Unions

assumption: tax cuts reduce tax revenue. giving companies that move to the state a tax break gets those companies there, then they hire people and pay them some form of taxable wage. this helps twofold, by reducing unemployment, and also increasing the amount of income to be taxed, then there is also the sales tax when those people spend their income. the state would also receive taxes on any goods or products those companies sold. the state could easily make several times more in tax revenue over those two years than the amount they are losing by not giving those companies a tax incentive to move there. what happens if they don't offer a tax incentive to companies to relocate there? how much more tax revenue has the state received if that company moves to Iowa instead?

Strizzo wrote: assumption: tax cuts reduce tax revenue. giving companies that move to the state a tax break gets those companies there, then they hire people and pay them some form of taxable wage. this helps twofold, by reducing unemployment, and also increasing the amount of income to be taxed, then there is also the sales tax when those people spend their income. the state would also receive taxes on any goods or products those companies sold. the state could easily make several times more in tax revenue over those two years than the amount they are losing by not giving those companies a tax incentive to move there. what happens if they don't offer a tax incentive to companies to relocate there? how much more tax revenue has the state received if that company moves to Iowa instead?

I'm not saying that this can't have an effect on growth. I am saying it's inconsistent behavior for the leader of a state who claims they are so burdened with debt the legislature has to strip citizen's of a right they've had since 1958.

As I said before...if the state is in such dire need of revenue, why cut taxes to corporations? You don't pay down debt by giving money away.

Unless this isn't the real reason the governor wants to take away rights people have had for 50+ years.

wcelliot wrote: So many concepts so wrong in single post I'm not even going to attempt a rebutal.

Don't be scared buddy! I'm on a keyboard, not right in front of you. I'm a internet tough guy!

In reply to Xceler8x:

I'm not saying that this can't have an effect on growth. I am saying it's inconsistent behavior for the leader of a state who claims they are so burdened with debt the legislature has to strip citizen's of a right they've had since 1958.

you're claiming that the reduction in taxes means the state is flush with cash, which is not true. based on that, you are secondly claiming that the reason for the current legislative push is because of some anti-union agenda.

did you actually read about the tax cuts? it is only a tax cut for companies moving into the state. it is an incentive to get companies to bring jobs to the state. they wouldn't be making any income tax on companies that never moved to the state because the taxes were too high, or some other state offered a tax incentive, and WI did not. so yes, the state wouldn't be getting any more income tax revenue directly from that company, but they still wouldn't if the company never moved to WI.

I'll form a rebuttal - since I live in the state in question and listen to more than Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow, I think I might have a pretty good insight.

Walker has ALWAYS been behind those who put their lives on the line for the public. He has been quoted numerous times saying that police and fire DON"T get paid enough. Democratic Milwaukee county Sheriff David Clark endorsed Walker during the election and said that while Walker was County Exec. of Milwaukee he never cut his budget and always found ways to give the Sheriff the means to do the job. Walkers strong commitment to the police officers are one of the primary reasons that they were left alone. Also in the interest of full disclosure, he was endorsed by a few of the largest unions representing police officers.

Walker did pass a bill involving tax cuts for corporations. The thing that most overlook is that it doesn't start until July of this year and is only for the fiscal 2011-2013 budget. It has no effect on the current budget shortfalls. The shortfall now is what he trying to correct, after all this is the "Budget Repair Bill". Now you can argue that the tax cuts do affect the estimated 3.6 billion shortfall that is projected in the upcoming years but that is more a question of economic policy than of corporate favoritism as the cuts can be taken by any company that will relocate to WI, not just a selected group.

Now I keep reading how it is a right to be in a union. It is not a right, it was a privilege granted by law in WI. Just as something can be granted it can also be taken away, but here's the rub - it's not being taken away, just limited. Specifically the collective bargaining rights. The unions will still have the power to bargain for wages and will still be represented. But things like tax payer funded Viagra and rules concerning how sick time is counted towards pay will be gone. And just so you know if a Corrections Officer uses a sick day and works the NEXT shift they (under current rules) would get time and a half. Examples like this are the norm here.

The bill would also allow local school board the ability to negotiate their own teacher contracts better. It wouldn't force a city like Stevens Point to adopt the same rules/demands of a city like Lake Geneva.

The bill would allow those people who want to be a teacher/state worker to be able to be hired without being forced into a union. They can still join if they want and pay dues but it will also give individuals the ability to negotiate their own terms of employment.

