February 20, 2011

Protest baby.

P1060924

155 comments:

shoutingthomas said...

Jesus Christ! More white racists!

Couldn't you find one damned black person, Althouse?

Fen said...

See? Instead of murdering your baby, you can use it as a prop.

I'm a Shaaaaark said...

I saw a photograph of a kid the other day at this thing - he couldn't have been more than 5 or 6 - holding a sign that read "Worst governor ever".

I wish someone had asked him a question like, "Really? How many governors have you seen in your life that you remember?"

lucid said...

Yeah for government power!!!!

I am just startled at how much Instapundit and the Tea Party now seem to love the heavy hand of government.

Instapundit seems to love the idea of bringing doctors up before the State Medical Board and pursuing criminal charges against them, and is enthusiastic about the government taking away a form of assembly from its workers.

And he and the Tea party in general seems to love the idea of the government changing the legal environment in order to force (expropriate?) wage concessions instead of negotiating them.

It all does make one aware of Madison's concern about majoritarian tyranny.

And it does cast the Tea Party and Instapundit in a whole different light than I had been seeing them.

Libertarians are usually better at remembering that what goes around comes around.


wv was "Truth" No Kidding!

Emil said...

The way to respond to this is with theater of the same (or better) quality like perhaps "Scott Walker is garroting adorable bunnies with rusty razor wire!"

Fen said...

lucid: And it does cast the Tea Party and Instapundit in a whole different light than I had been seeing them.

Please embrace your delusion.

We need another Libtard to entertain us here.

DADvocate said...

Attack on Wisconsin families my ass. Unless she means she and her cohorts are attacking Wisconsin families, which is the case. The public employee unions are wanting to continue to fleece Wisconsin families for all they can get.

Ut said...

" ... and is enthusiastic about the government taking away a form of assembly from its workers."

The government has no right to assemble. Only The People enjoy rights. The government has no rights.

These folks are the government. Once you choose to become a member of the government, you give up rights enjoyed by The People.

shoutingthomas said...

lucid, that was just dumb.

Want to make another effort to say something coherent?

I'm a Shaaaaark said...

Or, "lucid" (funny name by the way), perhaps conservatives believe in the rule of law. You break the law, you suffer consequences. Since you're most likely a leftist, you don't know what that word means, so go look it up. I'll wait here.

Ok, you back yet? Good. Now, onto the other part about "taking away a form of assembly from its workers".

How is allowing union members the ability to vote each year on whether to remain unionized "taing away a form of assembly from its workers"? Seems to me they are getting INCREASED rights related to collective bargaining.

Chip Ahoy said...

Awww, bless.

madawaskan said...

Oh holy hell my son Christopher is here,

Jasmine Revolution-China.

victoria said...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!

Even the small ones!!


Go, teachers,go. This is the reason we have a democracy and representative government. The right to strike and protest perceived wrongs is beautiful.

Keep on going, protesters.

Vicki from Pasadena

rhhardin said...

Erving Goffman studied say-foring somewhere, where the adults in charge speak for the kid in matters of social obligation.

edutcher said...

How cold was it in Madison yesterday?

And I'm sure those oppressed, downtrodden teachers couldn't afford a 10 year old as a babysitter.

lucid said...

Yeah for government power!!!!

I am just startled at how much Instapundit and the Tea Party now seem to love the heavy hand of government.

Instapundit seems to love the idea of bringing doctors up before the State Medical Board and pursuing criminal charges against them, and is enthusiastic about the government taking away a form of assembly from its workers.


It's fraud. Defrauding the government (and the taxpayers) out of the teachers' pay.

And he and the Tea party in general seems to love the idea of the government changing the legal environment in order to force (expropriate?) wage concessions instead of negotiating them.

Walker is legally obligated to balance the state budget. That's the legal environment.

Contracts are renegotiated all the time. In this case, a sweetheart deal involving a kickback (votes and political contributions) to the Democrats. Said Democrats, if the Republicans had any guts, should be up on charges.

I'm a Shaaaaark said...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!

RIGHT ARM!!!!! (does fist in air thing)

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!

'THE PEOPLE. UNITED.' WILL ALWAYS BE REPEATED!!!!!

*Bangs drum repeatedly*

STICK IT TO THE MAN!!!!!

Oh. Wait. YOu mean we're not 'The People'? We're 'The Man'?

Awww crap....

*puts drum away, gets back on bus to go home*

edutcher said...

madawaskan said...

Oh holy hell my son Christopher is here,

Jasmine Revolution-China.


I hope your son stays safe, but the Red Chinese have every right to be scared. This is about 50 years overdue.

Rob said...

1. The teachers are being asked to take a cut in pay. Understandably they don't like this proposal and want to convince the legislature that it is a bad idea.

2. Teachers' compensation is out of control. Pay+benefits are very high. Remember how many days off a teacher gets. In addition, when a teachers' union talks about pay raises they will always exclude seniority raises. Obviously, most folks either get paid more or less than they did the previous year. No distinction is drawn concerning what type of raise it is.

lucid said...

@jason, shoutthomas, and others among the mindless--

If you find any of my other posts going back for years, you will see that I am very far from a leftist.

But those who support Walker are supporting a government seizure of individual rights to organize and control one's labor.

And what goes around comes around.

I think the details of what Walker wants in terms of contributions to health care and pensions are completely reasonable and fine. But it is very dangerous to put government in the position to impose what it wants. That is exactly what Obamacare is trying to do and is one of the reasons so many of us oppose it.

Governemnt employees do not operate in a free-market, for-profit system. If you knew even a little economics, you would know that changes everything. But I don't think you can understand the implications of that last sentence.

And BTW, I make all my money in private enterprise and in my own business.

Rob said...

3. If I join the Kiwanis or the Rotary my dues are truly voluntary. I can quit at any time. Teachers' union dues are taken out of the paycheck of the teachers. As has been repeatedly pointed out, it is insane for the taxpayers to use the power of the state to fund an organization which seeks more and more of the taxpayers' money. Let the teachers collect their own dues.

lucid said...

As for whether teacher pay is fair, the market sets compensation. Have you checked out private school tuition?

It takes a special kind of smallindedness to be so envious and resentful of other people.

I suspect that a lot of those attacking the teachers have low incomes and limited talent and education.

