# Mob Rule Descends on Wisconsin



## WouldaShoulda

MADISON, Wis. - Republicans in the Wisconsin state Senate have asked that state troopers be sent after Democratic leader Mark Miller. A Democratic state senator said he and fellow Democrats could stay away for days or even weeks.

Democratic state Sen. Jon Erpenbach spoke to The Associated Press at a Chicago hotel on Friday. He and fellow Democratic senators left Wisconsin on Thursday to delay the near-certain passage of a bill backed by Republicans and GOP Gov. Scott Walker that would strip public sector workers of their collective bargaining rights. The Democrats have been missing from the Capitol for a day and a half.

The events were reminiscent of a 2003 dispute in Texas, where Democrats twice fled the state - including a trip to Oklahoma - to prevent adoption of a redistricting bill. The bill eventually passed.
Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald says he asked Gov. Scott Walker to send two state troopers to Miller's home.

The Wisconsin Constitution prohibits the arrest of legislators while they're in session. Fitzgerald says he just wants to send a message to Miller - if he's even home - that he must bring his caucus back to Madison.

Protesters have descended on Wisconsin's Capitol in hopes of halting the Republican effort to end a half-century of collective bargaining rights for public workers.

With Democrats saying they won't return before Saturday, it was unclear when the Senate would be able to begin debating the measure meant to ease the state's budget woes. Democrats who disappeared Thursday at first kept their whereabouts secret, then started to emerge to give interviews and fan the protests.

Tens of thousands of students, teachers and prison guards have turned out at the Capitol this week to protest, standing shoulder-to-shoulder in the building's hallways, sitting cross-legged across the floor and making it difficult to move from room to room. Some have brought along sleeping backs and stayed through the night.

Neil Graupner, a 19-year-old technical college student from Madison, said he was planning to stay until the matter is settled."The fact that the Democrats have walked out, it shows they're listening to us," he said late Thursday as he prepared to spend the night at the Capitol.

The protesters chants of "Kill the Bill!" and "Recall Walker Now!" could be heard throughout the day and long past dark. They beat on drums and carry signs deriding Republican Gov. Scott Walker and his plan to end collective bargaining for state, county and local workers, except for police, firefighters and the state patrol. Hundreds of teachers have joined the protests by calling in sick, forcing some school districts to cancel classes.

Teacher's Union proclaims; "It's for the kids!!"

HAR!!

I especially like this part;



> Tens of thousands of students, teachers and prison guards have turned out at the Capitol this week to protest,


They mean Union municiple workers and student toadies of course. No actual taxpayers are to be seen.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Since this is your thread, and thank you for beginning it, I don't want to dictate your conduct in it, but how's about you mixing a little of whatever the Repub drink of choice currently is, think it over, then come back and post a really snappy response to the Wisconsin protesters (and me), else you'll continue to come across as what the protesters are protesting against.


----------



## Peak and Pine

And let's make it clear that *Mob Rule Descends On Wisconsin* is your headline, not the Sun Time's.


----------



## TMMKC

+ 1

I wonder if the state is picking up the tab for the Democratic legislators' hotel rooms. This just proves that most people don't have the guts to accept the tough decisions the state (and ultimately Federal) governments must make if were are to EVER wrangle in spiraling debt. Pain is the other guy's problem.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Just punching things up with a little intrigue!! 

I know I know, the "protesters" don't want to lose their jobs, get laid off, or pay as much for their 401 and insurance as slobs like us taxpayers have to.

We all get that.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Washington Post;

*Tyranny in Wisconsin, part 3*

_By Charles Lane _

...As I've said before, what the unions and their supporters really fear is not the loss of benefits or even bargaining. Those provisions of Walker's bill, though annoying, are not what has sent progressives into transports of incivility - mobbing the legislature; demonstrating outside Republican legislators' homes; absconding to Illinois; closing schools through illicit teacher "sick-outs"; ; chanting "kill the bill"; lying about the governor's alleged use of the National Guard. And E.J. thinks Walker has "overreached"!
No, what the public sector unions really can't abide is the legislation's requirement that public employees vote every year on union representation, coupled with an end to the automatic dues check-off on state paychecks. For the first time in decades, these organizations would actually have to prove on a regular basis that they're voluntary; and they would have to collect their own political war chests, instead of relying on the government to extract the cash for them. 
In other words, it would make them play by more democratic rules. And that's what they can't stand.

Maybe my headline wasn't that overdone after all!!


----------



## mrkleen

Depends how you look at it.

Reading the commentary, I think a lot of people are confused about what's actually being proposed in Wisconsin. So let's go through it.
You can find Gov. Scott Walker's proposal here. It's called "the Budget Repair bill." The section that's attracted all the anger is "State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations."

In it, Walker proposes that the right to collectively bargain be taken away from most -- but not all -- state and local workers. Who's left out? "*Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes.*" As Harold Meyerson , *these are also the unions that happened to be more supportive of Walker in the last election*. Funny, that.

Walker tries to sell the change in collective bargaining as modest. "State and local employees could continue to bargain for base pay, they would not be able to bargain over other compensation measures." But that's not really true. Read down a bit further and you'll find that "total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum."

In other words, they couldn't bargain for wages to rise faster than inflation. So, in reality, they can't bargain for wages and they can't bargain over other forms of compensation. They just can't bargain. The proposal doesn't stop there, though. "Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues." 
*
These rules have nothing to do with pension costs or even bargaining. They're just about weakening unions*: They make it harder for unions to collect dues from members, to negotiate stable contracts or to survive a bad year.

The best way to understand Walker's proposal is as a multi-part attack on the state's labor unions. In part one, their ability to bargain benefits for their members is reduced. In part two, their ability to collect dues, and thus spend money organizing members or lobbying the legislature, is undercut. And in part three, workers have to vote the union back into existence every single year. Put it all together and it looks like this: Wisconsin's unions can't deliver value to their members, they're deprived of the resources to change the rules so they can start delivering value to their members again, and because of that, their members eventually give in to employer pressure and shut the union down in one of the annual certification elections.

*You may think Walker's proposal is a good idea or a bad idea. But that's what it does. And it's telling that he's exempting the unions that supported him and is trying to obscure his plan's specifics behind misleading language about what unions can still bargain for and about the state's budget.*


----------



## eagle2250

What presently besets Wisconsin is, alas, basically what ails America...individual self interest and greed are given precedence over the public good! Regardless of the damage it does to their children and grandchildren, Wisconsin's simple servants and unfortunately, it seems, the majority of Americans would rather further drive up the deficit spending , rather than endure the comparatively minor consequences of reducing public spending, as necessary, to cure the financial hemorrhaging that is occurring throughout the private sector. If we handled our family/personal finances the way public monies are handled, we would have been declared bankrupt, long ago!


----------



## harland

eagle2250 said:


> ... rather than endure the comparatively minor consequences of reducing public spending...


Hmm... true - I mean look how well that strategy is going over in the UK... negative economic growth, higher inflation, and a generally bleak public outlook. If there's any bright side, maybe the American public will have the chance to wake up and run the GOP and Tea Party out of office in two years before they squash the economic recovery and do too much damage - such as gutting funding for education and basic research.


----------



## mrkleen

Funny thing is Republicans keep talking about solving deficits and balancing budgets - to protect the future of our children and grandchildren. Yet when the cuts come to bear - the biggest catagories are education and social programs for children like head start and school lunch.

If we keep trying to balance budgets and solve deficits on the back of education, we will fall further and further down the list and end up with a population of under educated men and women who are unprepared for the technologically centered careers of the future.


----------



## JakeLA

When Gov. Walker took office Wisconsin had a 120 million dollar budget surplus. He then rammed through tax cuts for his favored constituents of 117 million dollars, plus he turned down nearly a billion dollars in federal money. 

2/3 of the corporations in Wisconsin pay no state income tax.

In recent years, Wisconsin has given tax breaks and subsidies to such corporations as Wal-Mart ($21 million), Harley Davidson ($10 million), Mercury Marine ($50 million)... should I go on? 

And it's all the fault of the... teacher's?


----------



## Apatheticviews

People (who are affected) are assembling peacefully to voice their displeasure with a pending bill.

What's the problem?

Assuming the mrkleens assessment of the bill is accurate, the people have a right to protest:

a) Their collective bargaining power is weakened (significantly). 

b) They are almost certainly guaranteed to lose money on pay each year since they are capped at the inflation % for pay increases. 

c) The bill is does not uniformly affect all civil servants equally. Any law that doesn't affect everyone equally, really should be reviewed.


----------



## dks202

This is nothing new. In 2003 several Texas Democrats fled to New Mexico for the same reason, to avoid a vote! They were welcomed with open arms by then governor Bill Richardson.


AUSTIN, Texas — Democratic state lawmakers fled Texas on Monday for the second time in three months to thwart a Republican drive to redraw the state's congressional districts.

Eleven of the 12 Democrats in the state Senate left for Albuquerque, N.M., as a first special session called by the governor to address redistricting (search) drew to a close and he called a second special session, which began Monday afternoon. The second session could last up to 30 days.

"We're availing ourselves of a tool given to us by our Texas Constitution to break a quorum," Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos (search) said at a hotel in Albuquerque, where the 11 Democrats met with reporters. "It's not about Democrats, it's about democracy."


----------



## Wisco

As the first post from a member who actually lives in Wisconsin, the debate here is predictable and split along political lines. However the original post ignores the real issue Wisconsites of all walks of life are protesting in the streets of my city: The Governor tried to shove his will down the throats of state employees. That's not representative government, period. If our Governor wants to be King, he needs to find a different country. It's not how Wisconsin or America governs.

Public employees in the State generally agree that they need to contribute more to their retirement and health care, and unilaterally proposed $100M in concessions to help balance the budget. The Governor said F*ck You, here is the way it's going to be. I'm not going to negotiate anything; I'm going to eliminate collective bargaining and tough sh*t. This is reprehensible behavior from any executive, public or private sector.

To those who have called these citizens "pigs", "blood suckers" or other derogitory names.... don't forget that those "socialists" educate your children, provide healthcare to you at public hospitals, pick up the trash and all those other "little people" jobs that assure that all of us enjoy a civil society. To denigrate them is to say I have the American Dream, but you don't have the right to that same American Dream.


----------



## smujd

Wisco said:


> As the first post from a member who actually lives in Wisconsin, the debate here is predictable and split along political lines. However the original post ignores the real issue Wisconsites of all walks of life are protesting in the streets of my city: The Governor tried to shove his will down the throats of state employees. That's not representative government, period. If our Governor wants to be King, he needs to find a different country. It's not how Wisconsin or America governs.


You may not be familiar with Obamacare. The current paradigm most certainly entails the executive shoving his will down the throats of the rest. I agree that it's not representative government, but it, unfortunately, is how America governs today.


----------



## Bandit44

I agreed that this is about self-interest. Currently, Americans pay less taxes than they have since the 1950s; less than when Reagan was President. I haven't seen any evidence that low taxes= more jobs and a stronger economy. We've tried low taxes and less restraints on business over the last 10 years and it hasn't worked. We need to raise taxes, especially on businesses that have gotten a free pass, in order to support public services. Americans have become selfish to the point that no one wants to pay taxes on any services that do not directly benefit them. We have lost our sense of responsibility toward the general welfare.

I'm always flabbergasted when I hear people take cheap shots at public officials, as if they don't deserve to make a decent living because their salary comes from taxpayers (that is, unless they are police, fire, or military). I say, stop being so damned stingy and be proud that your public employees are paid well. Come to the U.S. South and see how low state taxes has lead to crumbling roads and infastructure, the highest rates of illiteracy, and the highest mortality rates in the country. You get what you pay for.


----------



## eagle2250

Apatheticviews said:


> People (who are affected) are assembling peacefully to voice their displeasure with a pending bill.
> 
> What's the problem?
> 
> Assuming the mrkleens assessment of the bill is accurate, the people have a right to protest:
> 
> a) Their collective bargaining power is weakened (significantly).
> 
> b) They are almost certainly guaranteed to lose money on pay each year since they are capped at the inflation % for pay increases.
> 
> c) The bill is does not uniformly affect all civil servants equally. Any law that doesn't affect everyone equally, really should be reviewed.


But, are these not the same or at least very similar to the, realities that are being faced by those in the private sector by those whose jobs have been downsized (sometimes out of existence) and whose pay has reduced considerably by the direction our nations economy has taken? Should government employees be immune to those realities?


----------



## harland

smujd said:


> You may not be familiar with Obamacare. The current paradigm most certainly entails the executive shoving his will down the throats of the rest. I agree that it's not representative government, but it, unfortunately, is how America governs today.


And you may not be familiar with a lot of states requirements for you to have auto insurance either. If you have a car, you need auto insurance in VA, otherwise you pay a fine each year and/or can't register your vehicle.

Then there's also a little piece of legislation called "The Patriot Act" which doesn't seem to raise as many hackles as providing health care to millions of uninsured for some reason.


----------



## harland

eagle2250 said:


> But, are these not the same or at least very similar to the, realities that are being faced by those in the private sector by those whose jobs have been downsized (sometimes out of existence) and whose pay has reduced considerably by the direction our nations economy has taken? Should government employees be immune to those realities?


Well, let's think about this for a minute. If you work for the private sector as, say, an accountant, you have a choice of employers. Lose your job... pick another accounting firm or another business that needs your expertise. Even in good times, employers need to compete for accountants. What about teachers? They are employed by the state. The only way they can switch employers is by moving out of state and starting the recertification process all over again. Therefore the state wields enormous monopoly-like power over their community in setting wages and benefits. The only way to countervail such power is for teachers to have a collective bargaining agreement. These people are fighting for their livelihood. I imagine you would do the same if you were in their shoes.


----------



## Apatheticviews

eagle2250 said:


> But, are these not the same or at least very *similar* to the, realities that are being faced by those in the private sector by those whose jobs have been downsized (sometimes out of existence) and whose pay has reduced considerably by the direction our nations economy has taken? Should government employees be immune to those realities?


Government employees shouldn't be immune. However neither should a subset of government employees. (c)

The private sector doesn't have LAWS that cap pay raises (b) or benefits, merely company policies, and those company policies are subject to the nation's and states laws (like minimum wage increases, or health care requirements).

If a private company were to attempt the same form of bargaining weakening through company policy changes, the Unions would eat them alive in court. (a)

I'm generally not pro-Union because I see it as the ability to hold service hostage for compensation. However, I do believe people should be compensated adequately for the work they do, and if their duties change or economic circumstances shift (money is worth less) they should be be able to negotiate a higher wage on a periodic basis (yearly seems fair).

I do agree the civil servants are facing similar realities to those in the private circles, however it's fundamentally wrong to punish one group of people over another. Had the bill said:

a) all Civil Servants

b) Pay increases frozen at the CPI (guaranteed pay raise = to inflation) for X years

c) Removal of the revote Union into existence clause

I likely wouldn't see anything wrong with it personally, however People have a *Right* to protest peacefully. This is one method we have of addressing our political concerns. The other is through the legislative process. The civil servants are using the protest method because majority view is trumping minority perspective in this case.


----------



## Apatheticviews

harland said:


> And you may not be familiar with a lot of states requirements for you to have auto insurance either. If you have a car, you need auto insurance in VA, otherwise you pay a fine each year and/or can't register your vehicle.
> 
> Then there's also a little piece of legislation called "The Patriot Act" which doesn't seem to raise as many hackles as providing health care to millions of uninsured for some reason.


The Patriot Act doesn't directly cost people money, compared to what the proposed Health Care reform will do.


----------



## eagle2250

harland said:


> Well, let's think about this for a minute. If you work for the private sector as, say, an accountant, you have a choice of employers. Lose your job... pick another accounting firm or another business that needs your expertise. Even in good times, employers need to compete for accountants. What about teachers? They are employed by the state. The only way they can switch employers is by moving out of state and starting the recertification process all over again. Therefore the state wields enormous monopoly-like power over their community in setting wages and benefits. The only way to countervail such power is for teachers to have a collective bargaining agreement. These people are fighting for their livelihood. I imagine you would do the same if you were in their shoes.


Well actually I am, or perhaps I should say was, a (Federal) government employee and a long, long time ago, I did work briefly for the states of Pennsylvania and Missouri. While I am twice retired (USAF and Federal civil service), at this point in my life, I will acknowledge that past pay inequities have been endured by many local, state and federal employees. However, such is increasingly not the case, present day! In many career areas the government sector pay has achieved parity with and in some cases (such as during a prolonged recession), exceeds that found in the private sector. Combined with the enhanced job security and better defined retirement programs, life in the public sector is not really that bad.

My oldest daughter is a teacher in the State of Indiana and my son-in-law is a municipal police officer. I certainly wish them no harm, nor do I wish public sector employees in the State of Wisconsin financial harm. However, whether it be at the local, state or federal level(s), governments and their employees must be fully accountable to their respective tax bases and for insuring the public good.


----------



## Apatheticviews

eagle2250 said:


> ...Combined with the enhanced job security and better defined retirement programs, life in the public sector is not really that bad.


Enhanced job security comes from having a Union, which is one of the fundamental issues the people are facing. _*If*_ the unions are disabled by this legislature, then the job security goes away as well. The ability to negotiate collectively the extent of hiring freezes, and public layoffs ties directly with job security.

As a military veteran let's use that career as an example. Would it be equitable to give all the military services except the USAF increases in base pay? (I use this example because I know it is not possible, and that military are non-Union).

As a federal employee, the paygrades are published, but generally speaking they are universal across the entirety of the Federal Civil Service. Adjust for locality, and that's pretty much it. One Union.

What WI has is multiple unions all being affected differently. It's not that life is bad in the public sector, but all citizens should be treated as equally as possible.


----------



## smujd

harland said:


> And you may not be familiar with a lot of states requirements for you to have auto insurance either. If you have a car, you need auto insurance in VA, otherwise you pay a fine each year and/or can't register your vehicle.


You appear to want to shift the discussion to the merits of Obamacare, rather than the manner in which it was enacted.

As to your comparison with car insurance, it fails on numerous fronts--not the least of which is the fact that I can avoid the requirement of purchasing car insurance simply by not driving on public roads, while Obamacare requires everyone to purchase insurance merely for being alive.

Also interesting, at least in Texas, I am not required to pay for car insurance for drivers who can't or don't want to purchase it for themselves.


----------



## smujd

harland said:


> Well, let's think about this for a minute. If you work for the private sector as, say, an accountant, you have a choice of employers. Lose your job... pick another accounting firm or another business that needs your expertise. Even in good times, employers need to compete for accountants. What about teachers? They are employed by the state. The only way they can switch employers is by moving out of state and starting the recertification process all over again. Therefore the state wields enormous monopoly-like power over their community in setting wages and benefits. The only way to countervail such power is for teachers to have a collective bargaining agreement. These people are fighting for their livelihood. I imagine you would do the same if you were in their shoes.


Really, the only way a teacher can switch employers is by moving states? Maybe Wisconsin lacks private schools? :confused2:


----------



## Apatheticviews

smujd said:


> You appear to want to shift the discussion to the merits of Obamacare, rather than the manner in which it was enacted.
> 
> As to your comparison with car insurance, it fails on numerous fronts--not the least of which is the fact that I can avoid the requirement of purchasing car insurance simply by not driving on public roads, while Obamacare requires everyone to purchase insurance merely for being alive.
> 
> Also interesting, at least in Texas, I am not required to pay for car insurance for drivers who can't or don't want to purchase it for themselves.


Actually *Registering* a car, and having a driver's license requires car insurance (liability) in the state of VA. As for TX, the laws are not that different. You're required to have insurance just like VA. The difference is we have an insurance tracking mechanism in place which automatically suspends driver's licenses of the vehicles registered owner if insurance is not active.

"_What mandatory auto insurance laws exist in the state of Texas?

In the state of Texas, you must carry the minimum amounts of liability insurance on every car that you own.
Before you register a vehicle in the state of Texas, you must provide proof of insurance.
The minimum liability coverage required by Texas Law is $25,000 for bodily injury or death to one person per accident, $50,000 for bodily injury or death to two or more persons per accident, and $25,000 for damage or destruction to other property in an accident.
Texas drivers also have the option of posting a financial bond to become self-insured rather than purchase auto insurance.
Proof of insurance must be carried in the vehicle at all times. If you are caught without insurance, you will be fined anywhere from $175-$350 for a first offense, and the penalties increase with the second, and third offenses. On the third offense, your license will be suspended."_

In VA:

_"To purchase license plates or decals, you must certify that the vehicle is covered by the minimum insurance requirements or pay the uninsured motor vehicle fee. Insurance requirements also apply to antique motor vehicles. Your insurance carrier must be authorized to conduct business in Virginia.
Virginia requires the following minimum coverage:
Bodily injury/death of one person $25,000
Bodily injury/death of two or more persons $50,000
Property damage $20,000
The $500 Uninsured Motor Vehicle (UMV) fee, which is paid to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), does not provide any insurance; it only allows you to drive an uninsured vehicle at your own risk. It expires with your registration and must be paid at renewal.
Note: If liability insurance coverage on a vehicle terminates or cancels during the registration period, either reinsure the vehicle, pay the uninsured motor vehicle fee, or surrender the license plates to DMV.
Self-insurance or Surety Bonds are special options for owners of business vehicles. Details are available at any DMV office.
Penalties

Vehicle owners who are uninsured or have not paid the UMV fee will have their driving and vehicle registration privileges suspended. To be reinstated, they must pay a $500 statutory fee, file a Financial Responsibility Insurance Certificate (SR-22) with DMV for three years, and pay a reinstatement fee, if applicable.
Verification of Insurance Coverage

DMV monitors insurance coverage through our Insurance Verification Program.
Insurance carriers provide DMV with electronic updates of insured information and vehicle description when they cancel, add and write new coverage for motor vehicles registered in Virginia.
DMV verifies that motor vehicles are properly insured by comparing vehicle registration information on file at DMV with liability information on the owner and vehicle transmitted to DMV by the insurance carrier. If no insurance is found, DMV requires the motor vehicle owner to furnish the liability insurance information to DMV for verification."_

You may not have to pay for car insurance for others, but neither do we. Everyone who drives is *required** to have insurance (or pay a fee that is near the cost of being insured anyways) in both states though. Failure has legal consequences as outlined above.

