• 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!

Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?


  • Total voters
    64
No it doesn't. Here it is obvious you do not understand my point. You first agree with my point that schools in rich areas are better than schools in poor areas.

Yes, that is a result of socio-economic conditions.


And you have agreed with me that most private schools are in good areas.

Yes, again because of the socio-economic conditions. You are getting it!


Hence, you are have proven yourself wrong. Private schools are better than public schools.

:doh That's where your logic train jumps right off the rails. Man that's some seriously twisted reasoning right there.

I'll just leave it for others to decide if that makes any sense whatsoever.

Good day!
 
Why do the rich deserve to keep more of their money than the working class?
Why do you want to make the rich public union workers richer, at the expense of the working class?
 
It is a general statement, not an absolute statement. So
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. Depends on how you define it

Thank you.

So your statement: Private schools are better than public schools. Is clearly not a factual one and is wrong by your own admission.
 
Yes, that is a result of socio-economic conditions.

Yes, again because of the socio-economic conditions. You are getting it!

:doh That's where your logic train jumps right off the rails. Man that's some seriously twisted reasoning right there.

I'll just leave it for others to decide if that makes any sense whatsoever.

Good day!
No, I stated schools in good areas are better than schools in bad areas, and you did agree with that statement. That means if a poor student go to one of the schools in a rich area he will get a better education. That means the teachers in rich areas are better than the teachers in poor areas.

Now, most public schools are in bad or middle class areas. Most private schools are in rich areas. That means private schools have on average a better quality of teaching. That means an average private school teacher is better than an average public school teacher. You proved yourself wrong.

I am sorry this logic is too complicated for you, but I didn't really have high expectations for you.
 
Last edited:
Thank you.

So your statement: Private schools are better than public schools. Is clearly not a factual one and is wrong by your own admission.

It is a general statement, not an absolute statement. The absolute statement is incorrect. The general statement is correct.
 
Why do you want to make the rich public union workers richer, at the expense of the working class?

False premise.

First of all, public sector union workers are indeed members of the working class.

Second, the expense of public workers is carried by ALL in society served by those workers.

Third, your use of the word RICHER unfairly and inaccurately conjures up the idea that these workers are already RICH and only want to become RICHER.
 
It is a general statement, not an absolute statement. The absolute statement is incorrect. The general statement is correct.

So show us where this "general statement" is true. Perhaps you can use data to show us this?

It seems to me that this "general statement" is fairly worthless.
 
You're just stating the current rule- the profits go to the owner rather than the workers. That doesn't advance your position.

Yes, that's how our legal system works. When a person buys something, they become the owner. Are you proposing a change to this?
 
So show us where this "general statement" is true. Perhaps you can use data to show us this?

It seems to me that this "general statement" is fairly worthless.
Are you stating that schools in rich areas are not better than schools in poor areas?

If you don't disagree with that, and agree that most private schools are in rich areas. Then you agree with me that private schools are on average better than public schools.

False premise.

First of all, public sector union workers are indeed members of the working class.

Second, the expense of public workers is carried by ALL in society served by those workers.

Third, your use of the word RICHER unfairly and inaccurately conjures up the idea that these workers are already RICH and only want to become RICHER.
1. No, if you are above the threshold of 70K in income with compensation, then you are above the working class. The upper middle class is not the working class.

2. That just makes it worse. Imagine if we paid those CEOs salaries.

3. They are already rich. Many of the public sector workers earn very high salaries compared to the average Americans. Lets talk about another country. In Norway the average wage is aproximatly 270K NOK. In the US, the average wage is approximatly 27K USD. If you earn 700K or more in Norway, you are considered rich. Many public sector workers earn salaries much more than 70K USD, with very good benefits. Benefits you won't get in Norway. And they are getting richer. They want salary increases of 5% per year. That is significantly higher than a working class American.
 
Last edited:
Its not arbitrary. If I'm using my property to create a product and pay the workers that work for me the profits of such an venture go to me as I'm putting in all the capital.

Correct. And please note, the owner is paying the workers for the workers' product, namely labor. The owner then uses this product along with other factors of production to produce a product of his own, which he hopes to sell.

It is very important to note that by the time the owner's product is ready for sale, the worker has already been paid for his labor, as have all the other factor providers. Whether the owner makes a profit or a loss doesn't matter. The worker's sale of labor to the owner is an independent transaction that is completed prior to the owner's attempt to sell anything.
 
Correct. And please note, the owner is paying the workers for the workers' product, namely labor. The owner then uses this product along with other factors of production to produce a product of his own, which he hopes to sell.