Of course there is more in the bill that I could go into detail on but what it does is take away the stranglehold a public employees union has on the public.

In reply to Xceler8x:

Granted, but also: Absent any of the educational statistical information you just listed, the unions want MORE MONEY NOM~NOM~NOM.

When the union members vote to do one thing, and the union leadership does just the opposite (because it pads their pocket). And union membership is required. Things are seriously berkeleyed up.

So the Wisconsin teachers union battle seems to be snowballing every day. I found this comment insightful:

"Taxpayers are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions - who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party... Hence the violently outraged response to efforts to do anything about them."

Do you guys think that outlawing collective bargaining means that employees will no longer strike or bargain collectively? After all, we outlawed drug use. No one uses drugs. We've outlawed speeding. No one speeds. I'm sure if the government says "No more strikes or collective bargaining!" It will happen.

And if people still would strike in support of their collective wishes and stance on employment...well...I guess then you'd call in the cops!

er...ok...

Maybe a compromise is in order. After all, the economic demands of the Governor have been met. After that....I mean this was about economics right?

btw - Protests are spreading across the U.S.

Nicely put Marty, without any obviously loaded comments this was very well written.

Keep up the posts from inside the danger zone

Xceler8x wrote: Do you guys think that outlawing collective bargaining means that employees will no longer strike or bargain collectively? After all, we outlawed drug use. No one uses drugs. We've outlawed speeding. No one speeds. I'm sure if the government says "No more strikes or collective bargaining!" It will happen.

I don't understand the problem with collective bargining. Would the state be better off sitting down with each individual worker every couple years to work out raises and such?

As far as outlawing strikes just pass a law like New York has. You get a one every 20 or so years when a good pissing contest breaks out and the state makes a few extra bucks. Ity also does what the Wiss. gov. seems to want because there isn't much incentive to settle a contract. Our contract as Dispatchers is 7 years late.

One of the problems with collective bargaining is that there is no incentive to excel, you get paid the same as the lazy jerk who does the minimum amount of work he can to get by, or less as the union wont allow him to be dismissed for being useless.

So why would anybody bother trying to do the job well.

66% of the State of Wisconsin's kids can't read at a proficient level, and that is acceptable?

In reply to aussiesmg:

There are five states without collective bargaining for teachers, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia. Since they are free of that evil should I assume they are the five best performing states?

I can only speak for the jobs I've seen but unlike the stories in the news I have not seen many people sitting around half assing their way through the day. there may have been jobs where that happens but in NY they have been shrinking the workforce for some time. My wife's office has gone from five people to two and has taken on more work. We have been short handed for as long as I've been here because even with our obscene salary and benefits we have trouble hiring and keeping qualified people.

Talk about oversimplification, I suspect things such as access to premium schools due to finances, location and such have something to do with the states average educational position.

For instance I expect that MA with a few schools like Harvard, Yale and the like may push the average up in that state, how many of these students are from MA though. The top three states are MA CT and VT, ME is number 5.

I guess we shouldn't muddy the issue with logic though

It's no more of an oversimplification than assuming we all do a poor job because we have a union, but I don't believe they include universities like Harvard and Yale in states averages.

Leach wrote: It's no more of an oversimplification than assuming we all do a poor job because we have a union, but I don't believe they include universities like Harvard and Yale in states averages.

Two minor points.

1, I never said ALL teachers do a poor job. A driven teacher who puts their students before themselves will always excel, my complaint is they don't get rewarded for their dedication.

2, Why wouldn't these schools be included in state averages? Is it because they are private and not subject to the collective bargaining of the state teachers union?

You might want to stop the rhetoric, your bias is exposed, maybe you should actually read my points instead of posting answers to points never made.

Why do schools need multi-million dollar swimming pools, astroturf football fields and field press boxes w/ heat and AC if there's been a budget crisis and the regular student body has been doing so poorly? I'm more PO'd at the school boards and school administration for their misplaced priorities than I am at any teachers. Educate first, play later. The majority of my teachers were good, a few were exceptional but a few were poor.

aussiesmg wrote:

Leach wrote: It's no more of an oversimplification than assuming we all do a poor job because we have a union, but I don't believe they include universities like Harvard and Yale in states averages.

Two minor points. 1, I never said ALL teachers do a poor job. A driven teacher who puts their students before themselves will always excel, my complaint is they don't get rewarded for their dedication.

It sounds like you said it here: So why would anybody bother trying to do the job well.

aussiesmg wrote: 2, Why wouldn't these schools be included in state averages? Is it because they are private and not subject to the collective bargaining of the state teachers union?

