You can elect congressmen, or even school board members, if you REALLY want to dick over teachers and ensure your students are crammed into 60-kid classrooms where they will be taught to fill in bubble tests by an intern. You can make demands of these elected officials, since they ARE your employees. You cannot make demands of the teachers or their unions however; you are not their employer. They are private citizens, just as you are, and are in no way beholden to your demands or desires.

If you want to argue the Constitution on this site, it would help if you actually knew something about how it worked.

You're the one who just argued that outlawing discussion is legal under the first amendment and that the government has full authority to shut down chess clubs, you know.

Originally posted by queenofsheba
reply to post by ohioriver

 

The starting salary for Wisconsin teachers is $25k; the average salary is $46k, yet 100% of them are required to have at least a bachelor's degree,



Oh wow, $46k a year. Who can live off that and how much can you by for that? Not a whole heck of a lot. That's nothing! You'd have to have a very, very small house payment in order to live off that and buy gas, electric and groceries and try to have a little entertainment money left over.

Quite a few Americans live on less than that. And I imagine they aren't too happy knowing their taxes will go up so public union workers can have another raise or better benefits. Most 2 earner families are struggling on just above minimum wage and you feel sorry for ONE teacher making $46,000 for 9 months. Imagine how the families making less than the teachers feel when their land taxes go up. I say good that they now how to join their fellow Americans and pay into their own retirement and benefits.

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Uh, the average Wisconsin teacher compensation package is over $75,000 including pension and benefits.

In Milwaukee its over 100k.

Yet again, you are wrong.

You know why that is?

because when you "add in" pensions, you are counting it twice. Jesus jumping christ, dude, the way pensions work is that they are deducted from your paycheck and then given back when you retire. They are counted into the average salary. And when you figure in that you need to actually retire in the same school district? Frankly a lot of teachers don't make that criteria, and never see their pensions. They move, or they quit, or they die, or they get fired for not teaching the bubble test well enough to six classes of fifty kids who all demand babysitting in addition to education.

Also, ever tried to buy groceries with benefits? have you? I want you to go into your local supermarket, and ask if they take Blue Cross. Go on, try it. I'll bet they don't. Now try it with your electrical company. I'll imagine your insurance can't pay for that, either. Can you send your kids to college with your insurance? Nope. Pay rent? Nuh-uh. Property taxes? HAH! Hell, with most insurance packages, you can barely pay for things your insurance DOES cover, because the insurance company fights every claim. And that's if you can find someone who takes your workplace's insurance. I have dental as part of my benefits. However, no dentist in my area accepts that insurance.

Double-counting pension and trying to tack benefits onto the paycheck is, in a word, duplicitous.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox


First off, someone who doesn't know how to use an apostrophe has no business criticizing teachers.

First off, someone who criticizes a mere typos in an online forum must have too much free time on their hands, or being an anally obsessive fool. Which one are you?

Hell, since I don't know how to use apostrophes, I should be the first one to criticize teachers. They taught me wrong then didn't they?

Second, of course the constitution doesn't force anyone to listen to you. Employers listen to their employees because it's a good idea, not because any law compels them to. Tell your employees to get bent, and times are going to get very hard for whatever business you're running.

On the other side of that coin, the employees would be happy to have a job and whatever pay they get. If they don't like the fact that that their employer doesn't listen to them, they are more than free to seek employment elsewhere.

However, this is not the issue. When a legislature passes a law that outlaws collective bargaining, they are in, absolute terms, outlawing freedom of speech.

Again, you are wrong. Employees are perfectly free to speak amongst themselves about the issue. Hell, teachers can demand more than 1 million per year and a different hooker every night, that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to their demands, which are in effect what negotiations entail. If you were my employee you would be more than free to talk to other employees and come up with a list of demands. I would simply refuse to negotiate, which is exactly what the law says. There will be no negotiations. This is what we offer. Take it or leave it. Dont like it? GTFO.

Collective bargaining is when the employees get together, discuss among themselves what they would like to ask for, and then take it to the negotiating table. That's it. That's collective bargaining. When you say "You cannot collectively bargain" you are outlawing people's ability to discuss with each other. I can't think of any more blatant violation of the first amendment, short of declaring this country a theocracy and having the military burn all the printing presses.

No one is prohibited from discussing it with other teachers. There simply will not be any negotiating.

