• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wisconsin's Democrats to End Union Standoff

you are right, the reason for the "fuss" is that the dems left teh state, giving the unions ample time to protest cuts, that the state has to make.


BTW are the teachers back teaching?

From my understanding they went back to teaching after the first week of protests.
 
You're missing the point. But it does make sense that you live in a wealthy or at least a wealthy enough area. My parents were able to send me to private schools as well. And to be sure, simple-minded people come in all classes, backgrounds, races, genders and nationalities. I know a lot of rich, academic people who can't see past the convenient story put in front of them. You don't have to see yourself in the image I've painted of you, but you can't help how I see you based on what you've written.

In any case, the good thing about private schools or about public schools in middle class to wealthy neighborhoods is that parents speak up for their children to make sure that they and their teachers have good conditions and are working based on effective policies. In those places, maybe teachers don't need unions because the parents will stick up for them.

But in poorer areas, where parents (in general) are much less attentive, teachers and students need something else. Parents won't protest 100 days of testing or the use of crappy books schools the Board of Ed. got from a corporate friend who needs a favor. Parents aren't going to demand that their children have after school activities, etc.

Teachers can do this to a limited extent by demanding that they get to work in certain conditions that would also benefit students and unions are the ones who help them get those conditions. So you and I can go live in our fantastic private school lives and I can be grateful that my mother never let me go to a school as bad the kids a neighborhood over, but projecting our experiences onto those of poorer people and mocking unions because parts of them are bad doesn't help the problem.

This is becoming a pattern, Rev.....missing the point. :lol:
 
Because the military folk are paid like ****. Well under thier civilian or civil equivelants pay.... plus the military has no collective bargaining rights so I don't see the correlation here.

That said, I am not for increasing pay in the military, poor pay has a purpose in the military, but that's a whole nother thread.


I am for scrapping some military programs, lowering what we spend on the military, etc.... So, I think you pretty much failed here chief.

I guess 'defensive' is your default reaction, Sport. A question is just a question. It's relevant because you said 'they should cut civil workers across the board', not 'they should cut unionised civil workers across the board'. You need to learn to say what you mean, Bub.

I have no idea whether US military is well-paid or poorly paid. On first glance, the British forces are paid poorly in comparison with civilian public employees, but when you take into account all the services and facilities that are provided for them, the comparison is much more balanced.
 
You're missing the point. But it does make sense that you live in a wealthy or at least a wealthy enough area. My parents were able to send me to private schools as well. And to be sure, simple-minded people come in all classes, backgrounds, races, genders and nationalities. I know a lot of rich, academic people who can't see past the convenient story put in front of them. You don't have to see yourself in the image I've painted of you, but you can't help how I see you based on what you've written.


I am a product of the NYC, NEWARK, NJ school system..... I am also hold a degree from the University of New Mexico. I did not grow up rich, I became rich.

I attribute it to how simple minded I must be. :lol:



In any case, the good thing about private schools or about public schools in middle class to wealthy neighborhoods is that parents speak up for their children to make sure that they and their teachers have good conditions and are working based on effective policies. In those places, maybe teachers don't need unions because the parents will stick up for them.

So it's not the unions fault, it's the not simple minded poor folks fault....


Actually, I agree that the parents are part of the problem, so are the unions that don't base thier employment on merit.



But in poorer areas, where parents (in general) are much less attentive, teachers and students need something else. Parents won't protest 100 days of testing or the use of crappy books schools the Board of Ed. got from a corporate friend who needs a favor. Parents aren't going to demand that their children have after school activities, etc.

So that means the teachers can then not care and slack off, all while protesting for getting more for doing less....


Teachers can do this to a limited extent by demanding that they get to work in certain conditions that would also benefit students and unions are the ones who help them get those conditions. So you and I can go live in our fantastic private school lives and I can be grateful that my mother never let me go to a school as bad the kids a neighborhood over, but projecting our experiences onto those of poorer people and mocking unions because parts of them are bad doesn't help the problem.


