I fail to see how refusing to participate in a democratic vote is an appropriate response. That is not how a representative democracy/republic works, and if this were to become the new norm in politics - where those who seek to undermine a vote, to skip town and hold the vote hostage and demand ammendments, then I fear for the future.

Well, what about all the people with the right to vote who don't choose to exercise it?  Are they holding hostage the authority to govern?  If an elected official derives his authority from the people, and only 30% of the people actually vote for the official who wins (20% for the other guy, and 50% of eligible voters choose not to cast a ballot out of apathy and indifference), does he hold authority?

 

Yes, because in general elections, there is no analogue of the quorum requirement.  Someone who won with 50% of the vote with 80% turnout may have more political capital than someone who won 50% of the vote with 40% turnout, because there are fewer voters in the former case that might come out of the woodwork in the next election and vote against him.  However, voters who stay home do not count in the numerator or the denominator of the vote tallies, because while the might not have voted for the winner, they also didn't vote for his opponent, either.

 

Abstentions have their purpose, though of course, in many cases, it is simple apathy.

 

In decision-making bodies with quorum requirements, however, boycotting a vote turns out (at least in these cases) to be even *stronger* than a no vote, though perhaps with a PR price to be paid for exercising it.

I don't like the boycott.  They should vote.  It is their duty as elected representatives.  I agree that it is a totally different circumstance then when a citizen chooses to not exercise their right to vote.  People sometimes call it a 'duty' to vote as an elector, but it really isn't.... it is a right.  Whenever something becomes a duty, it ceases to be a right.

 

When elected, however, you have a duty to vote.  I don't like this just like I don't like the use of the filibuster..... or, better put, the threat to use the filibuster (which in DC circles seems to somehow be sufficient).  It is a derilection of duty in both circumstances.  Dems can't pick and choose and neither should Repubs..... although I have an inkling that most of the commenters here who are criticizing the Dems in Wisconsin for their tactics were applauding the Senate Republicans for their obstructionist tactics during the health care debate.  You can't have it both ways.

Hootenany, the option you suggest of giving people the choice of being in the union or not would break them.  Requiring them to be in the union and collecting dues is essential to their existence. 

 

If people feel it's necessary to unionize then they will.  No?  Why is it legal to force someone into a contract to gain employment?  People should have the freedom to choose whether or not they want to be in the union and the employer should have the choice to hire a union employee or not.  I don't understand why it's an all or nothing proposition.  If a company makes you an offer then you should basically be able to choose a union or non-union contract.  Union is lower pay, but more perks.  Non-union would be higher pay, fewer perks.  Choose for yourself!  The devils in the details of course, but you get the point.  Why can't union and non-union workers co-exist?

There are several arguments against "Right to Work" laws.  Studies have shown, for example, that workplace fatalities are higher in Right to Work States.  Wages are lower too - http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/6796/.  Also, the non-bargaining unit employees tend to reap most, if not all of the benefits, which are accumulated by their counterparts in the bargaining unit, such as increased safety provisions, hours, wages, and other conditions, without having to pay the dues which are taken out of those members' paychecks. 

 

From a Libertarian standpoint, does a Right to Work law not offend the freedom of an employer to enter into a contract with a union to cover all of its employees?  How do Libertarians feel about the Indiana legislature making it a CRIME to enter into such a contract?  It seems like the whole notion, as far as the private sector is concerned, seems to offend the very nature of Libertarianism.  If any given worker does not want to pay the dues and be a member of the union (even passively) then they have the right to not accept that employment, no?  Why do you wish to restrict the contractual rights between two private 'persons'?

 

 

If any given worker does not want to pay the dues and be a member of the union (even passively) then they have the right to not accept that employment, no?  Why do you wish to restrict the contractual rights between two private 'persons'?

 

I would hardly consider it a contract between "two private persons".

 

It requires only a 'simple majority' vote to create a labor union. If a business has 100 labor employees, and 51 want in. That means 49 current employees do not want to be a part of the union, but would be forced to join and pay the dues.

 

Right to Work laws grant employees the choice of deciding for themselves of joining or support a union.

And they deny the private employer the right to enter into one contract for all of its employees.  The employees, on the other hand, is simply free to decline that particular employment.

 

And the requirements to create a union vary.

 

And, yes, it absolutely is a contract between two "persons".... the corporate employer is a "person" and the labor organization is a "person"

 

 

If any given worker does not want to pay the dues and be a member of the union (even passively) then they have the right to not accept that employment, no?  Why do you wish to restrict the contractual rights between two private 'persons'?

 

I would hardly consider it a contract between "two private persons".

A contract between an individual and a corporation is a contract between two private persons. Unions are corporations and corporations are artificial persons for legal purposes.  Either way, every private contract that one party desires to enforce on the other requires the government to enforce it.

 

It requires only a 'simple majority' vote to create a labor union. If a business has 100 labor employees, and 51 want in. That means 49 current employees do not want to be a part of the union, but would be forced to join and pay the dues.