I was pretty sure schools implies grades k-12, not colleges or universities, which is why I wouldn't include Harvard and Yale, or any state college system.

aussiesmg wrote: You might want to stop the rhetoric, your bias is exposed, maybe you should actually read my points instead of posting answers to points never made.

My appologies. I am biased, unlike everyone who had a differing viewpoint. When I'm not helping the Muslim Brotherhood overthrow the middle east and kids burn down Wal Marts I like to cause problems on the internet. I have to go get my Che t-shirts out of the dryer.

aussiesmg wrote: Two minor points. 1, I never said ALL teachers do a poor job. A driven teacher who puts their students before themselves will always excel, my complaint is they don't get rewarded for their dedication.

Besides the fact that student achievement has not even been an issue for the Governor of Wis....How do you know that teachers that excel don't get rewarded? Do you have some information to share or is that just your opinion?

Ah, wait a minute. As of Feb 8th 2011 the Union backs raises based on student performance among other reforms.

But hey don't let verified facts as opposed to misinformation and stereotypes, cloud the debate.

Also, the economic issue is settled in Wis. The unions gave the Governor what he wanted. Why is this still an issue? It is about economics right?

Wisconsin students in comparison to other states, including non-Union states, are doing pretty well. They rank second in SAT and ACT scores in the U.S.

Chart detailing Wis ranking in SAT and ACT scores

Here is a blog posting at studentactivism.net critical of that data.

His conclusion after viewing the ACT and SAT score data?

To sum up: Yes, Wisconsin has great schools, with great outcomes. Yes, states without teachers’ unions lag behind. Yes, that lag persists even when you control for demographic variables. Yes, that difference seems to rest less on the quantifiable resources that unions fight to bring to the classroom than on the professionalism, positive working environment, and effective school administration that unions foster. And yes, Virginia, (and Texas, Georgia, and North and South Carolina) unions do work.

Still about money right? Not about student performance or performance based raises for teachers.

70k people showed up in protest in Wis this past weekend. They slept in the capital. Yup, doing the peoples' will, sure...whatever you say.

Of course the Governor has a issue with the quality of education in this state. Milwaukee currently has 90,000 students and a graduation rate of below 50%. SAT score averages mean nothing if vast amounts of students drop out before even taking the tests. The MPS school system also currently receives over $1 billion dollars, that equals over $11,000 per student per year. With a drop out rate like that and the amount of money going in, I would definitely day there is a problem. The MPS system was a HUGE debate during the election last year.

Also the unions have NOT conceded the money Walker has asked for. They have said they have, but actions speak louder than words.

In my city, Janesville, the union just last Tuesday approved a contract for the support staff which gave a 6% raise for it's employees. The teachers which are represented by the Janesville Education Association was asked Friday to re-open their contract to help prevent lay-offs. The JEA president has said he didn't think it was possible citing union by-laws. In the same breath he also said there is not enough information available to decide if teachers should negotiate. So it's not really a question of whether they can or can't, but whether they want to. My magic 8-ball says all signs point to no.

As far as the 70k number - you are right, there was that many. But as I left work in Madison yesterday morning at 10:30 am and began my 52 mile commute home down I-90 I lost count of the number of Windy City Limousine/Coach USA/Van Galder buses traveling north at the same time. It's pretty easy to get that number of protesters when they have to be shipped in from Barack Obama's hometown of Chicago.

As far as the Capitol, it will closed and all protesters kicked out at 4 pm today. We'll see how peaceful that goes.

In reply to Marty!:

Thanks for the straight-poop from a local perspective.

Wasn't it the MPS teachers/admins who also demanded free Viagra as part of their compensation package not too long ago? Apparently their "packages" weren't already big enough........

And buses carrying out-of-state protestors has been happening since the early stages of the support campaign, hasn't it? Makes one wonder how many union dues (public) dollars have been spent to bolster the numbers.

fasted58 wrote: Why do schools need multi-million dollar swimming pools, astroturf football fields and field press boxes w/ heat and AC if there's been a budget crisis and the regular student body has been doing so poorly?

OOH, I can answer that one. BECAUSE THE PARENTS DEMAND THOSE THINGS.

I have first hand knowledge of how that works. Twice in my teaching career I served on committees for the purpose of drawing up specifications for new schools in the district. The committees consisted of an architect, a person from the district administration, some teachers and school level adminstrators, and some parents.