You see now where you went wrong with this comparison, no? :lol:
 
So teachers shouldn't be evaluated on student performance. What should they be evaluated on?

1. Teachers should based on both student performance and seniority.
2. I think teachers should get tenure after 5-7 years after an evaluation process where the grades, scores and improvement of their students is evaluated.
3. Teachers should continue to be evaluated every year and if their performance falls they should have to go through a process of getting fired (in order to avoid firing teachers than can be improved or that are being targeted for personal/political reasons) - this process needs to be more efficient like everything else in this country.
4. If we're going to evaluate on performance, we need to make sure that students are given a fair shot at actually performing well (i.e. no spelling and grammar mistakes, no testing for 100 days).

From my perspective, all of these arguments are ridiculous. Students have performed well in environments where teachers have tenure, where teachers belong to unions and where unions can bargain. Why don't we just take what has worked in these successful environments and place them in unsuccessful environments with a few tweaks for individual circumstances?
 
I guess 'defensive' is your default reaction, Sport.


Defensive? I answered your loaded question..... :shrug:

A question is just a question. It's relevant because you said 'they should cut civil workers across the board', not 'they should cut unionised civil workers across the board'. You need to learn to say what you mean, Bub.


I figured my audience was smart enough to understand I was talking about state workers in the civillian populace. :shrug:




I have no idea whether US military is well-paid or poorly paid. On first glance, the British forces are paid poorly in comparison with civilian public employees, but when you take into account all the services and facilities that are provided for them, the comparison is much more balanced.


We have troops on food stamps. Thank you for admitting your post came out of ignorance. :shrug:
 
Keep hope alive, liberals. You have all screwed the pooch and are writhing in fetal positions and screaming in flea ridden pillows in secret places like the syphilitic cowards you are.

Perhaps the citizens' memories will be long enough by the next election to give the running reps their just deserts.

except for the fact that every poll I have seen (even rasmussen) points to the public siding with the unions on this one and walker's approval declining. But keep going on with your fantasy world.
 
Keep hope alive, liberals. You have all screwed the pooch and are writhing in fetal positions and screaming in flea ridden pillows in secret places like the syphilitic cowards you are.

Perhaps the citizens' memories will be long enough by the next election to give the running reps their just deserts.

Actually Ed, we are standing pretty tall and proud these days. Your boy Walker just gave us a massive shot of adrenaline and we are energized and ready for the next election cycle. We should send the Governor a nice bouquet..... of what... I will leave to others to decide upon.
 
I am a product of the NYC, NEWARK, NJ school system..... I am also hold a degree from the University of New Mexico. I did not grow up rich, I became rich.

I attribute it to how simple minded I must be. :lol:





So it's not the unions fault, it's the not simple minded poor folks fault....


Actually, I agree that the parents are part of the problem, so are the unions that don't base thier employment on merit.





So that means the teachers can then not care and slack off, all while protesting for getting more for doing less....





You see now where you went wrong with this comparison, no? :lol:

Once again, simple-minded people come in all forms. I went to the University of Chicago and my professors always told us this in many different ways. They taught us/forced us to evaluate every idea, no matter how familiar or unfamiliar, from as many perspectives as possible. Some of them were liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, you name it, but even when we disagreed on an idea, I could tell that they had evaluated it from a multitude of perspectives.

I don't get the same vibe from you. Like I said, you don't have to see yourself in the image I've painted of you. I mean, we're talking on a message board. But I will say this, the image you're painting of unions is wrongheaded and if it ever manifests itself in policy, very damaging. But luckily for everyone, I believe in action and I probably won't let that happen.
 
So teachers shouldn't be evaluated on student performance. What should they be evaluated on?

How is evaluating teachers on the performance of somebody else evaluating teachers?

And what makes you think those standardized tests are any sort of accurate measurement of what is taught in that classroom, school, or school district?

If you want that, you must insist on a national curriculum where the mandated curriculum is perfectly dovetailed into the tests. Japan does that and is very successful at it. Other than that, each district would have to both develop its own curriculum and its own perfectly dovetailed tests to accurately measure student learning.