That's not exactly how the situation works.  If 30% of employees state their wish for union representation, a separate secret ballot will be held to confirm that the majority of employees want union representation.  This only happens when there "a question of employee representation", or in other words, the result is contested (for instance, because the employer objects). Undisputed petitions, when all employees and the employer agree, require no further election.  However, in practice, the results of the card check usually are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of bargaining-unit employees have signed the cards.  Moreover, even if every employee has signed cards indicating their preference to be represented by the union, an employer may demand a secret ballot, and refuse to bargain until one is held.

 

Right to Work laws grant employees the choice of deciding for themselves of joining or support a union.

But of course they had that same option when the vote to join the union was held.  You can just as easily argue that folks in this situation get the benefit of collective bargaining without paying for that benefit.

 

That's not exactly how the situation works.  If 30% of employees state their wish for union representation, a separate secret ballot will be held to confirm that the majority of employees want union representation.  This only happens when there "a question of employee representation", or in other words, the result is contested (for instance, because the employer objects). Undisputed petitions, when all employees and the employer agree, require no further election.  However, in practice, the results of the card check usually are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of bargaining-unit employees have signed the cards.  Moreover, even if every employee has signed cards indicating their preference to be represented by the union, an employer may demand a secret ballot, and refuse to bargain until one is held.

 

Thanks for the in detailed explaination on the starting a union, but the bottom line is that it only requires greater than 50% of employees to agree to it. The remaining are forced to join and pay money out of their wages to this organization.

 

No one can seem to answer Hootenany's question regarding why individuals cant have the freedom to choose to join a union or not. 22 or so states offer this freedom to those employed in their state.

 

You say an individual "had the option when the vote to join the union was held' - thats not the case when they all are forced to join even if they voted not to during the election.

 

If the unions are truly beneficial to that particular group, then people will voluntarily join. If wages and conditions become bad, people will want to join/start these union to improve these yeah? Voluntarily.

Unions are a big reason why we haven't seen the same gains in efficiency in the public sector that we've seen in the private sector over the last few decades.

 

An important thing to remember about unions in general: They don't just give workers greater benefits than they would otherwise be entitled in the open market, they make it near-impossible to reward the top performers. Thus the best and the brightest are prone to become disenfranchised and either tone back the energy they put into their work, or flee to the private sector.

 

I'm generally center-left on most issues, but public sectors unions are one where Kasich and I see eye-to-eye. 

Thanks for the in detailed explaination on the starting a union, but the bottom line is that it only requires greater than 50% of employees to agree to it. The remaining are forced to join and pay money out of their wages to this organization.  No one can seem to answer Hootenany's question regarding why individuals cant have the freedom to choose to join a union or not.

You're welcome.  It's important to know the details of the subjects one is purporting to debate.

 

There are plenty of instances where people are subject to their wishes being superseeded because they are outvoted.  For example, I wish the stock shares I have for P&G would pay higher dividends rather than just have P&G sit on cash reserves.  P&G is able to get financing easier and at better rates than I can as an individual, so more cash from my investment would be better for me at this time.  Yet I am outvoted, because the value I bring to the enterprise is not enough to influence the management.  While I could rid myself of this asset, I choose to hold it because I derive value from it, though clearly I wish I could get more value from it than I do presently.

 

The union works similarly, except the that value each member brings is a factor of one- themselves as a worker.  Consequently they get one vote.  This is, probably not coincidentally, the same way things play out in political elections in the U.S.

 

Certain states allow people to be represented by a union for the sake of collective bargaining without paying the union for this service.  Others don't.  These are simply political choices.  In those open shop states, minority voters are allowed to impose their will on a majority of voters.  In union shop states, majority voters are able to impose their will on a minority of voters.  I'm not sure whether one can speak arithematically of freedom and make any sense- nevertheless, if a volitional act is the manifestation of freedom, then it is hardly more free when a minority is able to impose its will on a majority, since the end result would be from the sum of fewer volitional acts.

 

When the union vote occurs, the question that all members subject to the vote being decided is, "Do I wish to be represented by X?"  This strikes me as being extraordinarily similar to the question presented to voters when they choose elected officials.

 

There are plenty of instances where people are subject to their wishes being superseeded because they are outvoted.  For example, wish the stock shares I have for P&G would pay higher dividends rather than just have P&G sit on cash reserves.  P&G is able to get financing easier and at better rates than I can as an individual, so more cash from my investment would be better for me at this time.  Yet I am outvoted, because the value I bring to the enterprise is not enough to influence the management.  While I could rid myself of this asset, I choose to hold it because I derive value from it, though clearly I wish I could get more value from it than I do presently.

 

In those open shop states, minority voters are allowed to impose their will on a majority of voters.  In union shop states, majority voters are able to impose their will on a minority of voters.  I'm not sure whether one can speak arithematically of freedom and make any sense- nevertheless, if a volitional act is the manifestation of freedom, then it is hardly more free when a minority is able to impose its will on a majority, since the end result would be from the sum of fewer volitional acts.

 

Luckily for workers in some states, their representatives are looking to change the current laws in their states that say "you are required to join a union and pay dues if a simple majority choose to be in said union". They want to say 'you have a choice'. Many states offer this right now to their citizens. The current public-union rights are not set in stone, afterall this is what is currently being discussed in states right now.

 

Your stock analogy is a great example of majority rules in a specific situation. Although equating it into an argument to prove a point against right-to-work legislation makes little sense.

