Discussion: All Things Union

[BlackLantern]

What does the 8% I contribute to my retirement plan have to do with my health insurance? I think you are mixing apples with oranges here. My point is that I am an non union employee and I have just as good benefits as anyone in a union. There are thosands of other folks in my boat as well. As far as the tax payer goes, that only applies to the folks on Medicaid and the the ones who show up at the emergency room with no health insurance. I don't know what you are referring to about the 20-somthing %, but I do know that 20% or more of the population are uninsured, but I am not sure how that translates into what the taxpayer has to contribute to take care of them. As far as I know it is too much -- to the point that we had to mandate that everyone get health insurance so as to take that burden away.

but its going to increase the burden....how do you not see that?

 

[chaseter]

I would assume that the Tea Party is doing the same exact thing....that happens in every protest.

But of course the media calls out the Tea Party for doing so. In this case, the media doesn't. Just goes to show you the double standard in this country. They will show the one guy in a crowd with an assault rifle at a Tea Party rally but they won't show the teacher holding the sign with the cross hairs on Gov. Walker's face saying reload or the signs relating Walker to Mubarak or Hitler.

 

[chaseter]

but its going to increase the burden....how do you not see that?

Right: balance the budget by bringing exorbitant public wages down
Left: balance the budget by raising taxes

I mean, it has worked so well for far left run CA and NY.

 

[Paradoxium]

and Detroit (Michigan if you go by states)...

 

[dnno1]

but its going to increase the burden....how do you not see that?

I don't see how. A lot of people would like to get it, but can't afford it. If you can't afford health insurance, you may get subsidised depending on how much you make. Once the majority of folks are in the insurance pool, the price should go down since not everyone will be going to the doctor every day. It has already been know and forcasted that the demand for health care was going to increase since the baby boomer generation is now retiring and the population is increasing. Many health care facilities have taken that into account and are expanding their facilities.

 

[dnno1]

Right: balance the budget by bringing exorbitant public wages down
Left: balance the budget by raising taxes

I mean, it has worked so well for far left run CA and NY.

Rigth: balance the budget by giving your state a pay cut through tax cuts and then blaming it on unions when you have a budget shortfall. When do you find normal folks doing that?

Left: realize that raising taxes are on the table when balancing the budget.

 

[chaseter]

I know, tax cuts are terrible to do to keep businesses from leaving your state, ya know like California and New York. We should raise taxes on businesses. Maybe that will make them hire. Maybe that will keep them from sending jobs overseas. But you're right, we are asking too much from union members. Them getting more in benefits and wages and increased job security than the average Joe in the private sector is completely fair.

Look at the states that aren't run by powerful unions or liberals and compare them to states that are.

 

[dnno1]

I know, tax cuts are terrible to do to keep businesses from leaving your state, ya know like California and New York. We should raise taxes on businesses. Maybe that will make them hire. Maybe that will keep them from sending jobs overseas. But you're right, we are asking too much from union members. Them getting more in benefits and wages and increased job security than the average Joe in the private sector is completely fair.

Look at the states that aren't run by powerful unions or liberals and compare them to states that are.

I think the fact that other states competing for businesses, the srinking of government contracts, NAFTA, and the cost of realestate in California had more to do with them leaving than the tax rate. Oh and the strenght of the dollar to other currencies didn't help keep the entertainment industry in Califronia either.

 

[Obsidian]

What many people don't realize is that if the collective bargaining power is taken away from the teacher unions, it's not just salary and benefits that are on the line, but also working conditions. That means that teachers can't fight a class size increase, among other things. The larger a class is,the less likelihood that the students as a whole will do well. Efficiency of a teacher and student decreases once that student to teacher ratio gets larger and larger.

 

[chaseter]

Some of those teachers care so much about the kids learning that they don't go to work for a week and counting. We already have one of the worst education systems in the industrialized world because it is bloated with bureaucracy and tenure for teachers but class size increases are going to ruin our children's education? Collective bargaining is not allowed in every state so I don't see how this is going to destroy the children's educations in Wisconsin.

