Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Governor Walker Victory Party

Governor Walker Victory Party (Page 3)
Thread Tools
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2012, 11:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Shaddim thinks you're a bad person who doesn't love your own kids, and ebuddy thinks your husband is a mooching parasite. Wonderful people we spend our online time with, eh?
More bottom-feeding necessary to bolster that bullet-proof logic again eh?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2012, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
We're back to that again I see. As I already pointed out here, the supposed "deficit" that Wisconsin was facing was totally manufactured by Gov. Walker and his allies due to "$140 million in new spending for special-interest groups" that primarily comprise the wealthy.
At least you're not parroting the "tax cuts caused the budget shortfall", now we're just denying there was a shortfall which I addressed here;

According to Robert Lang, the director of the Wisconsin Fiscal Bureau (the Legislature's nonpartisan budget office), the purported $121 million surplus does not account for $258 million in other shortfalls, including money owed to the state of Minnesota. Lang writes in an email to TWS: The condition statement is shown on page 2. It reflects a projected gross balance on June 30, 2011, of $121.4 million. This document was prepared prior to the introduction of the state's budget adjustment bill. In addition to the condition statement, the document identifies a pending payment under the Minnesota/Wisconsin Income Tax Reciprocity Program (page 3) and 2010-11 appropriation shortfalls (pages 3 and 4). The Minnesota/Wisconsin payment and the identified shortfalls total $258.1 million. These amounts are not reflected in the January 31 condition statement because legislative and executive action would be required between February 1, 2011, and June 30, 2011, to address them. If the entire $258.1 million was to be addressed before June 30, 2011, the gross general fund balance would be -$136.7
WI Fiscal Bureau Chief: Walker Tax Cuts Did Not Cause This Year's Budget Shortfall

On top of that, public sector unions had already agreed to wage cuts and higher pension plan contributions. So when Gov. Walker and his conservative allies argued that additional measures were necessary to address the "deficit" ... that was a misrepresentation of the highest order. What riled up so many people was that Walker used a "deficit" of his own making to strip public sector unions of their collective bargaining rights in the following areas going forward ... as in well after the so-called deficit situation was resolved:
First, the deficit was real and was not the product of "tax cuts for the rich". Second, he didn't strip them of their collective bargaining rights, he made the provisions of that bargaining sustainable for the entire State over the interests of a few cigar-chomping union fat cats. Interesting how the two arguments can be juxtaposed however; these people need to pay their fair share and those people need not take more than their fair share.

A) Working Conditions and Benefits - completely gone.
Already protected under workers' rights laws in Wisconsin; the very laws that for whatever reason are supposed to be good enough for everyone else, but not an employee of the State?

B) Wages - limit collective bargaining to a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) per year maximum. Even if they had gone a decade or two with pay freezes. Even if economic conditions had dramatically improved..
They are allowed to collectively bargain their wages, but the wage increases are restricted to inflation. Meaning no, you don't get to continue socking it to taxpayers in decidedly poor economic times. The point is everyone needs to function under the reality of a budget, the government employer should be no different.

C) Require a vote to re-certify the union every year.
You mean, members now have the right to decline paying dues for provisions already protected under Wisconsin workers' rights laws? Make no mistake here my friend, that's the primary point of contention as far as the Union is concerned; not protecting the little guy.

So you're right. It was union busting plain and simple. But the actions taken to do so had nothing to do with the fiscal situation (manufactured or otherwise) at hand.
Of course it had to do with the fiscal situation in Wisconsin and the problem the unions had in their fight against Walker is the same problem Democrats are having with the collective elsewhere; sorrowfully out of touch with their fiscal reality. The good people of Wisconsin saw this for exactly what it was, Union thuggery. He's since not only solidified his base in Wisconsin, but grew it.

It did, however, have everything to do with emasculating the power of unions going forward.
I consider this a benefit, not a feature of Walker's measures. And a very worthy outcome I might add. Kudos to Walker as it took a lot of courage.

As we all know labor unions are major contributors to the Democratic party. So from a purely partisan perspective, these policies are a "win" for the GOP.
Again, perhaps a benefit, but not a feature. Among the Unions not touched in Wisconsin are those that actually endorsed Barrett.