These were middle schools but that didn't stop the parental demands for outrageous items. Why does a middle school need an all-weather running track, a dedicated weight room, a student lounge seperate from the cafeteria, and 500 seat auditorium? You tell me, because none of the teachers or administrators on the committee could find a reason to justify them.

Normally I don't get into this type of discussion but since I got started (see previous post) , here goes.

In my 28 years of teaching I have seen several teachers who should have been fired immediately but weren't because of some "union rules". But on the other hand I have seen cases where those same rules protected very competent teachers who had conflicts with school level administrators.

In one case a principal was brought into a school from outside the district. Even though her experience was all at the elementary school level she was placed in a middle school.

At this middle school there was a teacher who taught among other things an introductory computer course. This teacher had twice been selected as the district "Computer Teacher of the Year" by his peers based on his innovative teaching methods. He had also placed second for the same award at the state level. In the process winning a $5K award for the school to buy equipment, etc.

Teachers in this district are observed and evaluated twice a year. When this principal (who didn't know how to use a computer) evaluated the teacher he was given a poor evaluation based on the fact that the students in the lab were talking to each other and sharing what they had done.

Normally the principal does one evaluation and the vice-principal does the other. But when it was time for the second evaluation this principal did it also. Which resulted in a second poor evaluation since the teacher had not changed his award winning ways.

Normally two poor evaluations results in the teacher being transfered to another school and put on a "work plan". Fortunately for me that didn't happen.

I wasn't the only teacher that this principal had conflicts with and her supervisors at the district level decided that it would be a good idea if she found employment in a different district.

Marty! wrote: Of course the Governor has a issue with the quality of education in this state. Milwaukee currently has 90,000 students and a graduation rate of below 50%. SAT score averages mean nothing if vast amounts of students drop out before even taking the tests.

Really? Where has Walker mentioned school performance being a factor? Got a link wherein he specifically addresses student performance. You get 1000 internets if you can find a quote where it's not just a talking point.

Here's a quote that you didn't bother read:

"Wisconsin does well on a third measure of student performance, too. Its scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 2009 were above the national average in three of four measures (fourth grade math and eighth grade math and reading) and at the national average in the other (fourth grade reading). Of the ten states in the US without teachers’ unions, only one — Virginia — had NAEP results above the national average, and four — Arizona, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi — were in the bottom quintile. (One scholar, in fact, found that the states with the strongest teachers unions tended to out-perform states with weaker unions too.)"

Btw - did you read the article and the blog posting after? I don't think you did as those points you bring up were addressed. But hey, don't let facts cloud your opinions.

Marty! wrote: Also the unions have NOT conceded the money Walker has asked for. They have said they have, but actions speak louder than words.

"Top leaders of two of Wisconsin's largest public employee unions announced they are willing to accept the financial concessions called for in Walker's plan, but will not accept the loss of collective bargaining rights."

Opposing sides meet as Capitol protests enter sixth day

So every paper in the nation says the Unions have conceded the economic demands of the Governor but you still don't believe them? There's the water horse. Drink if you want.

Marty! wrote: As far as the 70k number - you are right, there was that many. But as I left work in Madison yesterday morning at 10:30 am and began my 52 mile commute home down I-90 I lost count of the number of Windy City Limousine/Coach USA/Van Galder buses traveling north at the same time. It's pretty easy to get that number of protesters when they have to be shipped in from Barack Obama's hometown of Chicago. As far as the Capitol, it will closed and all protesters kicked out at 4 pm today. We'll see how peaceful that goes.

lol...sure.....all protesters were bused in from Chicago. All 70k. How violent was that Capitol shutdown?

Btw - Here's another article for those that care to read and think about the issue. It's a Forbes article about how Wis actually contributes nothing to Public employee pensions. It's written by a Pulitzer Prize winning tax writer.

The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions

So busting the Union is still all about economics right? The Unions have given in to the economic demands of the Governor and the state contributes next to nothing to the public pensions. Yup, all about the economics. Maybe on Fox news or Bizarro World..

Xceler8x wrote: So busting the Union is still all about economics right? The Unions have given in to the economic demands of the Governor and the state contributes next to nothing to the public pensions. Yup, all about the economics. Absolutely.

Yep, still all about economics. On both sides. Always has been, always will be.

Xceler8x wrote: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions

Interesting article.

It seems that Gov. Walker has erred in blaming unions. He should be pointing the finger directly at his predecessors who negotiated the collective bargaining agreements - with the unions.

Which pretty much is the crux of the problem anyway.