It is very important to note that by the time the owner's product is ready for sale, the worker has already been paid for his labor, as have all the other factor providers. Whether the owner makes a profit or a loss doesn't matter. The worker's sale of labor to the owner is an independent transaction that is completed prior to the owner's attempt to sell anything.

All true, but if a company succeeds due to the actions of labor, is it wrong for labor to ask to share in the fruits of their labor? Many start-up company employees give up a lot in the beginning in hopes of reaping more in the future. In bankruptcy or tough times, labor is often asked to give up pay and benefits. Once those times pass, shouldn't they expect their pay and benefits be returned to previous or near-previous levels?

It used to be the CEO of a company made 40 times the lowest paid worker. Now it is several hundred times that:
The average compensation of a CEO in 1980 was about 40 times that of the average worker in his company. Today it is more than 500 times!
Wages in America: The Rich Get Richer

Good for the CEO, but why are employees being shafted? Management and Labor are symbiotic. They need each other and there should be a balance in their relationship. If management abuses labor too much or labor abuses management too much, then there are sure to be problems. I support unionism, but, like a management structure which is too dominant over its labor force, a union which is too strong and demands too much will harm the company. There needs to be a balance of powers between labor and management.

View attachment 67129091
 
All true, but if a company succeeds due to the actions of labor, is it wrong for labor to ask to share in the fruits of their labor?

No, I would not agree that it is not wrong for them to ask. They may ask whatever they wish.
 
Over the top extremist hyperbole.

Libertarians and right wingers are showing their true colors and just how much respect they have for contracts. And then they wonder why they cannot get even 1% of the vote for president? Amazing.

1% huh? Hey, didn't they have an election in Wisconsin over this sort of thing? How'd that go, anywho?
 
1% huh? Hey, didn't they have an election in Wisconsin over this sort of thing? How'd that go, anywho?

CP cmon buddy you keep harping on Wisc, your ignoring the poll that I posted that was done by Rasmussen a right leaning pollster that more people favor public unions in wisc and the country than do not.
I hate to be the one that tells you this....but wisc is a reflection of the 10s of millions being spent that have been spent by the likes of the koch brothers to create CLASS WARFARE and jealousy between the private sector and the public sector working class....Its NOT going to last CP
It just came out yesterday that the middle class has lost a huge amount of family wealth in the last 20 yrs and top 1% gained...all the evidence is there but you are so blindly partisan you wont acknowledge it.
 
Now you don't want to adjust for socio-economic conditions. Also, charter schools are not the same as private schools, and I am a little bit skeptical of the test. However, I am not planning to make this a debate about charter schools.

Adjusting for social economic conditions is often BS. It does say that public schools in a rich area perform equally well to a rich private schools. However, it does not say that private schools are not better than public schools. Which they are, or else parents would just send their kids to a public school. No need to pay a lot of money for an inferior or equal education.

The point that I have been making has not been a political point like the one you are trying to make. I am just stating a fact, that private schools teachers tend to be better than public schools teachers. While you stated it was the other way around, which is an incorrect statement based on your faulty thinking that a degree or a certificate make a teacher good.


So, 4.5% would be ideal. But seeing teacher compensation for some teachers increase from 120K to 150K in five years is wild imagination. I have feeling you may struggle a little with maths, and memory.


No, you didn't. You said all teachers who have a degree are good teachers. And please don't ask me to show you where you said it again. One time is enough.

Also, your change didn't make it correct. No, not all teachers with a degree and certifications are better than those without. Teaching is a skill.


Camlon, you make some good points...but I have to ask you...WHAT teacher in the classrooms pay went from 120k to 150k....my daughter is an educator and a supervisor in a state that has some of the highest paid teachers in the country and she is in a district in that state that is one of the highest paid in that state and she does NOT make 85,000 a year....are you talking Principles and Superintendents maybe ? a superintendent is NOT a school teacher.
 
Camlon, you make some good points...but I have to ask you...WHAT teacher in the classrooms pay went from 120k to 150k....my daughter is an educator and a supervisor in a state that has some of the highest paid teachers in the country and she is in a district in that state that is one of the highest paid in that state and she does NOT make 85,000 a year....are you talking Principles and Superintendents maybe ? a superintendent is NOT a school teacher.
No, teacher has gone from 120K to 150K. That was more what could happen in the future if teacher unions get what they want.

Also, I am not really talking about salaries, but compensation. That is salaries plus benefits. The highest paid teachers earn about 120K in compensation. If their salaries keep increasing by 4.5% like they want, then in 5 years their wage with compensation will be 150K. That is going to hurt the poor, because public budgets have to be cut, or taxes have to be increased.
 