But from a democratic (as is small "d") perspective, I truly think this is bad for the country long-term because it significantly diminishes a key political force in our society. Especially in a post-Citizens United era. The genius of our political model lies within the "checks and balances" that are embedded in the system. We have that between the branches of government itself via the Constitution. We have it between the Democrats and the GOP with the two-party system. And we also have it to a certain degree between the classes in our society via Labor Unions and Corporations. The interests of the working/middle class is advocated by the former whereas the interests of the investor class is advocated by the latter. In the long-run I simply don't think it's wise to enable certain segments of society to run rough-shod over others. Circumstances change. And those who are in an advantaged segment in the short-term can easily find themselves in a disadvantaged segment in the long-term.
What I don't understand among those on the left is; why is it not also democratic that the voters of Wisconsin selected Walker as their governor and increased their support for Walker in spite of a massive demonization effort (including some slanderous attempt to cite illegitimate children) to recall him? It didn't work in favor of your personal opinions, but this does not mean it was a blow to democracy. This is a check and balance no? The unions overreached and were checked leading to greater fiscal balance among the collective. What you fail to understand in the simplified version of the accounts above is that union members are also investors and the success of the business they serve in turn serves the public. The only way it is we against they is when you frame it as such. Otherwise, there's an all-of-us to consider, not just those who donate the most to your campaign and/or exploit their labor base by charging them for protections already granted under Wisconsin law.

That being said, as I mentioned before in the other thread I was very ambivalent about this whole recall election. While I supported the protests that erupted to push back against GOP overreach, I simply think that a recall is a course of action that should be reserved for serious corruption or criminal offenses. And according to the exit polling, apparently a significant number of people also opposed Gov. Walker's "divide and conquer" tactics ... but still didn't think he should be kicked out of office because of them. Which is a significant factor in the 10 point victory margin. Not to mention the fact that the GOP outspent the Dems by a 7 to 1 margin .... 70% of it from out-of-state money, primarily from corporate and wealthy contributors. We can thank Citizens United for that. And that ought to give anyone who doesn't confuse democracy with oligarchy reason for pause ... regardless of one's party affiliation. Because no one has the financial resources to compete with Corporate America and the 1% at that game. Now if it were up to me campaign finance would be simple:
So... the union interests weren't able to garner as much funds from out-of-state as the opposition? Yes, that speaks volumes I agree and this is why a lot of union thugs are crying into their hankies right now. Since when is outspending your opponent a negative thing? It's democratic and evidence of a stronger position when democrats are able to outspend the opposition, but God help the GOP for garnering much greater support? Of course the fight was bigger than Wisconsin and don't kid yourself into believing the Union special interest wasn't intimately knowledgable of this fact.

1. If you can't vote in an election you can't make financial contributions to influence it ... directly or indirectly.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I can buy off on this.

2. Financial contributions for an election should be limited to prevent the wealthy from having undue influence.
Sure, as long as we're not setting up a system where the left "wealthy" isn't wealthy and the right "wealthy" is wealthy. You may laugh, but I'm getting the sense that any action of democracy that offends the partisan sensitivities of the left is not democracy.

Such an approach would eliminate Corporations, Labor Unions, Super PACs, etc. from the campaign finance process altogether while still allowing VOTERS to contribute on a level playing field. I suspect the outcome may have been different if this had been the case. But I suppose that's a discussion for another thread.
I disagree and believe this effort has done nothing more than put Wisconsin into play in this year's election. To them I say; good show. They've blown their wad of slanderous desperation and have shown all their cards just months before the people of Wisconsin go to the polls for our next President.
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2012, 07:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It's more 30M to 25M when you factor in all the money the unions kicked in.
Media Cite False Spending Differential To Explain Walker Win
Breitbart guys must be retards.

Oh, let's count the union spending in the Sept. 2011 senate recall.

What does it have to do with the campaign spending in the 2012 government recall? Nothing.