 

Also - I think it is incorrect to say that in open state shops, the minority imposes their will on the majority. How are they preventing the ones who want to join a union from joining said union? If the majority chooses to join a union, they can.  No one is impossing their will on the other.

Your stock analogy is a great example of majority rules in a specific situation. Although equating it into an argument to prove a point against right-to-work legislation makes little sense.

If you can't explain why an analogy is misplaced, or why an argument is mistaken, there's no point in simply asserting that it makes little sense.  It makes little sense when you show that it makes little sense.

 

Also - I think it is incorrect to say that in open state shops, the minority imposes their will on the majority. How are they preventing the ones who want to join a union from joining said union?

Because the purpose of the union is to increase the individual's bargaining power as a worker by binding him together with other workers.  It's not simply to be in a club.  Allowing the individual to opt out clearly changes the nature of that bargaining power.

 

Similarly, if the state allowed each shareholder to unilaterally to whatever they wanted with their percentage of the accumulated capital, than the corporation's ability to allocate capital would be significantly reduced.

 

If the majority chooses to join a union, they can.  No one is imposing their will on the other.

If four people desire a certain outcome, and two people desire the opposite outcome, and there can be only one outcome, then some group will end up imposing their will (the desired outcome) on the other group.

Where's KJP when you need him with that picture of a train off the tracks...

Because the purpose of the union is to increase the individual's bargaining power as a worker by binding him together with other workers.  It's not simply to be in a club.  Allowing the individual to opt out clearly changes the nature of that bargaining power.

 

Well, certainly it changes the "nature" of that bargaining power--the unions need to actually appeal to more than 51% of the workers that they'll affect, including top performers.  I don't necessarily see that the mere fact that the nature of a power relationship changes is a reason to vote against such a change.  That is a value-neutral statement.  If we were in a state with opt-out laws, repealing that law would likewise change the "nature" of a union's bargaining power.

 

Similarly, if the state allowed each shareholder to unilaterally to whatever they wanted with their percentage of the accumulated capital, than the corporation's ability to allocate capital would be significantly reduced.

 

I don't think that this analogy holds very well in practice.  Shareholders have more options, and the costs of exercising those options are often less dramatic.  The shareholder's exit option is easy: he sells his shares.  He gets cash and can allocate it to some other investment more in tune with his preferences.  There are millions of options and they are instantly accessible.  The market is liquid.  The analogy here would be the employee quitting the company--that's his exit option.  Finding a new job is *not* as easy as finding a new investment, however.  You noted that you wished P&G would pay a higher dividend; you could sell your P&G stock right now and buy FirstEnergy or AEP, for example, which pay higher dividends (but may have fewer growth opportunities--always a tradeoff).  I know that the universe is not unlimited, of course--I can't invest in Great Lakes Brewing Company, for example, because it's private--but there are many, many options.

Looks like the Wisconsin Governor is in a little hot water for statements he made to a prank caller he thought was one of the Koch brothers.

Looks like the Wisconsin Governor is in a little hot water for statements he made to a prank caller he thought was one of the Koch brothers.

 

I read the portion of the transcript in the Huffington Post and none of it seemed to scandalous.  Sure it was a lapse of judgement on his part and the part of his staff, but I didn't see him say anything in that phone call that differed from what he's said in public.  The shocking part might be that he actually believes the stuff he says...

 

The part I find interesting is that people still want to link Walker with the evil Koch brothers empire.  Walker doesn't even know the Koch brothers well enough to recognize their voice on the phone...  It appears that Walker perhaps would like to become allies ($$$), but it doesn't look like he is yet!  At least not on a personal level.

The problem is that public sector unions exacerbate the propensity of regularity capture or in this case gov'tal capture by the said unions.

^^"don't see him saying anything in the phone call that differed from what he's said in public"  Hmm...that  is the same "spin control" statement that is coming out of Walker's office (wonder how long it took to come up with that one).

 

I did not read the transcripts, but from a couple of news reports I read there is stuff that I would not want out there...like we were thinking of planting trouble makers in with the protesters but decided not to do it (that sounds a little KGB to me, or at least Nixon Dirty Tricks).  I guess they believe they get points for not following through.  Also saying they were going to try to lure the Democrats back with promises of talks (something the Democrats requested to get the ball rolling again) and then do a sneak attack vote since they were in the capitol Building.  They are just shrugging this off as politics but it seems greasy to me...certainly would not trust somebody in the future if they pulled that one (actually it is just plain lying because they clearing had no interest in negotiations...be a man and say that).

 

Seeems like it is really fun to be in Wisconsin.  Interesting that Walker is chatting with Kasich.  If I were Kasich I would be doing what the governor of Indiana (Walker's alledged mentor) is doing and keep my distance.

The problem is that public sector unions exacerbate the propensity of regularity capture or in this case gov'tal capture by the said unions.

 

Translation?

^^"don't see him saying anything in the phone call that differed from what he's said in public"  Hmm...that  is the same "spin control" statement that is coming out of Walker's office (wonder how long it took to come up with that one).