Do that and then come back and we can talk about accurate measurement of classroom learning.
 
Once again, simple-minded people come in all forms. I went to the University of Chicago and my professors always told us this in many different ways. They taught us/forced us to evaluate every idea, no matter how familiar or unfamiliar, from as many perspectives as possible. Some of them were liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, you name it, but even when we disagreed on an idea, I could tell that they had evaluated it from a multitude of perspectives.


So you have seen me post a couple of times, and have come to the conclusion that I am simple minded?


Ironic, no?


I don't get the same vibe from you. Like I said, you don't have to see yourself in the image I've painted of you. I mean, we're talking on a message board. But I will say this, the image you're painting of unions is wrongheaded and if it ever manifests itself in policy, very damaging. But luckily for everyone, I believe in action and I probably won't let that happen.



Action? what, are you going to not work, put an inflated rat on my lawn and show me what's up? :lamo
 
So you have seen me post a couple of times, and have come to the conclusion that I am simple minded?


Ironic, no?






Action? what, are you going to not work, put an inflated rat on my lawn and show me what's up? :lamo

I thought on a board about politics, you would know that action meant participating in the political system through exerting the influence I am able to have a citizen (i.e. through voting, money and finding ways of getting people to evaluate this issue for more perspectives than a convenient one). And trust me buddy, as someone who raised by hardworking parents and who survived the endurance test that is college (particularly a college where students, not me, regularly have breakdowns because of the pressure), 'not working' is not an option, even if that's the idea you have of those who support the hardworking members of unions.

Oh well, it seems as if I'm going against my own signature- in multiple ways.
 
Last edited:
I thought on a board about politics, you would know that action meant participating in the political system through exerting the influence I am able to have a citizen (i.e. through voting, money and finding ways of getting people to evaluate this issue for more perspectives that a convenient one). And trust me buddy, as someone who raised by hardworking parents and who survived the endurance test that is college (particularly a college where students, not me, regularly have breakdowns because of the pressure), 'not working' is not an option, even if that's the idea you have of those who support the hardworking members of unions.

Oh well, it seems as if I'm going against my own signature- in multiple ways.



you know, if you want to insult me openly, we have a basement. :pimpdaddy:
 
Last edited:
Wisconsin's Senate Democratic leader wants to meet near the Illinois border. Sen. Mark Miller didn't say which side of the border. There's obviously the risk of being taken into custody on the Wisconsin side of the border since all Republicans need is one warm Democratic body to pass their bill.
Wisconsin Senate Democrats Want Meeting With Gov. Walker / ideastream - Northeast Ohio Public Radio, Television and Multiple Media


:rofl This is our government at work. It gets more hilarious every day.
 
Towns pay into the state, reduce that burden by the same percentage.

But the city workers are employeed by the city, not the state. Big difference.


I am also for the regionalization of schools and police and fire forces... We don't need 50+ chiefs in my county making 100k+ a year.... (some well over 300)

Don't know how that would work in most areas that don't share municipalities. Kansas City, KS/MO or St. Louis, MO/E. St. Louis, IL are examples of how such an idea could work, but you'd have to get both states involved to agree to share the responsiblities. Seeing that each state is very reluctant to give up its soveignty, I don't see this happening across state-lines. Moreover, cities and counties can also be very protective of their slice of the revenue pie. Novel concept, but I doubt it will work unless both sides see the mutual benefits.

I own a company, if i can't afford to pay my employees, either I cut thier pay, or I lay them off... Why should states be allowed to run at such deficits?


We simply can not afford it.

