Wisc. Governor Makes a Cold-Blooded Threat to Sic the National Guard on Union Workers

[NCAA Umpire]

This post is directed specifically at CollegeUmpire:

Post #504 of this thread, which would be on page 11 at this point I posted the following:



^ this time highlighted for emphasis.

In post number #508 you responded:



I copied and responded to you and Kulindahr in Post #509.

I even attempted to humor you in the response that I received from you in post my #510.

And we're now on page 12 of this thread and I've yet to receive your answer.

My friend and fellow CE&P Alumni Chance1 acknowledged me in post #567 while responding to mi amigo rareboy.

The discussion degraded, once again as it often does here in CE&P; into a quasi-pissing-purse-fight-match.

Say that 10X's fast.



So CollegeUmpire, let's take up where YOU left off here on page 12 shall we?



For the record there's not THAT much love there.

^ and once again highlighted for emphasis.

So how about it?

Here's the link to that post, which you can now quote from, and we'll take it from there:

Post #504.

If there's any hope of getting this thread back on topic, this would be it.

In this forum there's not a huge difference between being an umpire, and a moderator.

So long as the rules of the game, and the expected behavior is being followed, we CAN continue!

Otherwise I'll just shut it down, because I can.
.

You're gonna have to repeat your questions. I haven't been on here the last day or two; it's been a very complicated time, and I forgot just what the heck you wanted.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

<clears throat> Speaking of....

CollegeUmpire, you didn't address one point.

Do you realize that, if you get your way and the unions are busted, that you yourself will be hurt the most? Almost certainly make less money with fewer benefits.

It seems to me that you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Hardly. First, unions are pretty much powerless anyway. They exist mainly for lazy workers and the leadership. Ours especially is so weak it ain't funny. Teacher after teacher the last 2 weeks has been let go, all due to "classroom management" problems. Even tenured teachers have suddenly been put on remediation, which means they're most likely gone by next year. Never mind the fact that our middle school is a tough one at which to teach. The kids show zero respect for the teachers. Most troubling is their CONSTANT talking and goofing around. We can't raise our voices; we can't ignore it; we can't touch the kids or violate their personal space (not saying I advocate that, BTW). In short, there's little we can do because we're pretty much babysitters first, teachers second; and the district offers no support for classroom management. All the professional development I've had with classroom management has been through outside seminars and conferences.

Our certified staff is the lowest paid one in our county, yet the administrators are the highest paid ones in the county, which is ridiculous considering our district is so heavily funded due to the demographics and the corresponding student performance. We pay part of our health insurance--no complains from me there--but the administrators all have theirs covered 100% .

I can't make much less money than I already am.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

its a shame I am not also an Amigo and alumni... I would be further ahead in line I guess.

Those who wish to be made first shall be made last, while those who are last shall be made to be first.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

Kulindahr, collective bargaining is not a right, because CollegeUmpire says so.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

 

[Kulindahr]

Didn't one of your Republican leaders—who was it?—recenty claim that the average teacher salary was $82k? One of you is lying.

(One of these days, I'll actually meet a Republican who tells the truth. Hope springs eternal.)

Johann, remember that an average has as many figures above it as below. Teachers in Oregon average much lower than that number -- ~$45k -- but in some districts they do earn that much -- the corollary being that in other districts they earn a great deal less (like $26k for a beginning teacher).

 

[NCAA Umpire]

Didn't one of your Republican leaders—who was it?—recenty claim that the average teacher salary was $82k? One of you is lying.

(One of these days, I'll actually meet a Republican who tells the truth. Hope springs eternal.)

That could be true, depending on which district he's talking about. And this "one of you is lying" line won't work here, because I didn't say a word about average teacher salary or anything else specific money-wise.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

Johann, remember that an average has as many figures above it as below. Teachers in Oregon average much lower than that number -- ~$45k -- but in some districts they do earn that much -- the corollary being that in other districts they earn a great deal less (like $26k for a beginning teacher).