So you resent enforcers of achievement.

I am grateful to the people who have taught me. I think they should have earned more than they did.

I'm a Shaaaaark said...

But those who support Walker are supporting a government seizure of individual rights to organize and control one's labor.

No, actually. Those of us who support Walker are supporting the idea of stopping those who would organize and control their labor, at OUR expense.

Should be easy to understand, unless you're on of those people who think the government actually has it's own money.

AllenS said...

Wait until this child grows up and finds out what the words "national and state debt" means.

bill said...

"The right to strike and protest perceived wrongs is beautiful...Keep on going, protesters."

Why, yes, it is beautiful to strike and protest. We all have the good old American right to say "take this job and shove it."

You know what else is beautiful? Replacing strikers with people willing to do the job. Especially public sector strikers. That is every bit as democratic as the strike is. Liberty for the employee, liberty for the employer.

Fen said...

Lucid: But those who support Walker are supporting a government seizure of individual rights to organize and control one's labor.

Unions that force people to join, then force them to donate money to Democrats. Workers rights?

It takes a special kind of smallindedness to be so envious and resentful of other people. I suspect that a lot of those attacking the teachers have low incomes and limited talent and education.

Yes, thats your best argument. We're envious and stupid. Go with that.

Paul Zrimsek said...

As for whether teacher pay is fair, the market sets compensation.

So earlier, when you said "changing the legal environment in order to force (expropriate?) wage concessions instead of negotiating them" you were talking nonsense? Noted.

lucid said...

Shaaark (or whatever his silly name is) wants to not have to pay for what he gets.

And he wants the government to help him steal the labor of other people.

Do you work for free?

Do you try to maximize your income?

Why shouldn't teachers.

Or would you like to move to an all-private system of education?
Do you know what private school tuition costs?

You are either an idiot or a hypocrite. Most likely both.

Calypso Facto said...

lucid said: "government seizure of individual rights to organize"

There is no RIGHT to form a public union. Public unions were a vote-garnering political construction that has proven to be a fiscally unsound structure for non-adversarial negotiating that maximizes government employee costs and influence at the expense of the rest of the citizenry.

Fen said...

No no no Lucid. We're envious and stupid. Stay on target. You'll confuse yourself again.

Christopher said...

He hates families now?


The monster!!!1!11!

I'm a Shaaaaark said...

No, lucid. I just think that the teachers are not being asked to give up all that much - and are being asked to give up less than many others are giving up.

And I work in the public sector.

lucid said...

@Paul Zrimsk

Are you stupid? The whole point of what I am saying is that the Governor is trying to pass a law specifically aimed at the ability of the workers to negotiate a wage. That is what makes it expropriation.

If Walker negotiated, I have no problem with what he is asking for.

But if you weren't so smallminded and resentful of having to pay people who are smarter than you for what you are getting from them, you would recognize a fascist, anti-libertarian power-grab by government when you saw one.

I'm a Shaaaaark said...

"The right to strike and protest perceived wrongs is beautiful...Keep on going, protesters."


Unless, you know, you're currently under contract and striking illegally.

edutcher said...

lucid said...

But those who support Walker are supporting a government seizure of individual rights to organize and control one's labor.

IIRC, public sector unions in WI didn't come in until the 60s, so this is hardly a "right" in the manner of free speech. As I said, the Demos and the unions abused the privilege and now, given the budget crunch, the original agreement has to be reviewed.

Contracts are reviewed and sometimes not renewed in private industry.

As for whether teacher pay is fair, the market sets compensation. Have you checked out private school tuition?

What private school pays and what it charges are often very different.

shoutingthomas said...

Are you stupid? The whole point of what I am saying is that the Governor is trying to pass a law specifically aimed at the ability of the workers to negotiate a wage. That is what makes it expropriation.

The problem, as has been pointed out persistently is this:

1. Public unions make huge contributions to Democratic candidates.

2. Democratic candidates, once elected, kick back ever increasing salaries and benefits.

3. Taxpayers, who make less and receive lesser benefits than public employees, get it in the neck.

This is a form of corruption that has become so vast that it threatens numerous states with bankruptcy.

Other than that, you've got a great argument.

As Althouse wrote the other day, this system is a form of graft. There are no market restraints on salaries and benefits in the public sector.

lucid said...

@Shaark

what makes you think you know what the fair wage is?

are you the ultimate central-planner?

you just don't want to pay other people for their work, and you would like the government to help you.

cheap and a thief.

the best arrangement is to negotiate in as free-market a way as is possible where the employer is so powerful and the basis of the work is not profit-driven.

as i have said, i have no problem with the terms walker is asking for.

but i oppose the government changing the law in the middle of the negotiation or destroying the right of the workers to have control over their work.

essentially, what walker is doing is a government taking of private property for a claimed public purpose.

theft.

PaulV said...

The attack by the striking teachers?

WV: congual
Some pigs are more conqual than others.

lucid said...

loudmouth thomas wrote:
"Taxpayers, who make less and receive lesser benefits than public employees, get it in the neck."

So, should surgeons be paid the average salary of their patients? should anyone be paid the average salary of those they perform work for?

try reading a little economics.

And as for the rest of your silly argument, the voters (including me) have now voted for republicans. now the republicans shoudl negotiate.

but they shouldn't use government power to control people or seize their labor.

Jason said...

"But those who support Walker are supporting a government seizure of individual rights to organize and control one's labor."
----------------------

Bullshit. Since when does asking for contributions to your pension and health care = "seizure of individual rights to organize and control one's labor"

Seems to me having union dues taken out of your paycheck, whether you want to be in the union or not, is far worse.


"Governemnt employees do not operate in a free-market, for-profit system."
---------------------------------

That's correct. And the sheer number of government tells you that government as simply gotten to big. And the private sector cant afford to wages, benefits, and pensions of hundreds of thousands of people anymore without changing the way the government does business.

I'm a Shaaaaark said...

@lucid - I'm a "exempt" employee who works in the public sector. I don't begrudge people a fair wage, fair benefits, and the like.

However, I DO begrudge people having unfair advantages, such as the ability to negotiate for pay and benefits with the very people that their union dues elect. That I have a HUGE problem with.

Christopher said...

Lucid,

The teachers and unions can still negotiate.

