Do you Think Teachers Unions should be disbanded?

In case you haven't noticed VL, government is a monopoly. There is no choice as to whether or not one supports it unless one wishes to find oneself in a government jail cell for failing to support it. When such a condition exists, there is an inherent conflict of interest that arises regarding union collective bargaining. The good people of Wisconsin are strapped with the cost of the collective bargaining agreement as its precepts are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the State of Wisconsin. That is why the champion of champions of unions, FDR, reminded the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in his letter declining to appear at their 20th Jubilee that"

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

He went on to draw particular attention to the point that military tactics, such as those that the teachers of Wisconsin engaged in by failing to show up for work, was "nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable." The Senators who belong to the party of Democrats that have fled the state also fall into this category of those who have undertaken actions intended to paralyze the government they have sworn to support and are equally unthinkable and intolerable.

Would anyone like to take a shot at actually answering this question?

Would someone please explain to me how this bill would prevent teachers, or any other public employees, from continuing to get a living wage?

The unions can still collectively bargain for and receive wage increases, up to the Consumer Price Index increase. Beyond that point it has to be approved by a vote of those who will be paying for it.

What is so unAmerican about that?

It won't, and they know it, which is why they won't answer the query you pose. It doesn't affect their ability to continue to earn more than the national average family income in a state where a nice house cost half as much, while being taxed at twice the cost, as a comparable home in Bailey prior to the housing crash. For some reason, as yet unexplained, the traditional Blue states seem to have higher taxes and bigger budget problems than Red States. Wasn't it Obama's home state of Illinois that recently raised tax rates 66% in an attempt to address their budget woes?

Because it places a burden on certain public employees that other public employees are not subjected to. The legislators are not obliged to go to the voters for pay increases, the governor does not have to go to the public for a vote for a pay increase, other non-union public employees are not obligated to go to the voters for a pay increase. Further, and which clearly points out the hypocrisy of this legislation and the conservatives, unions that endorsed the governor are not subject to this requirement. Only those unions that traditionally support Democrats are subject to this legislation. Additionally, there is much more than simply the requirement to submit pay increases to voters.

[youtube:vnq3fudt][/youtube:vnq3fudt]

Something the Dog Said wrote: Because it places a burden on certain public employees that other public employees are not subjected to.

Which is why the objections to it from the progressive wing are so puzzling to me. The whole progressive doctrine of taxation is based upon placing a burden upon certain citizens that others citizens are not subjected to, so why should a varying level of burden within the ranks of those publicly employed be unacceptable when the varying level of burden with regards to taxation is not?

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Because it places a burden on certain public employees that other public employees are not subjected to.

Which is why the objections to it from the progressive wing are so puzzling to me. The whole progressive doctrine of taxation is based upon placing a burden upon certain citizens that others citizens are not subjected to, so why should a varying level of burden within the ranks of those publicly employed be unacceptable when the varying level of burden with regards to taxation is not?

apples and oranges. So you agree with Walker, that is ok to place a burden on certain unions, but not place those burdens on public employee unions that supported the Republican ticket? It certainly blows the argument against collective bargaining by public employees when certain unions are allowed to collectively bargain if they support the appropriate political party.

Perhaps the distinction lies not in partisanship, as you wish to allege, but upon other factors that your partisanship conveniently ignores in the hopes of portraying your opposition in an unfavorable light.

Perhaps that distinction lies not in whether or not one union or another supported a candidate, but upon the impact to the state and local budgets that the unreasonable collective bargaining agreements of those unions has resulted in over time. Perhaps a union representing workers in the area of state government that represents 40% of its total spending has a larger potential to impact the ability of the state and local governments to balance their budgets more than one that represents less than 5% of the total spending does and it is for this reason that they are exempted rather than their support and endorsements during the last election. You've heard of the concept of disparate impact, haven't you Dog?

Perhaps monkeys will fly out your ass. In the meantime, Res Ipsa Loquitur applies, particularly when this governor is on record of union busting despite the harm to the budget, and despite going against the will of the majority of the citizens of Wisconsin.

To a partisan such as yourself, I am sure that your faulted reasoning does indeed speak for itself. For those that choose reason over partisanship, however, such is not the case. People of reason can see the disparate impact that the teacher's union and other public worker's unions representing far more employees has caused to the ability of local and state governments to properly manage their budgets than has the police and fire unions.

As of 2003, according to a report issued by then Governor Doyle, the state employed general workers at a rate of 5 per 1000 residents when higher ed and corrections are excluded. Presuming that this has remained consistent, that equates to 28,500 state workers according to the 2010 census figure of 5,718,500 people in the state. There are currently 59,500 teachers in Wisconsin, more than double the number of state general workers. So yes, Dog, their pensions and benefits do have a disparate effect upon state and local budgets than the pensions and benefits of other workers. In Milwalkee, the benefits paid are in a ratio of 74 cents of benefits for every dollar paid in salary as a result of collective bargaining, including a supplementary pension that is in addition to the pension provided by the state to the teachers.

That, too, speaks for itself.