99% vs 1%, right. Let's see, 53% taxpayers vs 47% who pay no taxes + union households. Wisconsin would have squared pretty nicely if it weren't for the union households bit. I guess that's why the Koch bros and money have to come into play for labor and the left to have an excuse. The problem with that of course is that grassroots' and labor unions' unpaid contributions are not factored into the equation. Go figure.
 
Why do the rich deserve to keep more of their money than the working class?

another one of the idiotic loaded questions. This is as silly a petulant rant I have ever seen
 
How do trade unions guarantee quality

1) trade unions generally train their workers. Apprenticeships? You may have heard of them

2) generally good trade unions know what is needed for a job and supplies those able to do it
 
I'm interested to know why you think education level = a certain acceptable wage and when it doesn't there is some reason to be outraged.

Any answers?

its a sense of entitlement the wannabes have. I suggested that the left could be broken down into several groups-the elite machiavellians, the dependent pawns, the ivory tower pillowheads (and common to this board) the somewhat educated cubicle bunnies who have degrees and complain that the market has not given them all the wealth they believe that they deserve so they want the government to punish those who have the riches the ECB's think they deserve
 
Sorry but I disagree with this. There are plenty of home schooled children that do just as well, if not better than public school children scholastically speaking. And those parents don't have a teaching degree. Hell, I'm a better teacher than my sons first grade teacher. She just tried to get him to learn reading by rote instead of actually figuring out how to sound out the words. I know this because I spent a day with him in his class watching how he was doing and how the teacher was teaching.

years ago, in Cincinnati, there was an effort to get community leaders who were winding down their careers to volunteer as teachers in specialized subjects. A great idea-having the CEO of Proctor and Gamble do a course on finance or a federal judge teach a basic class on civil rights and law. Yet the teachers unions opposed it claiming that these people were "NOT QUALIFIED" because they didn't have the union imposed teaching degrees. My son's school is a private school that yearly turns out kids who earn Phi Beta Kappa keys at places like Princeton and Yale. IN the last 30 years we have had two Rhodes Scholars (Harvard and Stanford) a dozen Fullbright Scholars etc. But the teachers aren't "Qualified" because they have masters, and in several cases, doctorates, in real subjects.
 
No, teacher has gone from 120K to 150K. That was more what could happen in the future if teacher unions get what they want.

Also, I am not really talking about salaries, but compensation. That is salaries plus benefits. The highest paid teachers earn about 120K in compensation. If their salaries keep increasing by 4.5% like they want, then in 5 years their wage with compensation will be 150K. That is going to hurt the poor, because public budgets have to be cut, or taxes have to be increased.

Ok thats nonesense and pure supposition....Teachers are NOT overpaid, I am not going to go into what I know happens in my daughters school and what teachers in the classroom are subjected too...it would just cause a firestorm on this forum.
Teachers go through hell in many school districts and people are totally oblivious to just how difficult the job is...Teachers with Master Degrees make incredibly low pay to education ratio....This rant on public workers is pure hyperbole created by the far right RICH to create class warfare to enhance their political agenda
 
Like I said, you have no clue what the laws are here so you're just talking out your ass. You assume some coercive force on the part of public sector unions but the major coercive force of private sector unions, the ability to strike, has been stripped from them. Like I said, no one here can "take over government". Your arguments fails.

They can't strike? You'd better tell the Chicago Teachers Union that. Apparently they didn't get the memo. In reality, that's a state-by-state question. Not that it really matters, when strike isn't allowed, everyone just takes "sick days, of which they have plenty, and the effect is the same. Wisconsin's citizens wanted a public education system, and the teachers unions told them tough cookies, if we want to protest, you aren't going to get it.

In Europe, where the public sector unions are stronger, so are their abilities to - yes - seize control.

Protesting Austerity Moves, Unions Shut Down Greece
...A two-day national strike of both private and public workers has begun in Greece. The strike, in protest of the government's austerity measures, is expected to practically close down the country — with no flights, ferries, buses or rail service...


Anti-austerity general strike paralyses Portugal
...Public services across Portugal ground to a halt on Thursday as trade unions held a 24-hour walk out. The strikers are protesting against a raft of austerity measures introduced by the government in exchange for financial aid...


Unions try to shut down France over pensions
...Workers tried to shut down France on Tuesday with strikes affecting airports, public transportation, schools and the postal service in a showdown with President Nicolas Sarkozy over his government's attempt to raise the retirement age by two years to save money....



and so on and so forth. Each one of the examples above (and those randomly selected) represent a seizure of sovereignty from the people of those governments. Each of those populaces voted to have public education, public transportation, and so forth, and each one of them had their public goods taken from them by public sector unions to use for their ends rather than the public's.



