Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

lpast said:

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

Click to expand...

propaganda pieces? dude - I'm citing public unions own pages. I'm quoting their own words. I'm not the only one saying they are powerful - they are

OpenSecrets.org keeps a "Heavy Hitters" List, tracking the largest overall donors from 1989-2012. You might find their Top Twenty instructive

1 ActBlue
2 AT&T Inc
3 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees
4 National Assn of Realtors
5 National Education Assn
6 Goldman Sachs
7 Service Employees International Union
8 American Assn for Justice
9 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
10 American Federation of Teachers
11 Laborers Union
12 Teamsters Union
13 Carpenters & Joiners Union
14 Communications Workers of America
15 Citigroup Inc
16 American Medical Assn
17 United Food & Commercial Workers Union
18 United Auto Workers
19 National Auto Dealers Assn
20 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union

Click to expand...

Well, huh, look at that. A lot of them seem to be bolded....

The rich pay half the taxs they were 20 yrs ago

Click to expand...

Wrong. The wealthy pay a larger percentage of our revenues than they did 20 years ago. In fact, the United States leans more on upper income households than any other industrialized nation.

.theyve gotten fabulously richer the middleclass fabulously POORER

Click to expand...

Wrong again. Income has increased for all quintiles, simply increasing faster for knowledge workers as our economy came to value them more.

the middle class has shrunk

Click to expand...

No - the upper range of income considered "middle class" has expanded.

the number in poverty has risen dramatically

Click to expand...

Over the last handful of years, absolutely. You can thank the worst "recovery" in post-war history for that one.

Camlon said:

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.

Click to expand...

According to SEIU's Education Chapter:

...Union members earn more than their non-union counterparts—28% more, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. For Latinos and women workers, the union impact is even greater. Women workers who are union members earn nearly 32% more a year than their non-union counterparts. For Latino workers the union advantage is 43 %....

Click to expand...

More right-wing propaganda. I've spent over 20 years of my life in Greece and can attest to the fruits of strong public unions on the country beyond the occasional paralysis. I've lived it.

The Greeks got to this point the old-fashioned way: They spent more money on the public sector than they possibly could afford, and then lied about it. Last year, they announced that their deficit wasn't 3.7 percent of gross domestic product as advertised, but 12.7 percent. Only in Athens does a multiplier of more than three qualify as a rounding error.

Public wages and pension payments absorb half of the Greek national budget. The government doesn't know exactly how many people are in the civil service, since that would require competence. It's now undertaking a census of civil servants. The guess is that it's about one-in-three people. The constitution guarantees these jobs for life.

During the past decade, public-sector workers have seen their pay double. They get bonuses of an extra two months' pay annually no matter what, and cushy pensions. According to the New York Times, the author of "The Guide to Granting Civil Service Pensions in Greece" retired at age 60, and 13 years later has a pension that pays better than his salary when he quit.

When the public-sector unions are out in the streets - perhaps tossing petrol bombs at the police - they will be the shock troops of bankruptcy. They want their country good and broke, just as they rendered it over the years with their self-interested, bullying profligacy.

RealClearPolitics - The Greek Unions -- And Ours

from Camlon

Are you stating that schools in rich areas are not better than schools in poor areas?

Click to expand...

I am stating - and I thought I was quite clear - that your overly general statement was worthless.

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.

Click to expand...

As I said, such a general statement is worthless.

Originally Posted by haymarket
False premise.

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.

Click to expand...

And this broad and general statement comes from where exactly?

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

Click to expand...

But we do not pay civil servants CEO salaries so you have no point there.

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.

Click to expand...

First, define rich.
Second, we are not talking about Norway.

from cpwill on US taxation

Wrong. The wealthy pay a larger percentage of our revenues than they did 20 years ago. In fact, the United States leans more on upper income households than any other industrialized nation.

Click to expand...

When you say REVENUES, you are restricting your statement to one tax paid to one level of government are you not while ignoring all other taxes? And that would be the federal income tax?

You are playing games with percentages which are only possible because we have excluded nearly half the population from the federal income tax. The rich are paying far lower rates and a lower percentage of THEIR OWN INCOME than at any time since WW2.

haymarket said:

When you say REVENUES, you are restricting your statement to one tax paid to one level of government are you not while ignoring all other taxes? And that would be the federal income tax?

Click to expand...

Nope. Though the heavy skewing in the Income Tax is what pushes them ahead. In this country we tax the wealthy. What we don't do, by and by, is tax the middle class. Not at the Federal Level, anywho.

You are playing games with percentages which are only possible because we have excluded nearly half the population from the federal income tax. The rich are paying far lower rates and a lower percentage of THEIR OWN INCOME than at any time since WW2.

Click to expand...

That is false both for both nominal and effective tax rates. Though as I recall, you have trouble distinguishing between the two.

cpwill said:

Nope. Though the heavy skewing in the Income Tax is what pushes them ahead. In this country we tax the wealthy. What we don't do, by and by, is tax the middle class. Not at the Federal Level, anywho.



That is false both for both nominal and effective tax rates. Though as I recall, you have trouble distinguishing between the two.

Click to expand...

Then by all means do present your information, data and statistics on all that you claim.

:shrug: easy enough. I've shown you this stuff about... what? 5 ish times now?

You claim:

Haymarket said:

The rich are paying far lower rates and a lower percentage of THEIR OWN INCOME than at any time since WW2.