True, but you're wrongly equating private business practises to state government policies and laws, not to mention market factors that DON'T necessary affect state budgets in much the same way. Don't know what kind of business you operate, but I'm willing to bet yours is affected by the laws of supply and demand and changes in the marketplace. State governments aren't affected in that same way though they do feel the impact across the board if not enough revenue is generated mostly via their tax policies, i.e., sales, use and property taxes. Your business is likely most effected by consumer demand which is a far more simplier manipulator to compensate for. Not enough customers? Promote special discount sales, improve a product line or add something new even on a temporary basis (i.e., seasonal sales), or do more direct mail marketings...whatever it takes to increase and/or focus your customer base. States don't necessarily have that luxury, and even if they do they don't rely on "impulse buying" to general sales nor discounts. That (discounting via lower corporate tax rates) may work for inticing a business to a particular state, but it has little effect on people settling in a state. What DOES lure people to settle to a state are it's property and sales tax rates, crime, cleaniness, school systems and leisure/recreational activities not to mention the overall cost of living. These such things are often grossly affected when states start excising their public servants.

Wait, everyone should be cut but union workers because they can bargain? I misread this, no?

You misread me here. I am saying that it's not always the fault of public servants that their state's budgets are in disarray, yet they're always the first to feel the pinch. Why when it wasn't their salaries, their pensions, their employee benefits that caused the problems most states are facing in the first place? Public servants, just like regular employees in the private sector, are always the first to get hit when financial problems arise. However, in the private sector it's understandble why "last hired, first fired" is a mainstay...once you're done everything the business can do to reduce costs, i.e., energy saving strategies, cost-savings techniques like changing outdated equipment, switching vendors or reworking or dropping certain contracts altogether when practical, changing benefit plans, freezing new hires and a host of other things, once a business has taken the necessary steps in these such areas and are still having financial problems, then and only then should the layoff occur. And I suspect most businesses do go through these and many other such steps first. State government doesn't quite have these such luxuries to make such adjustments in their financies. But what they do have is the benefit of their financial history, just as most businesses do, inwhich to pull figures from year's past. I'm not saying formulating a state's budget is that easy, but if a state is projecting their financial forecasts on projections and not on how their budgets were on average in reviewing past budgets, for example, then they're very liable to place their financial house in disarray.


Merit... base it on merit, if the unions were for merit (I think they are in NJ which is why christie is not trying to bust the unions, and I agree here), then I would have more sympathy. But given what they are paid, the amount of time off, to me it seems they want more and more for less and less, in a time when we simply can not afford it.
I don't think unions are asking for more for their membership right now. If you can provide any evidence to the contrary, I'd ask that you provide it. Still, I agree with you that merit pay is far better than basing public worker pay on seniority (tenure).
 
Last edited:
I thought on a board about politics, you would know that action meant participating in the political system through exerting the influence I am able to have a citizen (i.e. through voting, money and finding ways of getting people to evaluate this issue for more perspectives than a convenient one). And trust me buddy, as someone who raised by hardworking parents and who survived the endurance test that is college (particularly a college where students, not me, regularly have breakdowns because of the pressure), 'not working' is not an option, even if that's the idea you have of those who support the hardworking members of unions.


Meh, college was easy for me....
 
Moderator's Warning:
All the chiefs, sports, buddies, and thugs in this thread need to go and everyone needs to tone it down and cease the baiting and flaming or else this guy is going to start handing out points. Got it friends?
 
But the city workers are employeed by the city, not the state. Big difference.


City gets state money..... A lot of it.





Don't know how that would work in most areas that don't share municipalities. Kansas City, KS/MO or St. Louis, MO/E. St. Louis, IL are examples of how such an idea could work, but you'd have to get both states involved to agree to share the responsiblities. Seeing that each state is very reluctant to give up its soveignty, I don't see this happening across state-lines. Moreover, cities and counties can also be very protective of their slice of the revenue pie. Novel concept, but I doubt it will work unless both sides see the mutual benefits.

I meant intra-state, not interstate. And they are VERY reluctant.... :lol: I completley agree with that notion....

There is a push for regionalization here in jersey... I am all for it.