There is no seizure of labor going on outside of the fevered imaginations of union supporters, nor are unions being done away with.

The only difference is that the unions can no longer use the force of the govt. to compel people to join them or pay what is effectively extortion in order to seek employment.

MayBee said...

lucid- what right does a teacher currently have to individually negotiate his salary and benefits?

PaulV said...

Lucid, why didn't the unions agree to a contract under the former governor. Unions will still have authority to negotiate wages, it the work rules where their power will be taken away. Seems strange they made same mistake ObamaPelosiReid did in not passing 2011 budget when they were supposed to. Teachers will be given right not to have to pay tax called union dues.

Hagar said...

Teachers' salaries used to be quite low all over. One argument is that this is/was reasonable, i. e., the law of supply and demand rules, and there is an awful lot of education majors out there.

Today, the situation has changed, at least in many areas, and the teachers in such areas now are quite well paid and have benefits and pensions that are unreasonably high.

We have gone through a long period of both prosperous and liberal leaning times, and there has been a tendency for liberal leaning governments to grant benefits to their employees that they have no way of paying when the economy turns down, as it now has and looks to be staying in that mode for some years to come.

The other argument is about government officials - elected or appointed - are not competent to "negotiate" with the unions, since it is not their money they are passing out, but the taxpayers. What is happening now is that the taxpayers are balking and refusing to have their taxes raised in order to pay public employees better than what they themselves are getting paid.

AprilApple said...

Lucid you don't know a thing about economics. Surgeons make what they make because of the market. Not everyone can be a surgeon. It take years and years of expensive education be become a surgeon. So this evil surgeon, after spending years in expensive med school – should he/she give his/her expertise away because you say so?

madawaskan said...

edutcher

Ya hopefully he can avoid getting caught in the middle of it.

An English paper is saying that it was over before it really did anything.

Journalists outnumbered the people that they thought might have showed up for it.

Thing is that in Beijing Drudge was one of the few sites allowed. No facebook, twitter, blogspot etc. That's probably going to change now.

DADvocate said...

It takes a special kind of smallindedness to be so envious and resentful of other people.

Smallmindedness like the perpetual call of the left to tax the rich more?

I suspect that a lot of those attacking the teachers have low incomes and limited talent and education.

I suspect you are wrong. I know you are in my case and in the case of many commenters here.

lucid said...

april

try to read and understand the posts before you respond. you will embarrass yourself less.

Birkel said...

lucid @ 11:13am:
"Governemnt employees do not operate in a free-market, for-profit system."

lucid @ 11:16am:
"As for whether teacher pay is fair, the market sets compensation."

***

I'll wait here as you try to square that circle.

damikesc said...

Lucid, great points.

Any thought on Walker's proposal that specifically allows continued collective bargaining for wages but not for things such as policy considerations?

...cause that is what his preferred legislation consists of. Limiting collective bargaining to wages only and all.

lucid said...

dadvocate,

if you would read a little bit before you respond, you would know that i am very far from a leftist.

you will seem less foolish if you first understand what other people say.

Maube you and April could work on this toghether.

Birkel said...

The errors in spelling were in the original quotes by "lucid".

I should have used "sic" to denote such.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maguro said...

The Wisconsin state government granted public employees the right to collectively bargain and they can damn well take it away if they want to.

If state employees don't like it, they can always work someplace else.

lucid said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PatCA said...

The "attack on families" slogan is the dumbest of all. 95% of WI families are being taxed to support the superior salary and benefits of the other 5%. Yes, it is an attack on families--those who taxed to support unions.

lucid said...

I think the dumb-populist anger at teachers and the enthusiasm for an expansion of government power reveals the perhaps fatal weakness of the Tea Party movement.

The tea party folks who want to expand government power against teachers are the same folks who would vote for Christine O'Donnell, or Sharon Angle, or Sarah Palin, for that matter.

The more they are visible to the vast numbers of independents and moderates, the more they will seem to irresponsible and fairly stupid, and they will lose support.

Obviously, there are a lot of good people in the Tea party. But apparently there are a lot of stupid and resentful smallminded folks.

I am just startled that people who think of themselves as members of the tea party, or someone who who is presumably intelligent like Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, would support the kind of expanded government power and expropriation of private property (labor) that Walker is trying to pull off.

What goes around comes around.

madawaskan said...

You're the Wisconsin tax payer. The state takes your taxes under threat of imprisonment.

Now what do they do with those taxes? One thing is-they build a virtual monopoly on education.

It's like you can only shop at one store.

Liberals complain about Walmart.

Well in the education department the state owns almost all of the market.

It's a little like having Target and Walmart combined.

TarMart. (Religious schools-Kmart.)

But, it gets even worse than that.

They build a transportation system to that-and since your kid can't drive he has to use it. You the tax payer have to pay for it.

Of course it only goes to TarMart.

So the tax payer has paid for the TarMart buildings, the heating and cooling, and maintenance. They've paid for the transportation. They pay the worker's salaries.

So the state has effectively taken that money-and left the taxpayer with little real choice. How easy is it to send your kid to school anywhere else? They've lowered your ability to pay tuition and at the same time they've knocked out the competition.

Now do you think it gets even worse?

Well yes it does.

Those workers organize to get even more from you and who do they negotiate that collective deal with-the politicians.

Up until today guess who those politicians were bought and paid for by? Not really the tax payer...

The Wisconsin unions do 99% of their campaign donations to the Democrat polticians and they are one of the biggest campaign donaters in the state.

Until today-the Wisconsin public unions were on both sides of the negotiation table when deciding how to divvy up your money.

Their union representatives on one side and their campaign funded Democrat politicians on the other-beholding to them.

They've been getting more than their fair share and it's why they are willing to give up a lot of things to maintain that unfair advantage.

It has got to stop.

You cannot allow the unions to have his kind of leverage over you.

You cannot allow them to have you at your most vulnerable and use something as important as your children's education and future against you.

lucid said...

damikesc,

Thanks. I think that issue is very interesting. Part of me thinks that would be fine, since market pressures should tend over time to produce an overall compensation level, whether it is distributed as wages or benefits. So, if the state reduced benefits, wages would rise proportionately over time.

One problem with what I just said is that teachers are not really operating in a free market because the employer is virtually a monopolist. In addition, and just as important, there are no profit pressures in the operation of schools. This creates lots of distortions of normal market pressures.