Trying to redefine that into some narrow and terribly exclusive form as you are doing here is not only ignorant it is, dare I say, counter to American ideals.

The idea of PUBLIC employees demanding more of the TAXPAYERS funds flies in the face of everything this country was founded upon.

And even if in the wild blue yonder of possibility that your position were accurate, there is no statute that says what you can and cannot ask of your government; such a restriction would be - get this - a violation of your right to seek redress!

What you are saying is akin to me complaining to a government official that I dont have a different Lamborghini for each day of the week and expecting government to do something about it.

Actually no. Teachers are not your employees. You can elect congressmen, or even school board members, if you REALLY want to dick over teachers and ensure your students are crammed into 60-kid classrooms where they will be taught to fill in bubble tests by an intern. You can make demands of these elected officials, since they ARE your employees. You cannot make demands of the teachers or their unions however; you are not their employer. They are private citizens, just as you are, and are in no way beholden to your demands or desires.

If the taxpayers up and one day decided to stop paying taxes forever, would PUBLIC workers still have jobs? No, they wouldn't. There is a reason they are called PUBLIC employees, and not PRIVATE. Perhaps you are unable to differentiate between the two. Public employees= paid with public funding. He who signs the checks makes the rules.

You're the one who just argued that outlawing discussion is legal under the first amendment and that the government has full authority to shut down chess clubs

Kindly post the portion of the signed law that says teachers cannot talk to each other. If you cannot do that, once again you are wrong. (Being wrong seems to be a common thing with you).

Originally posted by FriedrichNeecher
If the public thought the teachers did a good job with their children none of this would be an issue for the public would see this as money well spent. Most think teachers suck at being their surrogates while theyre away at their ninunion jobs, and they want a change so they can buy some decent education on the private market
That public education is generally considered overlyexpensive and under performing for good reason,it is the issue and it's not the money but the conditions of employment that need to change. Public education is indoctrination anymore and any reality based education happens at home, by accident or not at all.
Funny that so many here want to expose their increasingly noneducated children to gubmint indoctrination factories yet see gubmint conspiracy everything else. This I find somehow contradictory.

So what happens these private institutions funded by the likes of Koch (see the amount he gave to his Alma mater Deerfield Academy) decides your kid isn't quite cut for the rigors of it's institution or doesn't have the right pedigree? Where do they go? To the private school funded by McDonald's or Walmart? They will be learning how to count change and the correct body position for being a greeter.

Originally posted by ohioriver

Quite a few Americans live on less than that. And I imagine they aren't too happy knowing their taxes will go up so public union workers can have another raise or better benefits. Most 2 earner families are struggling on just above minimum wage and you feel sorry for ONE teacher making $46,000 for 9 months. Imagine how the families making less than the teachers feel when their land taxes go up. I say good that they now how to join their fellow Americans and pay into their own retirement and benefits.

You assume teachers do not have families.

You assume they work only 9 months...in order for a teacher to advance in pay, they work summer school...those teachers making 46K...ask them about thier schedule. Not 9-5 and not summers off.
BTW during the summer months teachers are required to take continuing education courses and pay for them themselves.

You assume that they haven't already been contributing to thier own benefits and healthcare.

You are assuming that they don't already contribute to thier own retirement.

Lots of mistaken assumptions.

reply to post by maybereal11


In Wisconsin, the teachers paid an average of $900 and some change annually towards their retirement and healthcare, while the taxpayers paid more than $19,000 for those teachers benefits.

You will end up alone at your own little pity party if you choose to go down a road filled with facts.

reply to post by ohioriver


Don't you realize those Wisconsin workers also pay state taxes, too? Teachers living high off the hog and living a grand lifestyle? I don't know one that lives that way.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Sad, sad, sad. You do realize that Wis. is not the only state dealing with labor issues with it's employees? As for the crookedness of Rep. try this on.NY DailyNews Start looking into the mess that is going on in NY and you will see some of how the other side does things

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by maybereal11

 

In Wisconsin, the teachers paid an average of $900 and some change annually towards their retirement and healthcare, while the taxpayers paid more than $19,000 for those teachers benefits.

You will end up alone at your own little pity party if you choose to go down a road filled with facts.

Just because you say it dosen't make it a fact. Without links it's just copy and pasting from the Limbaugh letter which is what it sounds like imo.

Read this....especially #8

www.abovetopsecret.com...