 

I did not read the transcripts, but from a couple of news reports I read there is stuff that I would not want out there...like we were thinking of planting trouble makers in with the protesters but decided not to do it (that sounds a little KGB to me, or at least Nixon Dirty Tricks).  I guess they believe they get points for not following through.  Also saying they were going to try to lure the Democrats back with promises of talks (something the Democrats requested to get the ball rolling again) and then do a sneak attack vote since they were in the capitol Building.  They are just shrugging this off as politics but it seems greasy to me...certainly would not trust somebody in the future if they pulled that one (actually it is just plain lying because they clearing had no interest in negotiations...be a man and say that).

 

Seeems like it is really fun to be in Wisconsin.  Interesting that Walker is chatting with Kasich.  If I were Kasich I would be doing what the governor of Indiana (Walker's alledged mentor) is doing and keep my distance.

 

Yes. I don't know what tape Hoot was listening to, but this stuff is pretty damning.

^^"don't see him saying anything in the phone call that differed from what he's said in public"  Hmm...that  is the same "spin control" statement that is coming out of Walker's office (wonder how long it took to come up with that one).

 

I did not read the transcripts, but from a couple of news reports I read there is stuff that I would not want out there...like we were thinking of planting trouble makers in with the protesters but decided not to do it (that sounds a little KGB to me, or at least Nixon Dirty Tricks).  I guess they believe they get points for not following through.  Also saying they were going to try to lure the Democrats back with promises of talks (something the Democrats requested to get the ball rolling again) and then do a sneak attack vote since they were in the capitol Building.  They are just shrugging this off as politics but it seems greasy to me...certainly would not trust somebody in the future if they pulled that one (actually it is just plain lying because they clearing had no interest in negotiations...be a man and say that).

 

Seeems like it is really fun to be in Wisconsin.  Interesting that Walker is chatting with Kasich.  If I were Kasich I would be doing what the governor of Indiana (Walker's alledged mentor) is doing and keep my distance.

 

Here's what Walker actually said about planting people in the crowd.  In short, he thought it was better to let them protest.

 

KOCH: Right, right. We’ll back you anyway we can. But uh, what we’re thinking about the crowds was, a, was planting some troublemakers.

 

WALKER: You know, the well [sighs] the only problem with – because we thought about that. The problem with, my only gut reaction to that would be right now the, the lawmakers I’ve talked to have just completely had it with them. The public is not really fond of this, uh the teacher’s union did some polling of some focus groups I think and found out the public turned on them the minute they closed school down for a couple of days. The guys we got left are largely from out of state and I keep dismissing it in all my press conferences and saying uhh, they’re mostly from out of state. My only fear would be is if there was a ruckus caused, is that that would scare the public into thinking that maybe the governor has got to settle to avoid all these problems. Where as I’ve said, hey, ya know, we can handle this, people can protest, this is Madison, ya know, full of the 60s liberals, let ‘em protest. It’s not going to affect us and as long as we go back to our homes and the majority of people are telling us we’re doing the right thing, theall they want. So, that’s my gut reaction, is I think it’s actually good if they’re constant, they’re noisy, but they’re quiet, nothing happens, cause sooner or later the media stops finding them interesting.

 

About your other claim about Walker luring Democrats back into the state... I found nothing to that effect in the transcript.  He's obviously going to put pressure on them to come back and do their job.  If you can find the dialogue your referring to I'd appreciate it.

 

Full transcript:  http://www.onewisconsinnow.org/files/Scott%20Walker%20David%20Koch%20Transcript.pdf

^^"don't see him saying anything in the phone call that differed from what he's said in public"  Hmm...that  is the same "spin control" statement that is coming out of Walker's office (wonder how long it took to come up with that one).

 

I did not read the transcripts, but from a couple of news reports I read there is stuff that I would not want out there...like we were thinking of planting trouble makers in with the protesters but decided not to do it (that sounds a little KGB to me, or at least Nixon Dirty Tricks).  I guess they believe they get points for not following through.  Also saying they were going to try to lure the Democrats back with promises of talks (something the Democrats requested to get the ball rolling again) and then do a sneak attack vote since they were in the capitol Building.  They are just shrugging this off as politics but it seems greasy to me...certainly would not trust somebody in the future if they pulled that one (actually it is just plain lying because they clearing had no interest in negotiations...be a man and say that).

 

Seeems like it is really fun to be in Wisconsin.  Interesting that Walker is chatting with Kasich.  If I were Kasich I would be doing what the governor of Indiana (Walker's alledged mentor) is doing and keep my distance.

 

Yes. I don't know what tape Hoot was listening to, but this stuff is pretty damning.

 

Read the transcript... there's not much there. 

 

I'd be thrilled if you or anyone else would point me to Walker's "damning" statements.  And look, I'm not even a fan of the guy, but I think this story is sensationalized.

"My only fear would be is if there was a ruckus caused, is that that would scare the public into thinking that maybe the governor has got to settle to avoid all these problems."

 

His only fear about planting trouble-makers is the expectation he would then need to compromise or "settle".

 

He wouldn't want to plant them because if "they’re quiet, nothing happens [...] sooner or later the media stops finding them interesting."