 

[Superman]

I know, tax cuts are terrible to do to keep businesses from leaving your state, ya know like California and New York. We should raise taxes on businesses. Maybe that will make them hire. Maybe that will keep them from sending jobs overseas. But you're right, we are asking too much from union members. Them getting more in benefits and wages and increased job security than the average Joe in the private sector is completely fair.

Look at the states that aren't run by powerful unions or liberals and compare them to states that are.

The unions have already said that they would take the benefits and wages cuts as long as they could keep the right to collectively bargain and the governor still said no. So don't give us that BS that it's all the liberals and unions fault. They have made the compromise to help the state and the governor won't even talk to them about it. He couldn't care less about how "broke" the state is as dnno1 has proven. If he did he wouldn't have given away the surplus in tax breaks to the lobbyists/big business. This has nothing to do with the state being broke, This is all about busting the unions.

 

[Obsidian]

Some of those teachers care so much about the kids learning that they don't go to work for a week.

A week with the teacher gone can be remedied. When we don't go to work, we do leave lesson plans for whoever the substitutes are. Sure much of it is busy work, but then we compensate by adjusting our lesson plans and unit plans. But if collective bargaining is taken away, that is something both students and teachers will barely able to recover from.

 

[chaseter]

I think the fact that other states competing for businesses, the srinking of government contracts, NAFTA, and the cost of realestate in California had more to do with them leaving than the tax rate. Oh and the strenght of the dollar to other currencies didn't help keep the entertainment industry in Califronia either.

Yes, real estate destroyed California.

 

[chaseter]

A week with the teacher gone can be remedied. When we don't go to work, we do leave lesson plans for whoever the substitutes are. Sure much of it is busy work, but then we compensate by adjusting our lesson plans and unit plans. But if collective bargaining is taken away, that is something both students and teachers will barely able to recover from.

Yes, we being ranked 14th, 17th, and 25th for reading, science, and math respectively out of 35 OECD countries means that teachers losing collective bargaining rights will make us all lose.

I feel really bad for the great teachers out there that have to work with complacency and bureaucracy everyday while our youth collectively become dumber and dumber. If only good teachers were rewarded for doing their job instead of everyone getting rewarded and tenure allowing terrible teachers to continue to collect a pay check.

 

[Obsidian]

Yes, we being ranked 14th, 17th, and 25th for reading, science, and math respectively out of 35 OECD countries means that teachers losing collective bargaining rights will make us all lose.

Yes, losing collective bargaining rights will hurt us deeply, especially math classes where one-on-one instruction is needed and can't be provided when you have 35+ students.

 

[chaseter]

Then how about teachers pay more into their retirements and for health insurance like the rest of us do so that we can hire more teachers and lower class sizes?

 

[Obsidian]

Then how about teachers pay more into their retirements and for health insurance like the rest of us do so that we can hire more teachers and lower class sizes?

Some of us already do. Takes a considerable chunk out of our paycheck. If we ask for more benefits, we're just asking because we need to offset the costs of paying for our own supplies for the classroom. School doesn't pay for everything we need to teach, so we take it out of our own pockets. Why does education need to take so many cuts? We already have furlough days where we're not allowed to work and we're not paid for it either. Now you're telling me we're supposed to give up our collective bargaining and pay more? We're not being greedy. We are paid for 10 months of work, not 12 with 2 months of paid vacation.

 

[Superman]

Then how about teachers pay more into their retirements and for health insurance like the rest of us do so that we can hire more teachers and lower class sizes?

You are purposely ignoring the facts. We've told you that the unions have said they would take the cuts as long as they keep the collective bargaining rights but you keep ignoring that and keep preaching the Right Wing talking points about "How Bad The Unions and Liberals Are".

Like the Wisonsin governor you don't care about the budget, You just hate the unions and liberals and you keep coming up with the same old Right Wing BS as a reason why they are bad.