*VA understands that you can't legally _require_ to someone to buy any form of insurance (it's against the Commonwealth Constitution), so they made it detrimental not to, in the form of a fee ($500/yr).


----------



## JakeLA

smujd said:


> You appear to want to shift the discussion to the merits of Obamacare, rather than the manner in which it was enacted.
> 
> As to your comparison with car insurance, it fails on numerous fronts--not the least of which is the fact that I can avoid the requirement of purchasing car insurance simply by not driving on public roads, while Obamacare requires everyone to purchase insurance merely for being alive.
> 
> Also interesting, at least in Texas, I am not required to pay for car insurance for drivers who can't or don't want to purchase it for themselves.


I"m not sure what your argument is regarding the manner in which "Obamacare" was enacted.

Barack Obama ran on a platform of reforming health care.

More Americans voted for him than for any President in history.

Congress spent a year debating health care reform.

The bill passes both houses of Congress.

The President signs the bill into law.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the way it's supposed to work? The fact that you don't like the bill doesn''t mean it was shoved down yours or anyone else's throat.


----------



## Apatheticviews

JakeLA said:


> I"m not sure what your argument is regarding the manner in which "Obamacare" was enacted.
> 
> Barack Obama ran on a platform of reforming health care.
> 
> More Americans voted for him than for any President in history.
> 
> Congress spent a year debating health care reform.
> 
> The bill passes both houses of Congress.
> 
> The President signs the bill into law.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the way it's supposed to work? The fact that you don't like the bill doesn''t mean it was shoved down yours or anyone else's throat.


Something like 15 states sued the federal government saying that the bill was unconstitutional. Just because 51% of people vote something into law doesn't mean that the law is right, or just, or even fair (or in this case constitutional). It just means you got half the people in a room to agree to it.

The fact that I live in VA, which did sue, means that it was shoved down my throat.


----------



## harvey_birdman

WouldaShoulda said:


> Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald says he asked Gov. Scott Walker to send two state troopers to Miller's home.


Politics aside, what possible basis is there to send the police after this man?


----------



## Apatheticviews

harvey_birdman said:


> Politics aside, what possible basis is there to send the police after this man?


"The Wisconsin Constitution prohibits the arrest of legislators while they're in session. Fitzgerald says he just wants to send a message to Miller - if he's even home - that he must bring his caucus back to Madison."

Sounds much like the freedom from arrest clause in the US constitution. The fact that the Majority Leader even asked is beyond ridiculous. If the governor _mobilized_ the state police, _in any fashion_ (associated with this request), would just be adding fuel to the fire, and likely be a breach of his executive powers.


----------



## Mad Hatter

mrkleen said:


> Depends how you look at it.
> 
> Reading the commentary, I think a lot of people are confused about what's actually being proposed in Wisconsin. So let's go through it.
> You can find Gov. Scott Walker's proposal here. It's called "the Budget Repair bill." The section that's attracted all the anger is "State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations."
> 
> In it, Walker proposes that the right to collectively bargain be taken away from most -- but not all -- state and local workers. Who's left out? "*Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes.*" As Harold Meyerson , *these are also the unions that happened to be more supportive of Walker in the last election*. Funny, that.


I'm coming in here, then leaving. I don't know enough about the issues, and as it pertains to another state, no abiding interest.

I heard the end of a audio clip yesterday while getting into my vehicle. I do not know the source, but someone with more at stake or more interest might care to confirm or controvert it. It was (I presume) Gov. Walker addressing this accusation above. He mentioned there was approximately 350 associations or unions in Wisconsin representing emergency workers. Of the approximately 350, he was endorsed by four.


----------



## TMMKC

I don't have a horse in this race, but it seems rather cowardly of those state legislators to flee the state rather than debate the bill. Political motives aside, I imagine we'll see more and more states turn up the pressure on bloated state pensions and sweetheart benefits deals in a effort to balance budgets. Everyone is all for balanced budgets and cutting waste until they realize the sacrifices they'll need to make for the greater good. In the end, we're all selfish.


----------



## Wisco

TMMKC said:


> I don't have a horse in this race, but it seems rather cowardly of those state legislators to flee the state rather than debate the bill. Political motives aside, I imagine we'll see more and more states turn up the pressure on bloated state pensions and sweetheart benefits deals in a effort to balance budgets. Everyone is all for balanced budgets and cutting waste until they realize the sacrifices they'll need to make for the greater good. In the end, we're all selfish.


I would respectfully disagree. It is legal within the bounds of Wisconsin law and simply takes advantage of the fact that 20 Senators are required for a quorum call to vote on financial bills. As the Republicans have 19 Senators, even one Democrat in the Chamber allows the majority Republicans to rubber stamp Gov. Walkers bill. It is a procedural move not unlike the US Senate Republican use of the 60 vote cloture of a fillibuster vote to obstruct the majority of legislation that could come to the floor. Don't even get me started on how distasteful that is...


----------



## TMMKC

Wisco said:


> I would respectfully disagree. It is legal within the bounds of Wisconsin law and simply takes advantage of the fact that 20 Senators are required for a quorum call to vote on financial bills. As the Republicans have 19 Senators, even one Democrat in the Chamber allows the majority Republicans to rubber stamp Gov. Walkers bill. It is a procedural move not unlike the US Senate Republican use of the 60 vote cloture of a fillibuster vote to obstruct the majority of legislation that could come to the floor. Don't even get me started on how distasteful that is...


If that is the case, then aren't they just putting off the inevitable? I mean, the Democrat politicians can't be gone FOREVER...can they? Unless there has been breaking news I'm not aware of, it doesn't look like Governor Walker is going to cave on this issue.


----------



## Apatheticviews

TMMKC said:


> I don't have a horse in this race, but it seems rather cowardly of those state legislators to flee the state rather than debate the bill. Political motives aside, I imagine we'll see more and more states turn up the pressure on bloated state pensions and sweetheart benefits deals in a effort to balance budgets. Everyone is all for balanced budgets and cutting waste until they realize the sacrifices they'll need to make for the greater good. In the end, we're all selfish.


I'm not sure this is a case of cowardice.

Let's work under a few assumptions. Take our own Senate for instance. 100 votes. Takes 51 to pass a bill, right? Not true. Just have to have a Quorum, which is 51 *PRESENT*. That said, with a simple majority of the quorum, it only takes 26-27 members to pass a bill. *LESS THAN A THIRD*.

This is actually decent political strategy. Last ditch political strategy, but political strategy none the less. If you can break a quorum, it is really no different than creating a filibuster.

I'm not sure how the state's constitution reads, but leaving the state may be the only way they can effectively break the quorum. They may be classified as present as long as they are in the state.


----------



## Apatheticviews

TMMKC said:


> If that is the case, then aren't they just putting off the inevitable? I mean, the Democrat politicians can't be gone FOREVER...can they? Unless there has been breaking news I'm not aware of, it doesn't look like Governor Walker is going to cave on this issue.


Doesn't have to be forever. Just until the end of term, or until Gov. Walker caves.

Depending on what powers the legislature (like yearly budget approvals) actually has, he may end up needing them, more than they need him.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Apatheticviews said:


> The fact that I live in VA, which did sue [over Obamacare], means that it was shoved down my throat.


No it doesn't. It means you have a Republican Attorney General. Here in Maine we did not sue. Until, that is, a Republican Attorney General took office last month.

Besides, those that argue the constitutionality of this don't really care about its constitutionality; they don't want Obamacare period and see this as a bloodless way to nix it. Flip the coin: would you find it unconstitutional if everyone were forced to pay for their personal protection by funding a military? You're exMarine. I'm exNothing. But we would agree that it wouldn't be unconstitutional, particularly since we're already doing it.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Peak and Pine said:


> No it doesn't. It means you have a Republican Attorney General. Here in Maine we did not sue. Until, that is, a Republican Attorney General took office last month.
> 
> Besides, those that argue the constitutionality of this don't really care about its constitutionality; they don't want Obamacare period and see this as a bloodless way to nix it. So it's not the forcing per se, it's what's being forced. I'm guessing that you as an exMarine would see no objection if everyone were forced to pay for a military. And I would agree, probably because we already are.


Forcing everyone (individually) to have *Private* health insurance and paying taxes for a government service are two different things. As it stands, medical care is not a service provided by the government. If it were, then it would be taxable just as the military is. But that's not how they wrote the law. The government isn't absorbing the medical fields for public use. They are merely regulating how private industry & individuals interact.

However in general I disagree with income taxes period. As a former resident of Texas, I didn't pay income tax (state), and think the government could get by with a consumption tax instead (i.e. sales tax). But that's getting into economic theory, vice the issue.

Our government provides a military, and *requires* registration of male citizens for service in it. That said, the government has to pay for it somehow. Unfortunately the current government views taxes as government revenue, which means that is how it pays for it. But it is also how it pays for Police, Fire, and other emergency services.

If the military were a new concept, and people were voting it in, you might have a point, but last I checked my former service is actually older than the country officially (Nov 1775 vs July 1776) as are two of the other services (Navy & Army). We're inherent in the country's organization, and to the best of my knowledge always been paid for from the government coffers.

When the government starts providing medical care, like the kind I received when I first joined the USMC (before it was privatized as insurance), my taxes will be a part of that service agreement. Until that time, I have the right to choose whether to get private medical insurance or not.


----------



## Peak and Pine

> Until that time, I have the right to choose whether to get private medical insurance or not.


Actually you don't. Or you do, but you'll pay a fine. Or you can hope that the individual mandate within Obama Care will be repealed.

I'm not sure I follow your thinking about the significance of who provides the service. The military is provided by the government so it's okay to tax for it. Health insurance comes privately, so it's not? Why does the origin of the service matter? It's that we are covered is the goal: from bad guys by the military, bad health by insurance.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Apatheticviews said:


> People (who are affected) are assembling peacefully to voice their displeasure with a pending bill.
> 
> What's the problem?
> 
> Assuming the mrkleens assessment of the bill is accurate, the people have a right to protest:
> 
> a) Their collective bargaining power is weakened (significantly).
> 
> b) They are almost certainly guaranteed to lose money on pay each year since they are capped at the inflation % for pay increases.
> 
> c) The bill is does not uniformly affect all civil servants equally. Any law that doesn't affect everyone equally, really should be reviewed.


What he said!


----------



## Apatheticviews

Peak and Pine said:


> Actually you don't. Or you do, but you'll pay a fine. Or you can hope that the individual mandate within Obama Care will be repealed.
> 
> I'm not sure I follow your thinking about the significance of who provides the service. The military is provided by the government so it's okay to tax for it. Health insurance comes privately, so it's not? Why does the origin of the service matter? It's that we are covered is the goal: from bad guys by the military, bad health by insurance.


Federal courts have already stated that the law is unconstitutional on the "individual requirement." It's just a matter of whether the Supreme court strikes down the entire law, or parts of the law. This law is the first _attempt_ for congress to use their commerce powers for this specific purpose, and people are correct for challenging it. Thus far, it has been shown that congress does not have this particular power, and it has been forwarded to the Supreme Court for further clarification.

Congress in turn is backpedalling as to whether that "fine" is really a tax (which really is a power), so that it can be considered one of their powers according to the constitution. But there's a difference between a fine (punitive in nature) and a tax. Congress, while debating the bill, specifically stated this was not a tax, and used wording in the law that separates it from being a tax.

The goal is irrelevant, because congress doesn't have the authority to do this according to our social contract (the Constitution). The Constitution is what gives them authority. You cannot step outside the social contract to accomplish the goal, because then you are forcing things down people's throats.

The military is included in our constitution (and our collective social contract). Health care is not. If an Amendment were passed on Health care (making it part of the contract), I wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but as it is, congress is attempting to use an unrelated portion of the constitution to accomplish the same thing. It's power grabbing, simple as that.

I'm not opposed to government _offered_ health care insurance. I am opposed to government forced private health care insurance. If someone doesn't want to buy health insurance (or anything for that matter) they shouldn't have to. There should always be a choice.

I buy car insurance. I could not buy car insurance by not buying a car. With the current health insurance requirement, I don't have an out. Health insurance for me is about $300/month (just medical) using COBRA as a guide. That's $3600 a year.

Some people just can't afford that, and they should have the option not to pay it. When you add in spouse plus kids, those numbers get downright stupid. Almost 50% of people in the US (2010 figures) make less than $25K, and 75% are less than $50k. So for half the country, this equates to an additional 14.4%+ of their income (if not over wised covered). For folks like myself who are predominantly healthy (or predominantly broke), this is money that can be spent better somewhere else.

Taxes on the other hand, are already assessed and removed from the equation. They are not an additional bill one must pay. They cover a variety of services within the social contract including the US Patent office, Copyrights, NASA, the Military, FEMA, etc. Those services are adjusted yearly via budgetary reviews and spending allocations. I may not use every piece of them (and likely never will), but I can without having to buy in. No government agency can ever levy a fine on me for not using them.


----------



## Asterix

Apatheticviews said:


> Federal courts have already stated that the law is unconstitutional on the "individual requirement." It's just a matter of whether the Supreme court strikes down the entire law, or parts of the law. This law is the first _attempt_ for congress to use their commerce powers for this specific purpose, and people are correct for challenging it. Thus far, it has been shown that congress does not have this particular power, and it has been forwarded to the Supreme Court for further clarification.
> 
> Congress in turn is backpedalling as to whether that "fine" is really a tax (which really is a power), so that it can be considered one of their powers according to the constitution. But there's a difference between a fine (punitive in nature) and a tax. Congress, while debating the bill, specifically stated this was not a tax, and used wording in the law that separates it from being a tax.
> 
> The goal is irrelevant, because congress doesn't have the authority to do this according to our social contract (the Constitution). The Constitution is what gives them authority. You cannot step outside the social contract to accomplish the goal, because then you are forcing things down people's throats.
> 
> The military is included in our constitution (and our collective social contract). Health care is not. If an Amendment were passed on Health care (making it part of the contract), I wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but as it is, congress is attempting to use an unrelated portion of the constitution to accomplish the same thing. It's power grabbing, simple as that.
> 
> I'm not opposed to government _offered_ health care insurance. I am opposed to government forced private health care insurance. If someone doesn't want to buy health insurance (or anything for that matter) they shouldn't have to. There should always be a choice.
> 
> I buy car insurance. I could not buy car insurance by not buying a car. With the current health insurance requirement, I don't have an out. Health insurance for me is about $300/month (just medical) using COBRA as a guide. That's $3600 a year.
> 
> Some people just can't afford that, and they should have the option not to pay it. When you add in spouse plus kids, those numbers get downright stupid. Almost 50% of people in the US (2010 figures) make less than $25K, and 75% are less than $50k. So for half the country, this equates to an additional 14.4%+ of their income (if not over wised covered). For folks like myself who are predominantly healthy (or predominantly broke), this is money that can be spent better somewhere else.
> 
> Taxes on the other hand, are already assessed and removed from the equation. They are not an additional bill one must pay. They cover a variety of services within the social contract including the US Patent office, Copyrights, NASA, the Military, FEMA, etc. Those services are adjusted yearly via budgetary reviews and spending allocations. I may not use every piece of them (and likely never will), but I can without having to buy in. No government agency can ever levy a fine on me for not using them.


:icon_hailthee: Thank you for breaking it down succinctly. :icon_hailthee:


----------



## mrkleen

Apatheticviews said:


> I'm not opposed to government _offered_ health care insurance. I am opposed to government forced private health care insurance. If someone doesn't want to buy health insurance (or anything for that matter) they shouldn't have to. There should always be a choice.


You are right.....and you should also wear a little bracelet, that says you have read and understand the healthcare mandate and have agreed to OPT OUT. That way when you are hit by a bus, the EMTs can leave you there - and administer to the person who has agreed to pay their fare share into the care pool first.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

smujd said:


> Really, the only way a teacher can switch employers is by moving states? Maybe Wisconsin lacks private schools? :confused2:


Or corporate training facilities??

Tutorial services??

Start a grocery store??

If Unions want to stick it to Ford, UPS or what have you, that's one thing. Public employee unions are sticking it to me, and I resent it.

Besides, isn't the Government supposed to regulate fair trade and employment guidlines?? Is someone saying the regulators can not be trusted??


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> I'm not sure how the state's constitution reads, but leaving the state may be the only way they can effectively break the quorum. They may be classified as present as long as they are in the state.


If you have every played monopoly with an eight year old who senses they are losing half way through the game (or remember being one yourself) this strategy may look familiar.


----------



## Apatheticviews

mrkleen said:


> You are right.....and you should also wear a little bracelet, that says you have read and understand the healthcare mandate and have agreed to OPT OUT. That way when you are hit by a bus, the EMTs can leave you there - and administer to the person who has agreed to pay their fare share into the care pool first.


Why? *Emergency* services are already available as part of the taxable services we already receive. The government mandates their *availability*. The difference is that, I have to pay for the Ambulance ride, and the hospital stay. I've gotten that bill before, and paid it willingly.

Right now anyone can get medical care. It's readily available. The issue is _financial_. Not everyone can _afford_ medical care. Mandating that someone pay for insurance is just as much a financial issue as being able to afford medical care. The difference is that the government is attempting to remove that financial choice from the People.

This isn't about health care. It's about removing people's right to make their own financial decisions. It's removing a _right to choose_ what's best for ourselves. I personally believe in medical insurance. It makes sense for *me*, and I happily pay for it when I am financially able. But just because something makes sense for me doesn't mean I should force my views on others.


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> If you have every played monopoly with an eight year old who senses they are losing half way through the game (or remember being one yourself) this strategy may look familiar.


Except, failing intentionally failing to have a quorum isn't against the rules. *A lot of political strategy is based on what isn't against the rules, vice what is allowed*.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

^^^

...and because it is legal doesn't mean it has to or should be done!!


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> Or corporate training facilities??
> 
> Tutorial services??
> 
> Start a grocery store??
> 
> If Unions want to stick it to Ford, UPS or what have you, that's one thing. Public employee unions are sticking it to me, and I resent it.
> 
> Besides, isn't the Government supposed to regulate fair trade and employment guidlines?? Is someone saying the regulators can not be trusted??


_Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?_

How far do you trust your government?

For me, it's as far as I can see them, and only within the constraints of the powers I grant them.

_All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely_

That's why the checks & balances are so important. In any transaction, there are two parties. In this one, one party (the government) has more power than the other because they can change the rules. It's not a balanced transaction, so the unions are forced to use what power they have to balance the scales.


----------



## mrkleen

Apatheticviews said:


> This isn't about health care. *It's about removing people's right to make their own financial decisions.* It's removing a _right to choose_ what's best for ourselves. I personally believe in medical insurance. It makes sense for *me*, and I happily pay for it when I am financially able. But just because something makes sense for me doesn't mean I should force my views on others.


I understand the not being able to afford health insurance part of the equation. I live in Massachusetts, and when I was unemployed with no access to Cobra - I was unable to afford health insurance, so I went without it for a long period of time. This kind of thing is exactly why I am in favor of the single payer system - we all pay taxes, we should all have access to healthcare.

However, you know as well as I do that as long as there are free clinics and hospitals HAVE to treat you when you present yourself there as sick - that there are some people who will *refuse* to pay their share for health care, in spite of their ability to afford to do so.

People who cannot afford to obtain private health insurance, should be offered a more affordable - limited catastrophic plan. But those who can afford to pay for their insurance, but instead choose not to participate to spite the system or prove some kind of ideological point - should be forced to *pay cash* when they present themselves to the emergency room. Period.


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> ^^^
> 
> ...and because it is legal doesn't mean it has to or should be done!!


Agree. But, just because the majority can force their opinion upon the minority doesn't mean the minority shouldn't fight back with all their might.

The fact that members of the state congress are going to this extreme should cause the legislature to rethink the issue.


----------



## Apatheticviews

mrkleen said:


> I understand the not being able to afford health insurance part of the equation. I live in Massachusetts, and when I was unemployed with no access to Cobra - I was unable to afford health insurance, so I went without it for a long period of time. This kind of thing is exactly why I am in favor of the single payer system - we all pay taxes, we should all have access to healthcare.
> 
> However, you know as well as I do that as long as there are free clinics and hospitals HAVE to treat you when you present yourself there as sick - that there are some people who will *refuse* to pay their share for health care, in spite of their ability to afford to do so.
> 
> People who cannot afford to obtain private health insurance, should be offered a more affordable - limited catastrophic plan. But those who can afford to pay for their insurance, but instead choose not to participate to spite the system or prove some kind of ideological point - should be forced to *pay cash* when they present themselves to the emergency room. Period.


I'm not opposed to adding medical treatment as a government service. To a limited extent it already is, in the form of Emergency Medical Treatment, and availability. *Expanding that service* does not bother me in the least. We pay our taxes into it, we get our services out of it. What I am opposed to is the government telling me I must buy insurance from some third party.

Those free clinics and hospitals are for the people, and provided by the government (or as tax write offs, which is essentially the same thing). Sure some people will refuse to pay for insurance and go to them. Some people will also rob banks and use the Dept of Corrections to fix them up. The majority of people are going to use whatever benefits they have, or try not to use medical care at all.

But that leads us to "How do you prove that someone is unable to pay because of financial reasons, or chooses not to for ideological ones?" Simple answer, you can't.

You can draw a line in the sand, and say X income = financially secure enough to afford insurance, but what if one spouse recently lost work? There are so many factors, and possible scenarios it's not even funny.

Right now, we are *billed* by medical providers. if you can't pay your bill, it goes to collections like any other bill. It affects your credit score, and your ability to get further credit (which can be used for future medical treatments). Medicine is a business. Emergency Medical Treatment is a service, which is operated as a business. The current system works. It just doesn't work for everyone. The proposed system is no better. It just changes who is financially affected, and it violates the Constitution.