Walker: "...an interesting idea that was brought up to me this morning by my chief of staff, we won’t do it until tomorrow, is putting out an appeal to the Democrat leader that I would be willing to sit down and talk to him, the assembly Democrat leader, plus the other two Republican leaders — talk, not negotiate — and listen to what they have to say if they will in turn — but I’ll only do it if all 14 of them come back and sit down in the state Assembly. They can recess it, to come back if we’re talking, but they all have to be back there. The reason for that is, we’re verifying it this afternoon, but legally, we believe, once they’ve gone into session, they don’t physically have to be there. If they’re actually in session for that day and they take a recess, the 19 Senate Republicans could then go into action and they’d have a quorum because they started out that way..."

 

What he is saying is that if he can lure them back under the illusion that he wants to talk to them (although he says in the quote not to negotiate but one can only speculate what he would tell the democrats to get them back), then when role is taken in the morning in essence they are present for the entire session for the day even if they are not physically present. So when they go to recess, the 19 republicans could vote on the bill because they would have quorum, due to the fact that the democrats were present at the beginning of the session and therefore, even if not physically present, they would technically be present on the books. I'm guessing all their votes would just be marked as abstaining. Seems pretty insidious to me.

I'd be thrilled if you or anyone else would point me to Walker's "damning" statements.

 

I know it's politics as usually, but I think the "damning" part of this is that one of the kock brothers can just call the gov's office and get an in depth update on what's happening.  With that being said, I don't understand why Walker would give someone so much time and an update on whats going if you couldn't even tell if he was talking to the right person on the other end of the phone.

 

The part that scares me most about this "call" is that I now see that Walker truly believe what he is doing is the right thing.  People who believe don't back off or down.  It's going to be a long fight for the workers of the great state of WI.   

Did you really doubt that Walker doubted he was doing the right thing?  Or Kasich, or Daniels, or Christie for that matter?

^ I never doubted that in his mind he is doing what he thinks is right. However, to the infamy of their names, many people in the past have done what is right in their own minds. It doesn't mean that it is right, or even that it is popular. People in the past have stood up for what they believe is right, and were proven right in the long run, but it usually has to do with preserving some right or protecting a certain group, not taking something away from someone. In other words its usually a progressive action not a regressive action. Also, I do think that he is delusional if he thinks eliminating collective bargaining is what he ran on or that it is what the people elected him to do. He ran on no such platform, and it is not the majority opinion on the matter.

^ Daniels and Christie are very different animals from Kasich and Walker. They are more principled, less sleazy.

 

I don't think this shows Walker thinks he's doing the right thing. Why would anyone expect him to be totally honest with Koch? He tells him what he wants to hear, like politicians are wont to do.

^ Daniels and Christie are very different animals from Kasich and Walker. They are more principled, less sleazy.

 

I don't think this shows Walker thinks he's doing the right thing. Why would anyone expect him to be totally honest with Koch? He tells him what he wants to hear, like politicians are wont to do.

 

IMO he isnt telling koch everything he wants to hear. His stance in private is largely what he has displayed

 

Q: Koch says - "Now you not talking to any of them democrate bastards are you?

A: Walker - Actually I called one of them on Saturday for 45 min

 

Q: Koch says "we are thinking about planting some trouble makers"

A Walker - we thought about it but decided not to

 

Koch - You know we have a vested interest

Walker -  The bottom line is its the right thing to do

^ Daniels and Christie are very different animals from Kasich and Walker. They are more principled, less sleazy.

 

I feel the same way.  Keyword: 'feel'.  I don't know either personally, but neither has done or said anything to dispel that notion in my mind.

^ I never doubted that in his mind he is doing what he thinks is right. However, to the infamy of their names, many people in the past have done what is right in their own minds. It doesn't mean that it is right, or even that it is popular. People in the past have stood up for what they believe is right, and were proven right in the long run, but it usually has to do with preserving some right or protecting a certain group, not taking something away from someone.

 

The money to pay public unions *is* taken away from someone--the rest of us.

So is the money to pay Kasich and Walker..... and their appointees.  Point?  What's your solution?  Make them work for free?

So is the money to pay Kasich and Walker..... and their appointees.  Point?  What's your solution?  Make them work for free?

 

That wasn't the subject of my exchange with bbrown, above.  The subject was whether people standing up for what they thought was right were often proven right in the long run even when their stance was unpopular in the short run.  bbrown said that that seems to hold true when the cause was "preserving some right or protecting a certain group, not taking something away from someone."  I don't know if I buy that thesis to begin with, but if it is true, Walker, Kasich, Christie, etc. are not necessarily on the wrong side it because they, too, are taking stands against taking something away from someone--they are taking stands against the level of taking from us required to fund the lavish promises made, but never funded, in previous rounds of collective bargaining.

 

The money to pay public employees will still be taken from the rest of us in a world without public employee CBAs, of course.  But everyone on both sides knows that that figure is likely to be lower, which is why the forces who want to see taxes soar to fund those unsustainable commitments are fighting so hard against this reform.  If they really thought it posed no threat to their bottom line, they wouldn't be out in such force.

The money to pay public employees will still be taken from the rest of us in a world without public employee CBAs, of course.  But everyone on both sides knows that that figure is likely to be lower, which is why the forces who want to see taxes soar to fund those unsustainable commitments are fighting so hard against this reform.  If they really thought it posed no threat to their bottom line, they wouldn't be out in such force.