True, but you're wrongly equating private business practises to state government policies and laws, not to mention market factors that DON'T necessary affect state budgets in much the same way. Don't know what kind of business you operate, but I'm willing to bet yours is affected by the laws of supply and demand and changes in the marketplace. State governments aren't affected in that same way though they do feel the impact across the board if not enough revenue is generated mostly via their tax policies, i.e., sales, use and property taxes. Your business is likely most effected by consumer demand which is a far more simplier manipulator to compensate for. Not enough customers? Promote special discount sales, improve a product line or add something new even on a temporary basis (i.e., seasonal sales), or do more direct mail marketings...whatever it takes to increase and/or focus your customer base. States don't necessarily have that luxury, and even if they do they don't rely on "impulse buying" to general sales nor discounts. That (discounting via lower corporate tax rates) may work for inticing a business to a particular state, but it has little effect on people settling in a state.


I don't disagree with thier being differences, however, we have reached a point where we can no longer afford these things and we need to make cuts across the board, this includes civil workers.


You misread me here. I am saying that it's not always the fault of public servants that their state's budgets are in disarray, yet they're always the first to feel the pinch. Why when it wasn't their salaries, their pensions, their employee benefits that caused the problems most states are facing in the first place? Public servants, just like regular employees in the private sector, are always the first to get hit when financial problems arise. However, in the private sector it's understandble why "last hired, first fired" is a mainstay...once you're done everything the business can do to reduce costs, i.e., energy saving strategies, cost-savings techniques like changing outdated equipment, switching vendors or reworking or dropping certain contracts altogether when practical, changing benefit plans, freezing new hires and a host of other things, once a business has taken the necessary steps in these such areas and are still having financial problems, then and only then should the layoff occur. And I suspect most businesses do go through these and many other such steps first. State government doesn't quite have these such luxuries to make such adjustments in their financies. But what they do have is the benefit of their financial history, just as most businesses do, inwhich to pull figures from year's past. I'm not saying formulating a state's budget is that easy, but if a state is projecting their financial forecasts on projections and not on how their budgets were on average in reviewing past budgets, for example, then they're very liable to place their financial house in disarray.


Isn't this what's happening already? I mean lets look at WI, what else can be done first?


I don't think unions are asking for more for their membership right now. If you can provide any evidence to the contrary, I'd ask that you provide it. Still, I agree with you that merit pay is far better than basing public worker pay on seniority (tenure).


I don;t think you understood what I was saying. The start of this was over a what 5.8 percent input into thier own pensions? no?

We agree on the merit.
 
They should cut civil workers (police, fire, teachers, dpw, etc) across the board. We are in a budget suck. cuts have to be made.

why should teachers and firemen have to have their salaries cut while the wealthy enjoy tax breaks? why should thew middle class have to bear the entire brunt of the economy? because that's exactly what's happening.
 
How is evaluating teachers on the performance of somebody else evaluating teachers?

And what makes you think those standardized tests are any sort of accurate measurement of what is taught in that classroom, school, or school district?

If you want that, you must insist on a national curriculum where the mandated curriculum is perfectly dovetailed into the tests. Japan does that and is very successful at it. Other than that, each district would have to both develop its own curriculum and its own perfectly dovetailed tests to accurately measure student learning.

Do that and then come back and we can talk about accurate measurement of classroom learning.

No we'll talk about it now. Tell me what criteria should be used to evaluate teachers.
 
Rev,

A city receiving state funds does not necessarily mean they're using those funds to pay salaries and benefits. They could be using it to upgrade equipment, i.e., a police department might need to buy a few new patrol cars that they couldn't otherwise pay for using city revenue. A fire department might need to replace some hose couplings or buy a new fire truck. Who knows...

The point is, not all state dollars are used to pay city worker salaries, etc. If they are, then yes, absolutely cut workers if you must. But to suggest it's that way in most states is posturing for a larger agenda. That may be what's happening in your neighborhood, but it's not what's happening in mine.

As for the steps Wisconsin has taken to date to reduce its financial woes, I really don't know what they did beforehand. All I know is what's being reported in the national media, towit, their Governor has never given a reason that justifies going after unions and public workers. I'd like to think he took all the right steps in this matter, but based on that bogus phone call he got caught up in...let's just say he'll have to answer to his constituences and leave it at that.
 
Back
Top Bottom