Simple scenario.

A man falls off the roof of his house, breaks his arm and is unconscious. Neighbor calls ambulance. They take him to hospital for *Emergency* Medical Treatment. They fix up his arm, get his information, and send him a bill.

a) If he has insurance, he forwards it to his insurance company who pays it (minus deductible)
b) With no insurance, he pays the bill. If he can't pay the bill, the hospital treats it like any other unpaid debt (collections).

With non-Emergency services, a person chooses whether or not to go to the hospital. Appointment vs Emergency room. In this case, the doctor charges him for an estimate (Dr.'s visit), and tells him how much it's going to cost to make him better (just like a mechanic). The person then makes an informed choice whether to have the procedure done. If they cannot afford it, they apply for credit just like any other business transaction.


----------



## mrkleen

Apatheticviews said:


> With non-Emergency services, a person chooses whether or not to go to the hospital. Appointment vs Emergency room. In this case, the doctor charges him for an estimate (Dr.'s visit), and tells him how much it's going to cost to make him better (just like a mechanic). The person then makes an informed choice whether to have the procedure done. If they cannot afford it, they apply for credit just like any other business transaction.


The problem is it IS NOT like any other business transaction.

If you go to buy a car and dont qualify for the loan - you dont get the car. Your only recourse is to find a different lender who will work with you - or continue to drive your junker for another year or two until your credit improves.

In your healthcare example, you go to the doctor for you sore foot. You get a diagonosis and the treatment / proceedure is too expensive for you to afford - so you decide to not have it done. 6 months later, when the infection spreads through your body -you are rushed to the ER - for emergency surgery, which they HAVE to provide to you - and when it is all said and done, your entire bill is written off - and in essence, paid for by the rest of us - through the hospital raising prices across the board due to their rising default rate.

Big difference between any other kind of "business transaction"


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> Big difference between any other kind of "business transaction"


One would think people would be more careful with their bodies than they are with their cars, wouldn't you??


----------



## Apatheticviews

mrkleen said:


> The problem is it IS NOT like any other business transaction.
> 
> If you go to buy a car and dont qualify for the loan - you dont get the car. Your only recourse is to find a different lender who will work with you - or continue to drive your junker for another year or two until your credit improves.
> 
> In your healthcare example, you go to the doctor for you sore foot. You get a diagonosis and the treatment / proceedure is too expensive for you to afford - so you decide to not have it done. 6 months later, when the infection spreads through your body -you are rushed to the ER - for emergency surgery, which they HAVE to provide to you - and when it is all said and done, your entire bill is written off - and in essence, paid for by the rest of us - through the hospital raising prices across the board due to their rising default rate.
> 
> Big difference between any other kind of "business transaction"


Hence the reason you SHOULD buy medical insurance. Not the reason why you should be FORCED to.

The person in your example made a choice. They chose to live with pain until it became an emergency. When it became an emergency, they were just as liable for the debt as they would have been before hand. At that point, it's still a business transaction (a debt owed). It's just not a nice and cuddly one.

We've talked about choices, here and in other threads. In other threads we talk about the big choice, which is legal in this country. If that _medical choice_ is legal, why should this one be removed?

As I've said before, I'm a firm believer in medical insurance. But I'm a firm believer that no one should be forced to buy private medical insurance. If the government wants to expand it's current medical services to provide beyond emergency medical treatment, I wouldn't voice objections. But.. having me fork out my money, without my consent, to a non-government agency is outside congress's power to legislate. It is an infringement of my civil rights in the same fashion as our other discussion. Just because this isn't an enumerated Right (but then again, neither is that other discussion) doesn't make it any less of one.


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> One would think people would be more careful with their bodies than they are with their cars, wouldn't you??


Common sense isn't always common.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Curious if Apathetic understands why the part of Obamacare which mandates that an individual _must_ buy health insurance, and the part to which he so strongly objects, came about.

It relates to preexisting conditions, conditions which by the new law an insurer cannot use as a reason to refuse an applicant. Before this provision, we who bought health insurance did so on the _chance_ something might happen. With the provision, we who buy health insurance might do so only _when _something happens. And, while not necessarily a bad thing, the insurance companies would all go bust immediately. So, since they're in the gambling game and hope to win, the individual mandate was stuck in as a justifiable (to me) appeasement. Perhaps if you signed a paper that said you would never ever try to get insurance after your head was cut in half, maybe the government would excuse you from not buying insurance now while your head is still whole.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Peak and Pine said:


> Curious if Apathetic understands why the part of Obamacare which mandates that an individual _must_ buy health insurance, and the part to which he so strongly objects, came about.
> 
> It relates to preexisting conditions, conditions which by the new law an insurer cannot use as a reason to refuse an applicant. Before this provision, we who bought health insurance did so on the _chance_ something might happen. With the provision, we who buy health insurance might do so only _when _something happens. And, while not necessarily a bad thing, the insurance companies would all go bust immediately. So, since they're in the gambling game and hope to win, the individual mandate was stuck in as a justifiable (to me) appeasement. Perhaps if you signed a paper that said you would never ever try to get insurance after your head was cut in half, maybe the government would excuse you from not buying insurance now while your head is still whole.


I'm aware of the pre-existing condition clauses. And those clauses alone are why it's a bad idea for mandated PRIVATE health insurance. As I mentioned in the other thread, insurance is gambling. The companies are betting that you can't win your money back. If they don't force everyone to play, they are guaranteed to lose (as you said).

The way to bypass that is by making an affordable "tax based" health insurance option, which the government subsidizes. You pay X% in, and you get access to the service (and the benefits of the pre-exist clause). If you choose not to pay in, you use your private insurance, or none at all. The government has made it available, but not required it of anyone.


----------



## mrkleen

Apatheticviews said:


> As I've said before, I'm a firm believer in medical insurance. But I'm a firm believer that no one should be forced to buy private medical insurance. If the government wants to expand it's current medical services to provide beyond emergency medical treatment, I wouldn't voice objections. But.. having me fork out my money, without my consent, to a non-government agency is outside congress's power to legislate. It is an infringement of my civil rights in the same fashion as our other discussion. Just because this isn't an enumerated Right (but then again, neither is that other discussion) doesn't make it any less of one.


 All that "sounds good" in theory - but unfortunately, that isn't the way things work. Unless you truly live "off the grid" and are prepared to provide for yourself - in EVERY aspect of your life, then you need to participate in paying your way. I presume you drive on roads - I presume you partake in the fresh water and electricity that is brought to your home - and expect your local town to remove the snow from the roads and provide safety - and I also presume when one of your children gets sick or injured, you want a qualified medical professional to be on the stand by, in a clean, modern emergency room. That is where your entire theory falls down.

Much like all the "tea baggers" who cry for smaller government - while they are collecting social security and utilizing medicare and VA benefits to the fullest. You want your cake and to eat it too. So what gives?

Uninsured people hurt the economy and drive up costs. That is an irrefutable fact. If insurance is too expensive for you, you should be arguing for more affordable coverage - not the ability to opt out. How shortsighted is that?

Today we all pay for the uninsured. If an individual sticks up a bank and walks off with $25,000, there are consequences. If someone who really could have had an insurance policy consumes $25,000 worth of health care, everyone else pays for that. The average employer is paying 12% more in premiums today to cover the uninsured than they would pay if we brought those 47 million into the system. So for every group we bring in, health care becomes more affordable. Period.


----------



## Apatheticviews

mrkleen said:


> All that "sounds good" in theory - but unfortunately, that isn't the way things work. Unless you truly live "off the grid" and are prepared to provide for yourself - in EVERY aspect of your life, then you need to participate in paying your way. I presume you drive on roads - I presume you partake in the fresh water and electricity that is brought to your home - and expect your local town to remove the snow from the roads and provide safety - and I also presume when one of your children gets sick or injured, you want a qualified medical professional to be on the stand by, in a clean, modern emergency room. That is where your entire theory falls down.
> 
> Much like all the "tea baggers" who cry for smaller government - while they are collecting social security and utilizing medicare and VA benefits to the fullest. You want your cake and to eat it too. So what gives?
> 
> Uninsured people hurt the economy and drive up costs. That is an irrefutable fact. If insurance is too expensive for you, you should be arguing for more affordable coverage - not the ability to opt out. How shortsighted is that?
> 
> Today we all pay for the uninsured. If an individual sticks up a bank and walks off with $25,000, there are consequences. If someone who really could have had an insurance policy consumes $25,000 worth of health care, everyone else pays for that. The average employer is paying 12% more in premiums today to cover the uninsured than they would pay if we brought those 47 million into the system. So for every group we bring in, health care becomes more affordable. Period.


I do pay for the roads, and water, and snow removal. Through taxation, or direct billing (like sewage & water). It's a service which I pay for. I pay for Emergency Medical Treatment by buying my own health insurance. I pay for it. However, just because I choose to pay for it doesn't give me the right to make others pay for it as well.

The tea baggers in your example have the right to _ask_ for a smaller government. They also have the right _to claim all their benefits_. We paid into them. It's our money. Social Security is our money. Medicare is something you pay into as well (as part of Social Security, at 2.9% of your income in addition to your employers contribution). VA benefits are additionally a paid benefit for service rendered. Of course we should get the services we pay for directly. I can show you my pay-stubs where I personally paid for those services. If I were not allowed to draw upon those paid services, it would be theft by government.

Uninsured people hurt *Medical Businesses*. I'll agree to that. They don't hurt the economy. That's a stretch. Less people participating means less profit. I'm not arguing for the ability to opt out. *I'm arguing against the government power to impose this authority upon me.* They do not have that right. If we want medical care to by government mandated, then do it as a government power. Expand Medicare coverage to all citizens, and provide it as a taxed service. If people want a superior medical care, they can use private medical insurance as an option (much like private schools are an option to public schools).

The government doesn't have the right to dictate what I do with my body (see other thread). Medical insurance is a financial decision I make with my body. If the government mandates that all employers must offer medical insurance, so be it. That would be a commerce based regulation, which would be within their authority. Mandating that I have to buy insurance is not a power that is granted to them by our social contract.

I'd rather pay twice as much, in cold hard cash, to keep my rights, than given them up. Once they're gone I can't get them back no matter how much I spend.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> Medicare is something you pay into as well.
> 
> I'd rather pay twice as much, in cold hard cash, to keep my rights, than given them up. Once they're gone I can't get them back no matter how much I spend.


1) I understand one may "opt out" of Part B if one is crazy enough to do so.

2) What of the poor slobs who would trade thier Liberty for security?? Are you some kind of heartless bastard??


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) I understand one may "opt out" of Part B if one is crazy enough to do so.
> 
> 2) What of the poor slobs who would trade thier Liberty for security?? Are you some kind of heartless bastard??


1) You are correct. But Medicare "as a whole" is required, and it is a paid service by the American people.

2) They deserve neither (I think that was B. Franklin who said it, and he was one of the founding fathers). Yes, I'm the definition of a heartless bastard. I think people should have to make choices, and then pay for their choices.


----------



## mrkleen

Apatheticviews said:


> I'd rather pay twice as much, in cold hard cash, to keep my rights, than given them up. Once they're gone I can't get them back no matter how much I spend.


Must be tough to sleep at night, with all the paranoia


----------



## Apatheticviews

mrkleen said:


> Must be tough to sleep at night, with all the paranoia


_"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that everyone isn't out to get you."_

It is the fundamental duty of every person to fight for our rights. Over 200 years, the American people have constantly had to fight for rights. Whether it's slavery, suffrage, discrimination, or abuse of power, we have to fight.

In this case, it's abuse of power. Just like the TSA. Look how well that one has turned out. Maybe just maybe my "paranoia" is justified.


----------



## mrkleen

Apatheticviews said:


> In this case, it's abuse of power. Just like the TSA. Look how well that one has turned out. Maybe just maybe my "paranoia" is justified.


Yeah, tell us all how it has turned out?

99.9% of us go to the airport, walk through the machine, and fly safely to our vacation destinations. Sounds like a real conspiracy to me.


----------



## Apatheticviews

mrkleen said:


> Yeah, tell us all how it has turned out?
> 
> 99.9% of us go to the airport, walk through the machine, and fly safely to our vacation destinations. Sounds like a real conspiracy to me.


After the taxpayers paid for those enhanced imaging machines, and numerous people were groped. It took pretty vocal public outcry for a great many of those machines to sit there unused, and those pat-downs to go undone. The fact that anyone would think it's reasonable to search every traveler in that manner is what justifies my "paranoia" of the government grabbing power and using it in unintentional ways.


----------



## eagle2250

Apatheticviews said:


> I'm aware of the pre-existing condition clauses. And those clauses alone are why it's a bad idea for mandated PRIVATE health insurance. As I mentioned in the other thread, insurance is gambling. The companies are betting that you can't win your money back. If they don't force everyone to play, they are guaranteed to lose (as you said).
> 
> The way to bypass that is by making an affordable "tax based" health insurance option, which the government subsidizes. You pay X% in, and you get access to the service (and the benefits of the pre-exist clause). If you choose not to pay in, you use your private insurance, or none at all. The government has made it available, but not required it of anyone.


Well that certainly helps me to understand the need for the 11% increase in my health insurance premiums that kicked in last month. Doesn't make it any easier to accept but, certainly more understandable! :crazy:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Intimidation and Thuggery move to Ohio....

Please take note the lack of taxpayer, non-public sector participants....

https://business-journal.com/protests-take-centerstage-at-statehouse-p18622-1.htm

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The voices of protest against Senate Bill 5 were heard loud, very loud, but not so clear, in the South Hearing Room of the Ohio Senate Tuesday afternoon as a third day of testimony was held on the Republican measure to reform labor law.

Seventeen or so advocates and opponents were scheduled to testify, the chairman of the Insurance Commerce and Labor Committee, Sen. Kevin Bacon, R-3 Columbus, announced at the outset just after 4 p.m.

The doors of the hearing room were closed but they barely muted the angry chants from elsewhere in the state Capitol. Without the sound system in the room, the panel of 10 senators would have strained to hear what was said.

The voices of the protestors would have drowned out the presenters' prepared remarks on the 540-page bill that, among other things, would end collective bargaining for state employees, severely curtail how labor contracts could be negotiated by county, municipal and township employees, impose binding arbitration when safety forces could not reach a new contract when the old one expired, limit what public school teachers could discuss during contract negotiations and repeal the state prevailing wage law.

Opponents, who numbered some 3,000, were members of labor unions, many of them employed in the public sector. They began arriving from throughout the state by late morning. Forty buses were scheduled to bring in members and officers of labor unions across the state, Joe Burga, president of the Ohio AFL-CIO said, plus an unknown number of rank and file were driving to Columbus in car pools.


----------



## mrkleen

Pretty amusing to see the outrage on the right to what amounts to the left stealing a core set from the Republican Playbook - the tried and true minority party using parliamentary procedure to circumvent the legislative process.

Gotta love hypocrites.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> Gotta love hypocrites.


No I don't.

You shouldn't either.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

What Walker has done does not disband unions by any stretch as many would have you believe. What Walker has done is limited their once overbearing negotiating power. Politicians through recent history have kept public employee wages in check only to increase their benefits. The average Milwaukee Public Schools teacher this year will earn $100,005 in compensation, over 40% of which are estimated benefits costs. Good luck finding that kind of deal in the private sector. This allowed them to keep our biennial budget somewhat under control by passing extraordinary costs onto future taxpayers. By limiting the collective bargaining to only wages, Walker is providing true transparency into increasing labor costs. It is time for public employees to get a dose of reality.



Just who is this "student??"

Obviously some knuckle-dragging tea-parting ya-hoo plant!!


----------



## eagle2250

^^
+1 and well put!


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> What Walker has done does not disband unions by any stretch as many would have you believe. What Walker has done is limited their once overbearing negotiating power. Politicians through recent history have kept public employee wages in check only to increase their benefits. The average Milwaukee Public Schools teacher this year will earn $100,005 in compensation, over 40% of which are estimated benefits costs. Good luck finding that kind of deal in the private sector. This allowed them to keep our biennial budget somewhat under control by passing extraordinary costs onto future taxpayers. By limiting the collective bargaining to only wages, Walker is providing true transparency into increasing labor costs. It is time for public employees to get a dose of reality.


The problem is that he's not doing it for ALL unions. Laws have to affect everyone equally. This one doesn't.


----------



## Apatheticviews

An interesting read.


----------



## mrkleen

The executive board president of the *Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association* has issued a statement on the organization's website expressing regret for the endorsement of Gov. Scott Walker in the governor's race.

In a post dated Feb. 16, Tracy Fuller writes, "I am going to make an effort to speak for myself, and every member of the Wisconsin State Patrol when I say this &#8230; I specifically regret the endorsement of the Wisconsin Trooper's Association for Gov. Scott Walker. I regret the governor's decision to 'endorse' the troopers and inspectors of the Wisconsin State Patrol. I regret being the recipient of any of the perceived benefits provided by the governor's anointing.

I think everyone's job and career is just as significant as the others. Everyone's family is just as valuable as mine or any other persons, especially mine. Everyone's needs are just as valuable.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> The problem is that he's not doing it for ALL unions. Laws have to affect everyone equally. This one doesn't.


Ahhh!!

So everyone will be paid the same and there will be no exceptions to Obamacare!!


----------



## Mike Petrik

Apatheticviews said:


> The problem is that he's not doing it for ALL unions. Laws have to affect everyone equally. This one doesn't.


Nonsense. There is no constitutional reason that state laws cannot restrict unions of state employees. None.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Mike Petrik said:


> Nonsense. There is no constitutional reason that state laws cannot restrict unions of state employees. None.


There's no reason why they can't restrict unions of state employees. But there is a reason why they can't restrict *some* unions and not others.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Apatheticviews said:


> There's no reason why they can't restrict unions of state employees. But there is a reason why they can't restrict *some* unions and not others.


And that reason would be?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Mike Petrik said:


> And that reason would be?


The law should be equal to everyone.

Should murder be legal for 1 person and illegal for the person standing next to him?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Apatheticviews said:


> The law should be equal to everyone.
> 
> Should murder be legal for 1 person and illegal for the person standing next to him?


You really should study the equal protection clause a bit more.


----------



## Peak and Pine

And what does that mean? Not being snide; I really want to know. I'm learning a lot here.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Peak and Pine said:


> And what does that mean? Not being snide; I really want to know. I'm learning a lot here.


It means that (i) the epc has limited application to state governments when acting as sovereign employers and (ii) legislatures are permitted to make whatever distinctions they wish as long as they have a rational basis and don't discriminate against a suspect class. Government employees are not a suspect class. That is all I'm willing to explain. I have more important things to do. But I will say that I find it very disturbing that people can be so eager to express opinions about things they have not remotely tried to research or investigate.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Thank you. I would ask who determines the precise meaning of the term _rational_, as you use it, but I'm not going to because I think I would get less scornful treatment if I were to pose a question of personal hygiene to Queen Victoria.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Mike Petrik said:


> It means that (i) the epc has limited application to state governments when acting as sovereign employers and (ii) legislatures are permitted to make whatever distinctions they wish as long as they have a rational basis and don't discriminate against a suspect class. Government employees are not a suspect class. That is all I'm willing to explain. I have more important things to do. But I will say that I find it very disturbing that people can be so eager to express opinions about things they have not remotely tried to research or investigate.


Rational basis being that these unions voted for me in the last election, while those unions didn't?

I'm not calling government workers the class. I'm saying a "subset" of government workers are being classified as one class, while another subset of government workers while another subset is being granted special privileges.

Cops & Firemen can collectively bargain, while teachers & janitors can't? They're both government servants who draw from the same coffers. Yet one retains a significant advantage, while the other loses it. That isn't equality or even fairness. It's plain favoritism.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Mike Petrik said:


> There is no constitutional reason that state laws cannot restrict unions of state employees. None.


Well in that case there should be. Laws shouldn't be passed that are only aimed at certain societal groups.


----------



## Peak and Pine

The re-quoting of Petrik is useless because we've all been dismissed.



Mike Petrik said:


> That is all I'm willing to explain. I have more important things to do.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> Cops & Firemen can collectively bargain, while teachers & janitors can't? They're both government servants who draw from the same coffers. Yet one retains a significant advantage, while the other loses it. That isn't equality or even fairness. It's plain favoritism.


Cops and firmen have been deemed so necessary for public safety that they have given up the "right" to strike in exchange for certain bargaining "rights."

No one dies when teachers, janitors or legislators for that matter, don't show up.

(The above statement is a generalization not applicable to every State or jurisdiction)


----------



## eagle2250

^^
....but alas, while 'someone' may not die, something certainly does...bad teachers lead to the death of intellectual interest; the death of imagination and the death of academic inquiry. However, it is a sad, sad mistake to assume collective bargaining offers any potential to address this triple homicide. Unfortunately, public employees (including our teachers) are just as flawed in this regard, as most other Americans. We all seem too greedy, too consumed by our individual senses of self interest to worry much about the public good! In terms of preparing their students for life's challenges, in terms of producing future generations that can compete in this global economy that has become our present day reality, our school systems are miserable failures. Far too many of our teachers have made lining their own pockets the priority!


----------



## Apatheticviews

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> ....but alas, while 'someone' may not die, something certainly does...bad teachers lead to the death of intellectual interest; the death of imagination and the death of academic inquiry. However, it is a sad, sad mistake to assume collective bargaining offers any potential to address this triple homicide. Unfortunately, public employees (including our teachers) are just as flawed in this regard, as most other Americans. We all seem too greedy, too *consumed by our individual senses of self interest to worry much about the public good!* In terms of preparing their students for life's challenges, in terms of producing future generations that can compete in this global economy that has become our present day reality, our school systems are miserable failures. Far too many of our teachers have made lining their own pockets the priority!