I don't know what Walker thinks he would actually gain by that proposal over the long run. But I don't have any strong feelings about it.

As I understand the current situation, the teachers have agreed to the substantive concessions that Walker has asked for. I would prefer to see negotiations. I like teachers as people, and I am grateful to them for what they have done for me. I feel the same way about doctors.

MayBee said...

would support the kind of expanded government power and expropriation of private property (labor) that Walker is trying to pull off.

How is labor labor being expropriated?
What right does the individual teacher have to negotiate for his or her compensation?
Can a great teacher ask for more money, the way Woodson the Packer can?

Why is it not the union expropriating private property? Teachers currently have no choice but to join (for a fee!)

Calypso Facto said...

lucid said: "because the employer is virtually a monopolist"

I guess I'd mostly agree with that as far as teachers go, but definitely disagree with the remedy. I'd say the solution is to bust the monopoly the state enjoys over schools through a voucher/tax credit system. With forced membership in the teachers' union, WEAC makes an already limited market worse.

Best case: many independent teachers dealing with many independent schools.
Worse case: Many independent teachers dealing with gov't school monopoly.
Worst case (existing): Teacher monopoly (mandatory union) dealing with gov't school monopoly.

shoutingthomas said...

I think the dumb-populist anger at teachers and the enthusiasm for an expansion of government power reveals the perhaps fatal weakness of the Tea Party movement.

lucid, you're talking to yourself, and you're not very bright.

This is not "populist anger at teachers." My daughter is a school teacher. It is populist anger at public employee compensation being out of control and impoverishing taxpayers.

Repeating nonsense, as you do, doesn't make it sensible.

This is not about an "expansion of government power." Quite the contrary. It's about restraining a kickback system developed by public employees and the Democratic Party.

lucid is supposed to mean "clear." Your gibberish is anything but.

lucid said...

madawaskan,

Stop whining. It is not anyone's obligation to drive or teach your children unless you pay them.

If you think the present system is so unfair to you, home school your child or send them to private schools.

Can't afford a private school?

Then work harder to earn more money.

MayBee said...

"If you think the present system is so unfair to you, home school your child or send them to private schools. "

But by all means, keep paying your taxes!

lucid said...

@loud mouth thomas--

the teachers have already offered the wage and benefit concessions that walker is asking for.

all that is left is his expansion of government power.

try to keep up.

shoutingthomas said...

lucid,

You're not very bright.

The constant repetition of nonsense and jibberish does not prove anything.

This is, in fact, a restrain on government power... the power of Democrats to kick back higher wages and benefits to public employees.

No, the unions have not agreed to these reductions to their wages and benefits.

In fact, these people that you keep trying to present as victims of government power are, in fact, the government.

Sit back for a few moments and inhale something other than that bong. It will clear your head.

shoutingthomas said...

lucid, it's also become obvious, as your language becomes more intemperate and angry, that you've lost the argument.

Aren't you aware that that is an admission you've lost?

We're trying to restrain the ability of public employee unions to loot the taxpayers.

That's what this is all about.

madawaskan said...

Ya It cost about $15,000 a year to send a kid to a school run by the mayor's wife.

The mayor -Democrat.

They own a lot of us like that.

shoutingthomas said...

The "expansion of government" bit is a rhetorical attempt on your part to use Republican rhetoric against Republicans.

First, I don't think that everybody who opposes the looting of the treasury by public employees is a Republican.

Second, your argument that restraining the salaries and benefits of public employees is an "expansion of government" is childish nonsense.

Give it up. It's just stupid.

Birkel said...

As I understand it unions will be forced to have elections for union certification every year in Wisconsin if the Governor's bill passes.

How is that an imposition? If less than a majority of a union's members support the union... doesn't that mean the union should collapse? Doesn't that give individual members within the union greater ability to direct the union's activities to goals the individual members support? How does that limit workers' rights in any way?

Further, I don't see how union dues collected by the union itself instead of by the state is an imposition on the union members' rights. The dollar amount collected will not change. The thing that will change is the administrative costs of collection will be shifted from the state (which does not benefit from said collection) to the union (which does benefit by the collection of dues). How can one argue that is a diminution of workers' rights?

Maguro said...

all that is left is his expansion of government power.

There is no "expansion of government power" here.

The state has always held the power to decide whether its employees get to unionize and collectively bargain.

Up to the 50s, it was prohibited. Now it's mandatory. In any case, it's the state that decides whether state employee unions are prohibited, mandatory or somewhere in between. And it always has been.

So, please, no more bleating about expanded government power. It's a non-issue. The government has always set the ground rules for government employment. And always will. For obvious reasons.

madawaskan said...

And that school has security like you wouldn't believe.

There's these little shooting issues that crop up at the public schools.

Gangs are funny like that.

lucid said...

I'm watching Walker on Fox. He is making the same kind of dumb-populist, economically ignorant arguments ("my brohter works at Sears and makes lees than the teachers")that I am reading from some of the nitwits here.

Can't anybody temper their envy with some economics?

lucid said...

@ maguro

it obviously is an expansion of government power within the plain meaning of words.

people could once own slave also.

Birkel said...

Please teach me "economics" by squaring the circle I mention in my post above @ 12:36pm.

MayBee said...

Currently, aren't all public school teachers forced by the government to pay a private entity, the teacher's union?
And then abide by their rules and get paid according to what the union negotiates?
And then isn't it the government that pays for the benefits that are negotiated by this private entity the teachers are forced to join (and pay via their taxpayer funded salary)

How is any reduction in that relationship an *expansion* of government power?

lucid said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maguro said...

it obviously is an expansion of government power within the plain meaning of words.

Really? Then who determines the ground rules for state employment if not the state?

lucid said...

@birkel.

you're being disingenuous.

suppose we elect the governor every 12 months also, and suppose the IRS stop having the right to withhold taxes.

you understand why those would be a problem, I bet.

so don't act like you don't understand. and what gives government the right to doctate the organization of the union?

madawaskan said...

Maybee

You have to add to that that the government has been their bought and paid for representatives. They've been owningvia large campaign fund donations the very politicians that are suppose to represent the rest of the state electorate.