One teacher in our school has been teaching 36 years. She has her Master's. She's making a paltry $65,000/yr. If she were teaching in the district in which I live, which is only about 8 miles from where we're at now, she'd be making over $95,000/yr.

 

[chrisrobin]

One teacher in our school has been teaching 36 years. She has her Master's. She's making a paltry $65,000/yr. If she were teaching in the district in which I live, which is only about 8 miles from where we're at now, she'd be making over $95,000/yr.

So what's your point? Are we being anecdotal yet?

 

[NCAA Umpire]

Never mind. You don't get it.

 

[Centexfarmer]

You're gonna have to repeat your questions. I haven't been on here the last day or two; it's been a very complicated time, and I forgot just what the heck you wanted.

Seriously?

Okay let's rewind, you previously stated in this thread:

It is, indeed, a contradiction. If collective bargaining was a right, as you mistakenly believe it is, then those states who refuse to implement it, as is their right under Amendment X according to what you have said, are in violation of the rights of said employees and must then implement CBAs. However, this would contradict the rights you claim the states have under Amendment X.

A clear conundrum is the result.

In addition, the Supreme Court has held that Right to Work laws are constitutional. As you know, such laws sometimes prohibit collective bargaining in certain professions. So, if such laws are constitutional, but collective bargaining is a right, then said laws would not survive the test of constitutionality because they'd be violating the laws that SCOTUS has declared constitutional.

As I've said before, collective bargaining is not a "right." This is an irrefutable and proven fact.

And I replied:

That's true, and I agree with the premise of your argument as you've stated it within this one post.

If collective bargaining where a right, I would imagine that many groups would be lining up to do so within States that don't allow this provision.

My question then is, why support the elimination of that privilege, and therefore the possible elimination on a National level from those State's that still legislatively offer/allow collectively bargaining?

It seems to me, from what I've read, that the public service Wisconsin Union members have agreed "collectively" toward the Governor's goals in terms of balancing the budget (wage cuts, etc.), but aren't willing to concede the loss of being able to collectively bargain in the future.

How does that support your stand on this issue?

And you answered:

Truthfully, Centex, I don't support what he's doing as much as I don't oppose it.

OK, my Vicadin's kicking in (woo hoo, I love this stuff!). Time for me to go to bed. Besides, 5:30 a.m. comes early.

So that's your final answer to my question?

 

[chrisrobin]

Never mind. You don't get it.

You're right. I don't. That's why I rely on members of the intelligencia like you to enlighten me. By the way, what's the antecedent of "it"?

 

[NCAA Umpire]

You're right. I don't. That's why I rely on members of the intelligencia like you to enlighten me. By the way, what's the antecedent of "it"?

Whatever you want it to be, Comrade.

 

[rareboy]

^I'd have to say that if this is the quality of discussion the thread has devolved into, it probably serves no real purpose for you to keep posting in it.

Just sayin'.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

Whatever you say, Comrade.

 

[palemale]

Hardly. First, unions are pretty much powerless anyway. They exist mainly for lazy workers and the leadership. Ours especially is so weak it ain't funny. Teacher after teacher the last 2 weeks has been let go, all due to "classroom management" problems. Even tenured teachers have suddenly been put on remediation, which means they're most likely gone by next year.

This is a little confusing. You say unions exist mainly for lazy workers. Are the teachers that have been let go the ones who are not lazy? Did the union only protect the lazy teachers? If the classroom management problem is due to laziness, then isn't the union not protecting the lazy ones?

Never mind the fact that our middle school is a tough one at which to teach. The kids show zero respect for the teachers. Most troubling is their CONSTANT talking and goofing around. We can't raise our voices; we can't ignore it; we can't touch the kids or violate their personal space (not saying I advocate that, BTW). In short, there's little we can do because we're pretty much babysitters first, teachers second; and the district offers no support for classroom management. All the professional development I've had with classroom management has been through outside seminars and conferences.