Of course we have our self interest at heart. We're supposed to. Reducing the deficit is just as much about self interest (reducing individual tax burden) as ensuring our personal pay is not affected. We're not an altruistic society. We are a society of People, and people (not individuals) are greedy beings. We get better jobs so we can afford better standards of living (greed), and provide for our (personal interest) families better. No one here would expect someone to work an extra 20 hours a week if there wasn't some benefit to the worker (an understanding of reward). This is why communism doesn't fit well with the American Way. I'm willing to put in extra effort because it benefits me in some way (whether sense of accomplishment, work ethic, future promotions, or direct pay) but this isn't a volunteer society by any stretch.

There's a reason we have a Bill of Rights, which for the most part is about individual Rights. The constitution describes government power* imbued* by the people. Public good is merely an excuse to limit people's Rights (some for the good, many not).

It's the old fire in a theatre argument. People's individual rights end where it infringes on another *persons* individual rights. _But both sides have to be true_. I can't violate anyone else's rights, only if they aren't allowed to violate mine in turn. In this case Public Good is merely used as an excuse to do just that.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well in that case there should be. Laws shouldn't be passed that are only aimed at certain societal groups.


Which is my argument. I don't care about the unions themselves, or even the teachers, blah blah blah. My issue is that this law is specifically aimed at certain societal groups. Back a few pages ago, I made mention of _equal applicability_ as my primary opposition.

If you want to make a law that affects state employees. Make it affect all state employees. Don't grant exemptions. The fact that these exemptions can be construed as favoritism, or kick-backs for support in the election just highlights the issue.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> If you want to make a law that affects state employees. Make it affect all state employees. Don't grant exemptions. The fact that these exemptions can be construed as favoritism, or kick-backs for support in the election just highlights the issue.


I get where you are going, similar to the public funding for victim's health issue, and would be willing to "screw" the cops and fireman equally along with the teachers!!

But I do understand and sympathize with why distinctions have been made in the past as I explained previously.


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> I get where you are going, similar to the public funding for victim's health issue, and would be willing to "screw" the cops and fireman equally along with the teachers!!
> 
> But I do understand and sympathize with why distinctions have been made in the past as I explained previously.


Everyone get's screwed without lube, or no one gets screwed at all!

I understand the distinctions, and on a personal note can agree with them (that being a good rationalization of why one class is affected differently), however what is proposed presents a perceived "conflict of interest" in that it looks like (even if it isn't) paying for votes.

Had no (or all, or different) unions supported him, he could have used the rationalization without much issue.


----------



## WindsorNot

Or get a different degree in order to earn higher market wages . To all the lazy rent-seeking union employees, see: Free Market. Teacher wages fall -> teachers quit and re-train for other jobs -> teacher wages rise to lure back teachers. It's the circle of life. Why are public employees offered perks the private sector does not receive? Pay them market wages, not artificially higher wages including benefits that will ultimately bankrupt our governments. Seriously, screw unions. /end rant


----------



## mrkleen

WindsorNot said:


> Seriously, screw unions. /end rant


Yeah...and while you are at it, screw our kids futures too. I mean who cares who educates them...just throw some clown in front of the class...and those the flunk out, flunk out. And when we slip further as a country because Indian and Chinese and European students are better trained for the jobs of the future - who cares. Let the free market sort it out.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> ...just throw some clown in front of the class...and those the flunk out, flunk out.
> 
> And when we slip further as a country because Indian and Chinese....


1)The world needs ditch diggers too!! (Union ditch diggers no doubt)

2) I wonder how much their teachers make??


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1)The world needs ditch diggers too!! (Union ditch diggers no doubt)
> 
> 2) I wonder how much their teachers make??


Yes. This is EXACTLY what the United States of America should aspire to be. A national full of ditch diggers - who look to "second world" countries for their social and educational cues.

Well said.


----------



## Acct2000

Peak and Pine said:


> Thank you. I would ask who determines the precise meaning of the term _rational_, as you use it, but I'm not going to because I think I would get less scornful treatment if I were to pose a question of personal hygiene to Queen Victoria.


Goodness, Peak!!! You are quite an interesting guy in your present life!! Did a brazen person from a previous life ask this of Queen Victoria?? (One senses a bit of cleverly hidden experience in your post. Was the person from your prior life slapped?)


----------



## Acct2000

mrkleen said:


> Yeah...and while you are at it, screw our kids futures too. I mean who cares who educates them...just throw some clown in front of the class...and those the flunk out, flunk out. And when we slip further as a country because Indian and Chinese and European students are better trained for the jobs of the future - who cares. Let the free market sort it out.


And this is not what is pretty much happening now??

I don't see our schools as being even remotely successful for the most part. To be fair, most teachers are probably not the problem. If someone could magically get people to realize how valuable an education is and encourage kids to go for it, that would come a lot closer to solving the problem.

I'm not a big fan of the teachers' union, but for the most part, Socrates himself could not educate someone if they and their parents are not concerned whether someone is really educated. Blaming teachers for the mess of our education system will not solve the problem even if it makes some people feel good. Having said that, we need to do a better job of identifying and weeding out the probably small percentage of teachers who are not good at it.


----------



## eagle2250

Why are we so consistently insistent on rewarding failure. The teaching community in this once, and hopefully still so, great Nation of ours is not doing such a good job, if we are to believe our academic standing in this ever shrinking world we live in. We seem to be consistently loosing ground against the academic achievement of other major, industrialized nations of our world community. Throwing more money at the problem, in isolation, and bankrupting our citizenry doesn't seem to be the answer? :icon_scratch:

PS: I would not lay this failure so much at the feet of our teaching community, as I would at the feet of parents! The bottom line is we have become and are raising our children to be couch potatoes!


----------



## TMMKC

While I'm still not convinced of the merits of unionized public workers, practicality must reign at some point. Shouldn't all of these politicans and protesters be getting back to work and do the job the taxpayers from their states pay them to do? The squabbling is getting tiresome.


----------



## Apatheticviews

TMMKC said:


> While I'm still not convinced of the merits of unionized public workers, practicality must reign at some point. Shouldn't all of these politicans and protesters be getting back to work and do the job the taxpayers from their states pay them to do? The squabbling is getting tiresome.


If they don't by Friday, the governor has threatened to lay off 1500 workers.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

forsbergacct2000 said:


> ...Socrates himself could not educate someone if they and their parents are not concerned whether someone is really educated.


Parent*s*??

With the bastard rate in the US headed toward 40%, I don't see a lot of promise that the "culture" is headed toward the right path.

But we must not broach THAT topic!!

Well, not Legislatively anyway...


----------



## WindsorNot

mrkleen said:


> Yeah...and while you are at it, screw our kids futures too. I mean who cares who educates them...just throw some clown in front of the class...and those the flunk out, flunk out. And when we slip further as a country because Indian and Chinese and European students are better trained for the jobs of the future - who cares. Let the free market sort it out.


Do you mean to say that getting rid of unions would lead to a worse future for kids' education? I fail to see how allowing a teacher to essentially entrench themself and not be subject to the pay-for-performance concept of the free market leads to better education. You'd think that if teachers were rewarded according to performance rather than haphazardly, the results would be better, no?


----------



## mrkleen

WindsorNot said:


> Do you mean to say that getting rid of unions would lead to a worse future for kids' education? I fail to see how allowing a teacher to essentially entrench themself and not be subject to the pay-for-performance concept of the free market leads to better education. You'd think that if teachers were rewarded according to performance rather than haphazardly, the results would be better, no?


If you fail to see it, then you have failed to look at the research that is available on the subject

For years, some people have been determined to blame teachers' unions for all that ails public education in America. This issue has been around a long time but, given the tenor of the current debate, it seems to bear rehashing. According to this view, teachers unions negatively affect student achievement primarily through the mechanism of the collective bargaining agreement, or contract. But a fairly large proportion of public school teachers are not covered under legally binding contracts. In fact, there are some 10 states in which there are virtually no legally binding K-12 teacher contracts at all

_*Here's a simple proposition: If teacher union contracts are the main problem, then we should expect to see at least somewhat higher achievement outcomes in the 10 states where there are basically no binding contracts.*_

So, let's take a quick look at how states with no contracts compare with the states that have them.

In the table below, using data from the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), average scale scores for states that currently have binding teacher contracts are compared with those that don't. The averages are weighted by grade-level enrollment, and they include only public non-charter schools (since most charters in all states have no contracts).

*Average 2009 NAEP Score By State Teacher Contract Laws*
*States with binding teacher contracts*
_4th grade_: Math 240.0 Reading 220.7
_8th grade:_ Math 282.1 Reading 263.7

*States without binding teacher contracts*
_4th grade_: Math 237.7 Reading 217.5
_8th grade_: Math 281.2 Reading 259.5

As the table shows, the states in which there are no teachers covered under binding agreements score lower than the states that have them. Moreover, even though they appear small, all but one of these (8th grade math) are rather large differences.

To give an idea of the size, I ranked each state (plus Washington D.C.) by order of its performance -its average score on each of the four NAEP exams - and then averaged the four ranks. The table below presents the average rank for the non-contract states.
*
Average Rank Across 4 NAEP Tests*
_Next to each state is its average rank_
Virginia....... 16.6
Texas......... 27.3
N. Carolina.. 27.5
Georgia.......36.8
Arkansas.....38.9
S. Carolina...38.9
Arizona........43.3
Alabama......45.5
Louisiana.....47.8
Mississippi...48.6

Out of these 10 states, *only one (Virginia) has an average rank above the median*, *while four are in the bottom 10*, and seven are in the bottom 15. These data make it very clear that states without binding teacher contracts are not doing better, and the majority are actually among the lowest performers in the nation.

*In contrast, nine of the 10 states with the highest average ranks are high coverage states, including Massachusetts, which has the highest average score on all four tests.*

If anything, it seems that the presence of teacher contracts in a state has a positive effect on achievement.

Now, some may object to this conclusion. They might argue that I can't possibly say that teacher contracts alone caused the higher scores in these states. They might say that there are dozens of other observed and unobserved factors that influence achievement, such as state laws, lack of resources, income, parents' education, and curriculum, and that these factors are responsible for the lower scores in the 10 non-contract states.

My response: Exactly.


----------



## WindsorNot

mrkleen: First of all, thank you for taking the time to pull those stats and information together. However, may I point out that the difference in average scores quoted for 4th and 8th grade above for union versus non-union states do not appear to be significant; at least to a layperson (me). Also, note that the states without unions as listed are historically poorer states which would lend themselves to lower educational rankings. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that the detriment to the public due to the existence of public employee unions outweighs whatever potential marginal benefits to education these unions may bring. Although, I assume we both agree that the existence of unions is far and away, among the least important factors in determining educational sucess when compared to parent involvment, socio-economic status, etc.

(As a side note, my main point of contention is that from a private sector point of view, it appears that unionized government employees are whiners and simply feel entitled to our tax money.)


----------



## mrkleen

WindsorNot said:


> I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that the detriment to the public due to the existence of public employee unions outweighs whatever potential marginal benefits to education these unions may bring.


Great. Care to add some FACTS to back up your baseless argument?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> So, let's take a quick look at how states with no contracts compare with the states that have them.
> 
> In the table below, using data from the 2009 (NAEP), average scale scores for states that currently have binding teacher contracts are compared with those that don't. The averages are weighted by grade-level enrollment, and *they include only public non-charter schools (since most charters in all states have no contracts*).


Some people would call that "cherry picking!!"


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> Some people would call that "cherry picking!!"


And those people would be WRONG

They did not include charter schools in the top states rankings either?


----------



## WindsorNot

mrkleen said:


> Great. Care to add some FACTS to back up your baseless argument?


How about this simple thought experiment with two separate and isolated schools. The goal of each school is to maximize total educational value given the same $ budget constraints:

1) The first school is full of unionized teachers that cannot easily be fired or replaced and are paid an arbitrary waged based upon tenure and/or other factors.
2) The second school may hire and fire at will and pays teachers based upon educational value added. Further, these teachers accrue no future pension benefits and so there is a greater draw to the teachers in earning higher present value wages.

Now which school do you think would succeed in maximizing educational value over the other?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> And those people would be WRONG
> 
> They did not include charter schools in the top states rankings either?


Why aren't non-union religious or private schools included??


----------



## mrkleen

WindsorNot said:


> Now which school do you think would succeed in maximizing educational value over the other?


I don't know. Why don't you humor us and provide your extensive research to back up your hypothesis.


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why aren't non-union religious or private schools included??


Wait. I thought this was a discussion about public schools and public unions?


----------



## WindsorNot

mrkleen said:


> I don't know. Why don't you humor us and provide your extensive research to back up your hypothesis.


You can't be serious. Would you work harder or less hard if you were paid based on how hard you worked. Similarly would you work harder if you knew you could get fired or less hard? My reasearch for this is the average of all modern per capita GDPs of free-market/democratic leaning economies vs. the the average of all modern per capita GDPs of communist/dictatorial leaning economies.


----------



## mrkleen

WindsorNot said:


> You can't be serious. Would you work harder or less hard if you were paid based on how hard you worked. Similarly would you work harder if you knew you could get fired or less hard? My reasearch for this is the average of all modern per capita GDPs of free-market/democratic leaning economies vs. the the average of all modern per capita GDPs of communist/dictatorial leaning economies.


Listen I cant chew your food for you. I presented a well researched study that showed conclusively that students in states with Teachers unions score HIGHER than their counterparts in non union stats&#8230;.and you are blabbing about GDP?

If you can counter with a study that refutes the claim in the article I presented - do it. Otherwise, continue trying to obfuscate the subject at hand with your unsupported observations and unfounded opinions.


----------



## Apatheticviews

WindsorNot said:


> How about this simple thought experiment with two separate and isolated schools. The goal of each school is to maximize total educational value given the same $ budget constraints:
> 
> 1) The first school is full of unionized teachers that cannot easily be fired or replaced and are paid an arbitrary waged based upon tenure and/or other factors.
> 2) The second school may hire and fire at will and pays teachers based upon educational value added. Further, these teachers accrue no future pension benefits and so there is a greater draw to the teachers in earning higher present value wages.
> 
> Now which school do you think would succeed in maximizing educational value over the other?


In a Supply vs Demand (non-Union) school, you are employing teachers for the minimum you can get away with, until the supply drops to a point where you are forced to raise salaries. Once teacher availability raises to a point where the cost is greater than the budget, you run into layoffs to trim budgets. Repeat as necessary.

The issue is that you can't fire someone if they are performing to standard (which is defined in job requirements). If a third grade teacher is teaching third graders well enough to get them to fourth grade (example), it's unethical to replace them for someone who is cheaper. *That's exactly why unions exist.* Even with at-will terminations, you would just end up paying the fired teachers Employment Compensation, which would increase your actual costs (since the employer pays a solid portion of that).


----------



## Apatheticviews

WindsorNot said:


> You can't be serious. Would you work harder or less hard if you were paid based on how hard you worked. Similarly would you work harder if you knew you could get fired or less hard? My reasearch for this is the average of all modern per capita GDPs of free-market/democratic leaning economies vs. the the average of all modern per capita GDPs of communist/dictatorial leaning economies.


We aren't paid on how hard we work. I assume you are talking about a merit based system where they are rewarded based on their results.

In general people will do the minimum required to maintain their pay, and personal work ethic. With educational based systems, the problem is that you you can't measure educational value gained, outside of standardized test scores. That said, you train the kids to take the test, not for actual education.


----------



## WindsorNot

mrkleen said:


> Listen I cant chew your food for you. I presented a well researched study that showed conclusively that students in states with Teachers unions score HIGHER than their counterparts in non union stats&#8230;.and you are blabbing about GDP?
> 
> If you can counter with a study that refutes the claim in the article I presented - do it. Otherwise, continue trying to obfuscate the subject at hand with your unsupported observations and unfounded opinions.


It's not well researched because the thesis is that unions increase educational performance. I noted that most of the non-unionzed states you referenced were historically poorer than the average therefore we should expect poorer academic performance. Further, note that two of the ten states referenced are Texas and Arizona; both which include greater amounts of imigrants from poorer socio-economic families.



Apatheticviews said:


> In a Supply vs Demand (non-Union) school, you are employing teachers for the minimum you can get away with, until the supply drops to a point where you are forced to raise salaries. Once teacher availability raises to a point where the cost is greater than the budget, you run into layoffs to trim budgets. Repeat as necessary.
> 
> The issue is that you can't fire someone if they are performing to standard (which is defined in job requirements). If a third grade teacher is teaching third graders well enough to get them to fourth grade (example), it's unethical to replace them for someone who is cheaper. *That's exactly why unions exist.* Even with at-will terminations, you would just end up paying the fired teachers Employment Compensation, which would increase your actual costs (since the employer pays a solid portion of that).


It appears we have a basic difference of opinion here. I believe that it _is _ethical to replace a teacher with another who is cheaper that provides the same educational value. We deal with this in the private sector, it's part of a liquid job market. Further, an efficient school would take into account the price of having to pay unemployment comp.


----------



## WindsorNot

Apatheticviews said:


> We aren't paid on how hard we work. I assume you are talking about a merit based system where they are rewarded based on their results.
> 
> In general people will do the minimum required to maintain their pay, and personal work ethic. With educational based systems, the problem is that you you can't measure educational value gained, outside of standardized test scores. That said, you train the kids to take the test, not for actual education.


Agreed on most points, but I'd add that the minimum required to maintain pay is greater when there is a more likely chance of being fired. I obviously don't what all the correct answers are, I'm just trying to find them.


----------



## Apatheticviews

WindsorNot said:


> It appears we have a basic difference of opinion here. I believe that it _is _ethical to replace a teacher with another who is cheaper that provides the same educational value. We deal with this in the private sector, it's part of a liquid job market. Further, an efficient school would take into account the price of having to pay unemployment comp.


No, it's logical, not ethical.

If you hire someone to do a job, and they perform the job, it unethical to replace them just because you found a cheaper option. Now, if they don't perform the job to standard, replace them. But you have to tell them what the expectation is from the get go (job description). At will hire/fire is the issue. Limited service agreements don't have the same issue.

Now... If you hire teachers with a 1 year contract, choosing to renew only the top 50% (or some other number) each year, you've changed the rules enough to where it is ethical, because the expectations are clear. Perform or look for a new job next year. That said, top performers have negotiating power (to a degree) in that they can show what value they provide and can negotiate their contracts accordingly.

Think of it like a sales professional in the service industry. You either provide the best service, or we choose not to use you in the future.


----------



## mrkleen

WindsorNot said:


> It's not well researched because the thesis is that unions increase educational performance. I noted that most of the non-unionzed states you referenced were historically poorer than the average therefore we should expect poorer academic performance. Further, note that two of the ten states referenced are Texas and Arizona; both which include greater amounts of imigrants from poorer socio-economic families.


So you want us to accept your premise that Non Unionized Teachers do a better job...but when the FACTS fly in the face of your baseless assumption, you want to try and back peddle?

Gotcha.


----------



## WindsorNot

To Apatheticviews: I Don't really have much to add, other than I doubt employee at will teachers would constantly be fired en masse for slightly cheaper labor. As you mentioned, there'd be other issues like unemployment comp, retraining new hires, etc that would not favor this policy. 

All I'm advocating is allowing the states broad ability to pay teachers accordingly and fire teachers as necessary, not subject to the whims of politically entrenched voting blocs.


----------



## WindsorNot

mrkleen said:


> So you want us to accept your premise that Non Unionized Teachers do a better job...but when the FACTS fly in the face of your baseless assumption, you want to try and back peddle?
> 
> Gotcha.


What? I'm pointing out that your "FACTS" don't necessarily support your claim. For example, you would say that Connecticut students are better educated than Texas students because Connecticut teachers are unionised. This ignores EVERY OTHER potential reason for the differences.


----------



## Apatheticviews

WindsorNot said:


> To Apatheticviews: I Don't really have much to add, other than I doubt employee at will teachers would constantly be fired en masse for slightly cheaper labor. As you mentioned, there'd be other issues like unemployment comp, retraining new hires, etc that would not favor this policy.
> 
> All I'm advocating is allowing the states broad ability to pay teachers accordingly and fire teachers as necessary, not subject to the whims of politically entrenched voting blocs.


VA does merit bonuses based on standardized test results. Base pay is fairly standard. Normal hire/fire practices in effect.

The only real issue is that supply of teachers is less than demand for teachers (in general) which in turn _can_ result in higher pay than would be justified if they were balanced.


----------



## mrkleen

WindsorNot said:


> What? I'm pointing out that your "FACTS" don't necessarily support your claim. For example, you would say that Connecticut students are better educated than Texas students because Connecticut teachers are unionised. This ignores EVERY OTHER potential reason for the differences.


Lets not try and re-write history in this thread. You were amongst the chorus of people here, claiming that students would be better off with non-unionized teachers. It is your burden to prove that you are not just pulling things out of your arse - but have actually facts to back it up. Clearly, you don't have any - which is why you started talking about GDP and all this other blather, to try and further muddy the conversation.

I know there are lots of factors that contribute to students achieving higher test scores - and neither I nor the writer of the article I quoted is claiming that unions are the reason students in those states scored higher on their standardized tests. But CLEARLY unions are not an impediment to receiving good education, as so many who are calling for their abolition would have you believe.

Either unions have no factor on education (in which case, your argument that we would be better off without them is ALL WET), or they are paramount to education (in which case, you are also wrong - since the facts contradict you once again.)


----------



## MichaelS

mrkleen said:


> Listen I cant chew your food for you. I presented a well researched study that showed conclusively that students in states with Teachers unions score HIGHER than their counterparts in non union stats&#8230;.and you are blabbing about GDP?
> 
> If you can counter with a study that refutes the claim in the article I presented - do it. Otherwise, continue trying to obfuscate the subject at hand with your unsupported observations and unfounded opinions.


Stop letting facts confuse the issue darn it!!! If it was true FOX news would have said it. They tell us only what we need to hear, no facts to sully the issues.