The unions have owned both sides of the collective bargaining table until now.

shoutingthomas said...

lucid, it's time for your to quit.

You've descended even lower than jibberish.

You hate the people who want to restrain public employee compensation. And, you refuse to acknowledge that there might be a reality of financial distress that makes that necessary.

So, you've branded everybody who opposes you with some sort of stupid label. I just told you that my daughter is a public school teacher. That didn't penetrate your skull.

Second, I've told you that these public employees are the government. We're trying to restrain the sweetheart deal these public employees are engineering through campaign contributions and graft.

You clearly aren't bright enough to understand what's going on here. You just as clearly live in a world where nothing has to be paid for, and only mean people refuse to give you whatever you want when you want it.

DADvocate said...

if you would read a little bit before you respond, you would know that i am very far from a leftist.

Did I say you were a leftist? Perhaps if you respond to what I say rather than what you imagined I said, you wouldn't sound like an idiot.

Birkel said...

The IRS does not withhold taxes on many forms of income, as is obvious. So that is not an issue.

Why would electing a governor every year be problematic? The entire House is elected every two years. If all you're arguing is that union representation should be voted by their members every two years just like the House of Representatives, then I think the governor would likely concede the point to achieve his larger aim. I would concede certification every two years.

Unions would still be more accountable to their memberships in such a scenario. Instead unions follow the old communist adage:
One man.
One vote.
One time.

I favor increasing the rights of union members. Do you?

P.S. I await your economics lecture as soon as you square the circle you created.

lucid said...

@shoutingthomas

I'm done with you--you're not smart enough or honest enough to talk to.

lucid said...

@maguro

if you think about what you just said, you will see that you are EMPHASIZING rahter than disproving that Walker is expanding government power.

lucid said...

@birkel.

too dumb a post to answer.

MayBee said...

madawaskan - good point. The teachers are forced by the government to pay the union, to work according to the pay structure the union sets up, and to watch their union financially support a political party. The taxpayers are forced to pay the taxes that support the teachers according to the structure the union set up, and to pay the union the money that goes toward the political party.

I would love to hear the case that this is beneficial to the taxpayer in any way.
It isn't as if the union provides or gurantees a more professional teacher.

shoutingthomas said...

Yes, lucid, as I said, you need to give up.

Things do have to be paid for, by somebody.

You can't really put your tooth under the pillow and hope that the Tooth Fairy will leave you a ten spot.

That is, if you're over five years old.

Maguro said...

@lucid - The fact that the government made a decision you don't like doesn't mean there's been an expansion of government power. There hasn't.

The state sets ground rules for state employment. Always has, always will.

The fact that the state of Wisconsin is going to change those ground rules by legislation doesn't expand or diminish its power in the slightest. The Dems are free to undo all of Walker's changes or even expand the scope of state employee union activity if they can get themselves elected.

madawaskan said...

lucid

Do you even get the difference between private sector unions and public sector unions?

The difference might get you to begin to understand the problem.

You don't get to cripple the rest of the electorate.

The state has a virtual monopoly on education and they've entrusted teachers with those positions.

You don't get to impede everyone else in the state. You don't get to handicap their ability to have a safe place for their kids.

You cannot be allowed to hinder their ability to earn their wages so that their wages can be garnished to pay the very people taking everyone's kid hostage.

When a private sector union strikes and does collective bargaining they aren't crippling the whole electorate.


You don't get to have that kind of leverage over the rest of the voters.

It's disproportionate and you've demonstrated over the past week your willingness to abuse that power.

MayBee said...

ok, lucid isn't even trying anymore

lucid said...

If anyone has an actual argument that isn't silly, I'll be happy to discuss things.

But I'm going to ignore the nonsense and go on to other things.

shoutingthomas said...

But I'm going to ignore the nonsense and go on to other things.

Translation: lucid lost because he ain't lucid.

lucid, when I was a kid, I believe in the Tooth Fairy, too.

Birkel said...

lucid:

Are you saying the House of Representatives is not up for election every two years? Are you saying unions could not be elected by members every two years?

Are you saying all future members of one class of workers (e.g. teachers) should be forever bound by one vote at some point in the past? Should teachers not have a right to elect their own representation?

Otherwise, please defend your own statements:

lucid @ 11:13am:
"Governemnt employees do not operate in a free-market, for-profit system."

lucid @ 11:16am:
"As for whether teacher pay is fair, the market sets compensation."

madawaskan said...

MayBee

It really is that gross isn't it?

No wonder Obama is sending in everything he's got.

The longer Walker stands firm the more I see what power the public unions have.

They've really been in the cat bird's seat and I never really got that-till now.

I thought that collective bargaining was innocuous but when I read a quote in The Wall Street Journal about how they effectively own both sides of the bargaining table while throwing around the taxpayer's money -it really crystalized for me.

Man Walker cannot fold on this, and I don't pray that often but I really feel like praying for Kasich in Ohio.

Ohio-somehow I think those unions can be really ugly.



damikesc said...

Lucid, if a government allows you to collectively bargain your wages, then I don't see the issue.

Nothing here bans unions. It stops the state from collecting dues, as should be the case. It requires affirmative votes yearly that a union is wanted, which seems reasonable.

I'm not seeing the problem.

Birkel said...

lucid @ 11:13am:
"Governemnt (sic) employees do not operate in a free-market, for-profit system."

lucid @ 11:16am:
"As for whether teacher pay is fair, the market sets compensation."

Maguro said...

By the way, for everyone who wants Walker to play nice and negotiate with the unions - My state just raised its income tax from 3% to 5%. Do you think the governor bothered to negotiate with the taxpayers who will suffer the consequences?

Not on your life.

MayBee said...

madawaskan - it is. I do wonder if teachers got to choose their own benefits packages, stopped supporting the obviously wealthy parasitic unions, and stopped forcing districts to continue to support teachers who are no longer allowed to teach, they might not be better off financially.

MayBee said...

Maguro- that's what's weird. Not wanting to pay more in taxes is considered by the left to be *selfish*. Not wanting to pay more of your own health care coverage is nobel.

Meanwhile, most of us in private land get our benefits coverage changed on a yearly basis.

madawaskan said...

Maguro

Damn good point.

MayBee

Ya it almost seems like they are being asked to give up salary etc. at the cost of preserving the union hierarchy-and just those salaries.