It seems from this statement that the problem is management, not the union. The problem also stems from something even good teachers cannot resolve, and that is how the parents raise their children. Doesn't this also call into question the fairness of evaluating teachers on how well the children test? If I teach in a magnet school with high-achieving students who are smart and test well, is it fair that I should be rewarded by merit pay or keeping my job, when a teacher in your school with difficult students who don't test well would not get that merit pay or might lose a job because of low evaluation based on poor test scores?

Our certified staff is the lowest paid one in our county, yet the administrators are the highest paid ones in the county, which is ridiculous considering our district is so heavily funded due to the demographics and the corresponding student performance. We pay part of our health insurance--no complains from me there--but the administrators all have theirs covered 100% .

Again, the point you make demonstrates that the problem is not the teachers' union, but school board management. Here in New York, Governor Cuomo complained that many school superintendents in our state make more money than he does and that this was not a particularly good use of education money.

 

[rareboy]

^ I think you're casting pearls here again.

You are now dealing with someone who has reduced all discussion to non sequiturs, brush-offs and anecdotal irrelevancies.

One assumes the vicadin is either kicking in or wearing off.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

This is a little confusing. You say unions exist mainly for lazy workers. Are the teachers that have been let go the ones who are not lazy? Did the union only protect the lazy teachers? If the classroom management problem is due to laziness, then isn't the union not protecting the lazy ones?

The union didn't really do anything, actually. They're not really doing anything to help the affected tenured ones, either.

It seems from this statement that the problem is management, not the union.

It definitely isn't the union's fault, and I certainly didn't want to imply it was; rather, it's the problem of the kids, their upbringing, and management's lack of support of its teaching staff.

The problem also stems from something even good teachers cannot resolve, and that is how the parents raise their children.

I don't disagree with you there. These students today simply have no respect--for teachers, school property, even each other.

Doesn't this also call into question the fairness of evaluating teachers on how well the children test?

I've never been a big fan of basing teachers' performance solely on children's test results. That can be one of the factors but shouldn't be the only one. Why not consider children's overall grades (improvement? going down?), among other things.

Again, the point you make demonstrates that the problem is not the teachers' union, but school board management. Here in New York, Governor Cuomo complained that many school superintendents in our state make more money than he does and that this was not a particularly good use of education money.

I think the unions' fault comes in where they refuse to even consider merit-based pay; where they refuse to get rid of seniority deciding everything; where they refuse to give priority over those younger teachers who are better than some of the older, more experienced ones; where they greedily demand health insurance contributions be exceedingly more generous than in the business world; etc.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

^ I think you're casting pearls here again.

You are now dealing with someone who has reduced all discussion to non sequiturs, brush-offs and anecdotal irrelevancies.

Whatever you say, Comrade.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

Seriously?

Okay let's rewind, you previously stated in this thread:



And I replied:



And you answered:



So that's your final answer to my question?

What I'm essentially saying, I guess, is that I truly believe that public employees, especially teachers, shouldn't be allowed to unionize. I agree with FDR's sentiments on this. Unlike business, where perhaps shareholders or a company's profit or image might be harmed by, say, a strike, it's quite different when teachers or firemen or policemen--or air traffic controllers, for example (1981 strike)--go on strike. Such actions directly cause not just disruption but can cause irreparable harm to people.

To allow those who serve the public to do something that can harm the public is indefensible. When teachers strike, it is our future that is put in jeopardy by our children not receiving the education for which the public is paying. When policemen strike (or suffer the "blue flu" en masse), the safety of the public is put in jeopardy. Same thing for firefighters. Ditto for the former PATCO, whose striking members were summarily fired en masse by President Reagan, one of the greatest acts as president he ever did. (Never mind that federal law directly prohibited strikes by ATCs then.)

Because of the very different and unique nature of such employment, I do not believe unions should be permitted in such fields. This does not mean that I think all CBAs should be quickly discarded, though. If a state legislature, however, wishes to either discard altogether CBAs for such employees, or at least modify them, I'm fine with that.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

You know, I'm going to miss ISAT week after this week. LOTS of time on my hands during the day because of this--kind of a mini-vacation.