----------



## WindsorNot

mrkleen said:


> Lets not try and re-write history in this thread. You were amongst the chorus of people here, claiming that students would be better off with non-unionized teachers. It is your burden to prove that you are not just pulling things out of your arse - but have actually facts to back it up. Clearly, you don't have any - which is why you started talking about GDP and all this other blather, to try and further muddy the conversation.
> 
> I know there are lots of factors that contribute to students achieving higher test scores - and neither I nor the writer of the article I quoted is claiming that unions are the reason students in those states scored higher on their standardized tests. But CLEARLY unions are not an impediment to receiving good education, as so many who are calling for their abolition would have you believe.
> 
> Either unions have no factor on education (in which case, your argument that we would be better off without them is ALL WET), or they are paramount to education (in which case, you are also wrong - since the facts contradict you once again.)


Hastily thought out and arrived upon conclusion. I applaud your tunnel vision. If by having the facts to back something up, do you mean copying and pasting a NYT article from last year? There is no burden for me to prove anything. This is largely an ideological debate. I work in the private sector, graduated from public school in each phase of my life (in a non-unionised state), have no kids, pay taxes and live in one of the states with the healthiest business evnironments in the nation. I'm free to snub my nose at unions as I like.


----------



## mrkleen

WindsorNot said:


> If by having the facts to back something up, do you mean copying and pasting a NYT article from last year?


So now you need to write something to claim it as fact? I didnt discover the earth is round either...but pretty sure I can still claim it as a fact. LMAO



WindsorNot said:


> There is no burden for me to prove anything.


Especially when you CANT



WindsorNot said:


> This is largely an ideological debate.


You claimed that students would be better off with non-unionized teachers - I showed you to be incorrect. Nothing ideological about that.



WindsorNot said:


> I'm free to snub my nose at unions as I like.


You are also free to be WRONG about unions being a detriment to quality education.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> Wait. I thought this was a discussion about public schools and public unions?


However, you assert that unions contribute positively to the educational experience. If that were so, private and perochial schools would surely be closed union shops.

But they aren't.

Can you reconcile that??


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> In a Supply vs Demand (non-Union) school, you are employing teachers for the minimum you can get away with, until the supply drops to a point where you are forced to raise salaries. Once teacher availability raises to a point where the cost is greater than the budget, you run into layoffs to trim budgets. Repeat as necessary.
> 
> The issue is that you can't fire someone if they are performing to standard (which is defined in job requirements). If a third grade teacher is teaching third graders well enough to get them to fourth grade (example), it's unethical to replace them for someone who is cheaper.


Uh oh...



> PROVIDENCE - After two hours of contentious discussion, the School Board voted 4 to 3 Thursday night to send out termination notices to each of the city's 1,926 public school teachers.
> More than 700 teachers jammed a high school gymnasium to tell school officials that their hearts were broken, their trust violated and their futures as teachers jeopardized.
> "How do we feel? Disrespected," said Julie Latessa, a special-needs teacher, before the vote. "We are broken. How do you repair the damage you have done today?"
> Every teacher received a certified letter from the School Department on Thursday informing them that they might be terminated at the end of the school year. It also said the School Board would vote on the proposed dismissals at Thursday night's meeting, which was moved to the Providence Career and Technical Academy to accommodate the huge turnout.
> Many of the teachers were caught off guard by Mayor Angel Taveras' decision to terminate teachers instead of laying them off. Last night, speakers questioned the mayor's rationale: a $40-million school budget deficit and a March 1 deadline by which the School Department must notify teachers if their jobs are in jeopardy.


https://www.projo.com/news/content/PROVIDENCE_SCHOOL_MEETINGS_02-25-11_MCMMBSG_v26.1bd455c.html

Why is it the Political affiliation of the Mayor or the Board members are completely ignored in this article??


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> However, you assert that unions contribute positively to the educational experience.


Actually, NO I didnt. I said the opposite....that YOUR contention that states would be better off with non-unionized teachers, was WRONG.

The data is clear. The quality of education and test scores is NOT negatively effected by teachers unions. That is a fact.


----------



## WindsorNot

mrkleen said:


> You claimed that students would be better off with non-unionized teachers - I showed you to be incorrect. Nothing ideological about that.
> 
> You are also free to be WRONG about unions being a detriment to quality education.


You're right, I am free to be wrong about unions. However, for you to claim your point of view is correct based upon a single article is ridiculous and laughable. I feel no need to waste my workday researching this topic for your benefit, especially given that I reside in a non-unionised state. The past two pages of this thread have also completely ignored the other side of this issue which is the price that union versus non-union workers inflict upon taxpayers.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> Actually, NO I didnt. I said the opposite....that YOUR contention that states would be better off with non-unionized teachers, was WRONG.


...and financially??

BTW~The meme in all this is that Wisconsin is not prohibiting or dissolving public employee unions, mearly curbing some of their more over reaching powers.


----------



## Mike Petrik

WindsorNot said:


> You're right, I am free to be wrong about unions. However, for you to claim your point of view is correct based upon a single article is ridiculous and laughable. I feel no need to waste my workday researching this topic for your benefit, especially given that I reside in a non-unionised state. The past two pages of this thread have also completely ignored the other side of this issue which is the price that union versus non-union workers inflict upon taxpayers.


Agree 100%. If we're going to rely on one article, why not this disturbing one? https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill


----------



## mrkleen

WindsorNot said:


> You're right, I am free to be wrong about unions. However, for you to claim your point of view is correct based upon a single article is ridiculous and laughable.


 This was one of many articles that were written based on statistics from The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), THE primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education. It makes no difference if you disagree with who wrote the article or the publication that it was contained in - the "source" of the data in the article, is beyond question. But nice try.



WindsorNot said:


> I feel no need to waste my workday researching this topic for your benefit, especially given that I reside in a non-unionised state.


And especially since your assertion was wrong.



WindsorNot said:


> The past two pages of this thread have also completely ignored the other side of this issue which is the price that union versus non-union workers inflict upon taxpayers.


Fair point. I mean who cares if we are educating our students well or not, as long as we are saving a buck.


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> Agree 100%. If we're going to rely on one article, why not this disturbing one? https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill


yeah especially when the article is based on irrefutable stats from THE authority on the subject....a non partisan group that is in the business of The collecting and analyzing data related to education.


----------



## WindsorNot

mrkleen said:


> This was one of many articles that were written based on statistics from The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), THE primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education. It makes no difference if you disagree with who wrote the article or the publication that it was contained in - the "source" of the data in the article, is beyond question. But nice try.
> 
> And especially since your assertion was wrong.
> 
> Fair point. I mean who cares if we are educating our students well or not, as long as we are saving a buck.


Your incredible ability to twist words, skirt logic, and generally make up things is incredible. You should be a politician!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

WindsorNot said:


> Your incredible ability to twist words, skirt logic, and generally make up things is incredible. You should be a politician!


Another article on the mass teacher firings in RI....

*Providence, Rhode Island, Issues Pink Slips to All Its Teachers*

...and STILL no mention of the Mayor's or school boards political affiliation.

Care to speculate on why??


----------



## mrkleen

WindsorNot said:


> Your incredible ability to twist words, skirt logic, and generally make up things is incredible. You should be a politician!


 This has been fun Windsor. You made the unsubstantiated and unsupportable claim that students and states would be better off without teachers unions. I showed you *FACTS* that disprove your statement. And you have spent the last 10 posts trying to back peddle and re-frame your initial argument.

If that is your definition of "twisting" words - you need a new dictionary.


----------



## WindsorNot

WouldaShoulda said:


> Another article on the mass teacher firings in RI....
> 
> *Providence, Rhode Island, Issues Pink Slips to All Its Teachers*
> 
> ...and STILL no mention of the Mayor's or school boards political affiliation.
> 
> Care to speculate on why??


Political divides should be fairly clear cut in all of these cases...teachers unions send money to democratic politicians who protect the entitled unions. My favorite quote from that article is "Now I know how the United States State Department felt on December 7, 1941." Seriously? Comparing reasonable attempts at keeping municipalities from going bankrupt to an atrocious act of war on our nation? Some of these guys are nuts.



mrkleen said:


> This has been fun Windsor. You made the unsubstantiated and unsupportable claim that students and states would be better off without teachers unions. I showed you *FACTS* that disprove your statement. And you have spent the last 10 posts trying to back peddle and re-frame your initial argument.
> 
> If that is your definition of "twisting" words - you need a new dictionary.


Uh...there has been no back peddling, friend. I thought the union debate was largely settled after GM went bust.


----------



## mrkleen

WindsorNot said:


> Uh...there has been no back peddling, friend. I thought the union debate was largely settled after GM went bust.


Now you are trying to turn the discussion to AUTOMOTIVE UNIONS?

Gotta love the fight you display Windsor. Beaten, disgraced, made to look foolish - you keep kicking. :icon_cheers:


----------



## WindsorNot

mrkleen said:


> Now you are trying to turn the discussion to AUTOMOTIVE UNIONS?
> 
> Gotta love the fight you display Windsor. Beaten, disgraced, made to look foolish - you keep kicking. :icon_cheers:


Your rhetoric on this subject is foolish and I am in stark disagreement with your ideology. I'm not turning the discussion to AUTOMOTIVE UNIONS, merely using AUTOMOTIVE UNIONS as a data point supporting the FACT that rent seeking unionised workers, no matter what the industry, are leeches on responsible budgets.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> Now you are trying to turn the discussion to AUTOMOTIVE UNIONS?


You're right.

Let's discuss RI.

https://headlines.verizon.com/headl...lines_portal_page_us_article&_article=3340477

A third article about TERMINATING nearly 2k teachers and not one mention of the political affiliation of the Mayor.

Now let's see how coverage of the WI matter plays out...

Democratic governors try to enlist labor's help in dealing with budget crises

In contrast to Wisconsin's Republican governor, who has as the chief villain of his state's , Democratic governors across the country who face have tried to sidestep such confrontations with a key constituency by quietly cutting deals with labor leaders.

Wha??


----------



## P Hudson

My favorite stat in all this is that Wisconsin teachers' unions won the right to require that health insurance be bought from the Wisconsin teachers' Union--at a rate of 300 per cent more than the market price.

My second favorite is that the average MPS teacher (the school system I attended) earns a package worth $100,005 per annum, which is not far off the cost of a decent house. I was looking into real estate prices just last week. A newish nice condo in the good part of town goes for $80,000, while a house goes for about $120,000. Where I live, the average salary earner needs almost 10 years to buy a house: in Milwaukee, just over a year should do it. Of course, Milwaukee is more expensive than many other parts of Wisconsin.

My third is that the rights being stripped away were extended to UW professors in 2009. Walker's assault on the unions will return them to the dark days of ... two years ago. That's rough. Many other university profs didn't actually have the rights that are now being so callously taken away.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial

WindsorNot said:


> Political divides should be fairly clear cut in all of these cases...teachers unions send money to democratic politicians who protect the entitled unions.


Dude. WouldaShoulda tried to pitch you a fat one right down the middle and you just whiffed on it badly.

The point he was making is that the Providence Mayor in question is a Democrat. A Democrat just fired every single last one of his city's unionized teachers. Which completely undercuts the argument you just tried to make.

WouldaShoulda-- Wrong is wrong no matter what the political affiliation. Terminating employees is dirty pool, and I'm not sure the move will withstand a legal challenge. They didn't exactly help their cause by mentioning they were terminating the teachers because of budget issues.

However, the omission may not be as sinister as you think. The political affiliations of political officials are generally only designated eg. Angel Taveras (D) if they were elected as official candidates of the party. Many school district, city council, and mayor elections are nonpartisan. So while you may view yourself as unofficially as a Republican, you are not actually running or elected as a member of the party. Similarly, we are all pretty sure which S. Ct. Justices are Democrats or Republicans but you never see it mentioned.

I don't know if Taveras was elected in a nonpartisan election or not since there are also plenty of mayor elections that are partisan. But many media sources don't take the time to look up such things up and just as a rule of thumb never mention the political party of mayors. I'm not saying it's right if that was the case, but it happens to both Republicans and Democrats.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

jean-paul sartorial said:


> The point he was making is that the Providence Mayor in question is a Democrat. A Democrat just fired every single last one of his city's unionized teachers. Which completely undercuts the argument you just tried to make.
> 
> I don't know if Taveras was elected in a nonpartisan election or not since there are also plenty of mayor elections that are partisan. *But many media sources don't take the time to look up such things up..* .


1) Thank you for noticing.

2) That's because journalism as we knew it is dead and what's left is lazy!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

P Hudson said:


> Many other university profs didn't actually have the rights that are now being so callously taken away.


Nor do any of Obama's Federal work force.

This media circus and total scam really takes the cake!!


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> Nor do any of Obama's Federal work force.
> 
> This media circus and total scam really takes the cake!!


"In 1962, President Kennedy signed an executive order giving public-employee unions the right to collectively bargain with federal government agencies"

Executive Order 10988.

If I'm reading it correctly, federal Government workers can collectively bargain just fine, however there are restrictions on _when_ they can bargain, per their attached agency.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> If I'm reading it correctly, federal Government workers can collectively bargain just fine, however there are restrictions on _when_ they can bargain, per their attached agency.


Exactly.

As usual, it's all a matter of degree.

Is Charles K the smartest man on Earth??



> To redress these perverse incentives that benefit both negotiating parties at the expense of the taxpayer, would restrict future government-union negotiations to wages only. Excluded from negotiations would be benefits, the more easily hidden sweeteners that come due long after the politicians who negotiated them are gone. The bill would also require that unions be recertified every year and that dues be voluntary.
> Recognizing this threat to union power, the Democratic Party is pouring money and fury into the fight. Fewer than 7 percent of private-sector workers are unionized. The Democrats' strength lies in government workers, who now constitute a majority of union members and provide massive support to the party. For them, Wisconsin represents a dangerous contagion.
> Hence the import of the current moment - its blinding clarity. Here stand the Democrats, avatars of reactionary liberalism, desperately trying to hang on to the gains of their glory years - from unsustainable federal entitlements for the elderly enacted when life expectancy was 62 to the massive promissory notes issued to government unions when state coffers were full and no one was looking.
> Obama's Democrats have become the party of no. Real cuts to the federal budget? No. Entitlement reform? No. Tax reform? No. Breaking the corrupt and fiscally unsustainable symbiosis between public-sector unions and state governments? Hell, no.


...and is firing ALL the teachers in Providnce RI not the ultimate in "union busting??"

I guess not...


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> Exactly.
> 
> As usual, it's all a matter of degree.
> 
> Is Charles K the smartest man on Earth??
> 
> ...and is firing ALL the teachers in Providnce RI not the ultimate in "union busting??"
> 
> I guess not...


I'm not sure that what happened in RI was done as a union busting technique. From what I can see, the council was presented with a choice of Layoffs vs Termination to maintain a budget. Layoffs ensured that those re-hired would be based on tenure/seniority, which didn't solve the economic shortfall. Termination gave them free reign to hire back any of the teachers.

From purely an *economic* standpoint, termination was the right call. The side effect is that it showed individual teachers that being a member of a union didn't offer any protection. It didn't remove collective bargaining, just ignored it completely.

The WI issue however is very much a union busting technique (as admitted by the governor), with the "reform the union annually" as the linchpin. In years of economic stability, where unions perceptually valuable, it becomes very likely to see them disappear, especially if collective bargaining fails to accomplish goals. Why pay 2% of your pay if you aren't getting a direct benefit from it? Once the union is gone, I'd hazard it would be almost impossible to get it back (which is the goal).

As for benefits vs wage. Benefits are how you get someone to accept a lower wage. In general, they don't have the same economic value, because everyone involved doesn't use them.

When I was in the USMC, they'd publish the benefits statement annually. It was what the equivalent civilian worker made (in theory). You'd look at a 20K annual salary, then add in things like education, housing, food, medical, etc and end up with a 40K "package." The problem was that it wasn't a real value. Sure it's theoretically nice, but it didn't put real money in your pocket. A retirement package is only valuable if you're going to retire. Education doesn't mean much if you aren't going to school. Housing allowances only matter if you have the choice where to live (MOST service members live on base in housing below the economic value the form claims). Medical doesn't mean much if you don't get sick (or at least sick enough to recoup the $ amount they list).

So when I see someone saying that these teachers have benefits packages worth more than $100K, I'm really skeptical on the truth of that statement. It's widely believed that teachers make jack, so I tend to think these numbers are "inflated" to create a false sense of wealth. I don't see many teachers driving better cars than I do, or living in better neighborhoods, so I have to ask, what is their actual base pay like in comparison? Is it $30-40k? Or better yet, just do a google search:

https://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

From what I see, it's not really unreasonable for a college educated person with a decent amount of experience (based on the area being taught).


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> I'm not sure that what happened in RI was done as a union busting technique.
> 
> A retirement package is only valuable if you're going to retire.
> 
> From what I see, it's not really unreasonable for a college educated person with a decent amount of experience (based on the area being taught).


1) Oh, it just turned out that way!! But the _intent _of the Democrat Mayor was pure so he gets a pass!!

2) I'd say the likelihood of it actually being paid is an even greater factor!!

3) If any given School District has difficulty finding qualified applicants to fill it's positions, it should consider increasing it's salary and benefits for teachers just like we do here in the real world!!



Apatheticviews said:


> It's widely believed that teachers make jack,


At one time that was actually so, Policemen too.

I even remeber when City and County councilmen served part-time for little or no salary.


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Oh, it just turned out that way!! But the _intent _of the Democrat Mayor was pure so he gets a pass!!
> 
> 2) I'd say the likelihood of it actually being paid is an even greater factor!!
> 
> 3) If any given School District has difficulty finding qualified applicants to fill it's positions, it should consider increasing it's salary and benefits for teachers just like we do here in the real world!!
> 
> At one time that was actually so, Policemen too.
> 
> I even remeber when City and County councilmen served part-time for little or no salary.


1) Not saying he gets a pass, just saying I don't think this was the same as WI.
2) True that.
3) I tend to agree. I personally think the job market should be capitalistic. However increasing benefits cost seems to be what everyone is complaining about.

4) I constantly doubt whether politicians should get paid. It shouldn't be a career, which unfortunately it seems to have become for many. Additionally, it doesn't make sense to pay millions of dollars to win an election for a job that pays $250,000 a year.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> Not saying he gets a pass...
> 
> ...it doesn't make sense to pay millions of dollars to win an election for a job that pays $250,000 a year.


1) Not by you, by the media.

2) It's making a whole lot of sense to somebody!!


----------



## Apatheticviews

Looks like Wisconsin lawmakers removed the "financial" aspects of the bill, allowing it to be voted on without a quorum. Which they did yesterday. Interesting political move.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Did it remind you of the Obama administration denying that mandatory health insurance participation and premiums were not a tax, then insisting they are??

BAAAAAAHAAHAHHAHAhahahahahahaha!!

There will still be a union, they will still have enviable wages and benefits, they will still have more collective bargaining privillages than most Federal and other municiple workers.

But the ugly thug mob still threatens like gangsters and cry like babies.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Personally, I think this entire thing is hilarious.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

*:icon_smile_big:*

*#*

*(CNN)* -- A Wisconsin judge issued a temporary restraining order Friday halting the state's controversial budget repair law that curbs the union power of most public employees, the Dane County district attorney's office said.
Gov. Scott Walker, who championed the measure and signed it into law last week, said he was confident the initiative would eventually prevail in the court system, a spokeswoman said.
"This legislation is still working through the legal process. We are confident the provisions of the budget repair bill will become law in the near future," Cullen Werwie, the governor's press secretary, said in a statement.
Wisconsin Senate Democrats called the law, which reduces the collective bargaining rights of most state employees, an attack on workers and filed a complaint with the Dane County district attorney, *claiming that the Senate's Republican-led vote violated Wisconsin's open meetings law.*


----------



## jean-paul sartorial

It's the right decision.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

...and when the ugly thug mob threatening like gangsters and crying like babies doesn't work, ship it out to a friendly judge!!


----------



## Apatheticviews

The issue is that the absent legislators didn't break any laws, while the present ones "seemingly" did. It falls back under, "you can get away with whatever isn't illegal in politics" thing we discussed earlier.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

More public employee union jackassery....

Federal investigators were examining the effects of fatigue on the controller, a veteran Federal Aviation Administration supervisor with *20 years experience, 17 of them at Reagan.* He told NTSB investigators that he had fallen asleep on duty while working his fourth consecutive *10 p.m.-to-6 a.m.* shift at the airport.
"I am determined to get to the bottom of this situation for the safety of the traveling public," FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said in a statement Thursday. "As a former airline pilot, I am personally outraged that this controller did not meet his responsibility to help land these two airplanes."

Neither United Flight 628 nor American Flight 1012 was in any danger during Wednesday's communications breakdown, federal officials said. Still, the incident stirred debate over appropriate staffing levels following a rash of safety incidents that were linked to overworked or distracted controllers.

The NTSB in a safety recommendation Monday urged the FAA to bar controllers from supervisory duties while performing air traffic duties. A Chicago Tribune report in early March detailed an increase in errors at O'Hare International Airport as distracted veteran controllers trained new hires.

The miscue at Reagan National renews attention on airport towers staffed by a single controller, who is susceptible to distractions or drowsiness. Such staffing situations have been linked to at least two fatal accidents in the last 15 years.

https://articles.chicagotribune.com...gle-controller-supervisor-veteran-controllers

There's nothing unsually fatiguing about a normal 8hr graveyard shift.

But the answer appears to be deflacting the issue from the irresponsible snoozer, to needing to hire additional union employees to discourage irresponsible snoozing.

The tenor of the linked article is just typical.