Essentially god save the dues!

So they can donate to the Democrats.

Thus the circle of scum is complete!

madawaskan said...

Oh read this somewhere I wish I could remember where the union hierarchy really doesn't care if the whole state collapses because somehow they envision themselves on top of the pile of rubble.

MayBee said...

oh ha! *nobel*

MayBee said...

noble

My fingers will not type what I tell them to.

Calypso Facto said...

lucid, I've enjoyed and agreed with many of your past comments, but I truly cannot fathom where you're coming from with the non-sensical "loss of rights" and "expansion of government" arguments here today. Sorry.

MayBee said: "I do wonder if teachers got to choose their own benefits packages..."
Here's another union scam I haven't seen any coverage of this week. The teachers union (WEAC) normally stipulates in contracts that the school district MUST USE the WEAC created and affiliated health insurance provider WEA. WEA, has often been criticized for charging inflated rates in this monopolistic environment (over $200 a month according to the Journal Sentinel). It has been suggested, though is unproven at this point, that WEA then kicks back a "marketing fee" to WEAC. Once again, it's the taxpayer that gets screwed by paying too much for a union-controlled service.

Calypso Facto said...

*Note the $200 a month I referenced is the amount ABOVE competitive market rates, where bidding is allowed. Essentially, the union enforced monopoly cost.

lucid said...

Birket wrote:
"lucid @ 11:13am:
"Governemnt (sic) employees do not operate in a free-market, for-profit system."

lucid @ 11:16am:
"As for whether teacher pay is fair, the market sets compensation."

Yes, Birkel. This is an apparent contradiction. You raise a fair point and so I am going to give you a good-faith answer.

In general, wages and compensation are set in the market, and this happens to a great extent with teachers or other state employees like cops. When unemployment is high, it is easier to get hire new teachers to work for less, and this is n fact what is happening nationally. As unemployment falls, this will also, of course, change. /this is the market at work.

On the other hand, teaching is not a profit-based activity, and so the incentives for the employer and the worker are not organized around profits. I do think this introduces non-market distortions into the system.

In a profit-based system, the best and most talented employees are paid the most because they are more valuable to the bottom line. In a non-profit based system like teaching, the most talented and best employees are simply more expensive and the output of their talent is extremely hard to measure. So very often the system woudl like to cut them.

I guess the best way to say what I meant is that teaching is a system that is partially influenced by market conditions, but much less so than in profit-driven industries. Thus the partial contradiction in my two statements.

Sofa King said...

On the other hand, teaching is not a profit-based activity, and so the incentives for the employer and the worker are not organized around profits.

I strongly disagree. You might have a point, if you talked about the incentives vis the teacher and the student, but the labor relationship is pretty obviously a profit-based activity. The district profits from the labor of the teacher and the teacher profits from the salary and benefits.

MayBee said...

In a non-profit based system like teaching, the most talented and best employees are simply more expensive and the output of their talent is extremely hard to measure.

That is absolutely not true in union-dominated teaching.
The most talented teachers cost the same as the really awful teachers, as long as they have the same number of years in.

lucid said...

Calypso--

I really hate bullies. I hate it most when the bully is powerful, like the government. And I hate it even more when the bully degrades their victim and leads a crowd of yahoos in an attack.

One of the proudest moments of my life is when I got beaten up trying to stop a bully from picking on a younger kid. I don't know why this is important to me, but it is.

I am all in favor of government negotiating toughly, and that is why I have been voting Republican. The unions in Wisconsin have already given what the governor is asking for.

But taking away union-organizing rights is an intrusion into the freedoms of citizens to organize and to seek the best deal possible for their own labor. To me, what Walker is trying to do is the same kind of government power-grab that Obama is doing with the individual mandate.

Negotiate like hell, but don't take away economic rights by government force in the middle of a negotiation.

Calypso Facto said...

*Note 2: the reason the WEAC kickback claim is not proven or disproven is because WEA refuses to open its books for inspection. Which probably tells us everything we need to know about the claim's validity.

MayBee said...

calypso facto- thanks for that information. Very interesting.

Calypso Facto said...

Ok lucid. That, at least, I get if not agree with. Thanks. I've made the comparison to the way Obamacare was rammed through several times myself in the past week.

shoutingthomas said...

I really hate bullies. I hate it most when the bully is powerful, like the government. And I hate it even more when the bully degrades their victim and leads a crowd of yahoos in an attack.

You keep pulling this stunt, lucid.

Nobody is denigrating public employees. We're trying to rein in out of control spending on public employees, and end the cycle of kickbacks that they are getting from Democratic office holders.

My daughter is a public employee. My girlfriend is a public employee.

Now, lucid, you dumb fuck, can you stop insisting that this is about animosity to public employees?

You're making an ass out of yourself.

MayBee said...

But taking away union-organizing rights is an intrusion into the freedoms of citizens to organize and to seek the best deal possible for their own labor. To me, what Walker is trying to do is the same kind of government power-grab that Obama is doing with the individual mandate.

Again. What about the freedom of individual teachers who do not want to be represented by the teachers' union?

The comparison to the individual mandate is the government currently forcing public school teachers to pay to join the union.

lucid said...

@sofa--

Each side certainly BENEFITS, but the system of PROFIT incentives does not function as it does in private for-profit enterprise.

Schools don't earn a profit if they do a job well, and teachers don't contribute to a profit if they do their jobs well. So the incentives that operate in private enterprise don't and can't operate.

That is a real difficulty in terms of how to organize schools economically so that everyone is treated fairly (the public, the teachers, and the students). But I don't think it is fair to seize an economic advantage by using political power.

madawaskan said...

Right it's not for profit.

And there are no PROFITS.

The "company" is the state.

That's the very reason public sector unions should not have collective bargaining because you are taking money directly out of the pockets of the electorate..

Taxes.

There is no "fat cat" pocketing the profits at your expense.

You are taking from everyone else's resources while you the select few in the public-sector union enjoy "collective bargaining" power and no other member of the citizenry gets that.

Why should you be more equal and have more power when it comes to the distribution of state funds?

shoutingthomas said...

That is a real difficulty in terms of how to organize schools economically so that everyone is treated fairly (the public, the teachers, and the students). But I don't think it is fair to seize an economic advantage by using political power.

