Wow... someone has his panties in a bunch.
1) No one is attacking the workers.... we are suggesting PROTECTING the workers.... you seem to think that the only people working are the ones at unions. That is your first mistake.
2) No one is saying compare the hours of teachers to those of students. No one. I asked you how many hours they worked PER YEAR vs. those 'median families'
Do show us where someone said there was TEACHER malfeasance. Otherwise, you should keep your straw men to a minimum.
AGAIN... why did WEA go from a large increase in premiums (when there was NO competition) to 'meeting the lowest bid' when there WAS competition?
Of course you are attacking teachers. You are questioning how many hours they work, then you joyfully support cutting their benefits and their pay. These are people that MAKE $43,000...And you attack teachers by attacking THEIR union. Teachers or any other worker has every RIGHT to belong to a union if that is what THEY CHOOSE. Or does personal choice mean YOU get to decide for them? And with that right to unionize comes the right to collective bargaining. Instead, these teachers health care insurance and other benefits will be dictated. The word 'bargaining' seems to be lost on you.
If I posted an article from Moveon.org you would be all over my 'source'. But you post an article from a right wing equivalent, and we are supposed to take it as gospel?
Your article is a right wing hit piece written by a hack who fails to mention some crucial facts:
These teachers lost MORE benefits that have a monetary value, thus MORE cuts in compensation:
* The new rules also cut sick days from 10 to five
* Eliminate teacher pay for emergency school closings, such as snow days
* District leaders now have the option of furloughing staff members.
And your hit piece touts a savings of 1.5 million, but it failed to mention:
* The school board eliminated 14.49 full-time equivalent positions last month
AND
* In April, the school board rejected a proposal from the Kaukauna Education Association to extend the union's contract and incorporate pension and healthcare concessions along with a wage freeze, a move the union projected could save the district about
$1.8 million next year. So they wouldn't have had to fire people.
NOW, let's get to the ONLY point that is not fiscal reductions the teachers and union had ALREADY agreed on from the beginning.
The so called 'why did WEA go from a large increase in premiums (when there was NO competition) to 'meeting the lowest bid' when there WAS competition?'
Here you are claiming some sort of collusion or malfeasance. I am willing to bet it has NOTHING to do with either.
Can you answer this question? Are these teachers getting the same coverage they would have had with the original WEA Trust plan? If not, then they are losing MORE compensation.
Do you understand a government bid process? Because I was involved for years as a bidder. The school district had to write a set of 'specs'...in the case of insurance, it would specify the size, scope, exclusions and co-pays etc. that would be the minimum specifications. WEA Trust could meet the lowest bid because the specs probably call for MUCH LESS coverage for the teachers. But you little scurvy turds don't care about quality, value or people's health and well being...insurance is insurance, just like a Yugo and a Mercedes are both cars.
