Wisconsin in the news

[_MCB]

What do you think about the Wisconsin legislature action? My sister works for the state (but not in education), and is very angry about it. I am middling on the issue, there are good and bad provisions in it (just like there were in NCLB) I did sub on Thursday last week.

To me, I think it will give school boards the power to get rid of ineffective teachers. It becomes very difficult for educators who are prepared for the radical changes accompanying NCLB to buck the trend when their peers are satisfied with mediocrity. What do you think?

Milwaukee schools are in deep doo-doo with NCLB.

[_madeleine]

I think it is a trend that is going to spread.

[_Obiwan]

Would recommend your sister get educated instead of just reacting to liberal propaganda that it's somehow a "bad" thing that Wisconsin has done. All Wisconsin has done is leveled the playing field, so public employees are equal to the private sector, that way the state can save money. They still have benefits, they still have their money, they just now have to contribute some for their own benefits. Nothing revolutionary here, it's just a bunch of selfish liberals wanting their cake and eating it too.

[_moksha]

I know this action is being touted by many conservatives in the Church. That should tell you something is afoot besides ashoe.

[_MCB]

There are some real benefits to it. With insurance for the previously uninsured developing, they have to cut back somewhere. If it indirectly helps the health of children from poor families, why should the teachers be so terribly upset? It will make their jobs easier.

Can you imagine someone like Pahoran as a teacher? God forbid!!! Getting rid of educators like that would improve the image of LDS.

[Guest]

I follow WI politics pretty closely, and as a result I predict this thread is going to consist of me correcting the wall of misinformation that has spread through right-wing media on this topic. But that hasn't happened yet.

Regarding Walker's bill, I'm all for playing hardball with the unions. In particular I support revamping the pension system into something closer to a small employer match 401k. (Though Wisconsin's pension system is 97% funded and well-managed, in case you heard otherwise.) While WEAC has conceded merit-pay, I think they need to be pushed harder on weakening the tenure system. And so on. The compensation concessions that exist in this bill are slightly different than what the unions collectively agreed to in the last lame duck session, but are comparable in the overall hit to their wallets and savings for the government. I agree with either of those concession packages.

(The lame duck session agreement was killed at the 11th hour when two lame duck Democrat Senators inexplicably flipped their vote. They gave no reason for their action. Though one of them already now has a sweet 90k a year political appointment from Walker. Odd, that.)

That being said, I think workers should have every right to come together and collectively dictate the terms of their employment, just as I think employers have every right to dictate what they'll pay for labor. To the extent Walker's bill is politically motivated union busting, and that's all it really is, I'm appalled. The bill also contains any number of other deeply problematic things beyond the union issue.

I don't know how I feel about the Democratic legislators actions. Quorum breaking has always existed in a nebulous legal gray zone. Right now, it is functioning akin to how a real filibuster should work. Even though it is being used as a nuclear option in this case, rare and difficult, there isn't clear reigns on when the minority can do this kind of thing, which sets bad precedent. Additionally, unless their strategy is to buy time so the unions can prepare their organization for a strike, I don't think this has any beneficial long-term outcome for them. Any compromise that doesn't strip the attack on bargaining rights or add a sunset clause is a big loss for them. All that does is help weaken the resolve against the bill, which is absolutely needed to maintain a mass strike. Which is likely what is going to have to happen.

[_EAllusion]

by the way, the short term budget deficit that supposedly makes nearly wiping out union bargaining rights an emergency priority is routine, tiny, in part caused by Walker's own policies, and could easily be fixed in any number of ways such as delaying a few road projects for a short period of time. It's utterly disingenuous to portray unions as the cause of or the only obvious solution to that problem.

Wisconsin does have a more serious long-term structural budget deficit for the next biennium. We've had this issue repeatedly patched up with short-term fixes (such as using the tobacco settlement money) for years going back to the end of the Thompson administration. That needs to be fixed. The 3.6 billion dollar number consistently reported is an exaggeration. The Walker administration is getting that by assuming all department biennium revenue requests will be met, which never happens and certainly wouldn't happen with Walker. The real number is closer to 2.2 billion, which was what was consistently reported leading into this year. This requires a far more comprehensive approach to solve. And stripping the unions of bargaining rights can't possibly be a even a small part of the solution unless that singles that once they lose their ability to bargain, Walker plans on eviscerating their pay well beyond what is proposed in the current, already agreed to, concessions.

[_EAllusion]

Would recommend your sister get educated instead of just reacting to liberal propaganda that it's somehow a "bad" thing that Wisconsin has done. All Wisconsin has done is leveled the playing field, so public employees are equal to the private sector, that way the state can save money. They still have benefits, they still have their money, they just now have to contribute some for their own benefits. Nothing revolutionary here, it's just a bunch of selfish liberals wanting their cake and eating it too.

Walker's bill legally forbids public employees from collectively bargaining for anything beyond wages, which would be capped at a maximum of the inflation rate unless overridden by referendum. That means they couldn't bargain for health and retirement benefits (once that is taken away, it'll be more than just a small contribution that's being demanded), vacations, hours, workplace conditions, management relations, etc.

This is part of a two-pronged approached to end public employee unions. The first prong is to not allow them to bargain for much of anything.

The second prong involves making it more difficult for the unions to function. Union dues couldn't be deducted from employer paychecks. That's a convenient mechanism for collecting dues, which is being stripped just to take away the convenience. Union dues would become voluntary for employees, meaning that unions could not set as a term of their employment that employers hire union only, which will encourage free riders. Yearly union elections will be required. The law will also change to make it so a majority of employees have to vote pro-union, rather than just a majority of the voters. This is important, since not everyone votes in union elections. Etc.

The idea is to make it difficult for unions to operate and making the point of them operating scarce. It will effectively kill them. Which is the plan. Police, state trooper, and firefighter unions are exempted.

[_EAllusion]

so public employees are equal to the private sector

It's quite difficult to compare the two. The simple comparisons that are floating out there are ridiculous. State employees come from a much more narrow range than the private sector. The state isn't employing many burger flippers or Wal*Mart cashiers. What you need to do is take a look at comparable industries and professions with comparable educational backgrounds. When you do that, it turns out that on average public employees are compensated a little less, but tend to have much, much better job security. That makes sense. But even then, the comparison is probably too shallow. After all, public sector employees are much more unionized than private. The primary reason unions exist is that they can negotiate better deals collectively than people can on their own, so it wouldn't be shocking if more unionized sectors compare favorably. But even then, that's not enough. There are many professions, imagine defense attorneys for a moment, where the elite performers can do much better for themselves on their own rather than working within the terms state employment. That would skew the numbers more heavily in favor of private sector compensation.

It's a complicated topic.

[_Joseph]

This is just the start. Eventually it will be police, fire, ambulance and medical personnel. It will be 'take it or leave it' as the State has effectively banned unions and made those who would gather together for their common welfare criminals. It will come to that, prosecution and villification of those who would band together to improve their lot in the job market.

You notice he is not reducing pay or benefits for elected or appointed officials. That is the place to start.