So, you're opposed to public employees unions making huge contributions to Democratic candidates, who when elected kick back excessive wages and benefits to public employee unions?

How old are you, kid?

Do you have any comprehension that somebody has to pay the bills?

MayBee said...

But I don't think it is fair to seize an economic advantage by using political power.

So you must really be against the unions trying to stay in business by getting the politicians to run out of town, eh?

Birkel said...

You cannot square the circle you created. I see that you got near admitting as much. But then you could not bear the conclusions that would flow from an admission that "the market" dictates neither salaries nor benefits for teachers.

I am sad for your cognitive dissonance.

shoutingthomas said...

And, lucid, you are wrong about the talents and skills of public school teachers.

Education majors are among the lowest performers on IQ tests.

Unfortunately, the education establishment is widely known as a haven for poor performers.

And, there are 10 to 100 applicants for every teacher's job. Minus tenure and union power, the salaries of teachers would plummet.

Calypso Facto said...

So, to conclude my soliloquy on the subject: WEA covers 160,000 Wisconsin teachers, at an average monopoly cost of $200 per month, for 12 months a year (or 10?). Total excess cost to Wisconsin taxpayers?: $384 million per year ($320 million if it's 10 months). Well, whatdya know...enough to eliminate this year's deficit and enough in 10 years to eliminate the structural deficit. Because of union graft. Now who's being greedy?

madawaskan said...

Public-sector unions for a long time have been getting the "collective bargaining" advantage complete with the politicians bought and paid for by union dues.

That's a synergy of power that's driven the state into the red quite literally.

Fiscally and politically.

Alex said...

If anyone has an actual argument that isn't silly, I'll be happy to discuss things.

But I'm going to ignore the nonsense and go on to other things.


Good you can start be getting the hell out of here for good. Scott Walker is gonna crush ya'll.

madawaskan said...

Calypso

The thread getting the most "eyes" is the one that Instapundit linked to.

Something about "can I kick you in the nuts".

I wish more people could know about the insurance kick back and over charge.

That's getting zero coverage.

lucid said...

Ah Birkel.

You almost managed to have a good faith discussion, but you couldn't quite do it. REad my post 20 or 30 times until you begin to understand it.

Birkel said...

lucid @ 2:11pm
"When unemployment is high, it is easier to get hire (sic) new teachers to work for less, and this is n fact what is happening nationally. As unemployment falls, this will also, of course, change."

LULZ!
I suppose the union will allow new workers to take jobs at less than the union wage scale demands.
ROFLMAO at "lucid"!!!

The union contract will not change, come good times or bad, without government action. And you don't want "heavy handed" government action. So the union contract won't allow workers to accept offers at lower rates as you have posited.

Another circle that you can't square. Shapes aren't your strong suit.

Maguro said...

Negotiate like hell, but don't take away economic rights by government force in the middle of a negotiation.

What is so special about public employees that they must be negotiated with?

The government doesn't negotiate with taxpayers when it wants to raise taxes. They just send you a bill and put you in prison if you don't pay. Tough shit.

The government doesn't negotiate with contractors. Contract terminated for the convenience of the government. Oh, you just invested $25M on a new set of machine tools to fill the contract? Tough shit.

The government doesn't negotiate with beneficiaries. Oh, you thought you were going to retire at 65? Nope, now it's 67. By the time you retire it'll probably be 72. Tough shit.

But for some reason, public employees must be negotiated with. They're so special. What is it about public employees that gives them all these negotiating rights that none of the rest of us have, lucid?

Sofa King said...

But taking away union-organizing rights is an intrusion into the freedoms of citizens to organize and to seek the best deal possible for their own labor.

Well said! But I wonder, who is trying to take away organizing rights? Certainly not Walker!

madawaskan said...

I think even FDR got it.

Calypso Facto said...

Thx madawaskan. I figure I'll reformulate and re-post in a future (hopefully apropos) thread. Or maybe AA will pick the point of my comments up for discussion in a couple days (has happened a few times here).

madawaskan said...

lucid

Basically you think whining about the monopoly the state has on education, and the lack of choice the citizen's have in education for their children is of little merit.

You could care less about that lack of freedom. even though the citizen's taxes have been used for centuries to create that scenario.

You have more freedom to find a better job, that pays more, with more benefits.

Or do you?

Would you be forced to put up with worse like the rest of the citizenry of Wisconsin that is taxed to pay for your better benefits?

I almost wish to extend your lack of empathy right back to you.

You're coming in here expecting sympathy for your predicament when you've had much more control and choice over your career path than what the average citizen has when it comes to a place to educate their kids.


*********************************

Calypso

Ya I hope so. I was going to try to cut and paste it.

But I can't quite figure out how best to word it.


It's so tangled up all the synergistic advantages they have and I can't even figure out how to write about it in a linear coherent fashion.

Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrgh.

lucid said...

@birkel

LULZ? ROFLMAO? Try not to write like a 16 year old girl texting her friends.

And, of course, you are wrong because you are poorly informed. All over the nation, new hires are getting less than old hires because the market conditions of employment change.

In NYS, there are, I think, 4 or 5 or 6 different hiring packages for teachers depending on when they were hired. And I don't think the unions in NY are soft.

But don't let facts get in the way of having stupid ideas.

And keep up those really cute texting conceits. (If you are a 16 year old girl, I apologize.)

lucid said...

@sofa

aw c'mon. requiring recertification of the union every 12 months is not union-busting? get real.

Alex said...

lucid - what's wrong with a little union bustin'?

Birkel said...

So you think because there are "different hiring packages" -- each one union approved...

Oh, hell, this is tiresome.

I can tell this is your particular ox. Sorry about all that goring. That said, dishonesty doesn't convince others.

lucid said...

Who knew there were so many dumb people in the world?

Alex said...

Who knew there were so many dumb people in the world?

Look in the mirror.

lucid said...

God, Alex. That was so witty. But what you think you were one of the dumb ones I was referring to?

Birkel said...

lucid @ 3:18pm
"In NYS, there are, I think, 4 or 5 or 6 different hiring packages for teachers depending on when they were hired."

That sentence is nonsense. It literally cannot make sense. Try again.

If I bother to interpret, you might mean there are multiple pay "scales". Which scale applies depends on seniority.