But that wouldn't stop the retards at Breitbart from confusing the spending in the governor recall in 2012 with the spending in the senate recall in 2011.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2012, 11:18 PM
 
Those of you who are blathering on and on about union political and spending power obviously don't pay attention to facts; union membership in the United States is at the lowest point in over 4 decades, while income inequality has increased dramatically in the same time period. If the unions are spending so much money, with far fewer members, pray tell where they're getting it from? Interesting, how the easy target is always the first one shot at. No need to let pesky facts get in the way now, is there?

Labor's Decline and Wage Inequality - NYTimes.com


The study noted that from 1973 to 2007, union membership in the private sector dropped to 8 percent from 34 percent among men and to 6 percent from 16 percent among women. During that time, wage inequality in the private sector increased by more than 40 percent, the study found.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2012, 11:29 PM
 
Uhm, yeah, as always, correlation doesn't mean causation. There's a lot that changed in the last 40 years, you can't single handily boil it down to these two factors.

-t
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2012, 07:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
There was indeed a big, potentially national issue on the table here: is it appropriate to strip public employees of collective bargaining rights, or is that simply a way to destroy the ability of the state to perform the services it is supposed to perform? Walker vigorously advocated for NO collective bargaining rights for almost all public employees, despite the fact that historically the groups he worked to disadvantage have been paid poorly and had few useful benefits. So-called "big labor" opposed this for obvious reasons.
Wrong. Teachers in Wisconsin are among the highest paid in the country. Collective bargaining for wages remains and is restricted to the rate of inflation. All other matters are already addressed under Wisconsin workers' rights laws which is apparently good enough for all, but the Union fat-cats who seek to reward mediocrity with your tax dollars. The obvious reason "big labor" opposed Walker's measure is that it gives members a way out of paying union dues, period. Again, it has absolutely zero to do with the little guy and a large chunk of union households acknowledged this fact by supporting Walker in the recall election.

The assumption that the state can do what it is required to by law and by the social contract that taxpayers think they're paying taxes to support while whittling down public worker pay is ludicrous. Cut the pay too much and you wind up with either a shortage of workers who aren't yet so desperate that they'll work for peanuts, or even worse performance than the typically poorly staffed state agency/school district/police force already provides. Or both.
No one is talking about cutting pay. They're talking about cutting the rate of increase, placing the government in the uncomfortable position of having to function under a budget like the rest of us. The government should not be competing against you and I in the labor market and there's no reason a special group of employees have the right to directly appeal to the government for pay and bennies the rest of us do not receive. The police force wasn't touched. BTW, the WPPA (union for police in Wisconsin) endorsed Barett.

So yes, outside observers had a stake in this. But when it comes down to it, Walker himself acknowledged that he was wrong to go at his idea of cutting state spending by unilaterally stripping state employees of collective bargaining rights (yes, unilaterally, since he railroaded the bill through his hip-pocket state legislature which voted entirely on party lines). Take home? Act like a dictator and you get an uprising. Which also burns up any across-the-aisle good will any politician could ever build. It was a bad idea to begin with, and running with it so hard cost the state of Wisconsin a lot.
Pure bumpkus. Walker not only solidified his base in Wisconsin, but grew it having pulled in some 30+% of union households in the meantime. I grant you, this was most unfortunate at a national level as it was the first failed recall attempt of a governor and the union thuggery that forced this issue into a recall have blown their ground game wad in mustering a failed bid for ousting Walker and have now put Wisconsin solidly in play for the GOP this fall. Take home? Obama supporters couldn't be more pissed.
ebuddy
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2012, 08:42 PM
 
You are welcome to your opinion, ebuddy. I do not share it.

Teachers are at risk, not just for falling behind inflation, but for being "divided and conquered" by districts that use disingenuous tactics to low-ball teachers. What? Management never plays that game? I suggest you do some research into why the labor movement arose in the first place, and why it has become feared by some industries. Note that ORGANIZATION is not the enemy of management, it is the enemy of dishonesty in management.

Further, suggesting that being "among the highest paid" public school teachers in the country is a really good thing ignores the fact that in general municipalities pay non-professional, non-degreed, non-licensed workers substantially more than teachers, even though things like public works and such do not require the kind of significant and personal commitment to other people's children's wellbeing that teaching does.

Police and fire protection unions were exempted from the attack on collective bargaining due to what appears to be blatant patronage, since in general police and fire supported Walker's original election campaign.

As I am still in search of an option on the national ballot that reads "none of the above is acceptable," I'm not playing Obama fanboy, nor am I bashing the GOP as such on this issue. I'm simply pointing out that what Walker did was divide an already polarized community and that made him a lightning rod for further polarization of the whole nation. Sure, that's what we all need, further polarization. Apparently there is no "American spirit" anymore, just "you're too darn liberal" and "you're almost a fascist, but I don't want the fascists to sue me for libel." That's a great way to get America working, paying its collective and individual bills, and working toward a better future, isn't it? Name calling and the politics of polarity... Gotta love it.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 06:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Further, suggesting that being "among the highest paid" public school teachers in the country is a really good thing ignores the fact that in general municipalities pay non-professional, non-degreed, non-licensed workers substantially more than teachers, even though things like public works and such do not require the kind of significant and personal commitment to other people's children's wellbeing that teaching does.
A. What non-professional, non-degreed, non-licensed government workers not in management positions make substantially more than teachers when you figure their "per hour" wages?

B. While other jobs may not require a "significant and personal commitment to other people's children's wellbeing," there are most likely OTHER important responsibilities that are required.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 06:52 AM
 
A) teachers are generally salaried. Most teachers spend tons of time OUT OF THE SCHOOL developing lessons, grading papers, preparing presentations, etc. It is extremely naive to assume that teachers are only working while in the school. I was attempting to enjoy a cup of coffee and review a couple of magazines at a book store on Sunday while two elementary school teachers sitting nearby spent at least an hour planning their fall schedule. Interestingly, in my district, teachers have two pay options: have their salary divided among the pay dates within the school year (larger, but fewer checks) or have it divided across the entire year (smaller checks paid consistently through the year). So if you look at it in terms of a 12-month a year job, these two women were "on the clock," but if you look at it the way most people do, with the summer vacation being "off the clock," these two women were using their time to work.

B) Fixing water mains takes vocational training, practice with heavy equipment, and lots of sweat. Utility crews are rotated on big jobs for safety, because it would not be good for the city for workers to get smooshed by 12" iron pipes they were trying to swing into place to fix a major leak. Sanitation workers require less vocational training, practice with more specialized equipment, and have stinkier tasks. Public works workers, like street repair crews, have even less vocational training, work with a variety of equipment, and are also rotated on jobs to avoid accidents and exhaustion. All three of these are hourly jobs that do not require ANY investment in "off the clock" time to get the job done (except perhaps extra laundry cycles for the sanitation guys).

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
A) teachers are generally salaried. Most teachers spend tons of time OUT OF THE SCHOOL developing lessons, grading papers, preparing presentations, etc.
Okay then, what salaried, non-professional, non-degreed, non-licensed government workers not in management positions make substantially more than teachers, that also get approximately 3 months of vacation where virtually no after hours work is required?

MOST salaried positions DO require additional after hours work outside of "9 to 5". It's not just the case with school teachers. It's the reason why salaries are offered instead of an hourly waqe. If we are going to compare apples to apples, we really need to be realistic here.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 06:56 AM
 
Did you miss the "vacation" point I made? That teachers are either "unpaid" for that vacation or put up with much lower paychecks throughout the year?

How about "what other professional positions are paid as little as teachers?" Frankly, there are a lot of professions that are paid hourly (let's start with nurses), and while there is a requirement for some off-the-clock effort such as continuing education, such professionals can almost always step out of the pressures of their jobs, which is not the case with teachers.

Given a specific annual pay level, teachers are for the most part underpaid. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a nifty listing of wage data by area, gender, etc. It shows the median weekly pay for preschool and kindergarten teachers at $606 at the low end and $1015 for secondary school teachers at the high end (men, slightly below half of the survey population for this group, are paid $1049 while women are paid $989). For comparison, Heavy vehicle and mobile equipment service technicians and mechanics (maintaining city bus fleets, etc.) earn $822, and electrical power-line installers and repairers (electric utility maintenance) earn $1116 a week.

Compared with other professions, teachers as a group ($919) out earn paralegals ($824), but earn less than news reporters ($937) and PR specialists ($954), less than dental hygienists ($986), and less than firefighters ($1000). No kick against firefighters, but note that all of those other professions (is news reporter actually a "profession?") are generally "leave your work at work" jobs.

We trust our children's well being and development to professionals (licensed, degreed individuals) who we pay less than radio station engineers ($857) and billing clerks ($607). For such an important and responsible position, with such an extended daily personal commitment spread throughout the year, I think the data show that teachers are generally underpaid nationwide.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 07:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Did you miss the "vacation" point I made? That teachers are either "unpaid" for that vacation or put up with much lower paychecks throughout the year?
If you figure out the amount they make for the hours that are required, it's really not "low" pay.

How about "what other professional positions are paid as little as teachers?"
Most non-management professional positions? When you take into account the amount of time required? Probably most.

In Wisconsin (the specific state we are discussing), the average teacher salary is $46,390.

Teacher Salaries By State | Average Salaries For Teachers | Beginning Salaries For Teachers | Teacher Raises | TeacherPortal.com

If you take into account that teachers don't work approximately 3 months out of the year between summer and the school vacations (approximately 13 weeks, I'd say) they make about $29.73 an hour assuming that they come in an hour before classes start (7am?) and leave an hour after they normally end (about 4ish). That gives them 2 hours outside of class time for grading, planning etc., and I believe that they normally have about an hour for a "planning period" in between too. So, a teacher can have about 3 hours outside of regular class time to prepare.

The average mean hourly wage of US citizen's is $21.74 an hour. So, by any reasonable estimate, teachers in Wisconsin make above average wages, and that doesn't take into consideration the perks that the state of Wisconsin gives them that most often aren't given to their peers in the private sector in professional positions.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Jun 20, 2012 at 08:42 AM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 08:40 AM
 
Also, as a personal example, I have a family member who has worked as a registered nurse in a hospital ICU for the last 15 years, has a BS in Nursing and makes about the same as an average teacher in the state of Wisconsin. However, she has to work 12 months out of the year and has to pay half of her health insurance premiums (about $150 every 2 weeks I think). Also, she has no type of "pension" - she has to invest in a 401k that her employer matches no funds to. She also deals with life or death situations on a daily basis - far more stressful than that which the average teacher has to deal with.

Now... are you really going to tell me that you can make a credible argument to that nurse that she needs more of her hard earned pay given to the government so that a government worker who doesn't have the responsibilities she has can earn more for the amount of time that they work? That's essentially what the unions want us to believe. They pretty much failed to make that argument in Wisconsin, because it really doesn't make much sense, and it is hardly fair.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 01:25 PM
 
That this whole debate has devolved into teacher's salaries is just a byproduct of the fact that the union thugs use them as pawns.

Personally, I don't have any problem with teacher salaries. I'm all in favor of paying them even more if you get rid of all the fraud and waste throughout the rest of govt. that wastes the truly staggering amounts of money. The problem is, since teachers can be used as a hot button, they're the ones put on the chopping block by overspending governments, and used to mount emo-driven arguments.

Imagine the union thugs appealing to the taxpayers to save the poor, poor jobs of of unseen and redundant administrators, bureaucrats, and paper-pushers at all levels of government.

Imagine them trying to use the 'threat' of eliminating massive government waste and fraud as a way to bully the taxpayer. "If you don't agree to more taxes, we're going to cut out all this waste!!" Yeah right.

So the teachers are a perfect tool. Pretend theirs (along with firefighters and police IE: any services people actually giver a crap about) are the first and only things that can be cut from runaway budgets.

Then you can turn on the sob stories about how these poor, poor salt of the earth people are being abused because YOU, the taxpayer, won't agree to let government endlessly hoover your wallet. You can make the teachers themselves march in the street and appeal to the masses. Meanwhile, when is the last time you saw a bunch of government administrative hacks and redundant paper-pushing tax-money wasting bureaucrats take to the streets to mount an emotion-driven plea for their jobs? When's the last time you saw a bunch of politicians out protesting that their pet projects, burning through tons of taxpayer dollars, were about to get cut? None of those play as hot buttons.

I wish more teachers themselves would realize, "Hey, you and your career are just being played for political theatre here, so that everyone else wasting assloads of taxpayer dollars in government can hide behind you."
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 02:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
If you figure out the amount they make for the hours that are required, it's really not "low" pay.

Most non-management professional positions? When you take into account the amount of time required? Probably most.

In Wisconsin (the specific state we are discussing), the average teacher salary is $46,390.

Teacher Salaries By State | Average Salaries For Teachers | Beginning Salaries For Teachers | Teacher Raises | TeacherPortal.com
Starting Salary: $25,222/yr average
After 10 years on the job: $46,390/yr average

Wow, teachers are making way too much. /sarcasm

But if you are making over $250,000/yr, you aren't making enough to justify any tax increase.
( Last edited by hyteckit; Jun 21, 2012 at 02:20 AM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 06:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Starting Salary: $25,222/yr average
After 10 years on the job: $46,390/yr average

Wow, teachers are making way too much. /sarcasm
No one said that they are making "too much." Not even Scott Walker. What was claimed is that they make a fair wage, BUT that they've already got a much better package of perks than their private sector peers. No one's even trying to make them have the same sorts of perks as their peers - just to pay a tiny portion of their health benefits which would STILL be better than most private sector employees.

Again, those numbers are about the same for Registered Nurses in my area. They don't get even half the perks though.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 07:11 AM
 
My wife is an RN...yeah, don't think I want to go there. However, again, while "in class" time for teachers is limited, they are effectively required to "work" pretty much all year, and definitely outside of regular school hours, too. Any teacher that only works during the "required" times and dates is likely to not be picked up for a second year, as he or she will be way too far behind, have way too many complaints from parents, AND be the object of peer objections, all at the same time. It is not possible to do the job without substantial amounts of outside work.

Also, who are public school teachers' "private sector peers?" Private school teachers? (I vehemently disagree on this point.) If the point Walker had been intending to make was changing the contracts for teachers because of increased health insurance costs, why did he have to go at the system under which the existing agreements were developed? Why did he have to "divide and conquer" anything? What was his real agenda? Whatever was going on in his head, his actions said "I want to break up public school teacher unions' ability to bargain collectively." He effectively used a steamroller to attack a single housefly on this issue. Or was it really about changing the amount the teachers paid for their health care coverage? (Note that as a group, elementary school teachers consist of a much higher percentage of "young women of childbearing age," and are frequently in need of health care for prenatal, childbirth, and pediatric care...)

OK, now I'll go into nursing pay. Nurses are underpaid too, but that's a whole different situation. Hospital corporations have systematically underpaid nurses for at least the last 30 years, using the "logic" that their largest payroll category has to be able to take cuts for the benefit of shareholders. Hospital corporations further use their lobbies to resist any sort of regulation or legislation that requires safe nurse-patient ratios, fighting tooth and nail for the ability to overload their nurses with more patients than can be safely and effectively cared for by one person. Further, that 12 hour shift thing? It's all about money. Staffing at the corporations' desired (really low) levels with 8 hour shifts requires more than 50% more people on payroll, with the attendant benefits and other costs, while 12 hour shifts save the company a bunch of money. They compound this by understaffing for administrative tasks (unit clerks are few and far between), and wind up with nurses doing a lot of non-nursing tasks. With roughly 30% (on average) more patients than they should have. For 12 hours at a whack. To maintain "shareholder return" at the potential (often real) cost of poorer patient outcomes. Remember who it is that provides 99+% of patients' hands-on care, who it is that monitors patient conditions, and who it is that provides data to physicians when they are called in because a patient's condition suddenly declines...

But we'd been talking about teachers, so I skipped that big old ball of wax earlier.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:46 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,