 

Given that the removal of the right to collective bargaining has been presented as a means to deal with present state budget crises, and that there is no correlation with present state budget crises and collective bargaining rights, it's pretty obvious that this is an attempt to defund political opponents (particularly in the case of Walker, since the two public sector unions who supported him during this last election are not subject to the loss of collective bargaining rights in the bill).

 

Also, these bills don't actually do anything about those previously made "unsustainable commitments".  So if the states want to default on those commitments they'll still have to do it.  These bills don't address that issue at all.

 

The money to pay public unions *is* taken away from someone--the rest of us.

It's also taken from the members of the public unions, since they contribute the same percentage of their incomes to state taxes as the rest of us.  Additionally, it is highly unlikely that more than a bare minimum of the public sector workers income is spent out of state, so the majority of that money likely churns back into the state economy anyway.

Given that the removal of the right to collective bargaining has been presented as a means to deal with present state budget crises, and that there is no correlation with present state budget crises and collective bargaining rights, it's pretty obvious that this is an attempt to defund political opponents (particularly in the case of Walker, since the two public sector unions who supported him during this last election are not subject to the loss of collective bargaining rights in the bill).

 

The sad fact is you are probably right. I have no doubt that behind all his talk of fiscal responsibility and wanting to avoid layoffs, Walker is loving the fact that he has an opportunity to take a big bight out of Democratic support in his state.  Also, the fact that Police and Fire unions are exempt is simply an outrage, plain and simple.

 

That said, the fact remains that we're overpaying for public services because of unions.  Things like collective bargaining and tenure make it impossible to efficiently manage a workforce.  Defined Benefit plans need to be scrapped as well, the demographics simply don't support them anymore.

 

In a perfect world we would have fully engaged (and properly compensated) civil servants, public managers with the flexibility to run their organizations how they see fit, and employment at will.  Unions simply cannot be defended on a financial basis.

That wasn't the subject of my exchange with bbrown, above.  The subject was whether people standing up for what they thought was right were often proven right in the long run even when their stance was unpopular in the short run.  bbrown said that that seems to hold true when the cause was "preserving some right or protecting a certain group, not taking something away from someone."  I don't know if I buy that thesis to begin with, but if it is true, Walker, Kasich, Christie, etc. are not necessarily on the wrong side it because they, too, are taking stands against taking something away from someone--they are taking stands against the level of taking from us required to fund the lavish promises made, but never funded, in previous rounds of collective bargaining.

 

The money to pay public employees will still be taken from the rest of us in a world without public employee CBAs, of course.  But everyone on both sides knows that that figure is likely to be lower, which is why the forces who want to see taxes soar to fund those unsustainable commitments are fighting so hard against this reform.  If they really thought it posed no threat to their bottom line, they wouldn't be out in such force.

 

I see it as paying them a fair wage for a critical service that has no competitive market. I do not see it as them essentially robbing the taxpayers with excessive salaries, especially since the salaries are nothing to write home about. I would view taking away their right to collectively bargain as regressive, and a violation of worker's rights that has been protected for decades. However, you are entitled to your opinion, and I have no problem with that, nor am I here to say you are wrong.

 

In my view, if it truly is this financial aspect he is concerned with, he would take the concessions and rescind the tax breaks he just approved. Then focus on where else to cut. I feel the worker is being scapegoated not only in Wisconsin, but in Ohio and all the other states undertaking similar legislation. I would even choose layoffs before a union would give up their collective bargaining rights.

 

Also, if legislatures choose to layoff or cut the pay of workers, then they have to be ready to accept the consequences. For example, one of my major concerns is our educational system. Recently, it has shown signs of improvement, but only very slightly. Research has shown that smaller class sizes greatly improve student performance, but this would require more teachers. However, there are not enough people going to school to become teachers. When interviews are conducted with college students and they are asked why they did not choose to go into teaching, the most often stated answer is because it does not pay well. Further exacerbating the problem, teachers have high burnout rates from high stress levels, so they need to be replaced at higher rates than other sectors. So from my point of view, teachers salaries need to be improved, and funding to recruit students to go into teaching needs to be increased. Corporate businesses can bankroll their own recruitment efforts, but who are the schools, and subsequently our future, supposed to turn to. They are not a for profit institution.

Also, if legislatures choose to layoff or cut the pay of workers, then they have to be ready to accept the consequences. For example, one of my major concerns is our educational system. Recently, it has shown signs of improvement, but only very slightly. Research has shown that smaller class sizes greatly improve student performance, but this would require more teachers. However, there are not enough people going to school to become teachers. When interviews are conducted with college students and they are asked why they did not choose to go into teaching, the most often stated answer is because it does not pay well. Further exacerbating the problem, teachers have high burnout rates from high stress levels, so they need to be replaced at higher rates than other sectors. So from my point of view, teachers salaries need to be improved, and funding to recruit students to go into teaching needs to be increased.

 

The workforce for teachers has been just as warped by the presence of unions and collective bargaining as any other branch of public service. 

 

My wife has been an elementary/middle school teacher in the greater Cincinnati area for 6 years now.  She had a terrible time finding a job out of college (like the rest of her classmates), and eventually settled on a charter school in Cincinnati.  Like everybody that goes into that profession, the goal is to get into a good public district, make tenure, and have a nice life of continued employment ahead of you.