But what you wrote cannot make sense. Glass house for thee...

lucid said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lucid said...

Ah Birkel.

I do admire your effort. But just because you can not understand something, that does not mean that it makes no sense. Perhaps it you who are senseless, and the sentence is filled with meaning and useful information.

There are five "tiers" for NYS teachers. Which tier you are in depends on what year you were hired. The first tier goes back 25 or 30 years. Each tier specifies different compensation for teachers within the tier, including differences in wages, pensions, and teacher contributions to pensions.

This information directly refutes a point you asserted earlier (I wouldn't say that you had actually "made" the point--you only asserted it).

I hope you are able to understand the meaning of what I am saying and how it contains facts that directly contradict your assertions and "argument."

Calypso Facto said...

Unfortunate for your argument that districts in Wisconsin typically don't employ such a tiered system, lucid. At least I haven't found one that does. And I also am unable to find a Wisconsin district where teacher starting pay has gone down. Ever. But I'm glad NY is trying to allow market forces to act on pay, according to you. Maybe Wisconsin could learn from that.

More typical is this kind of scale, with education+experience factors (but that's it).

lucid said...

@Calypso--

I don't think there is much reason to expect teacher starting salaries to go down over time. I don't know of any major employment field where that has happened, do you?

And the scale you show is probably similar to what NY does. But,according to my information, in the different tiers the step-ups for additional education have varied.

But that seems as it should be to me.

Market forces do operate on what the unions can negotiate for, and those forces vary over time, and have been reflected in the tiers and other changes in contracts.

It is not that the unions can extort these amounts. They have to respond to market forces, which is why the tiers vary. But the idea that they get more if their qualifications increase is probably pretty standard and as it should be, in my opinion.

Also, in NY I think the negotiations take place with the local school board--so all this stuff about how the teachers buy the state legislature with their union's votes can't possibly apply. The local school boards are elected very locally, and teachers would only be a tiny part of the electorate. The people who are voting are those who will pay the salaries.

There must be some state involvement in benefits, because there is a NYS Teachers Retirement System. But I think the salary negotiations happen very locally.

lucid said...

@Calypso

One other thing.

In NYS, real estate values are highly correlated with the quality and reputation of the schools in the district. On online real estate sites, you can shop for homes based on school district rather than neighborhood.

The best school districts routinely pay the highest teacher salaries and approve the highest education budgets. they have the best schools and that gets reflected in their real estate values.

The best qualified teachers migrate to these districts for the better pay. I guess this is a form of market drive merit pay.

NYC schools IN GENERAL have less able teachers than suburban districts because the working conditions and the students are less desirable--but also because they pay much less.

School districts get what they pay for, just like everyone else in life.

Is it Texas or Alabama that has the worst education system--in terms of scores--in the country? Under Gov. Walker and the yahoos on this site, maybe Wisconsin can give them a run to the bottom.

Calypso Facto said...

Yeah, very different than that here in WI, lucid. The state decided to essentially take over school financing here years ago, providing 2/3 of school district funding, so union influence on the state legislators is a big, and real, problem.

Maguro said...

Is it Texas or Alabama that has the worst education system--in terms of scores--in the country?

Adjusted for demographics, Texas actually has better test scores than Wisconsin in most categories. That is, Texas scores higher than Wisconsin among whites and blacks, but Wisconsin has more whites so they come out ahead overall.

You can sift through the data yourself here.

Birkel said...

lucid @ 3:18pm
"In NYS, there are, I think, 4 or 5 or 6 different hiring packages for teachers depending on when they were hired."

lucid:
Read what you actually wrote and not what you believe you wrote.

There is only one "hiring package". That "package" would be for "hires". "Hires" would be present tense.

More senior workers do not get "hiring packages" owing to the fact they've already been hired. What they have is a contract formed under a different union agreement.

You have a basic inability to communicate in the written word. Perhaps that's why you can't square some of these circles you create.

Birkel said...

lucid:

Perhaps you'll understand this if my last was too byzantine for your smallish brain.

You used two words, the root word of both is "hire", and you used them in two different ways. Thus you introduce ambiguity to your statement. You expect others to correct what you wrote with context clues. That indicates a lack of clarity in your thoughts.

Similarly you argue that "the market sets prices" for teachers. Yet you admit that the market for teachers' salaries is not a "free-market" (sic). Again the ambiguity in your thinking surfaces... to the amusement of all.

dick said...

Victoria,

Power to the people! Even the little ones! That is if we don't abort them first!

There FIFY

lucid said...

Ah, Birkel. So stupid and so pretending not to be.

The meaning of different packages at the time of hiring is quite clear. Others who commented got it quite clearly.
But perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of a gerund?

And markets can set prices without being free markets. Happens all day long. But the fact that a market is not a free market affects how prices do come to be set. Which was my point. Get it now?

But try again. Keep trying, always. Never give up. There's a good boy.

dick said...

lucidm

The unions don't negotiate with the governor for the teaches. Those contracts are negotiated with the local school boards. What Walker is doing is trying to give the local school boards a fair chance to negotiate with the national unions.

lucid said...

dick,

you mean the local school boards negotiate with the national union? I don' think that is how it happens in NY. Seems pretty strange.

A close friend is president of the local school board. The state and the local boards' budget are both implicated, I think through the mechanism of state aid and the pension system.

But different school systems pay different wages here. And I don't think they negotiate with the national.
What you are suggesting happens in Wisconsin sounds pretty strange.

Are you sure yo are right?

And what is the implication of your point that you raise it to me?

Birkel said...

lucid:

So you're starting to round into an honest answer. We'll see if I can lead you slightly further down the path.

So the older contracts that teachers receive are still in working order in New York (which you wish to use as a proxy for some unstated reason). Only the new hires get the new, lower wages. And LIFO rules for retention guarantee the most expensive teachers are kept when a financial crisis starts -- regardless of performance.

This means that districts are kept with the highest costs possible until death or retirement of the earliest hired teachers. Meanwhile, you seem to think the older contracts should continue and only the new teachers should get the lower wages -- in spite of the fact that the "market" seems to indicate a lower salary would "clear the market".

******

Meanwhile you cannot offer a single reason union certification every two years is a bad thing.

And you cannot offer a reason the state should act as the intermediary to collect dues for the union.