 

[Handsome Rob]

The unions have already said that they would take the benefits and wages cuts as long as they could keep the right to collectively bargain and the governor still said no. So don't give us that BS that it's all the liberals and unions fault. They have made the compromise to help the state and the governor won't even talk to them about it. He couldn't care less about how "broke" the state is as dnno1 has proven. If he did he wouldn't have given away the surplus in tax breaks to the lobbyists/big business. This has nothing to do with the state being broke, This is all about busting the unions.

The tax breaks don't take effect until July 1. So, the "surplus" (which ignores two large liabilities payable by the state) of the current fiscal year hasn't been affected by the tax law signed by the governor.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your hyper-partisan fantasies . . .

 

[Franklin Richards]

I know, tax cuts are terrible to do to keep businesses from leaving your state, ya know like California and New York. We should raise taxes on businesses. Maybe that will make them hire. Maybe that will keep them from sending jobs overseas. But you're right, we are asking too much from union members. Them getting more in benefits and wages and increased job security than the average Joe in the private sector is completely fair.

Look at the states that aren't run by powerful unions or liberals and compare them to states that are.

Like Texas? Texas is broke.

 

[imdaly]

Like Texas? Texas is broke.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/20/states-debt-pensions-interactive-map.html

 

[Franklin Richards]

Texas has a long history of business-friendly policies and conservative tax policy — the state has no income tax. It has traditionally ranked low among U.S. states in public funding for education and social programs.



18 Billion dollar deficit this year. 25billion over the next two. Texas is doing worse than New York and about tied with California.


I don't know what's up with your map, but how does a state that's in one of the biggest holes rank as one of the best?

 

[chaseter]

Texas is ranked 4th by Forbes in terms of states with the best debt position because of the relatively low amount of debt per capita. Municipal bonds are rated AA+. Texas has lower than the national average of unemployment. Texas did not take any Federal bailout cash.

No Texas is not tied with California or New York. The debt amounts to a little over $500 per person in Texas. In California it is $2,000 per person and in New York it is $3,000 per person. So an 18 billion dollar deficit in Texas is not the same as California's 28 billion dollar budget deficit in terms of per capita spending and in terms of total state debt.

No Texas is not currently one of the best states in terms of running deficits but to say it is on par with California or New York is laughably hilarious. Not to mention that these far left run places were having troubles even before the economic downturn where as these other states didn't start seeing problems until revenues decreased sharply and had to adjust.

 

[dnno1]

8% is really far away from 0.5% and I don't know your salary but the national average for health insurance is 20-something%. The difference here as always is that the tax payer picks up the slack, not a private company that if it's employees suck it dry it ceases to exist.

I now understand what you are trying to say and I misunderstood. The 8% that I contribute if for an optional retirement savings plan that the company matches up to 75% (every 3 years) as an incentive to participate. As far as contributions to a pension as is what the Wisconsin State employees are doing, I don't contribute to because it is totally company funded. So .05% for a pension is asking for more than what I am being asked as far as that goes. Now the state wants them to contribute more. You can see now why I didn't understand because that is unheard of where I work.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Texas is ranked 4th by Forbes in terms of states with the best debt position because of the relatively low amount of debt per capita. Municipal bonds are rated AA+. Texas has lower than the national average of unemployment. Texas did not take any Federal bailout cash.

No Texas is not tied with California or New York. The debt amounts to a little over $500 per person in Texas. In California it is $2,000 per person and in New York it is $3,000 per person. So an 18 billion dollar deficit in Texas is not the same as California's 28 billion dollar budget deficit in terms of per capita spending and in terms of total state debt.

No Texas is not currently one of the best states in terms of running deficits but to say it is on par with California or New York is laughably hilarious. Not to mention that these far left run places were having troubles even before the economic downturn where as these other states didn't start seeing problems until revenues decreased sharply and had to adjust.

Texas used $14 billion in federal stimulus funds to balance it's budget in 2009. The Forbes article sounds like a bunch of business propaganda to me. The way I understand it, Texas' business model is still causing the state to go into deep debt.