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> More public employee union jackassery....
> 
> Federal investigators were examining the effects of fatigue on the controller, a veteran Federal Aviation Administration supervisor with *20 years experience, 17 of them at Reagan.* He told NTSB investigators that he had fallen asleep on duty while working his fourth consecutive *10 p.m.-to-6 a.m.* shift at the airport.
> "I am determined to get to the bottom of this situation for the safety of the traveling public," FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said in a statement Thursday. "As a former airline pilot, I am personally outraged that this controller did not meet his responsibility to help land these two airplanes."
> 
> Neither United Flight 628 nor American Flight 1012 was in any danger during Wednesday's communications breakdown, federal officials said. Still, the incident stirred debate over appropriate staffing levels following a rash of safety incidents that were linked to overworked or distracted controllers.
> 
> The NTSB in a safety recommendation Monday urged the FAA to bar controllers from supervisory duties while performing air traffic duties. A Chicago Tribune report in early March detailed an increase in errors at O'Hare International Airport as distracted veteran controllers trained new hires.
> 
> The miscue at Reagan National renews attention on airport towers staffed by a single controller, who is susceptible to distractions or drowsiness. Such staffing situations have been linked to at least two fatal accidents in the last 15 years.
> 
> https://articles.chicagotribune.com...gle-controller-supervisor-veteran-controllers
> 
> There's nothing unsually fatiguing about a normal 8hr graveyard shift.
> 
> But the answer appears to be deflacting the issue from the irresponsible snoozer, to needing to hire additional union employees to discourage irresponsible snoozing.
> 
> The tenor of the linked article is just typical.


Agree there is nothing specifically fatiguing about 10pm to 8pm shift, however what is his normal shift? If he's become accustomed to 1st or 2nd shift, I can understand becoming drowsy during the first week of a shift change.

It's no excuse for falling asleep during duty, but it may shed some light on the issue. Additionally, the fact that they were flagrantly in violation of the two-person standard for flight controllers is another no-excuse issue. Lacking a second person means there is no opportunity for a break (to fight off drowsiness), or for a second set of hands for normal operations.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

It isn't clear in the article that there is or is not a two-person regulation currently in effect that was violated. I mean, with potty breaks and such. Did someone call in sick?? Doesn't say. 

To me it suggests there isn't but there should be.

Why stop there?? Why not employ the pot hole fixing axiom of two working three watching and another supervising!! 

But that's modern "journalism" for you.


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> It isn't clear in the article that there is or is not a two-person regulation currently in effect that was violated. I mean, with potty breaks and such. Did someone call in sick?? Doesn't say.
> 
> To me it suggests there isn't but there should be.
> 
> Why stop there?? Why not employ the pot hole fixing axiom of two working three watching and another supervising!!
> 
> But that's modern "journalism" for you.


DC is my local airport. I heard about the situation last night, and the 2 person regulation was still in effect, but "ignored," according to the reports.

Most pilots state flying into DC is the equivalent of flying through a maze and landing on a postage stamp. In last night's case, they had to do without tower assistance.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

You know what??

If there is a "news" article that I read, and afterward I have questions that where not addressed by the "reporter," I'm going to ignore it even if it does come from the Tribune, Times or Post!!


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> You know what??
> 
> If there is a "news" article that I read, and afterward I have questions that where not addressed by the "reporter," I'm going to ignore it even if it does come from the Tribune, Times or Post!!


Why answer all the questions on day 1? You can make twice as much by stretching the story over 2 days!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...and when the ugly thug mob threatening like gangsters and crying like babies doesn't work, ship it out to a friendly judge!!


Or, spend millions of unionmembers dues for an unsuccessful recall election bid!!

https://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/127435173.html

Democrats won two state Senate seats in Tuesday's historic recall elections, but failed to capture a third seat that would have given them control of the chamber.
By keeping a majority in the Senate, Republicans retained their monopoly on state government because they also hold the Assembly and governor's office. Tuesday's elections narrowed their majority - at least for now - from 19-14 to a razor-thin 17-16.
Republicans may be able to gain back some of the losses next week, when two Democrats face recall elections.
Democrats had hoped to block the Republican agenda by taking control of the Senate in the recall elections, but the GOP should be able to continue to advance its agenda.
"I think it's a huge victory for us," said John Hogan, director of the Committee to Elect a Republican Senate. "Voters gave us a mandate last fall. . . . They backed us up again (Tuesday). Voters told us loud and clear, 'Stay the course. Things are working.'"
But Democrats claimed victory for the two seats they captured from Republicans.
"We went on their turf and we won on Republican turf," said Mike Tate, chairman of the state Democratic Party. "We will not stop, we will not rest . . . until we recall (Gov.) Scott Walker."


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Well, what do you know??

Walker Wins!!

https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/opinion/bennett-walker-victory/index.html

Walker took office in 2011 facing a $3.6 billion budget hole. He had few options at his disposal to balance the budget: raise taxes, make draconian cuts or go after the sweetheart public employee pension and health care plans. He bravely chose the latter, requiring public employees to pay 5% of their salaries toward their pensions (they paid virtually nothing before) and 12.6% of their health care premiums (less than what private and federal employees pay). Furthermore, he ended collective bargaining except for wages and made automatic union dues optional.
Walker's Wisconsin win big blow to unions, smaller one to Obama
Before Walker's reforms, Wisconsin state employees enjoyed salary and benefits that were about 28% higher than comparable private sector workers, according to a new study from the American Enterprise Institute. Even after his much decried reforms, Wisconsin public employees' total compensation is still about 22% greater -- $81,637 versus $67,068 -- than similar private sector workers.


----------



## Bandit44

Like crabs in a bucket...


----------



## Pentheos

Bandit44 said:


> Like crabs in a bucket...


How does that apply in this situation?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

WouldaShoulda said:


> that would strip public sector workers of their collective bargaining rights.


WHAT???? I thought the USA was a democracy with equal rigths for all!

If you tried that in Sweden or France or Germany you'd be out of office overnight.


----------



## tocqueville

Earl of Ormonde said:


> WHAT???? I thought the USA was a democracy with equal rigths for all!
> 
> If you tried that in Sweden or France or Germany you'd be out of office overnight.


If only.

The USA is becoming less democratic by the hour. The biggest blow dealt to democracy recently is this, the worst ruling since Dred Scott.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

What it does is frees the rich and corporations to spend whatever they want, however they want, on election campaigns. It puts us on track to become like Russia. One immediate result is the phenomenon known as the SuperPac:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_pac#Super_PACs

FYI, this is Dred Scott:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_ScottAnd yes, I'm voting for Obama. Romney himself seems quite reasonable, but I fear many in his party, and the so-called "conservative movement" these days has gone completely mad. In Europe I'd probably vote center-right, like Alexis de Tocqueville. I'd be with Merkel. I would have voted for Sarkozy. I'd be for classical liberal values. But here? By today's American standards European Christian Democrats would be viewed here as Communists. Moderate Republicans have become an endangered species in American politics. I'm hoping that Romney will track to the center now that he's won the nomination, but I don't know what that means anymore.


----------



## Bandit44

Pentheos said:


> How does that apply in this situation?


Wisconsin voters will get what they voted for, like crabs in a bucket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Governor Walker's victory in yesterdays election provides a badly needed affirmation that, when good men (and women) stand-up to be counted, good can still triumph over the 'not-so-good.' Public good has triumphed over personal/self interests...as it should! :Thumbs-up:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Earl of Ormonde said:


> WHAT???? I thought the USA was a democracy with equal rigths for all!
> 
> If you tried that in Sweden or France or Germany you'd be out of office overnight.


Did you leave out Greece on purpose??


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> What it does is frees the rich and corporations to spend whatever they want, however they want, on election campaigns.


Did you leave out public sector unions on purpose??


----------



## Tilton

Earl of Ormonde said:


> WHAT???? I thought the USA was a democracy with equal rigths for all!
> 
> If you tried that in Sweden or France or Germany you'd be out of office overnight.


Without waxing philosophic, equal rights and freedom in the US does not necessarily mean that unions should prevail. The problem with US unions is that they are known for bullying to get their way. It is pretty well documented that unions have used threats of violence to get their way. One way of looking at it is this: if you are of a certain profession, should you be forced to join a union if one is created and if you do not want to join, should you be pushed out of your job for someone willing to join the union? That doesn't sound very free to me. Regarding teachers' unions, I would be perfectly fine with a teachers' union if the teachers were measured on performance. However, they are not - at least in most public school systems. Take a look at DC's public school teachers' union. They have teachers that cannot engage students, teachers that have a pass rate that is 50% lower than the pass rate of the overall system, and yet those teachers cannot be fired and replaced with more productive teachers. On the other hand, there have been a lot of DC public school teachers who have been fired (to be replaced with someone with nothing more than a greater tenure in the school system) that have been such good teachers than students would skip every class except for that teacher's class because they felt like they were really getting something out of it.

Long story short, you aren't very free if you cannot join a certain profession without being forced to join their union. And equal rights for everyone goes out the window when priority is given to certain groups (race, profession, ideology, union membership status, etc) over others. While every person may not start in the same place, those that start "on third base" should not be penalized nor should his/her accomplishments be dismissed - just put into perspective. It is entirely possible for nearly every American to start at zero and make it to the top, it just depends on how much time, effort, blood, and sweat that person is willing to put into it. Many, however, don't want to exert that effort, they just want to be summarily placed in that seat. Success in America is what you make of it (or it should be) and some make the most of every opportunity while others simply think they deserve it.


----------



## tocqueville

WouldaShoulda said:


> Did you leave out public sector unions on purpose??


No, that was an accident. Although I think they're seriously outgunned.

Unions aren't perfect, but the fervor with which they're being targeted is odd and out of proportion to their actual role in our society.


----------



## Bandit44

Interesting take on things, Tilton, especially the historical stuff. I must have my history wrong; so it was the unions that have used bullying and threats of violence to pass their agenda?


----------



## Tilton

tocqueville said:


> No, that was an accident. Although I think they're seriously outgunned.
> 
> Unions aren't perfect, but the fervor with which they're being targeted is odd and out of proportion to their actual role in our society.


I would tend to agree with this comment concerning unions as a whole (although there are several unions that have an incredible amount of power and money), but the real issue with unions is with public sector unions. They have a "give me more and damn the rest" mentality in that public sector workers (with the exception of a very select number of non-taxpayer funded agencies such as the OCC), work for taxpayers. As such, when the demand and subsequently receive higher pay, better benefits, and better pension/retirement options, the burden is shouldered by the government and thus by the tax payers. States like Wisconsin have been bled dry deep into debt because public sector unions take far more than a fair share. Most public sector unions have SIGNIFICANTLY better retirement plans than any private sector job, union or not, and that difference is paid by taxpayers that get no benefit, and indeed are hurt by it as unionization typically corresponds to a slightly lower level of productivity and efficiency.


----------



## tocqueville

Tilton said:


> Without waxing philosophic, equal rights and freedom in the US does not necessarily mean that unions should prevail. The problem with US unions is that they are known for bullying to get their way. It is pretty well documented that unions have used threats of violence to get their way. One way of looking at it is this: if you are of a certain profession, should you be forced to join a union if one is created and if you do not want to join, should you be pushed out of your job for someone willing to join the union? That doesn't sound very free to me. Regarding teachers' unions, I would be perfectly fine with a teachers' union if the teachers were measured on performance. However, they are not - at least in most public school systems. Take a look at DC's public school teachers' union. They have teachers that cannot engage students, teachers that have a pass rate that is 50% lower than the pass rate of the overall system, and yet those teachers cannot be fired and replaced with more productive teachers. On the other hand, there have been a lot of DC public school teachers who have been fired (to be replaced with someone with nothing more than a greater tenure in the school system) that have been such good teachers than students would skip every class except for that teacher's class because they felt like they were really getting something out of it.
> 
> Long story short, you aren't very free if you cannot join a certain profession without being forced to join their union. And equal rights for everyone goes out the window when priority is given to certain groups (race, profession, ideology, union membership status, etc) over others. While every person may not start in the same place, those that start "on third base" should not be penalized nor should his/her accomplishments be dismissed - just put into perspective. It is entirely possible for nearly every American to start at zero and make it to the top, it just depends on how much time, effort, blood, and sweat that person is willing to put into it. Many, however, don't want to exert that effort, they just want to be summarily placed in that seat. Success in America is what you make of it (or it should be) and some make the most of every opportunity while others simply think they deserve it.


My son is in a DC Public School. A good one. Yes, I'm well aware of the problems with the teachers' union, but the performance problems in the DCPS have their roots in more fundamental problems such as the kinds of students the DCPS system serves. My kid's school is terrific, but one need only to meet the students and their parents to understand why. If I lived one block to the east, my son would have been designated for a "Title 1" school where he'd be studying with kids whose parents own no books, have little education, and can't afford to pay for their childrens' breakfast or lunch. In that context, issues such as teacher performance became much more complex.

Those born on third base shouldn't be penalized, but the reality is that they are on third base, and I refuse to dismiss the disadvantages faced by those who might not even be given an at bat. I cannot tolerate a system that screws them to the advantage of the ones on third base. How is that fair?


----------



## Tilton

tocqueville said:


> My son is in a DC Public School. A good one. Yes, I'm well aware of the problems with the teachers' union, but the performance problems in the DCPS have their roots in more fundamental problems such as the kinds of students the DCPS system serves. My kid's school is terrific, but one need only to meet the students and their parents to understand why. If I lived one block to the east, my son would have been designated for a "Title 1" school where he'd be studying with kids whose parents own no books, have little education, and can't afford to pay for their childrens' breakfast or lunch. In that context, issues such as teacher performance became much more complex.
> 
> Those born on third base shouldn't be penalized, but the reality is that they are on third base, and I refuse to dismiss the disadvantages faced by those who might not even be given an at bat. I cannot tolerate a system that screws them to the advantage of the ones on third base. How is that fair?


Is it one of the public charters? If so, you have proven my point. And, that takes us to my other point: opportunity exists for those willing to take it. Fifteen years ago, my girlfriend's father was a cab driver in Newark, NJ. He didn't go to college. He came to the US with US$500 and a suitcase full of clothes. He now lives in a 5,700sq/ft house in the VA suburbs that is paid for and had the means to give my girlfriend a brand new BMW when she graduated college. The odds of being successful were against him, but he was certainly able, through hard work and lots of sacrifice, to "make it." The chance to pull yourself up by your bootstraps was, and still is a feature of American society. Government handouts perpetuate the unproductive lifestyles of certain groups. I don't disagree with government handouts in theory, but in praxis it does not work. Why give up your free food, money, housing, etc to work hard to have more? I've seen this first hand when I worked a summer job in high school doing maintenance to HUD and Section 8 housing. It's not a bad system, just a broken one.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> Those born on third base shouldn't be penalized, but the reality is that they are on third base, and I refuse to dismiss the disadvantages faced by those who might not even be given an at bat. I cannot tolerate a system that screws them to the advantage of the ones on third base. How is that fair?


Can you remind us who has suggested we dismiss the disadvantages faced by those who might not even be given an at bat or screw them to the advantage of the ones on third base??

I think I missed that!!


----------



## tocqueville

My son's school is not a charter. His wonderful teachers are union.

I'm on my way now to tour another school, which is a quarter of a mile away and a world apart.


----------



## Bandit44

Can't believe I got sucked in to this thread. Political conversations that take place on social media are about nothing more than contests over public space, where someone offers a narrative about the state of things and the other side feels compelled to check it, lest it be accepted as fact. Two things to get out of this eight page thread is that no one is convinced by the other side and that evidently the last word wins.


----------



## Tilton

WouldaShoulda said:


> Can you remind us who has suggested we dismiss the disadvantages faced by those who might not even be given an at bat or screw them to the advantage of the ones on third base??
> 
> I think I missed that!!


Like I said, such advantages should change the perspective with which you view accomplishments, but they should be neither dismissed nor penalized. It is all relative.

I'm not trying to start a fight, Bandit. Being in DC, 90% or more of my friends are somewhere between "liberal" and "very liberal" (although they all claim to be moderate!). I thought this was just a friendly discussion of_ personal _views, observations, and ideologies.


----------



## tocqueville

I think going after teachers pensions is screwing the middle class. But oh, no, we can't limit AIG pensions!

I was just checking out a fairly crumby DC school. Interesting. The students are 90% first gen Latino. 8% black. Teachers seemed good. What determines the quality of dc schools are demographics and school leadership. Unions don't make a significant difference.

The charter system is good because it allows students to escape from community schools with bad demographics. If you are in the right neighborhood, the dcps school is fine. If not, you have to escape.

The thing with demographics is the level of parents caring, the environment in which the kids live, nutrition, family aspirations, etc. in some schools here, the free food the school provides are the best meals these kids ever get. The books in the library are the only ones they ever see. The problems here are huge and complex. This isn't about unions.


----------



## eagle2250

Governor Walker's victory in this past weeks recall election seems indicative that we have perhaps witnessed a restoration of some degree of balance to the competing issues of contention in the Wisconsin scenario. One can always hope, eh!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> ....in some schools here, the free food the school provides are the best meals these kids ever get. The books in the library are the only ones they ever see.


Why should parents nurish and read to their own children when someone else happily does it for them??


----------



## Tilton

tocqueville said:


> I think going after teachers pensions is screwing the middle class. But oh, no, we can't limit AIG pensions!
> 
> I was just checking out a fairly crumby DC school. Interesting. The students are 90% first gen Latino. 8% black. Teachers seemed good. What determines the quality of dc schools are demographics and school leadership. Unions don't make a significant difference.
> 
> The charter system is good because it allows students to escape from community schools with bad demographics. If you are in the right neighborhood, the dcps school is fine. If not, you have to escape.
> 
> The thing with demographics is the level of parents caring, the environment in which the kids live, nutrition, family aspirations, etc. in some schools here, the free food the school provides are the best meals these kids ever get. The books in the library are the only ones they ever see. The problems here are huge and complex. This isn't about unions.


So, you think that the government should be able to limit the pensions of private companies? The federal government chose to insure AIG, they weren't forced. And, I think you would find that most AIG employees do not qualify to be placed above the middle class. A corporation as a whole and the employees of that corporation are not one in the same.

Further, no one is forced to be a public school teacher. People choose a career path because it is what they truly want to do, because it is all they are able to do, because the benefits are excellent, or because the pay is good. That's basically the whole list. Every single public school teacher had the option of working in the private sector, earning more, and having better benefits. Instead, each one elected to work in the public school system with a full understanding that the pay and benefits are not as good as they could have had elsewhere. Certainly, it is admirable to do so, but it is not the most wise decision, financially speaking. However, I know plenty of teachers who work through the summer (summer is a tremendous perk of being a teacher in itself) and make a substantial amount of money doing so. Indeed, in my first job out of college, I was making less than my teacher friends were while also working significantly more. Now that they have worked a couple years, they hardly ever have to develop new lesson plans and they can just cruise through previous years' curriculum with each new class of students.

Regardless, though, becoming a teacher in America is a conscious decision that each teacher made. If they're so unhappy, they can always go find a job in the private sector with better pay and better benefits because there will always be another liberal arts grad with a messiah complex who is willing take their place.

Full disclosure: I am a 2011 college graduate with a literature degree and a concentration that is both obscure and useless.


----------



## P Hudson

Tilton said:


> So, you think that the government should be able to limit the pensions of private companies? The federal government chose to insure AIG, they weren't forced. And, I think you would find that most AIG employees do not qualify to be placed above the middle class. A corporation as a whole and the employees of that corporation are not one in the same.
> 
> Further, no one is forced to be a public school teacher. People choose a career path because it is what they truly want to do, because it is all they are able to do, because the benefits are excellent, or because the pay is good. That's basically the whole list. Every single public school teacher had the option of working in the private sector, earning more, and having better benefits. Instead, each one elected to work in the public school system with a full understanding that the pay and benefits are not as good as they could have had elsewhere. Certainly, it is admirable to do so, but it is not the most wise decision, financially speaking. However, I know plenty of teachers who work through the summer (summer is a tremendous perk of being a teacher in itself) and make a substantial amount of money doing so. Indeed, in my first job out of college, I was making less than my teacher friends were while also working significantly more. Now that they have worked a couple years, they hardly ever have to develop new lesson plans and they can just cruise through previous years' curriculum with each new class of students.
> 
> Regardless, though, becoming a teacher in America is a conscious decision that each teacher made. If they're so unhappy, they can always go find a job in the private sector with better pay and better benefits because there will always be another liberal arts grad with a messiah complex who is willing take their place.
> 
> Full disclosure: I am a 2011 college graduate with a literature degree and a concentration that is both obscure and useless.


Little of this applies to teachers in Wisconsin, my home state, unless by "private sector" you don't mean private sector teaching. I have family who teach, some in state schools, some in private. The state teachers make MUCH more in income, and MUCH more in benefits. A public school teachers wages as I observe things in the family, are 200 to 400 percent more than the private school teachers. And the private school teachers, who get virtually no benefits apart from maybe some tuition reduction if they happen to have children of school age, are in this small sample the better ones. I have a PhD, love my teaching career, and wouldn't trade my life's experience for anything, but I don't have anything like the income or retirement prospects of my teachers from my days in the Milwaukee public school system. These aren't just impressions. Wisconsin teacher compensation, as state employees, is public information, so I'm talking facts, not feelings.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Stimulas II??

Obama renews call for aid to halt teacher layoffs Tight school budgets have meant fewer teachers, larger classes, and shorter school years, according to a White House report. It gives President Obama a chance to push his jobs plan providing money for states to keep teachers, police officers, and firefighters on the job.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Lates...a-renews-call-for-aid-to-halt-teacher-layoffs

You private or non-union teachers will just have to suffer with the rest of us I guess...


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> *Stimulas II??
> 
> Obama renews call for aid to halt teacher layoffs *
> 
> *Tight school budgets have meant fewer teachers, larger classes, and shorter school years, according to a White House report. It gives President Obama a chance to push his jobs plan providing money for states to keep teachers, police officers, and firefighters on the job.
> 
> https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Lates...a-renews-call-for-aid-to-halt-teacher-layoffs
> 
> You private or non-union teachers will just have to suffer with the rest of us I guess...
> *


The US is already lagging behind the international competition in every category - reading, science and math. Out of the 34 countries that were part of the study, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. That is abysmal, especially since less than three decades ago, the U.S. was at the forefront of educational rankings and considered a country to be emulated.