 

After a year at her charter school she got on with a smallish (compared to CPS) district and put in 4 good years there. Flawless reviews, and a noted ability to gain rapport with the worst kids (and this was a bad district).  Essentially, she was a star performer, her review actually said this.  As she was finishing up the school year (and getting ready to enter her tenure year), she learned that her contract would not be renewed for the upcoming year. The district was facing shrinking student enrollment, and the older teachers were simply not retiring.

 

Luckily she landed a job right away for this school year.  In her opinion the administration in this district is much better, the kids are better behaved, and it has largely been a change for the better for her.  Unfortunately, this district is also grappling with the reality of lower than projected enrollments, so there is a strong likelihood that they will have to let 4-5 teachers go for next school year.  How are they choosing those? Not based on performance, but tenure.  So since she was one of the last 3 teachers hired, unless more people retire than expected she's going to get the boot again.

 

And she's a card-carrying member of the teachers union.

 

How does it look to the vast majority of our friends and family, who have no working knowledge of unions and how they operate, that she's going to lose her second job in as many years?  She feels like a failure in profession where she is actually extremely talented. Young, energetic, and with genuine concern for the children she teachers.

 

The presence of unions in the public sector leads to gross distortions in the workforce.  This is just one example, but I hope it illustrates just how disenfranchised the best and brightest (you'll have to take my word for that, but it's the God honest truth) can become as they struggle to compete in a marketplace where things other than your own ability govern your success.

Also, the fact that Police and Fire unions are exempt is simply an outrage, plain and simple.

:-o

 

I didn't know that! How awful!

REK, I completely understand what you are saying, and I'm sorry that your wife has to go through such an ordeal. I have worked in inner city public schools and realize how hard it can be on a teacher. The example you give provides great insight into the situation, and is great information to bring forward so that a healthy discussion on the matter can take place.

As she was finishing up the school year (and getting ready to enter her tenure year), she learned that her contract would not be renewed for the upcoming year. The district was facing shrinking student enrollment, and the older teachers were simply not retiring.

 

Luckily she landed a job right away for this school year.  In her opinion the administration in this district is much better, the kids are better behaved, and it has largely been a change for the better for her.  Unfortunately, this district is also grappling with the reality of lower than projected enrollments, so there is a strong likelihood that they will have to let 4-5 teachers go for next school year.  How are they choosing those? Not based on performance, but tenure.  So since she was one of the last 3 teachers hired, unless more people retire than expected she's going to get the boot again.

 

And she's a card-carrying member of the teachers union.

 

How does it look to the vast majority of our friends and family, who have no working knowledge of unions and how they operate, that she's going to lose her second job in as many years?  She feels like a failure in profession where she is actually extremely talented. Young, energetic, and with genuine concern for the children she teachers.

 

The presence of unions in the public sector leads to gross distortions in the workforce.  This is just one example, but I hope it illustrates just how disenfranchised the best and brightest (you'll have to take my word for that, but it's the God honest truth) can become as they struggle to compete in a marketplace where things other than your own ability govern your success.

 

This sucks, but it's not a lot different many other professions.  When Reagan visited Flint, Michigan after the GM plant closed there he suggested that the folks move South and West where the economy was growing.  That's where the U.S. population is growing as well, so there should be a demand for school teachers there.

This is the Gov. John Kasich thread, not the Gov. Scott Walker thread.

 

The unions had plenty of opportunity to reform under Democrat control and they did nothing ... good.

For example, one of my major concerns is our educational system. Recently, it has shown signs of improvement, but only very slightly. Research has shown that smaller class sizes greatly improve student performance, but this would require more teachers.

 

Actually, I've seen some research that suggests the opposite, including studies of other countries where all-star teachers often have significantly larger classes.  If you've got one top-flight teacher, it can make sense to let him/her have 45 kids than split into three groups of 15, two of which might have less adept people at the helm.  I'll see if I can dig that up, but I'll start another thread for that if I do, because it's moving away from the Kasich administration and the current legislative debate.

 

However, there are not enough people going to school to become teachers.

 

This does not ring true to me at all.  There are plenty of people going to school to become teachers--enough that there are too many for the available job openings, at the very least, though of course you might hope that the number of entry-level job openings will increase to absorb that surplus.  Indeed, one way that getting rid of collective bargaining might well get those younger applicants jobs is by facilitating the destruction of the seniority-based system, allowing local boards to get rid of more expensive teachers whose skills have not increased over the years commensurate with their salary demands, and hiring some of the newer professionals that have been having a bear of a time finding work in this market (see REK's posts).

 

When interviews are conducted with college students and they are asked why they did not choose to go into teaching, the most often stated answer is because it does not pay well. Further exacerbating the problem, teachers have high burnout rates from high stress levels, so they need to be replaced at higher rates than other sectors.

 

The "burnout rate," also known as a component of the attrition rate, is actually not high enough.  Or, more accurately, the institution is handcuffed from imposing the kinds of demands on teachers that would burn out the ones who need to be burned out.  The turnover in the profession is actually quite low, which is why we see stories like REK's in which older teachers simply do not retire in large enough numbers to make room for the new people trying to find jobs.  Also, salaries alone don't necessarily help deal with burnout: I'm in a profession in which starting salaries at certain employers can be off the charts, particularly by Midwestern standards, and yet the burnout rate is also very high.  I don't pretend that compensation is irrelevant, of course, but I wouldn't even call it the largest piece of the puzzle.

