Those poor Milwaukee teachers

[Onceler]

LOL.... tell us.... how has the education levels in this country done since the public unions took over? Has our educational capabilities increased or decreased?

Simply paying them more doesn't necessarily equate to 'better education'. The reason our educational system sucks is the complete lack of incentives. What incentive does a teacher currently have to excel or to even simply show signs of improvement year over year?

That said, we can afford to pay more to teachers if we eliminate so much of the unnecessary administration.

I'm not here to defend unions. I'm here to defend teacher salaries, and the profession.

We have reached a point where teachers are basically villified - just look at some of the comments on this thread. Many CAN make more in the private sector if they so choose, so why put up w/ the scorn & political BS that comes w/ being a teacher in 2011?

It's a damned friggin' shame. I read the comments on this thread, and just shake my head. Education is an investment - and that doesn't mean you just throw money at it, but the way we're devaluing it on this thread & beyond is a recipe for disaster in terms of our competitive strength vs. the rest of the world.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I love that when it comes to taxes $250,000 isn't "rich," but when it comes to teachers earning a decent living 40% of that is living like a fat cat.

or that they fail to even get the point that what they make isn't the issue here. Why do they get to charge what the market will bear for their services but it's not ok for teachers to do so. If Teachers (or any public service employee) can obtain $100,000/year or $250,000/year or half a million per year from the market why shouldn't they be able to?

What makes them so special that they can fix the wages of others but "God Forbid" you do that to them. It's hypocritical as hell.

If a banker can charge $250,000/year for their services cause that's what the market will bear then why can't teachrs (or policemen or firemen, etc)?

 

[Damocles]

or that they fail to even get the point that what they make isn't the issue here. Why do they get to charge what the market will bear for their services but it's not ok for teachers to do so. If Teachers (or any public service employee) can obtain $100,000/year or $250,000/year or half a million per year from the market why shouldn't they be able to?

What makes them so special that they can fix the wages of others but "God Forbid" you do that to them. It's hypocritical as hell.

If a banker can charge $250,000/year for their services cause that's what the market will bear then why can't teachrs (or policemen or firemen, etc)?

They do charge what the market will bear. They, however, wish to circumvent that and press for more than we can afford by purchasing the politician they will negotiate with.

In fact, often private schools with far better records pay less than the public sector, and in every case they do not get the budget crushing benefits added to their salaries.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Who are they collectively bargaining against?

Where are you going to get the money to pay for the extra wages, benefits that are given to them.... not based on what the market will bare, but based on what the politicians who are bought and paid for are willing to promise in order to get re-elected?

Oh yeah.... that money comes from the taxpayers via higher taxes or it comes from other government programs.

Bull shit. You're just making shit up now. If the market won't bear it, they won't get paid that via the law of supply and demand. You are just fixated on taking away the rights of others and are being a hypocrit in the process.

 

[Damocles]

Bull shit. You're just making shit up now. If the market won't bear it, they won't get paid that via the law of supply and demand. You are just fixated on taking away the rights of others and are being a hypocrit in the process.

Bull, they already take more than the market will bear. It's like you ignore the fact that there are deficits and pretend that we have zillions to just give away.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Public workers have the ability, through these unions, to directly inform and convince the public of a need for wage increases, it would even be cheaper than purchasing pet politicians, but not as easy. They have a platform of argument directly with the people who will pay their salaries. In this case the union is arguing that they should be able to circumvent those paying the salaries and negotiate solely with politicians who are the wholly owned subsidiary of their union. To do this they have to attempt to blame a politician they didn't buy, however it is the taxpayer who is the "fat cat" in this argument.

Public unions are incestuous beasts. They quite literally sit and "negotiate" their position across from a politician that owes his very job to their donations, millions given to elect the person they will "negotiate" with.

Because public employees have the capability of convincing voters of a need for a pay raise, they should not be allowed to buy a politician then "negotiate" budget crippling benefits unavailable to anybody in the private sector.

So you do believe that you have the right to arbitrarilly take away the rights of others to negotiate what the market will bear for their services?

 

[NOVA]

I'm not here to defend unions. I'm here to defend teacher salaries, and the profession.

We have reached a point where teachers are basically villified - just look at some of the comments on this thread. Many CAN make more in the private sector if they so choose, so why put up w/ the scorn & political BS that comes w/ being a teacher in 2011?

It's a damned friggin' shame. I read the comments on this thread, and just shake my head. Education is an investment - and that doesn't mean you just throw money at it, but the way we're devaluing it on this thread & beyond is a recipe for disaster in terms of our competitive strength vs. the rest of the world.

Get serious...how can you continue to defend teachers after reading topspins inane posts...
The teachers responsible for him don't deserve vilification, they deserve the firing squad...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Who are they collectively bargaining against?

Where are you going to get the money to pay for the extra wages, benefits that are given to them.... not based on what the market will bare, but based on what the politicians who are bought and paid for are willing to promise in order to get re-elected?

Oh yeah.... that money comes from the taxpayers via higher taxes or it comes from other government programs.

You nit wit! They aren't collectively bargaining AGAINST anyone. They are collectively bargaining FOR themselves. Just as you bargain for your wages and benefits when you accept a job offer.

What staggering hypocraciy. Ya'll really think that your special and have special rights that others should not have, don't you?

 

[Damocles]

So you do believe that you have the right to arbitrarilly take away the rights of others to negotiate what the market will bear for their services?