But yeah, lets further cut funds to help educate our children. Good Idea.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> The US is already lagging behind the international competition in every category - reading, science and math. Out of the 34 countries that were part of the study, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. That is abysmal, especially since less than three decades ago, the U.S. was at the forefront of educational rankings and considered a country to be emulated.
> 
> But yeah, lets further cut funds to help educate our children. Good Idea.


Three decades ago, when the U.S. was at the forefront of educational rankings and considered a country to be emulated, was the cost to educate those children greater or less than it is now?? (Adjusted for inflation)


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> Three decades ago, when the U.S. was at the forefront of educational rankings and considered a country to be emulated, was the cost to educate those children greater or less than it is now?? (Adjusted for inflation)


Three decades ago, China was a third world nation and it was possible to buy a home and make ends meet in the US with just a high school diploma. That is no longer the case.

The US needs to reform lots about our educational system....but we spend FAR LESS as a % of GDP than most civilized nations and our test scores show the fruits of our efforts to cut every program under the sun. We are falling behind and China, Korea, Germany and many others are eating our lunch.

Must make you very proud.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
While I cannot say the state of the educational systems in the USA make me proud, I've got to tell you, I'm way more embarrassed by a US Congress, each member of which has been bought and paid for by the highest bidder and no longer even tries to appear to be acting in the best interest of the electorate and by an apologist President who seems almost embarrassed by this great nation's past successes and is singularly intent on dismantling the American dream! Wisconsin is not unique in the challenges/issues that it faces. This beloved Nation of ours is on financial life support and the US Congress and our President seem largely unwilling to attend to the patient. What a bunch of Bums! At least Wisconsin is dealing with it's challenges


----------



## WouldaShoulda

WouldaShoulda said:


> Three decades ago, when the U.S. was at the forefront of educational rankings and considered a country to be emulated, was the cost to educate those children greater or less than it is now?? (Adjusted for inflation)





mrkleen said:


> Three decades ago, China was a third world nation and it was possible to buy a home and make ends meet in the US with just a high school diploma. That is no longer the case.
> 
> The US needs to reform lots about our educational system....but we spend FAR LESS as a % of GDP than most civilized nations and our test scores show the fruits of our efforts to cut every program under the sun. We are falling behind and China, Korea, Germany and many others are eating our lunch.
> 
> Must make you very proud.


Fortunately, this type of dodge has grown tiresome with many.

I'll have to right you down as "we are spending more for worse results."

But all is not bad news.

If we dare, lets look at the achievement levels of children from two parent households.

Still doing quite well, aren't they??


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> Fortunately, this type of dodge has grown tiresome with many.
> 
> I'll have to right you down as "we are spending more for worse results."
> 
> But all is not bad news.
> 
> If we dare, lets look at the achievement levels of children from two parent households.
> 
> Still doing quite well, aren't they??


You are living in the past and the present is passing your worn out, tired, old remember the old days attitude by.

I think when it comes to fixing the education system in this country...unions and poor teachers and poor parenting and lack of family structure and community assistance is all part of the problem. But burying your head in the sand and talking about the old days isnt going to help fix it. Single parent families are going to continue to grow, and the lack of a support system is only going to make it WORSE.

So you can either acknowledge the situation we are in and make realistic recommendations to help fix it. Or you can keep cutting programs and watching as your children and grandchilden fall further behind. Any true recovery is predicated on our populous having the skills to actually perform the jobs of the future. Right now are system is failing our kids.

But yes, keep cutting taxes on the rich and slashing budgets on school programs and student loans. Good idea.


----------



## P Hudson

mrkleen said:


> You are living in the past and the present is passing your worn out, tired, old remember the old days attitude by.
> 
> I think when it comes to fixing the education system in this country...unions and poor teachers and poor parenting and lack of family structure and community assistance is all part of the problem. But burying your head in the sand and talking about the old days isnt going to help fix it. Single parent families are going to continue to grow, and the lack of a support system is only going to make it WORSE.
> 
> So you can either acknowledge the situation we are in and make realistic recommendations to help fix it. Or you can keep cutting programs and watching as your children and grandchilden fall further behind. Any true recovery is predicated on our populous having the skills to actually perform the jobs of the future. Right now are system is failing our kids.
> 
> But yes, keep cutting taxes on the rich and slashing budgets on school programs and student loans. Good idea.


I don't see how your comment is a reply to the one above it. He wasn't talking about the old days, he was talking about today. Children born to a couple with a high school diploma and after they were 1) married and 2) 21 by the birth of the first child have a 2 per cent chance of living in poverty, while the child born apart from those minimal requirements has a 67 per cent chance of poverty. That isn't a historical observation. It is a statement about the present.

When you mention children and grandchildren, the argument again works against you. On my modest income, and with a non-working wife, my son got a tolerable education. I just this morning looked at a financial calculator at a prestigious private university. Because we are not wealthy, we will need to pay just over $4000 per annum if he attends there. That is less than I would have had to pay at a private university when I was applying to college more than 30 years ago.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> You are living in the past and the present is passing your worn out, tired, old remember the old days attitude by.
> 
> I think when it comes to fixing the education system in this country...unions and poor teachers and poor parenting and lack of family structure and community assistance is all part of the problem.
> 
> Right now are system is failing our kids.


1) I didn't bring up the good ol' days, you did!!

2) Thank you for aknowledging the problem. You've done that much.

3) The system always fails and always will. Nothing replaces two parents.

Your vision is an acceptence of failure; 50% drop out rates in our most expensive public schools (DC) 50% divorce rates, 50% out of wedlock births, 50% on public aid/assitence of some kind, 50% that pay no Federal Income tax, 50% unsolved murders (again in Baltimore/DC Metro.) and 50% incarceration rates for young men and the thought that Government can fix it.

A failure that is remedied almost exclusively by a two head of household family.

NOT with collective barganing priveleges , no Dr visit co-pays, gererous and limited contribution retirment benefits at 50 (or younger) for public employees.

I look at the suffering and like my vision better.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

P Hudson said:


> I don't see how your comment is a reply to the one above it. He wasn't talking about the old days, he was talking about today. Children born to a couple with a high school diploma and after they were 1) married and 2) 21 by the birth of the first child have a 2 per cent chance of living in poverty, while the child born apart from those minimal requirements has a 67 per cent chance of poverty. That isn't a historical observation. It is a statement about the present.


Even the NY Times sees it....

About 41 percent of births in the United States occur outside marriage, up sharply from 17 percent three decades ago. But equally sharp are the educational divides, according to an analysis by a Washington research group. Less than 10 percent of the births to college-educated women occur outside marriage, while for women with high school degrees or less the figure is nearly 60 percent. 
Long concentrated among minorities, motherhood outside marriage now varies by class about as much as it does by race. It is growing fastest in the lower reaches of the white middle class - among women like Ms. Schairer who have some postsecondary schooling but no four-year degree. 
While many children of single mothers flourish (two of the last three presidents had mothers who were single during part of their childhood), a large body of research shows that they are more likely than similar children with married parents to experience childhood poverty, act up in class, become teenage parents and drop out of school. 
Sara McLanahan, a Princeton sociologist, warns that family structure increasingly consigns children to "diverging destinies."

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## mrkleen

P Hudson said:


> Children born to a couple with a high school diploma and after they were 1) married and 2) 21 by the birth of the first child have a 2 per cent chance of living in poverty, while the child born apart from those minimal requirements has a 67 per cent chance of poverty. That isn't a historical observation. It is a statement about the present.


 So if you are not lucky enough to be born into a 2 parent household we should do what? Just kick you to the curb?

Clearly the way to improve on that 33% from single homes who are not living in poverty is to CUT programs that help cushion the blow. Brilliant thinking.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> So if you are not lucky enough to be born into a 2 parent household we should do what? Just kick you to the curb?
> 
> Clearly the way to improve on that 33% from single homes who are not living in poverty is to CUT programs that help cushion the blow. Brilliant thinking.


"There you go again!!" ~Ronald Reagan

Limiting collective barganing priveleges , .00 Dr visit co-pays, gererous and limited contribution retirment benefits at 50 (or younger) for public employees is NOT kicking anyone to the curb.

Where do you get such foolishness??

Another famous quote;

"The era of Big Government is over!!" ~Bill Clinton


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) I didn't bring up the good ol' days, you did!!


Your comments about things being better with a "2 parent household" can be both true and outdated. Talk about simple is as simple says.

OF COURSE 2 parents is a better idea. That is like saying, the more money you have - the more things you can buy. WOW&#8230;deep thinking there.

The outdated, living in the past part is thinking that a solution is routed in pining for the past. A past that is NEVER coming back. Sorry you don't approve, but the only way forward it to find a way to work with changing demographics...and still get a better success rate. There are lots of children from single-family homes who succeed in life (our President for one) - so how did those single moms's do it?

I can assure you that cutting programs to help them is NOT a solution to fixing the issue.



WouldaShoulda said:


> 3) The system always fails and always will. Nothing replaces two parents. .


A butter churned from milk made by the cow in your back yard tastes better too. WHO CARES? THIS is an example of living in the past.

I think 2 parents households are better. My wife and I are happy and my kids will benefit from it. BUT, the reality is 50% of marriages end in divorce. So that is the reality your are faced with in the USA in 2012. Any so-called solution that does not work around this reality is nothing more than fantasy.

This is the exact problem with the Republican Party and why they are headed down the road of obscurity. They are preaching a vision that is outdated and does not resonate with the majority of Americans - certainly not the next generation of Americans.

Soon whites will be the minority&#8230;.and in those new majority groups, there will be lots of "non traditional" families. Two gay mothers or fathers, single family households with English as a second language etc - born into a world where more women have college degrees than men, and the list of things that don't fit the "Republican Narrative" goes on and on.

You can keep talking about the way you wish things were&#8230;..but that isn't going to get anything done. All the while, we are falling further and further behind the rest of the world - in science, technology, manufacturing etc.

But you might as well keep up the narrative of everyone can reach the middle class, with a stay at home mom, single family home, 2 car garage, in lily white communities - as the BS still plays well in middle America.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> This is the exact problem with the Republican Party and why they are headed down the road of obscurity. They are preaching a vision that is outdated and does not resonate with the majority of Americans - certainly not the next generation of Americans.
> 
> Soon whites will be the minority&#8230;.and in those new majority groups, there will be lots of "non traditional" families. Two gay mothers or fathers, single family households with English as a second language etc - born into a world where more women have college degrees than men, and the list of things that don't fit the "Republican Narrative" goes on and on.


So you think non-Whites are destined to fail unless Union Public Employees continue to recieve generous benefits the public can't afford.

This just gets more and more crazy!!


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> So you think non-Whites are destined to fail unless Union Public Employees continue to recieve generous benefits the public can't afford.
> 
> This just gets more and more crazy!!


Yeah thats it....as usual you got your finger on the pulse of the country....LOL.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Ignoring the cause (which was properly identified) and treating the symptoms of contemporary poverty in general has to be one of the the least effective and most unattractive features of a Liberal mindset.

But their (some) pandering to Women, Minorities, the economically underserved and Non-Whites as if they are incapable of self determination and improvement without their help, really takes the cake.

I don't care if I'm out of touch. I'd rather lose with my friends than win with yours.


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> I don't care if I'm out of touch. I'd rather *lose with my friends* than win with yours.


Great...well get used to it.


----------



## Mike Petrik

mrkleen said:


> Great...well get used to it.


One should not count chickens prematurely.


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> One should not count chickens prematurely.


Or you could pick better sources

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504520213848188.html


----------



## Mike Petrik

mrkleen said:


> Or you could pick better sources
> 
> https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504520213848188.html


As a regular reader of RCP, nothing new in that source. And nothing really incompatible with the University of Colorado prediction and its related analysis.


----------



## P Hudson

mrkleen said:


> So if you are not lucky enough to be born into a 2 parent household we should do what? Just kick you to the curb?
> 
> Clearly the way to improve on that 33% from single homes who are not living in poverty is to CUT programs that help cushion the blow. Brilliant thinking.


An extra 5,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo hasn't helped much, so arguably money isn't the solution. Sorry if I got the number wrong: it is hard to keep track of all those zeros. And of course that isn't the amount spent: it represents the increase, only at the federal level of spending, in the last decade or so.


----------



## mrkleen

P Hudson said:


> An extra 5,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo hasn't helped much, so arguably money isn't the solution. Sorry if I got the number wrong: it is hard to keep track of all those zeros. And of course that isn't the amount spent: it represents the increase, only at the federal level of spending, in the last decade or so.


Looks like your two parent upbringing and the resulting superior education has let you down


----------



## P Hudson

mrkleen said:


> Looks like your two parent upbringing and the resulting superior education has let you down


Why do you say that? I live in arguably the world's greatest city, and teach at one of the world's finest institutions. And my parents were divorced.


----------



## Bjorn

WouldaShoulda said:


> Ignoring the cause (which was properly identified) and treating the symptoms of contemporary poverty in general has to be one of the the least effective and most unattractive features of a Liberal mindset.
> 
> But their (some) pandering to Women, Minorities, the economically underserved and Non-Whites as if they are incapable of self determination and improvement without their help, really takes the cake.
> 
> I don't care if I'm out of touch. I'd rather lose with my friends than win with yours.


Yeah. Good thing women have that magical un-rape button that makes them not-pregnant without, abortion that republicans recently discovered. Yet another item in a growing list of items that rightwing nuts say is help by not helping.

As for pandering, rarely have a party pandered so openly to the rich as the republicans. Whatever you can dig out of either the Bible or the Constitution to take a dig at the poor or coloured. I dont remember thinking the Republicans were like that, 15 years ago. Had i been an american, back then, could have voted either way.

Moderation seems lost now. Good thing I can watch it from across a pretty wide pool of water.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Bjorn said:


> Yeah. Good thing women have that magical un-rape button that makes them not-pregnant without, abortion that republicans recently discovered. Yet another item in a growing list of items that rightwing nuts say is help by not helping.
> 
> As for pandering, rarely have a party pandered so openly to the rich as the republicans. Whatever you can dig out of either the Bible or the Constitution to take a dig at the poor or coloured. I dont remember thinking the Republicans were like that, 15 years ago. Had i been an american, back then, could have voted either way.
> 
> Moderation seems lost now. Good thing I can watch it from across a pretty wide pool of water.


1) When my friends say something outrageous and stupid they get called on it by my friends. That's why I like my friends better even when they do say ourageous and stupid things.

2) When making statements such as these, you should bring examples to the table, link to a source or start another topic.

3) Muti-trillion dollar deficits should make Intransigents of us all!!


----------



## Bjorn

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) When my friends say something outrageous and stupid they get called on it by my friends. That's why I like my friends better even when they do say ourageous and stupid things.
> 
> 2) When making statements such as these, you should bring examples to the table, link to a source or start another topic.
> 
> 3) Muti-trillion dollar deficits should make Intransigents of us all!!


1. I dont befriend people who say things that are THAT stupid.

2. Is that a 'rule'?

3. You can always raise taxes slightly


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Bjorn said:


> 1. I dont befriend people who say things that are THAT stupid.
> 
> 2. Is that a 'rule'?
> 
> 3. You can always raise taxes slightly


1) Maybe YOU don't but....

The Obama campaign offered no apology Sunday for Vice President Joe Biden's "chains" remark, refusing even to call it a poor choice of words as Republicans accused the president's reelection campaign of race baiting.
At a rally in Virginia last week, Biden told an audience that included hundreds of African-Americans that Republican challenger Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, are "going to put y'all back in chains." Biden made the comment while talking about bank regulations and later said he was referencing to Ryan's promise to "unshackle" the economy, but critics have accused him of inappropriately using a slavery metaphor.

https://www.boston.com/politicalint...ains-remark/owFZ5ayLx3TJKlxCe4rVsM/story.html

2) Let's just say it's a courtesy

3) Raising taxes "slightly" will solve neither the deficit problem OR the generational poverty problem.

But as long as Scapegoats, Bogeymen and Memes persist, like the 1% stealing from the middle class, both problems will get worse before they get better.


----------



## P Hudson

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Maybe YOU don't but....
> 
> The Obama campaign offered no apology Sunday for Vice President Joe Biden's "chains" remark, refusing even to call it a poor choice of words as Republicans accused the president's reelection campaign of race baiting.
> At a rally in Virginia last week, Biden told an audience that included hundreds of African-Americans that Republican challenger Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, are "going to put y'all back in chains." Biden made the comment while talking about bank regulations and later said he was referencing to Ryan's promise to "unshackle" the economy, but critics have accused him of inappropriately using a slavery metaphor.
> 
> https://www.boston.com/politicalint...ains-remark/owFZ5ayLx3TJKlxCe4rVsM/story.html
> 
> 2) Let's just say it's a courtesy
> 
> 3) Raising taxes "slightly" will solve neither the deficit problem OR the generational poverty problem.
> 
> But as long as Scapegoats, Bogeymen and Memes persist, like the 1% stealing from the middle class, both problems will get worse before they get better.


Don't know why you would mention Biden. Does anyone take him seriously? I would instead mention those elements of the campaign that basically called Romney a murderer because somebody who didnt ever have insurance with his company died several years after--well--not having insurance with his company. And someone else in the campaign, with Harry Reid's assistance, basically called him a felon. The list goes on: someone even flew a plane over his event pulling a banner that read 'America is better then Birthers'. It took me a while to figure that one out. But then these are some of the same people who reported that Neil Young, first man on the moon, died. Or some of the same people who, now that a major hurricane is threatening New Orleans, have advised pretty much the same way they advised in 2005. Let us hope that the results are different.

As for Bjorn's comment about 15 years ago, that was late in the Clnton administration. I sure don't recall anybody saying that DC was a happy and gentle place. The papers had been full of how stupid Reagan was, that he had fallen into advanced senility while in office. And how stupid Dan Quayle was. And they still remembered how evil Nixon was. And the media showed George Mitchell and Tom Foley going to the well of the House to say that they didn't care who the American people elected, they were not going to work with Bush. And then, after removing the first special prosecutor because he was too comfortable for Republicans, the Republicans more or less let the democrats appoint someone who was regarded as fair and even-handed by all--a fellow named Kenneth Starr. Then they had to work hard to tear down Starr when they didn't like the results. In fact, the change wasn't 15 years ago. Some of us who were paying attention trace it back to 1980, when the elites simply couldn't believe that Jimmy Carter could lose to someone they loathed as much as they did Ronald Reagan. I think they resented the fact that Reagan stole than line from JFK about a rising tide lifting all boats--the line Kennedy borrowed from the New England Chamber of Commerce.

I suppose that all sounds like revisionist history to some. But it is how I remember it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

P Hudson said:


> I suppose that all sounds like revisionist history to some. But it is how I remember it.


What are you going to beleive??

The New York Times or your own eyes??


----------



## P Hudson

WouldaShoulda said:


> What are you going to beleive??
> 
> The New York Times or your own eyes??


I'm selective. I saved, and still believe, the NYT articles from 2003 and 2005 when the Bush administration sent people to congress to warn of a coming banking crisis due to bad mortgages. The article reported that Barney Frank would have none of it, calling it an attack on the poor. An African American congressman called a it racist attack. I applaud those guys looking after the poor: now they've got a lot more of them to care for.

Funny thing is, I'm no fan of the Republicans--and certainly have no great record of voting for them, but these sort of discussions are often a bit one sided.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

P Hudson said:


> Funny thing is, I'm no fan of the Republicans--and certainly have no great record of voting for them, but these sort of discussions are often a bit one sided.


Everyone should be suspicious of power no matter where it comes from.

It's a healthy free press that keeps them only as dishonest as they are.

It's that same press that has been on vacation since Obama took office and it's a disservice to everyone.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
An excellent point and perhaps the most insightful post I've read in this thread!  Thank-you.


----------



## Shaver

How Ayn Rands ideology, as practiced by Alan Greenspan, precipitated the global banking collapse is marvellously detailed and compellingly described by Adam Curtis in his television programme _All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace_ episode 1 'Love & Power'.

I would also recommend to those who prefer a subtle 'big picture' of global politics watching Curtis' equally fascinating _The Power of Nightmares (The Rise of the Politics of Fear)_.

Available on YouTube. Guaranteed to make you think differently.


----------



## P Hudson

Thanks for the suggestion, Shaver. I have libertarian leanings at times, much like Curtis. So I'll have to look out for the material you recommend. He's from Sevenoaks, where I lived in 1964.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

"It's for the kids!!"

(CBS News) CHICAGO - Chicago's 25,000 public school teachers went on strike for the first time in a quarter-century Monday, after the latest contract talks broke down Sunday with no deal to avert a walkout.
Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis said late Sunday night there had been some progress in contract talks, but "we have failed to reach an agreement that will prevent a labor strike."
*The city's public school teachers make an average of $71,000 a year. *Both sides said they were close to an agreement on wages. What apparently remains are issues involving teacher performance and accountability, which the union saw as a threat to job security.
Late Sunday, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who has already forced teachers to lengthen their school days, said he was "disappointed" in the union's decision to continue with a strike.
"I am disappointed that we have come to this point, given that even all the other parties acknowledge how close we are because this is a strike of choice," Emanuel said. "Because of how close we are, it is a strike that is unnecessary."
After talks ended last night, Chicago Board of Education President David Vitale said he believes CPS officials made their best possible offer to teachers.
"There's only so much money in the system. There's only so many things that we can do that are available to us," Vitale said. "At this juncture, it is clearly their decision. ... We've done everything we can."
Lewis said the two sides were close to agreement on a contract, but not close enough.
"We are not far apart on compensation, however we are apart on benefits," Lewis said. "We want to maintain the existing health benefits."
Lewis said the union is also concerned that a proposed new teacher evaluation system "could result in almost 6,000 teachers - or nearly 30 percent of our membership - being discharged within one or two years. *This is unacceptable and leads to instability for our students."*
She said the new evaluation system would rely too much on students' standardized test scores.
"This is no way to measure teacher effectiveness at all," she said.
The union has planned a 3:30 p.m. rally on Monday outside Chicago Public Schools headquarters.
A dispute involving public sector employees in Chicago was somewhat surprising, said CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds, given the generous packages unions here have won in the past. *In addition, a teacher strike in the hometown of a president who stresses the importance of education could also be seen as something of a political embarrassment.