I believe there is a new law, passed under Strickland, which will mandate smaller class sizes by 2014.  I think it will require 14:1 for K and gradually increasing from there.  I agree with that method.  The younger the classroom, the smaller in size it should be IMO.  The main reason I am going to absorb the cost of pprivate school for my son and send him to a montessori is because of classroom size at our public schools.

 

I also think you are both right to an extent about teacher demand.  To my understanding, there us an overflow of elementary teachers but not enough for high school.

One of the reasons for teacher burnout is that state and federal legislators keep putting more restrictions on the teaching profession that result in teaching to the test, which inhibits the creativity of individual teachers. And creativity is essential because there is no standardized way to teach kids. Kids learn in different ways. What works for one does not work for another. So while teachers have all these restrictions, everybody is looking over their shoulders and badmouthing them and calling them lazy and incompetent and trying to make their stressful lives more miserable by taking their rights and cutting their pay.

Agreed on the testing issue.  That is no way to grade a teacher.

WASHINGTON --

Ohio Gov. John Kasich said he has been in talks with city officials to bring shooting of a $40 million Marvel/Disney superhero movie to Cleveland.

 

The Republican governor said Sunday that the movie, which he would not name, was originally supposed to be filmed in Michigan.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/02/gov_john_kasich_in_talks_to_br.html

Agreed on the testing issue.  That is no way to grade a teacher.

 

Likewise agreed.

 

More accurately, I would say that tests have some use, but their near-gospel status in some quarters is completely unwarranted.  I approve of standardized testing like the ACT that tries to measure the B student at St. Ignatius vs. the A student at Glenville, but the gods of high-stakes testing already have more than enough sacrifices and obeisances in their name.

WASHINGTON --

Ohio Gov. John Kasich said he has been in talks with city officials to bring shooting of a $40 million Marvel/Disney superhero movie to Cleveland.

 

The Republican governor said Sunday that the movie, which he would not name, was originally supposed to be filmed in Michigan.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/02/gov_john_kasich_in_talks_to_br.html

 

Now that would be interesting.

 

I wonder which Cleveland landmarks would end up demolished as part of the plot ...

Teacher burnout...  wow.  Summers off ought to make up for that.  Ditto for spring break, fall break, Christmas break, fog days, snow days, sick days, President's Day, MLK Day, Day after Thanksgiving....

 

Every profession is prone to some level of "burnout".  I suppose it's possible with teaching but I can think of about a dozen other professions with higher rates of burnout and stress levels.  Before anyone asks, I have taught in the class room also and I would rate those days as much less stressful than my current field.  As to teaching to test standards, we all have to be measured by some "bottom line" whether it's a test score, a performance rating, a deadline, or a monetary value.  How we get there is usually up to the individual. 

 

 

Teacher burnout...  wow.  Summers off ought to make up for that.  Ditto for spring break, fall break, Christmas break, fog days, snow days, sick days, President's Day, MLK Day, Day after Thanksgiving....

 

Every profession is prone to some level of "burnout".  I suppose it's possible with teaching but I can think of about a dozen other professions with higher rates of burnout and stress levels.  Before anyone asks, I have taught in the class room also and I would rate those days as much less stressful than my current field.  As to teaching to test standards, we all have to be measured by some "bottom line" whether it's a test score, a performance rating, a deadline, or a monetary value.  How we get there is usually up to the individual. 

 

It depends on a lot of other factors too.  It's much easier to teach already smart and well-behaved kids who come from a family environment that puts a high value on education, such as in a parochial private school.  It's another thing altogether in an impoverished inner-city or rural public school where the kids don't give a rat's ass about learning OR behaving in the first place.  My mom taught science for years at a private Jewish middle school in Northbrook, Illinois.  It was a lot of work, and there was a lot of stress from all the school politics involved, but she liked her students and they liked her, and it all worked out well.  After moving to the sticks in North Carolina (ultimately to retire), she got a job as a science teacher at one of the local public middle schools.  She had to spend so much time trying to get kids to behave and actually do their work, which always came back as crap anyway, that she had to quit half way through the school year.  I was visiting for a few weeks once and I remember her coming home so frazzled and disheveled every day that I thought she was going to have a nervous breakdown. 

 

It's the same situation with bright young enthusiastic teachers who go to a school in the projects to try to make a difference.  Most of them leave after realizing they can't do anything, especially in the higher grades, and they become so disillusioned that it might just as well be burnout.  It's a very thankless job for the most part, being a teacher.  They're constantly being evaluated on metrics that are irrelevant to actually teaching, that discount their own creativity and drive, that try to commoditize them.  On top of that, they're further and further hobbled by the threat of litigation over trying to maintain order in their classroom.  Many can't even give proper grades anymore due to pressure from parents.  Little Snowflake says he's not misbehaving in class, and he deserves an A, how DARE you suggest otherwise?  Frankly I'm surprised there isn't more teacher burnout, or even rampaging psychotic killing sprees.