You don't think that public sector unions exercise incredible control over their areas of government? Try reforming anything in California. Even the Governator had to bow down to someone bigger and badder than him - 80 cents of every government dollar in California goes to Public Employee Compensation, their fiscal hole is bigger than ever, and the state is collapsing because of it. In most localities, the most powerful political force is the Teachers Union.

As SEIU likes to brag, they have the power to elect their own bosses. But when you elect your own boss, you sit at both ends of the negotiating table. And when you sit at both ends of the negotiating table..... (...drumroll...) you control it.

And they do elect their own boss. It turns out that when you look at those actual local elections that Public Union Support Is Just As Or More Powerful A Political Force Than Incumbency.
...incumbency boosted a candidate’s reelection chances by 47 percent. Union support boosted the odds by 56 percent. The combination of union support and incumbency boosted the odds by 76 percent — an important factor, since many of those incumbents became incumbents on the strength of earlier union support, meaning that the unions are compounding the effectiveness of their electoral efforts over time, stocking the incumbent pipeline with their favored candidates...

At the local and even at the state level, our elected leaders often answer more to public sector unions than the public sector unions do to them. That's an inverted power structure, and it means that the voters (who are powerful only as much as their representatives are) are effectively neutered in a general basis from affecting their own government. As AFSCME's Larry Scanlon put it: "We're the Big Dog."
 
Last edited:
They can't strike? You'd better tell the Chicago Teachers Union that. Apparently they didn't get the memo. In reality, that's a state-by-state question. Not that it really matters, when strike isn't allowed, everyone just takes "sick days, of which they have plenty, and the effect is the same. Wisconsin's citizens wanted a public education system, and the teachers unions told them tough cookies, if we want to protest, you aren't going to get it.

In Europe, where the public sector unions are stronger, so are their abilities to - yes - seize control.

Protesting Austerity Moves, Unions Shut Down Greece



Anti-austerity general strike paralyses Portugal



Unions try to shut down France over pensions




and so on and so forth. Each one of the examples above (and those randomly selected) represent a seizure of sovereignty from the people of those governments. Each of those populaces voted to have public education, public transportation, and so forth, and each one of them had their public goods taken from them by public sector unions to use for their ends rather than the public's.



You don't think that public sector unions exercise incredible control over their areas of government? Try reforming anything in California. Even the Governator had to bow down to someone bigger and badder than him - 80 cents of every government dollar in California goes to Public Employee Compensation, their fiscal hole is bigger than ever, and the state is collapsing because of it. In most localities, the most powerful political force is the Teachers Union.

As SEIU likes to brag, they have the power to elect their own bosses. But when you elect your own boss, you sit at both ends of the negotiating table. And when you sit at both ends of the negotiating table..... (...drumroll...) you control it.

And they do elect their own boss. It turns out that when you look at those actual local elections that Public Union Support Is Just As Or More Powerful A Political Force Than Incumbency.


At the local and even at the state level, our elected leaders often answer more to public sector unions than the public sector unions do to them. That's an inverted power structure, and it means that the voters (who are powerful only as much as their representatives are) are effectively neutered in a general basis from affecting their own government. As AFSCME's Larry Scanlon put it: "We're the Big Dog."

All those propaganda pieces sound real good to the anti union anti middleclass far right crowd....but heres the facts CPWILL.

The rich pay half the taxs they were 20 yrs ago...theyve gotten fabulously richer the middleclass fabulously POORER the middle class has shrunk the number in poverty has risen dramatically and the rich sent all the jobs to china while thier taxs fell hugely...
Its all a big lie...
 
Ok thats nonesense and pure supposition....Teachers are NOT overpaid, I am not going to go into what I know happens in my daughters school and what teachers in the classroom are subjected too...it would just cause a firestorm on this forum.
Teachers go through hell in many school districts and people are totally oblivious to just how difficult the job is...Teachers with Master Degrees make incredibly low pay to education ratio....This rant on public workers is pure hyperbole created by the far right RICH to create class warfare to enhance their political agenda
It depends on which schools. No, they are not overpaid on the really bad public schools. They have a hard time finding qualified teachers on bad schools. However, they are overpaid on the rest. Private teachers earn substantially less than public teachers. If public teachers weren't overpaid, then private teachers should earn the same. You will find that in many countries, private schools give out higher salaries because they want to get the best teachers.

But this discussion wasn't really about teachers pay, but about public unions. The reason I had to use teachers as an example was because Catawba refused to accept that public sector union workers earn more than US average. Even though I could document that public sector earns substantially more, and so do union workers.

My point was that increases in public sector wages hurt the poor. Private professional can get public sector jobs, so if public sector increases their wages, then so will the rich private sector. However, the poor can not compete for public sector jobs, they are not qualified. Hence they are not going to see increased wages. They will instead experience higher taxes, worse public services, and higher costs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom