Shorewood Teachers
Heh.
Despite the unrest in Madison, thunderous applause rang out when the Shorewood School Board met Tuesday.
None of the teachers, administrators or School Board members speaking at the meeting favored Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed legislation that would reduce collective bargaining rights and increase contributions into health and retirement plans. But there was a sense of gratitude - particularly on the part of teachers - for a strong sense of collaboration in Shorewood.
The School Board last week agreed to send a letter to the co-chairs of the State Joint Committee on Finance in opposition of the proposal.
“It was a good and healthy discussion,” School Board President Paul Zovic said. “It wasn’t a 6-hour arm wrestling match.”
Let me translate… “when state aid is reduced, we will jack up local property taxes in order to sustain our lavish compensation plan for teachers who might adequately educate your kids.”
The proper lesson is “Negotiate, don’t dictate!” and voila, much better peaceful results where everyone wins. But you hate that sort of thing, don’t you?
Posted by capper on February 26, 2011 at 1723 hrs
Nope. The public unions have been dictating for years. I’m happy to see us returning to actual negotiations.
Posted by Owen on February 26, 2011 at 1728 hrs
For someone who studies history, that was an EPIC FAIL. Go back and see when was the last time unions had any real sway.
BTW, the Dictator’s Bill goes way, way beyond allowing negotiations.
Posted by capper on February 26, 2011 at 1731 hrs
If it sucks so bad, quit. If we can’t replace you with comparable talent, compensation will have to rise. That’s how it works. If you don’t quit, then I have to assume that your compensation is adequate for the services you provide.
And by the way, throwing around words like “dictator” only make you look like an ignorant boob. Take a look at Libya, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. and then bitch about how bad Wisconsin is.
Posted by Owen on February 26, 2011 at 1735 hrs
I would say the removal of rights constitutes acting like a dictator. If you don’t like Scotty getting called names, tell him to actually grow up, grow a pair and start acting like a man instead of a tantruming two year old.
If he isn’t smart enough to be able to negotiate under fair bargaining laws, then maybe he isn’t fit to be a leader.
I also can’t but help notice that the right isn’t addressing the other issues in the bill and that Walker is afraid to give his budget address, which is what, two, three weeks overdue now?
Why would that be?
Posted by capper on February 26, 2011 at 1740 hrs
capper, you obviously don’t know what “right” means. Collective bargaining is not a right.
I assure you that I possess a “pair” but that’s not really relevant to your lack of knowledge regarding the current debate. I suggest that you do a bit of research outside of your union literature and then try to communicate with the 87%+ of people who aren’t in a union and the 9%+ who are unemployed. Perhaps then you will discover your “pair” and learn how the real world works.
Posted by Owen on February 26, 2011 at 1746 hrs
Respect is. Equality is. Fairness is.
This bill takes all those away, and gives nothing but an ogilarchy in return.
As long as the right refuses to acknowledge that money is not the end all be all, there will be strife.
Posted by capper on February 26, 2011 at 1750 hrs
Is what? A right? Um, no. Again, do some homework before playing.
Posted by Owen on February 26, 2011 at 1752 hrs
BTW, you do realize that federal employees and government workers in 20 other states aren’t allowed to unionize, right? You also realize that Wisconsin’s government workers weren’t allowed to unionize until 1959, right? If it’s a “right” why isn’t it enumerated in the federal constitution or any state constitution in the nation?
Posted by Owen on February 26, 2011 at 1755 hrs
Two quick points.
1. Major property tax hikes are unlikely since the revenue cap will be reduced in sync with the reduction in general aids. The operation of the funding formula will lead to slightly different changes to the local levy from district to district, but there should not be a general increase.
2. Under the proposed legislation, if a general compensation increase is needed to attract and retain good teachers it will require a community wide referendum. If only for specific teaching positions, it looks like that might need to be bargained. Management and boards won’t have the kind of flexibility the 1735 comment implies.
Posted by Stiles on February 26, 2011 at 1756 hrs
And do you realize that those states without collective bargaining rights come out on the bottom of just about every single rankings, from quality of education to quality of life?
It’s sad that something so common sense has to be put into the constitution just to keep some sad sack trying to rip it away.
Instead of trying to tear other people down, why not lift everyone up? Would that really be such a bad thing? It seemed to have worked in the past, until people like the Koch brothers succumbed to their greed and tried to take away from even the little people.
Posted by capper on February 26, 2011 at 1759 hrs
And if benefit costs are the problem, why take it out on the worker, who has no control over it?
Why not fix the problem with the health care costs in the first place? That would be a double win. You wouldn’t pay as much for your own health care and your taxes would go down since the gov’t wouldn’t be paying as much either.
Posted by capper on February 26, 2011 at 1800 hrs
Capper if you are a teacher I can see why most wisconsin schools are a major “EPIC FAIL”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2011 at 1813 hrs
11.And do you realize that those states without collective bargaining rights come out on the bottom of just about every single rankings, from quality of education to quality of life?
Again, I’m responding to your assertion that collective bargaining is a right. It is not. I’m happy to see you admit that fact by trying to shift the discussion. Will you now stop complaining about the duly elected state government trying to take away “rights?”
Posted by Owen on February 26, 2011 at 1816 hrs
No control over health care costs???? How many teacher unions demand that their health care be purchased from the WEA Trust scam? Every one of those unions were in direct control of those health care costs. They could have saved the taxpayers millions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2011 at 1817 hrs
Capper,
I think you might be mistaken about the rankings of states without unions. Politifact did a check on those statistics: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/23/state-democratic-party-wisconsin/labor-union-supporters-say-wisconsin-test-scores-v/
Then again, it’s Politifact, which isn’t always great at politics or facts….
Do you have a source that shows a correlation? Or were you using the DPW statement? Just wondering.
And even if that is true, I think the success rate of MPS would hugely contradict that statement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2011 at 1912 hrs
To Owen- #4,6,8,9,& 15 Amen. To Capper, I will pray for you fellow. Capper, do you understand your head has been places where Preperation “H” can be found? Please check behind your ears.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2011 at 2031 hrs
Owen, there are many civil rights and human rights that aren’t in the Constitution, mainly because the majority never thought someone would be so deprived as to try to assail them.
Wendy, at least both sides agree that PolitiFarce is just that. As for your request, voici.
TorchesToRome, I wonder if you even recognize or appreciate the irony in your chosen nom de blog.
As for the health care issue, look back to see when the double digit jumps in premiums started, making it so damn expensive today. To help with your Google searches, here’s two words that might help: Tommy and deregulation.
Posted by capper on February 26, 2011 at 2106 hrs
So here we are again… I contend that collective bargaining is not a right. Can you prove otherwise?
Posted by Owen on February 26, 2011 at 2113 hrs
I guess this is one that we will have to agree to disagree until the lawyers fight it out in court.
Oh, and Walker will be using your tax dollars to do that too. Nice savings, eh?
Posted by capper on February 26, 2011 at 2126 hrs
capper, your link to Commonwealth Foundation seems to support one of Politifacts primary assertions. Look at that 4th column and how Participation rate correlates almost exactly to placement. WOW!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2011 at 2129 hrs
capper,
No, I don’t agree to disagree about anything. Collective bargaining is not a right. Period. I don’t need a court to think for me. In this case, the only thing I can agree with is that you are flat wrong.
Posted by Owen on February 26, 2011 at 2134 hrs
Oh, and will you look at this…
(states with low participation rates tend to score highly, as most students in those states take the ACT, and only very competitive college-bound students take the SAT)
Wow, your source mentions participation rate, and not Union enrollment! You are such a jag.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2011 at 2135 hrs
Sorry, but “Because I said so” is not a rational argument.
There are lots of workers rights laws on the books. You can keep drinking you Kocha-cola, and that is YOUR right to do so, but it doesn’t mean you are right.
I guess we know where your priorities are, though.
BTW, what about the rest of the bill?
Posted by capper on February 26, 2011 at 2137 hrs
Haha, good one capper… AFSCME spent $87 million on the 2010 election… and you’re worried about Kocha-cola.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2011 at 2154 hrs
Ahhhh,,, trying to distract again… the talisman of a failed argument.
Collective bargaining isn’t a right because it doesn’t fit into the definition of rights. I have a right to assemble, but I can’t force people to assemble with me. I have a right to speak, but I can’t force people to pay me to speak. Collective bargaining is a privilege granted by and protected by government. Nothing more. And what government gives, it can take away.
Posted by Owen on February 26, 2011 at 2157 hrs
Yeah, and that money came from the members. I haven’t checked the stats, but I believe, nationwide, there are more than two members in the union, unlike the Koch Brothers.
Posted by capper on February 26, 2011 at 2200 hrs
Do you have a point? You still haven’t put forth an argument that collective bargaining is a right.
Posted by Owen on February 26, 2011 at 2202 hrs
Mmm. seems to me that the government is also able to amend the constitution. I guess those aren’t rights either.
I already gave you your answer. You loathing of unions blinds you.
Posted by capper on February 26, 2011 at 2208 hrs
No, you didn’t. Please share with us how collective bargaining is a right.
Posted by Owen on February 26, 2011 at 2211 hrs
I would say the removal of rights constitutes acting like a dictator. If you don’t like Scotty getting called names, tell him to actually grow up, grow a pair and start acting like a man instead of a tantruming two year old.
So Scotty should stop acting like the 14 little kids who ran away from home; like the 38 spoiled brats that shouted epithets and shook their fists early Friday morning in the Assembly chambers, or perhaps like the Waukesha teacher who made an ass of himself by repeatedly shouting, “Fox lies” before the eyes of most of the world?
Capper, you not only need Owen to school you in the definition of rights vs. privileges, but also in the characteristics of adulthood. And knowing the truth when it bites you in the butt is one!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2011 at 2241 hrs
Gee, the AssDems got upset because a full third didn’t even get to vote.
The SenDems take off so that people could actually look at the bill and see that it goes much, much further than just the unions, something you righties are afraid to even admit to, much less discuss.
Now that people have seen it, the growing majority are against it.
You mean facts like those, Duke?
Posted by capper on February 26, 2011 at 2308 hrs
capper,
You still haven’t answered the question. Why do you think that collective bargaining is a right?
Posted by Owen on February 26, 2011 at 2315 hrs
“I contend that collective bargaining is not a right. Can you prove otherwise?”
Going by the defintion of “collective” and “bargaining”
When a husband and wife purchase a business, house or car?
When one corporation purchases another? a collective of stockholders, represented by the collective of the executive board, administration and the CEO negotiates with another a collective of stockholders, represented by the collective of the executive board, administration and the CEO, ...unless it’s an unfriendly takeover.
When a corporation purchase a state heating plant in a no bid deal or, preferably, an open bid deal so the state gets the best price versus the taxpayer getting hosed.?
...or are we just talking about public unions collective bargaining, not private ones like in professional football, baseball, hockey, basketball, etc? If we are talking private union collective bargaining, does that make anti-union folk who watch professional sports often a tad hypocritical?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2011 at 2323 hrs
No, going on the definition of “right.”
Try again.
Posted by Owen on February 27, 2011 at 0030 hrs
Yes, collective bargaining is currently a “right” of public employees. Wis. Stats. 111.04 Rights of employees. Employees shall have the right of self-organization and the right to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing…
It is currently a “right”, not just a privilege. “rights” can be created by statute or constitution. Walker’s union-busting bill removes that “right”. But it remains a “right” until the bill passes. Which ain’t happening, by the way.
Oh, and—yay Shorewood!
Posted by Mike Plaisted on February 27, 2011 at 0032 hrs
No capper #27 the money for your union and benefits did not come from you. The money came from me. In fact the money you pay out for anything came from me. You don’t pay taxes, you use my money to pay taxes. I produce a product and it is tangable and for that product I am paid. That money goes to you and from there it runs in a closed loop. If you get paid with nothing but tax money then you are no better than the corporations that you decry. They do not pay taxes either. They raise their prices and the purchaser pays them. Trouble is that if I don’t like how Walmart charges for a hammer I can go to Ace and not pay Walmart. the converse is true with you. I cannot go to St. Mary’s school and not pay for the useless crap producer of a public school(though our public schools are pretty good out here). I cannot go anywhere but the dmv or the dnr and retain my law abiding status. Public employees cannot be replaced by anyone else under the penalty of law. In the last snow storm(the big one over MLK day), the roads were impassable and we cleared them. Why you may ask? Because we and our neighbors needed to go to work so that you could have a day off. 350 accidents occured in Waukesha that day becuae unlike the public sector, work must get done. Is it a wonder why the Postal service is running billions in the red while the competition is doing alright? That is what happens when you bring the private side into the public sector…and that is what you are afraid of. That can be your fate if you cannot get enough lies into the public’s heads and stop the slide. Can you imagine where we would be with the internet if porn and money had not entered the picture? We would still be working off of BBSs. Incentive is the key and if there is no incentive to satisfy the customer then you have the dmv, public schools, and the dnr.
Posted by fishaddict on February 27, 2011 at 0929 hrs
The other thing that Shorewood has not wrapped their brain around is that If we can do away with shared revenue they will be screwed. In fact much of SE WI will be screwed. The idea that I can agree to something and someone else will pick up the tab should be over. When mps can’t seem to get kids to read(and much of the fault lies with the breeders, I use that term because family does not seem to work when there is more than 2 fathers in the picture and none of them are around) and yet spend more money per child than many of the districts around the state who don’t seem to have that issue you have to ask yourself how long it goes on before we change our tactics. Shorewood can eat their cake and have it too…for now but soon the gravy train will come to the end of the line. My brother in law is a teacher in mps and so is my sister. My mother subs. They worry that the class sizes will jump to 45 kids per class and the sky will crash down. I asked my mom how many kids were in the class when I was in 1-8 grade and she told me 32and in 7-8th grade, it was close to 64 because they combined the classes in hard and soft course work(maths/sciences in half the day and social sciences/english for half the day). Thing is that it was a private school and in the basement of a church and the parents did not mind if you put the kids in their place and in fact punished you when you got home for making the teacher have to take time out of class to punish you.
Posted by fishaddict on February 27, 2011 at 0944 hrs
Unions have been around since at least the time of monastery building during the “dark ages” of Europe.
“I produce a product and it is tangable and for that product I am paid.”
Student graduations rates, dropout rates, drug use and violence rates are intangible?
“That money goes to you and from there it runs in a closed loop.”
Huh? You think I stuff the money I am paid in a mattress?“Public employees cannot be replaced by anyone else under the penalty of law.” Yes they can - If the administrator keeps records of crap performance and when pointed out to the employee, s/he doesn’t perform, s/he is terminated. Public employee positions can also be ended when the worker is no longer needed and his or her qualifications do not meet any other open position within the system,
In short, when someone is complaining s/he has no power over the union contract, low quality workers, too many workers, find an administrator who is better qualified for the job.
“Thing is that it was a private school and in the basement of a church and the parents did not mind if you put the kids in their place and in fact punished you when you got home for making the teacher have to take time out of class to punish you. “Used to be this way in public schools too. Kid does wrong means its the kid’s fault. Don’t get me wrong, most parents are awesome.
Don’t forget teacher/student performance demands have also been rising ever since at least the end of WW2 (industry needs), Sputnik (technology), Leave No Child Behind, Handicapped access, Special needs, lower dropout rates, state test scores, etc. Problem is that the fed or the state starts a new program, they refuse to fund it or train people, and before the results are in, another program is driven through by new administration. ...but that never happens in business.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2011 at 1249 hrs
Problem is that the fed or the state starts a new program, they refuse to fund it or train people, and before the results are in, another program is driven through by new administration. ...but that never happens in business.
So how exactly does abolishing forced union dues fix that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2011 at 1444 hrs
You don’t pay taxes, you use my money to pay taxes.
My boss pays me money that someone else paid him therefore the money I’m paid is not mine, it’s the guy who paid my boss, who then paid me with that guys money. But wait, that guy probably got that money from someone else who, in return, got it from someone else. And the taxes I paid comes from, not my money, but from some other person’s money. So, in reality none of the money we have is our own. It’s all someone elses money.
I now understand, I don’t pay taxes. Someone else pays them through me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2011 at 1828 hrs
“I now understand, I don’t pay taxes. Someone else pays them through me. “
Actually, Pat, that’s an excellent way of thinking of it. It’s also why so many are opposed to raising taxes on businesses because ultimately it will be passed on to consumers via a rise in prices. The business won’t feel the pain but the consumer will. It becomes a vicious cycle. And I believe that point is made on a rather regular basis.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2011 at 1927 hrs
Actually, Pat, that’s an excellent way of thinking of it. It’s also why so many are opposed to raising taxes on businesses because ultimately it will be passed on to consumers via a rise in prices. The business won’t feel the pain but the consumer will. It becomes a vicious cycle. And I believe that point is made on a rather regular basis.
Is there something compelling you to shop at those stores? You can always go to the business that has chosen to cut their profit margin down a little by taking some or all of the hit.
Posted by capper on February 27, 2011 at 2353 hrs
And now we come to the point capper. In business I can but in govt I can’t. I can go to Target to buy diapers for my children rather than Babies R Us. Where do I go for a turkey license? I can go to Walmart instead of Kohls but where do I go for education? I cannot say that I send my kids to private school so I don’t have to fund the public schools, When the roads are not plowed and accidents occur, I cannot sue the village, heck in my area, one cannot even sell a property that might to be split up unless the city puts water and sewer in. The trouble is that state unions have a lock on the market…a monopoly if you will…and are able to raise taxes to meet cost almost at will. Many taxes are written in so that they rise automatically. The private sector does not have that luxury. We have decisions to make and prices to raise to cover costs including taxes. and to stay afloat we also have to keep in mind where the customer will go if the price goes too high.
Posted by fishaddict on February 28, 2011 at 0806 hrs
Or we could fire employees who engage in misconduct, sort of like these people in the link:
http://county.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/User/hcaper/PRBAgendasNotices/Agendas/022211PRBMTG.pdf
B. SUSPENSIONS
MARY HUFF, Certified Nursing Assistant, BHD
SUS dated 01/31/11 for 5 days
SUS dated 01/31/11 for 5 days
CHRISTOPHER LIEBENTHAL, Human Services Worker, DHHSEnjoy the 20 days off, Capper. That’s on top of what you’re going to get furloughed for. I’m sure if you get in line early today, you could be on food stamps this week.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2011 at 0829 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 112
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:24 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).