Rubbish, I believe that they have the ability to negotiate what the market will bear directly with the people who pay their salaries and should not be able to circumvent that by purchasing politicians to "negotiate" with. There is a reason that the vast majority of places do not allow public unions to negotiate directly with the politicians they bought, it is because when they can they break the budgets.

 

[Bonestorm]

So everyone agrees that campaign finance reform is crucial. Hooray!

 

[Topspin]

Get serious...how can you continue to defend teachers after reading topspins inane posts...
The teachers responsible for him don't deserve vilification, they deserve the firing squad...

say's the navy fag who couldn't even get into college. You posted a 4 year old chart in desparation Son.

 

[NOVA]

If $60K is a good salary, $250K is stinkin' rich.

But $60K isn't a good salary, and $250K isn't rich. $60K is decent for someone who is single and rents, but if you're a homeowner w/ a family, it's a recipe for lifelong debt.

Personal income?.....lets see your data...link me up....show me where

$60,000 isn't a decent salary .....rich is a relative term and means different things to different people....
show me where a single wage earner making $250,000 is on the income ladder....top 5% maybe...or better.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

They do charge what the market will bear. They, however, wish to circumvent that and press for more than we can afford by purchasing the politician they will negotiate with.

In fact, often private schools with far better records pay less than the public sector, and in every case they do not get the budget crushing benefits added to their salaries.

There you go again, blaming teachers for politicians who give irrepsonsible tax cuts to their wealthy supporters that create these budget gaps and then have the hypocracy to accuse public workers of causing the problem. That shoe fits on both feet Damo. What your saying is that wealthy business people have the right to pool their economic resources to influence political decisions that repersent their best economic interest, often at the publics expense, but that public service employees and working people don't have that right to do the same?

IT'S A FUCKING DOUBLE STANDARD DAMO!

 

[NOVA]

say's the navy fag who couldn't even get into college. You posted a 4 year old chart in desparation Son.

I'm waiting for your NEWER data....WTF is it?...can't produce?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Rubbish, I believe that they have the ability to negotiate what the market will bear directly with the people who pay their salaries and should not be able to circumvent that by purchasing politicians to "negotiate" with. There is a reason that the vast majority of places do not allow public unions to negotiate directly with the politicians they bought, it is because when they can they break the budgets.

So wealthy business people shouldn't be able to circumvent paying taxes by purchasing politicians to "negotiate" with?

 

[Damocles]

There you go again, blaming teachers for politicians who give irrepsonsible tax cuts to their wealthy supporters that create these budget gaps and then have the hypocracy to accuse public workers of causing the problem. That shoe fits on both feet Damo. What your saying is that wealthy business people have the right to pool their economic resources to influence political decisions that repersent their best economic interest, often at the publics expense, but that public service employees and working people don't have that right to do the same?

IT'S A FUCKING DOUBLE STANDARD DAMO!

Total rubbish, the school budget gap was created directly by the previous governor "borrowing" 200 Million from a secondary fund, a judge ordered it paid back however that particular governor ignored the order and left it for the next governor to eat. It's flat deliberately disingenuous to pretend that he even created the budget that they have to follow this year, he was elected in November.

I point out directly that the market they compete in pays, on average, less than they are getting. They already get "what the market will bear" and then some. Then you pretend that there is a "double standard" in recognizing the incestuous nature of public sector unions negotiating with the politicians they directly purchase.

 

[NOVA]

You nit wit! They aren't collectively bargaining AGAINST anyone. They are collectively bargaining FOR themselves. Just as you bargain for your wages and benefits when you accept a job offer.

What staggering hypocraciy. Ya'll really think that your special and have special rights that others should not have, don't you?

How come your messiah or you party doesn't give union rights to the federal workers?

As a matter of fact, why was it your party that passed the law forbidding unions rights to federal workers....?

 

[NOVA]

So wealthy business people shouldn't be able to circumvent paying taxes by purchasing politicians to "negotiate" with?

Don't you want others to have the same rights as unions?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm not here to defend unions. I'm here to defend teacher salaries, and the profession.

We have reached a point where teachers are basically villified - just look at some of the comments on this thread. Many CAN make more in the private sector if they so choose, so why put up w/ the scorn & political BS that comes w/ being a teacher in 2011?

It's a damned friggin' shame. I read the comments on this thread, and just shake my head. Education is an investment - and that doesn't mean you just throw money at it, but the way we're devaluing it on this thread & beyond is a recipe for disaster in terms of our competitive strength vs. the rest of the world.

I understand your position, but teachers are not being vilified here. That is simply nonsense.

What is absurd is people proclaiming that $60k +40k in bene's is not a good salary.

Again I ask.... has our competitive level increased or decreased since public unions took over?

Again I state... what incentive to teachers have to excel under unions? Do they get paid more? Better bene's?

Public unions are not about unfair working conditions or unfair hiring/firing practices. What they ARE about is paying politicians off via political donations and then pretending that they 'bargained' for 'what the market would bare' (as Mott loves pretending)

Again as I stated.... there is more money to be had to attract better quality teachers by reducing unnecessary admin.... but the other thing successful people like..... being rewarded for excelling. You will never get that as long as you have the cookie cutter contracts that unions always go for.

 

[Damocles]

How come your messiah or you party doesn't give union rights to the federal workers?

As a matter of fact, why was it your party that passed the law forbidding unions rights to federal workers....?

Just negotiation. They have unions, and can use them as I said but they cannot negotiate directly with a wholly owned politician for more than the market will bear.