conifermtman wrote: Taxpayers should not have to pay for benefits of public servants that are more lavish than the ones received by the taxpayers paying for it.
You don't know many public school teachers personally do you?
I know plenty in Wisconsin and they pay next to nothing for their healthcare and retirement benefits. One of the reasons I never stayed was the insane taxes. Those taxes are the reason the state employees have awesome benefits. It was only a matter of time that reality would catch up to them.
conifermtman wrote: Taxpayers should not have to pay for benefits of public servants that are more lavish than the ones received by the taxpayers paying for it.
hmmmmm.....which tax payer shall we use as the benchmark......a wealthy one with a cadallac plan, or a someone with a bare bones benefit plan they can barely afford? That ought to bring out the best in our government employees when we tell them that their 20 years of service....their dedication to their job, their working their way up the ladder to better themselves is all for naught, we are now going to let the tax payers, who may or may not have a clue what this worker does, decide what benefits he gets and which ones he doesn't get. What a cool idea. Oh....and as taxpayers, we are going to take away your right to vote for a union, because ya see.....we don't like unions so you don't get to have one.....you don't even have the right to vote for one anymore....now isn't that just the American way.
conifermtman wrote: Taxpayers should not have to pay for benefits of public servants that are more lavish than the ones received by the taxpayers paying for it.
hmmmmm.....which tax payer shall we use as the benchmark......a wealthy one with a cadallac plan, or a someone with a bare bones benefit plan they can barely afford? That ought to bring out the best in our government employees when we tell them that their 20 years of service....their dedication to their job, their working their way up the ladder to better themselves is all for naught, we are now going to let the tax payers, who may or may not have a clue what this worker does, decide what benefits he gets and which ones he doesn't get. What a cool idea. Oh....and as taxpayers, we are going to take away your right to vote for a union, because ya see.....we don't like unions so you don't get to have one.....you don't even have the right to vote for one anymore....now isn't that just the American way.
It has gone 10:00 pm and the Thunderbird is talking
conifermtman wrote: Taxpayers should not have to pay for benefits of public servants that are more lavish than the ones received by the taxpayers paying for it.
hmmmmm.....which tax payer shall we use as the benchmark......a wealthy one with a cadallac plan, or a someone with a bare bones benefit plan they can barely afford? That ought to bring out the best in our government employees when we tell them that their 20 years of service....their dedication to their job, their working their way up the ladder to better themselves is all for naught, we are now going to let the tax payers, who may or may not have a clue what this worker does, decide what benefits he gets and which ones he doesn't get. What a cool idea. Oh....and as taxpayers, we are going to take away your right to vote for a union, because ya see.....we don't like unions so you don't get to have one.....you don't even have the right to vote for one anymore....now isn't that just the American way.
Really, only 20 years of service when the rest of us have to put in 40 plus? The bill in Wisconsin does not take a way the right to be in or form a union. You really should get your facts straight.
Once you remove the ability of a union to have collective bargaining, and to collect fees to operate, you have pretty much shut down the union. Why would there even be a union if it has no powers? So yeah, the Republicans are taking away the rights of the teachers, gov't workers, etc to have a union that can ACTIVELY represent them. They can't even vote to have such a union, they can only have the kind of union the Republicans say they can have.
So CMM....which taxpayer have you decided to make the example for the government workers? That really was a silly statement you posted......Why is it I hear so many complaints about what teachers are teaching our kids, yet when it comes to making teaching an attractive profession that would lure the best and the brightest, well....no....we sure don't want to pay for that.....lets just keep on whining about our lack of educated kids.
archer wrote: Once you remove the ability of a union to have collective bargaining, and to collect fees to operate, you have pretty much shut down the union. Why would there even be a union if it has no powers? So yeah, the Republicans are taking away the rights of the teachers, gov't workers, etc to have a union that can ACTIVELY represent them. They can't even vote to have such a union, they can only have the kind of union the Republicans say they can have.
Why should state employees who don't want to be part of union have to fund it? Also, why should the state act as the collection agency for the union? The union is still free to do these things on their own instead of having it done at taxpayer expense. The laws are going to finally start respecting the taxpayer and that is very refreshing.
archer wrote: So CMM....which taxpayer have you decided to make the example for the government workers? That really was a silly statement you posted......Why is it I hear so many complaints about what teachers are teaching our kids, yet when it comes to making teaching an attractive profession that would lure the best and the brightest, well....no....we sure don't want to pay for that.....lets just keep on whining about our lack of educated kids.
Now you are mixing topics. I consider that orthogonal to the discussion at hand.
no topic mixing at all....what wisconsin is doing will make teaching, as a profession in that state, much less attractive. they will lose possible teachers to other states, or other professions. maybe not right now while the economy is still weak, but down the road, why would anyone choose to teach in wisconsin where the union is not allowed to fight for it's members pay or benefits when they can go to another state and probably get a better deal? If the state legislature can take away benefits this year.....who knows what they will take away next year.
pssst....kudos on the 50 cent word, but the subjects are not independent....one can lead directly to the other...and that is what is so scary.......letting congressional critters take away some workers rights in hard times may seem to make sense....but you know they will never give those rights back in the good times.
