Wisconsin Senate Set to Vote on Anti-Union Bill

archer wrote: 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.

I doubt any of the teachers are going anywhere. Besides since when did teachers go into teaching for the money? There benefits will still be better than most in the private sector even after paying less than 13% for their healthcare.

conifermtman wrote: I doubt any of the teachers are going anywhere. Besides since when did teachers go into teaching for the money? There benefits will still be better than most in the private sector even after paying less than 13% for their healthcare.

If teachers can't support themselves or their family on what they make do you really think they will continue to teach just because they love teaching your little "johnny"? It's a nice thought....but not very practical. I believe teachers should be paid what they are worth, and that is a lot more than many get paid now. We trust them with the future of our children and ultimately our nation, but try to lower their pay every now and then to cut education costs....how short sighted.....cut administration costs.....stop building fancy schools.....cut back on whatever, just keep paying the teachers who make it all happen, they are the front line in our need to improve the literacy and education of our citizens.

archer wrote:

conifermtman wrote: I doubt any of the teachers are going anywhere. Besides since when did teachers go into teaching for the money? There benefits will still be better than most in the private sector even after paying less than 13% for their healthcare.

If teachers can't support themselves or their family on what they make do you really think they will continue to teach just because they love teaching your little "johnny"? It's a nice thought....but not very practical. I believe teachers should be paid what they are worth, and that is a lot more than many get paid now. We trust them with the future of our children and ultimately our nation, but try to lower their pay every now and then to cut education costs....how short sighted.....cut administration costs.....stop building fancy schools.....cut back on whatever, just keep paying the teachers who make it all happen, they are the front line in our need to improve the literacy and education of our citizens.

Why is it that private schools can teach kids for less than the public schools can? How are those teachers surviving, since on average they make less than in public sector? Increased teacher salaries obviously is not the answer.

conifermtman wrote: Why is it that private schools can teach kids for less than the public schools can? How are those teachers surviving, since on average they make less than in public sector? Increased teacher salaries obviously is not the answer.

Can't really answer that....i can't find anything out there that shows private school teachers are making less than public school teachers...please share your source for the information. Is it true in all states? Is it true rural to urban?

archer wrote:

conifermtman wrote: Why is it that private schools can teach kids for less than the public schools can? How are those teachers surviving, since on average they make less than in public sector? Increased teacher salaries obviously is not the answer.

Can't really answer that....i can't find anything out there that shows private school teachers are making less than public school teachers...please share your source for the information. Is it true in all states? Is it true rural to urban?

It will be hard to find private school teacher pay because the schools do not need to disclose it.
http://privateschool.about.com/od/salar ... laries.htm

Sounds like it isn't true anymore, there goes that theory....
from your article

Private schools now pay very close to what public schools pay.
Private school pensions now rival those offered in the public sector, making that aspect of private school employment quite competitive.

Are Wisconsin Public Employees Over-compensated?

However, the data indicates that state and local government employees in Wisconsin are not overpaid. Comparisons controlling for education, experience, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, and disability reveal that employees of both state and local governments in Wisconsin earn less than comparable private sector employees. On an annual basis, full-time state and local government employees in Wisconsin are undercompensated by 8.2% compared with otherwise similar private sector workers.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/are_wisconsin_public_employees_over-compensated/
http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf

Still have no answer to why Fire and Police unions are excluded.

You have to love the reaction of the elected state Democrats there. I remember my high school years too.

"Hey, I've got a GREAT idea. Let's ditch our duties as elected officials and go hide out in Illinios. What do you say?"

Now THAT'S what I call leadership. OMG

The police and fire unions both supported Walker's political campaign for governor. That is why they are exempt??? :bash But now you have the police and firefighters standing IN SUPPORT of the teachers unions.

Looking into this, Wisconsin was in decent fiscal shape compared to other states and expected to have a $120 million surplus this budget cycle.

But that surplus became a deficit as tax income dropped by $203 million. More than half that drop in income was due to tax reduction bills that the governor introduced. To quote from page 1 of Wisconson's fiscal report...

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf

Our analysis indicates that for the three-year period, aggregate, general fund tax collections will be $202.8 million lower than those reflected in the November/December reports. More than half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2 (health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees).

.

So it seems the governor is asking the public employees to pay for his tax cuts, even though most of these tax cuts appear to help the private sector.

Yes, these are tough times, and people are losing their jobs. But even there, the public employees are sacrificing much more than the private sector. Page 8 of the report states that private sector payrolls are increasing while public sector employees dropped 208,000 in 2010, and are expected to drop another 150,000 in 2011.

So are the public unions also causing this budget deficit? Apparently not. There have been no significant recent increases in collective bargining.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/unions_arent_to_blame_for_wisc.html

I'm not a big fan of public employee unions either, but I agree with PF that they don't seem to be the main cause of Wisconsin's current budget woes. It's the governor's own tax cuts that are the main culprit. The unions are just the whipping boys in this case.