*No it can't.

Damn those Republicans!!


----------



## eagle2250

^^
An excellent example of a public employee union run amok...pay us the big bucks, but don't expect to hold us accountable for achieving pre-determined performance targets. And good gosh, could our evaluation standards, the standardized test scores achieved by their students, be any more unfair? How dare we expect Chicago's teachers to achieve results comparable to teachers in other school districts!  Perhaps Chicago's leadership could take a lesson from the Wisconsin experience?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

"If you turned on the TV this morning or sometime today, you probably saw something about the Chicago teacher's union strike," Ryan said at fundraiser at the Governor Hotel here. "I've known Rahm Emanuel for years. He's a former colleague of mine. Rahm and I have not agreed on every issue or on a lot of issues, but *Mayor Emanuel is right today in saying that this teacher's union strike is unnecessary and wrong*. We know that Rahm is not going to support our campaign, but on this issue and this day we stand with Mayor Rahm Emanuel."
Emanuel is not only the Democratic mayor of the third largest city, he's also President Obama's former chief of staff and one of his most visible supporters. Ryan went on to ask the group of about 200 donors where the president stands on the strike.
*"We stand with the children and we stand with the families and the parents of Chicago because education reform, that's a bipartisan issue," Ryan continued. "This does not have to divide the two parties. And so, we were going to ask, where does President Obama stand?* Does he stand with his former Chief of Staff Mayor Rahm Emanuel, with the children and the parents, or does he stand with the union? On issues like this, we need to speak out and be really clear."

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politi...hers-strike-we-stand-with-mayor-rahm-emanuel/

So do we get "the police acted stupidly" "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon" or "Present??"


----------



## dks202

WouldaShoulda said:


> So do we get "the police acted stupidly" "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon" or "Present??"


I'm afraid we'll get nothing but silence from the White House. This potato is too hot.


----------



## tocqueville

I now have two children in Washington, DC public schools. Two different schools. My experience has been, perhaps, contradictory:

1. Teachers aren't paid nearly enough and deserve things like good pensions so that they aren't penalized for having taken what is in effect a public service job when they are retired and in their 80s. Also, from what I've seen, everything depends on the calibre of the school faculty. It is very high at one of my son's schools; that school is excellent. It is quite mediocre at my other's son's school. That school is, as far as I can tell, terrible. (Why do I send my kid to a crap school, you ask? Because they have a free pre-school program...next year he's out of there).

2. While I am very suspicious of standardized tests and other "metrics" used to gauge educational quality, I am strongly in favor of practices that stir the pot, force teachers and school administrators to be on their toes, and clear out bad teachers to make way for good, usually younger ones. I strongly supported the former DC Schools Chancellor (Rhae), who locked horns with the union. I figured that any Chancellor who was despised by the union was probably doing something right.

3. The system must take into consideration that while the calibre of the faculty is one contributing factor to the quality of the school, another is the kind of student body. To be blunt, the good school one of my sons goes to has a student body that comes from families who are significantly more affluent and better educated (though very ethnically/racially diverse) than the families of the kids (working class Latinos and blacks) who attend my other son's bad school. I'm not sure what to do with that insight, although I think it means that one cannot necessarily hold inner-city school teachers to the same standard as teachers in more affluent areas. Class determines a great deal.

I suppose that, in conclusion, I would urge folks not to be too quick to take sides in the Chicago dispute. I strongly suspect that neither side is clearly in the right.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> I suppose that, in conclusion, I would urge folks not to be too quick to take sides in the Chicago dispute. I strongly suspect that neither side is clearly in the right.


1. Why is it impossible to negotiate while school is in session with a sympathetic Democrat Mayor??

2. Does the action of the Chicago teachers help or hinder the children??


----------



## dks202

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1. Why is it impossible to negotiate while school is in session with a sympathetic Democrat Mayor??


exactly..... The kids must come first. Unions have had their day, they're not needed any more.

I happen to be a voting, card carrying union member ( we call it an "Association"). It's voluntary but I like the added insurance that's available.


----------



## arkirshner

As I understand it, evaluating a teacher by student test scores is not that simple because where it has been tried the scores for the same teacher vary greatly from year to year; same teacher, same curriculum, divergent scores. The only variable is the students. Even the best coaches have bad seasons, and even the worst coaches have good ones. Are there are any statisticians who can shed some light on the matter?


----------



## Mike Petrik

arkirshner said:


> As I understand it, evaluating a teacher by student test scores is not that simple because where it has been tried the scores for the same teacher vary greatly from year to year; same teacher, same curriculum, divergent scores. The only variable is the students. Even the best coaches have bad seasons, and even the worst coaches have good ones. Are there are any statisticians who can shed some light on the matter?


I don't think that one need be a statistician to know that this is true. No formula or set of numbers ever tells the entire story when evaluating human performance. That said, used properly they are often an essential tool. I chair the board of a Catholic high school and serve on another, and will note that pretending that test results are not instructive over time is even more irrational than treating them as dispositive.


----------



## Shaver

arkirshner said:


> As I understand it, evaluating a teacher by student test scores is not that simple because where it has been tried the scores for the same teacher vary greatly from year to year; same teacher, same curriculum, divergent scores. The only variable is the students. Even the best coaches have bad seasons, and even the worst coaches have good ones. Are there are any statisticians who can shed some light on the matter?


Inferential statistics are inapplicable because the random variation is not an observational error but is the very essence of the data set. As the variable is critical to outcome but beyond measurement or effective comparative analysis (including Bayesian inference) no confidence interval can be established. Thus consequent interpretation, proposition or conclusion would be without merit.

Simply put - an individual teacher cannot be evaluated in any meaningful fashion via examination of their pupils' test results.

Addendum; MikePetrik's post, submitted whilst mine was being written, yields a truth - results do not neccessarily speak of the capability of an individual educator but over time they certainly speak of the utility of an institution as a body.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Mike Petrik said:


> I don't think that one need be a statistician to know that this is true. No formula or set of numbers ever tells the entire story when evaluating human performance. That said, used properly they are often an essential tool. I chair the board of a Catholic high school and serve on another, and will note that pretending that test results are not instructive over time is even more irrational than treating them as dispositive.


I suggest they offer solutions and work this out with the city WHILE THEY GET THEIR LAZY FAT ASSES BACK IN THE CLASSROOM!!

What does Obama think.

Anyone??


----------



## eagle2250

^^


WouldaShoulda said:


> 1. Why is it impossible to negotiate while school is in session with a sympathetic Democrat Mayor??
> 
> 2. Does the action of the Chicago teachers help or hinder the children??


Chicago's teachers have their heads up their collective a**es and their heart's in their pocketbooks. Them timing of the strike was selected to have the greatest impact on the children, so as to accord the teachers union the greatest leverage at the bargaining table. It seems pretty obvious who those teachers most care about...let's not kid ourselves!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

You'd think a week would be long enough to figure out how to divert stimulas money from "shovel ready" projects into the pockets of more Muni Union workers and Obama supporters wouldn't you??

What's holding up this hold-up!!


----------



## Apatheticviews

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Chicago's teachers have their heads up their collective a**es and their heart's in their pocketbooks. Them timing of the strike was selected to have the greatest impact on the children, so as to accord the teachers union the greatest leverage at the bargaining table. It seems pretty obvious who those teachers most care about...let's not kid ourselves!


 Of course it was. They would be fools not to time it that way. Do you want fools teaching your children? We are all self serving. Teaching is a career, not a calling. They aren't priests. They are doing a job, and they have to look out for themselves, because WE (the rest of society) will not do it for them. That is evidenced by the opinions presented here. If someone went after your livelihood, and you had the means to fight back, you would. What our job is, is frankly irrelevant to the discussion. I've worked for union organizations in the past, and there those that have no-strike clauses. If Chicago was smart, they would have made one for teachers, or other public servants. They didn't. Therefore the teachers are exercising their right to collective bargaining. I don't even like unions, but I can't fault them for doing this. I've had benefits widdled away at non-union jobs, which is essentially the same thing as a compensation cut (aka pay reduction, less compensation, same work).


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> Of course it was. They would be fools not to time it that way. Do you want fools teaching your children? We are all self serving. Teaching is a career, not a calling. They aren't priests. They are doing a job, and they have to look out for themselves...


Of course.

But THEY never frame it that way.

It's the "for the kids" phony schtick!!


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Indeed, but the sad reality remains that while many in the teaching community are underpaid and overworked, Chicago's teachers seem to be sitting near thetop of the pay scales, formerly working some of the shortest school days and whose students recorded some of the most inconsistent and poorest standardized achievement test scores. It seems to me that we have been paying them more for doing and achieving less...and now the greedy B******s have come back demanding more! This damned focus on me, me, me is what is dragging this great nation down!


----------



## Apatheticviews

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Indeed, but the sad reality remains that while many in the teaching community are underpaid and overworked, Chicago's teachers seem to be sitting near thetop of the pay scales, formerly working some of the shortest school days and whose students recorded some of the most inconsistent and poorest standardized achievement test scores. It seems to me that we have been paying them more for doing and achieving less...and now the greedy B******s have come back demanding more! This damned focus on me, me, me is what is dragging this great nation down!


Are they really at the top of the pay scales though? Someone threw out $71k as their pay. Is that pay, or is it total compensation? There's a HUGE difference. Eagle, as a military man, you know the difference, between base pay, and benefits (BHA, rations, medical, etc). I'd be willing to bet, that 71k number is "compensation" not pay. Which means, actual pay is significantly less than that, probably closer to 40-50k (on average). Once you take into account location, and standard of living (being taxed by good old IL), things start looking a lot different. But here's a quick personal example. My wife worked for UTC (for Carrier specifically). They had great benefits. One of which was 100% tuition (Post Graduate included). When the economy changed, my wife was working on her Masters, and they changed the program to 80% tuition REIMBURSEMENT, through Bachelors degree only. We ended up footing $40k worth of college out of our own pockets (over 1.5 years), because of a change in benefits package. If someone essentially gave you a 20K paycut, wouldn't you be upset? Aren't you upset every time the VA changes the way Tricare works for you and your family? You worked hard for those benefits, yet they keep changing them at a whim, because they can't manage their moneyIt's not the focus on me that is dragging this company down. Selfish b***** built this country. Those are the people who build empires. If you aren't willing to stand up for yourself, you aren't willing to stand up for anything. These are people standing up for themselves. We just disagree about the issue. If it was about the Right to assemble, or not being fondled by the TSA, etc, we'd probably say good for them, but we just don't like their opinion. But that is what makes this country great is the fact that they can assemble and argue. They don't have to take what they see as injustice lying down. No matter how wrong or right they may be on any given issue.


----------



## tocqueville

I must confess I wasn't pleased to hear on the radio this morning some of the teachers speaking about the strike with what I regard as poor English. I'd fire anyone who can't speak correctly. Sorry.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> I must confess I wasn't pleased to hear on the radio this morning some of the teachers speaking about the strike with what I regard as poor English. I'd fire anyone who can't speak correctly. Sorry.


I don't think the Union would allow that!!


----------



## Mike Petrik

WouldaShoulda said:


> I don't think the Union would allow that!!


Nope. Not a chance. While a process theoretically exists, it is expensive, painful, and stacked in favor of the employee. Never happens.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Mike Petrik said:


> Nope. Not a chance. While a process theoretically exists, it is expensive, painful, and stacked in favor of the employee. Never happens.


The issue is that the state new how the employee spoke when they hired him/her. It's not a union issue at all. If I show up to a job interview with enough piercings to attract a super-magnet, and a company hires me after KNOWING what I look like, they forfeit the ability to say anything about it late on (unless written company policy already exists and they brief me about it).

It's really hard to do something about the way someone speaks. As long as they aren't using profanity, they are covered by the fact that they were interviewed, and their communication skills were a known commodity coming in.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Apatheticviews said:


> The issue is that the state new how the employee spoke when they hired him/her. It's not a union issue at all. If I show up to a job interview with enough piercings to attract a super-magnet, and a company hires me after KNOWING what I look like, they forfeit the ability to say anything about it late on (unless written company policy already exists and they brief me about it).
> 
> It's really hard to do something about the way someone speaks. As long as they aren't using profanity, they are covered by the fact that they were interviewed, and their communication skills were a known commodity coming in.


Nonsense. While a good hiring system is always desirable, no such system is perfect. In a non-union private sector environment employers may correct hiring mistakes and do so all the time. Aside from race, religion, sex, and ethnicity, employers generally can fire people at will for any reason they wish (just as employees are free to leave at will for any reason they wish). And that includes changing their minds about the appropriateness of an employee's appearance or communication skills.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Mike Petrik said:


> Nonsense. While a good hiring system is always desirable, no such system is perfect. In a non-union private sector environment employers may correct hiring mistakes and do so all the time. Aside from race, religion, sex, and ethnicity, employers generally can fire people at will for any reason they wish (just as employees are free to leave at will for any reason they wish). And that includes changing their minds about the appropriateness of an employee's appearance or communication skills.


And pay them unemployment compensation for that "at will" decision. Termination "for cause" is fine. Termination "at will" is another. If someone said you dress too well for the work environment, and cut you loose "at will," what would you do?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Apatheticviews said:


> And pay them unemployment compensation for that "at will" decision. Termination "for cause" is fine. Termination "at will" is another. If someone said you dress too well for the work environment, and cut you loose "at will," what would you do?


Find another job.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

On to Michigan!!

Mich. House approves right-to-work limiting unions
By By JOHN FLESHER and JEFF KAROUB, Associated Press – 14 minutes ago 
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan House approved the first of two right-to-work bills Tuesday that would weaken union power in the historical labor stronghold as hundreds of protesters rallied at the Capitol.
The Republican-dominated chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds.
Democrats immediately sought to have the vote reconsidered but failed in that effort.
Still to come was a vote on a second bill focusing on private sector workers. The Senate approved both last week. If enacted, Gov. Rick Snyder says he will sign them into law as early as Wednesday.
Even with the outcome considered a foregone conclusion, the heated battle showed no sign of cooling as lawmakers prepared to cast final votes.
Hundreds of protesters flooded the state Capitol hours before the House and Senate convened, chanting and whistling in the chilly darkness. Others joined a three-block march to the building, some wearing coveralls and hard hats.
"I'm inspired," said Lindsey Curtis, 61, a retired city worker from Flint. "I thought the unions had just rolled over."
Valerie Constance, a Wayne County Community College District developmental reading instructor and member or the American Federation of Teachers, sat on the Capitol steps with a sign shaped like a tombstone. It read: "Here lies democracy."
"I do think this is a very sad day in Michigan history," said Constance, 57.
Sue Brown, a 50-year-old pipefitter from Midland, and her 26-year-old daughter Tracy Brown, a chemical plant worker in Hemlock, held handwritten signs disparaging Gov. Rick Snyder, who last week announced support for the measures.
"It's disgraceful," said Sue Brown, who said she's not a union member but fears right-to-work laws would lower wages for all. "The unions and the UAW have created the middle class."



Perhaps, but then, they ran them clear out of the State!! 

I beleive more cars are made in Ontario now than Michigan.


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> I beleive more cars are made in Ontario now than Michigan.


Thanks for pointing out the benefit of those damn socialist ideas up North

All of Ontario's car factories are within a two-hour drive of the U.S. border, as both Japanese and U.S. makers keep their Canadian production close to the world's largest auto market. *Carmakers save about 10 percent on the cost of each vehicle because of Canada's government-funded health-care program*. *They also receive incentives from the provincial government and tax breaks from the North American Free Trade Agreement. *


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> *They also receive incentives from the provincial government and tax breaks from the North American Free Trade Agreement. *


Crony Capitalism and Corporate Welfare??

I guess everything can be OK in small doses.

Which is exactly why Union Reform is requited especially in the Public Sector in some states like Wisconsin, Michigan and others.

And when the thugs lose, things get ugly fast as we have documented here for almost two years.


----------



## 12345Michael54321

mrkleen said:


> All of Ontario's car factories are within a two-hour drive of the U.S. border, as both Japanese and U.S. makers keep their Canadian production close to the world's largest auto market.


More to the point, in excess of 75% of the population of Canada lives within 100 miles of the US border. Consequently, the vast majority of Canada's factories are located within 100 miles of the US border. (There are various, rather obvious, advantages to locating near concentrations of population, in areas with well developed transportation infrastructure, and so on.)


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> Crony Capitalism and Corporate Welfare??
> 
> I guess everything can be OK in small doses.


So corporate welfare is ok.....but helping people who have fallen on hard times isnt. Gotcha.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> So corporate welfare is ok.....but helping people who have fallen on hard times isnt. Gotcha.


Link??


----------



## WouldaShoulda

12345Michael54321 said:


> More to the point, in excess of 75% of the population of Canada lives within 100 miles of the US border. Consequently, the vast majority of Canada's factories are located within 100 miles of the US border. (There are various, rather obvious, advantages to locating near concentrations of population, in areas with well developed transportation infrastructure, and so on.)


Which accounts for Ontario but not other more modern centers of production like Tennessee.


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> Link??


Link to you criticizing the "welfare state"? Are you kidding?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

This time Obama chimes right in!! (Compared to silence over the Chicago Teachers)

"These so-called right-to-work laws, they don't have anything to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics," Obama told cheering workers Monday during a visit to an engine plant in Redford, Mich. "What they're really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money."

https://washington.cbslocal.com/201...o-work-bill-the-right-to-work-for-less-money/

Hmmm. How about the economics of the right to work for no money for Hostess??

Where has BMW/Mercedes/VW/Nissan invested Billions??

There are exceptions of course but...

Here are the 10 most American vehicles and where they're made:

Toyota Camry, Georgetown, Ky., and Lafayette, Ind.
Ford F-150, Dearborn, Mich., and Claycomo, Mo.
Honda Accord, Marysville, Ohio
Toyota Sienna, Princeton, Ind.
Honda Pilot, Lincoln, Ala.
Chevrolet Traverse, Lansing, Mich.
Toyota Tundra, San Antonio
Jeep Liberty, Toledo, Ohio
GMC Acadia, Lansing
Buick Enclave, Lansing
https://content.usatoday.com/commun...amry-beats-ford-f-150-as-most-american-made/1


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Gov. Scott Walker wins re-election



> MADISON - Wisconsin's Republican Gov. Scott Walker won a hard fought election over Democratic challenger Mary Burke Tuesday, overcoming fierce opposition from unions and other liberal groups for his third victory in four years and cementing his position as a possible contender for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.
> 
> Walker told The Associated Press after he was projected the winner that any decision about running for president "will have to wait," as he focuses on quickly passing his agenda through the Legislature next year. While he downplayed talk of a 2016 run on the campaign trail, his victory in a state that voted for a Democratic president and U.S. Senator in 2012 will immediately shift the focus to his intentions for 2016.
> 
> "The bottom line is people elected me to get the job done in Wisconsin," Walker told AP. "We're going to spend the next couple months putting together our legislative agenda."
> 
> Walker argued he deserved a second term because he balanced a $3.6 billion budget shortfall, took on special interests such as the unions, cut taxes $2 billion and presided over the addition of more than 110,000 private-sector jobs.


https://www.greenbaypressgazette.co...04/scott-walker-mary-burke-governor/18505161/

Sometimes, the good guys win!!


----------



## eagle2250

Indeed, yesterday was a great day for Wisconsin, as well as for the rest of the good old USA! :thumbs-up:


----------



## 32rollandrock

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed, yesterday was a great day for Wisconsin, as well as for the rest of the good old USA! :thumbs-up:


Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

32rollandrock said:


> Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


Why have the Usual Suspects come after Scott Walker if he is same as the old boss??


----------



## SG_67

^ It's easy to dismiss politicians sometimes and it's typically the first step toward apathy. 

I don't think Walker can be classified as "same as the old boss". He underwent a recall challenge for God's sake and continued down the same path. He's definitely one that has an idea and willing to go to the mat. 

In the end, that's what I respect about a pol, whether I agree with him politically. Oh, that and if he can keep from banging his interns.


----------



## 32rollandrock

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why have the Usual Suspects come after Scott Walker if he is same as the old boss??


I wasn't speaking of Walker specifically, but rather of the whole lot. I'm of the camp that maintains politicians are like rats in heat. They will do or say anything to get elected. They destroy villages to save them. They cut down trees so they can stand on stumps to make speeches declaring their commitment to the environment. They kill their own mothers in hopes of cornering the orphan vote. This election's Republican Revolution will become next election's Throw The Bums Out Contest. After awhile, and it doesn't take long, the whole business just makes me want to vomit, and I think that it is only getting worse with time. Or maybe I'm losing patience.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

SG_67 said:


> ^ It's easy to dismiss politicians sometimes and it's typically the first step toward apathy.





32rollandrock said:


> I wasn't speaking of Walker specifically, but rather of the whole lot. I'm of the camp that maintains politicians are like rats in heat. They will do or say anything to get elected. They destroy villages to save them. They cut down trees so they can stand on stumps to make speeches declaring their commitment to the environment. They kill their own mothers in hopes of cornering the orphan vote. This election's Republican Revolution will become next election's Throw The Bums Out Contest. After awhile, and it doesn't take long, the whole business just makes me want to vomit, and I think that it is only getting worse with time. Or maybe I'm losing patience.


First as well as the last!!


----------



## Kingstonian

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why have the Usual Suspects come after Scott Walker if he is same as the old boss??


This bloke?

*► 2:35**► 2:35*​

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q6YWDm0GSU​

At least least he can sing his own campaign tune?

Your other reference is a song by "The Who" and I hereby claim my five pounds.


----------

