Do you Think Teachers Unions should be disbanded?

This is why we need teachers...

Perhaps not so much as to why we need them, but the epic failure to impart knowledge that is the legacy of the public school system in general; and why the current model, including collective bargaining for wages and benefits needs to be replaced with something else.

BREAKING NEWS!!

The Wisconsin senate voted!

The teachers union lost...... The education system there won big time!

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Dozens of protesters camped outside the Wisconsin state Assembly chamber on Thursday in anticipation of a final vote on explosive anti-union rights legislation that whisked through the Senate after Republicans outmaneuvered their missing Democratic counterparts and brought a three-week stalemate to its unexpected end.

The dramatic turn of events late Wednesday set up Thursday's perfunctory vote on the legislation that would strip collective bargaining rights from most public workers. Once the measure passes the Assembly, it heads to Republican Gov. Scott Walker for his signature

.


They got er done. I think we should run that Governor for President.

The legislation, which rocked the state and unions nationwide, had been stymied after all 14 Senate Democrats fled to Illinois three weeks ago, preventing the chamber from having enough members present to pass it. Walker introduced it to plug a $137 million budget shortfall.

The Senate requires a quorum of 20 to take up any measures that spend money. But a special committee of lawmakers from the Senate and Assembly voted late Wednesday afternoon to take all the spending measures out of the legislation and the Senate approved it minutes later, 18-1.

Read the whole story here.,.....
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wis-GOP-bypasses-Dems-cuts-apf-1511050267.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=

In an interview with The Associated Press, Miller said there is nothing Democrats can do now to stop the bill: "It's a done deal."

Democratic state Sen. Dave Hansen said the Senate vote took him by surprise.

Surprise!!

Just read this.

According to SCOTT WALKER. In 2010, Megan Sampson was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin. A week later, she got a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public Schools. Why would one of the best new teachers in the state be one of the first let go? Because her collective-bargaining contract requires staffing decisions to be made based on seniority.

Ms. Sampson got a layoff notice because the union leadership would not accept reasonable changes to their contract. Instead, they hid behind a collective-bargaining agreement that costs the taxpayers $101,091 per year for each teacher, protects a 0% contribution for health-insurance premiums, and forces schools to hire and fire based on seniority and union rules.

My state's budget-repair bill, which passed the Assembly on Feb. 25 and awaits a vote in the Senate, reforms this union-controlled hiring and firing process by allowing school districts to assign staff based on merit and performance. That keeps great teachers like Ms. Sampson in the classroom.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

From what is written small wonder that our education system suffers so much and why similar teachers unions need to have their power curtailed. I've never been much for Unions and this example personifies one of the major reasons why I feel that way. UGH.

Yes, there are issues with collective bargaining in the public sector. The WSJ should check its numbers better though. That compensation number is wrong.

towermonkey wrote: Yes, there are issues with collective bargaining in the public sector. The WSJ should check its numbers better though. That compensation number is wrong.

In every argument there are always two sides to be heard. Though anti union, I'm aware viable benefits for collective bargaining exist as long as they allow schools to evaluate and promote on the basis of performance. I've no idea what
.

..bargaining agreement that costs the taxpayers $101,091 per year for each teacher

this figure includes, but it seems most of this money is not going to the teachers and it should.

We asked MacIver spokesman Brian Farley if he had any additional evidence. He cited a February 2011 posting from the School Zone blog on JSOnline.com, which reported slightly different numbers than those in MacIver’s video.

The posting quoted MPS’ budget manager as saying that in 2011-2012 (the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2011), the average MPS teacher would receive total compensation of $101,091 -- $59,500 in salary and $41,591 in benefits.

We double-checked with MPS spokeswoman Roseann St. Aubin and she confirmed the figures.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... ary-and-b/
MPS is the Milwaukee Public Schools. Kind of hard to say the compensation number is wrong when the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal confirmed that figure with the Milwaukee Public School spokesperson and came from the manager of the MPS budget, isn't it?

And the move should have not surprised anyone. It has been talked about in the public debates surrounding what is happening in Wisconsin for at least the last 2 weeks. The Democrats who have been hiding out of state for the last 3 weeks were warned that their failure to show up and be part of the process would result in this being done.

Decisions are made by those who show up whether it is at the voting booth or at the general assembly. That is why I show up and vote at every election. The matter my be decided opposite of how I voted on it, but it is my civic responsibility, as it was the responsibility of the Wisconsin State Senators, to show up and vote regardless of the outcome. Elections have consequences and not showing up to help make the decision isn't going to stop the decision from being made in your absence.

I think I just figured out that TM is Scruffy!

Except the Wisconsin GOP and governor are now on the record that this legislation has ZERO impact on the state budget. In order to pass it without the Democrats, the legislation can not have a fiscal impact. So were they lying before, or are they lying now. If the bill has fiscal implications, then it will be struck down as unconstitutional under the Wisconsin constitution, and if it has no fiscal implications then the GOP lied to the public.

Further the Wisconsin GOP senate majority leader is on the record as saying the legislation was intended to make it difficult for President Obama to win in Wisconsin.

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

towermonkey wrote: Yes, there are issues with collective bargaining in the public sector. The WSJ should check its numbers better though. That compensation number is wrong.

In every argument there are always two sides to be heard. Though anti union, I'm aware viable benefits for collective bargaining exist as long as they allow schools to evaluate and promote on the basis of performance. I've no idea what
.

..bargaining agreement that costs the taxpayers $101,091 per year for each teacher

this figure includes, but it seems most of this money is not going to the teachers and it should.

The figure includes an average of $59.5K in salary and $41.6K in benefits, and yes, all that money is going to benefit the teachers. The Milwaukee compensation includes an additional pension, separate from the state one and also free of teacher contributions, that is the result of collective bargaining agreements that the union reached with the Milwaukee Public Schools. That is why Governor Walker wanted a state law prohibiting collective bargaining of public employees. In addition to the collective bargaining for state pension plans, the union put the squeeze on the individual school systems through the collective bargaining process to increase the benefits to their union members above and beyond the ones they squeezed out of state taxpayers.

This local collective bargaining is done with the school board members, who by and large depend upon the support of the education unions for the financing of their election to the post. It is perhaps the worst example of the inherent conflict of interest that occurs when public employees engage in the traditional collective bargaining practices that even FDR would not support.