Click to expand...

Top Nominal Tax Rate is currently 35%. At the end of the 1980s the Top Nominal Tax Rate was 28%.

According to the Tax Policy Center the effective tax rate for the highest quintile as of 2006 was 25.8% - pretty much about within the same stable range from 1979, when the effective tax rate for that quintile was 27.5%. In 1986 it dipped down to 23.8%, and in 1997 it climbed up to 28%.

Mind you, that's for the top fifth. As I pointed out to you with the IRS data earlier, the top 1% pay an effective tax rate of around 31%.

Regardless, the notion that the wealthy are paying less is a falsehood. Higher effective tax rates have remained roughly stable over the past 3 decades, and their share of taxes paid has increased.

Our fiscal issues aren't the result of a failure to tax. They are a result of this:





but this isn't a thread about wealthy paying taxes. This is a thread about Public Unions, and why you refuse to provide the reasoning behind your belief that they will come back after losing half or more of their membership and millions upon millions of dollars.

I asked you earlier if this was about one tax paid to one level of government - the federal income tax. Your reply was NOPE.

But then that is all you present in your post.

So which is it ?

You want to get back to talking about public employee unions and benefits? Fine. Here is a direct question for you:

Do you or do you not favor government honoring its contractual commitments to those who fulfilled there contractual commitments to government during their period of employment?

ttwtt78640 said:

NO. This is the biggest problem with public education; it costs far more than private education, per student, yet yields worse results BOTH according to standardized student test scores and graduation rates. How is it POSSIBLE that these less qualified, lower paid, priavte school teachers get better results, in fact, so much better, that nearly ALL that have a choice, pick these private schools for their own children to attend?

Click to expand...

Nonsense. First, private schools oddly get public money (tax dollars) in some areas. And they are selective. This means they get skewed results because there are so many schools that do not take poor perfroming students. What is better with them is the student. They offer nothing different in methodology, and often do not have teachers who are in any way better. In fact, some are quite a bit worse, as noted by them lacking credentials. MAke the students the same, and the results will be the same, if not the public schools actually doing better.

You seem to have no knowledge or understanding of either public or private schools, or the problems faced in education. This is part of the problem. Too many who know nothing keep trying to force changes that will not help. Next time your car breaks down, take it to Hairstylist, as you promote knowing what you're doing doesn't matter.

ttwtt78640 said:

It is not possible since you keep changing the "rules". You AGREE that public teachers make more than private teachers, then assert that is not a FAIR public/private comparsion because private teachers are underpaid. It is not possible, in your mind, that private teachers are correctly paid but that public teachers are overpaid (but ONLY because YOU say so).

So you want to compare public teachers pay to other (as yet unnamed) private "comparable" positions based on the number of years of education (but not in the same fields of study) that have entirely different work schedules. Then you say that is not fair either because the "comparable" public teacher education is somehow "continuing education" making public teachers no longer comparable to whatever you were comparing them to (again, as yet unnamed). Please start with SPECIFICALLY what a public teacher's pay is comparable to in the private world, then MAYBE I can see what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

You still haven't answered this:

Depends on the private schools and the teacher, but if they do, would that mean public schools pay too much or private schools too little?

Catawba said:

Do mean because I don't ignore that teaching one child without handicaps, learning disability, and from a good socio-economic background is different than teaching a classroom of 30 that is all inclusive? Surely you jest!

Click to expand...

No, you moved the goal posts in that post even though your original statement was talking in general with no qualifications other than someone having a degree is a better teacher than someone without. (paraphrasing) When I showed you that you were wrong you moved the goalposts.

Also just so you know, there are homeschooled kids with disabilites also. So you're attempt at an emotional appeal falls a bit flat.

Boo Radley said:

You still haven't answered this:

Depends on the private schools and the teacher, but if they do, would that mean public schools pay too much or private schools too little?

Click to expand...

Private schools are driven by the market while public education is only driven by how people feel and what the union can squeeze out of the citizens of the country. The excuse of a levels of education is nothing but that, an excuse to get higher pay. There is no reason to suspect I should pay them more because they have a masters and no I'm not accepting fairness arguments.

Henrin said:

Private schools are driven by the market while public education is only driven by how people feel and what the union can squeeze out of the citizens of the country. The excuse of a levels of education is nothing but that, an excuse to get higher pay. There is no reason to suspect I should pay them more because they have a masters and no I'm not accepting fairness arguments.

Click to expand...

Makes no difference. Market is magic. In fact, the market also produces inferior products sold cheap. And like I said, next time you car breask down, or you're ill with something serious, go to your hairdresser. And don't tell me being educated is an excuse. Just let her or him fix your car and treat your illness. It will likely be cheaper.

Boo Radley said:

Makes no difference. Market is magic. In fact, the market also produces inferior products sold cheap. And like I said, next time you car breask down, or you're ill with something serious, go to your hairdresser. And don't tell me being educated is an excuse. Just let her or him fix your car and treat your illness. It will likely be cheaper.

Click to expand...

Market magic dictates that compensation is tied to production. The violation of that dictate leaves market forces meaningless. This is obviously the case in ill-managed businesses, especially those infected with management incompetence, cronyism and nepotism. This is also the case of for government management, except that the causes are collectively called public unions and partisan politics.

Meathead said:

Market magic dictates that compensation is tied to production. The violation of that dictate leaves market forces meaningless. This is obviously the case in ill-managed businesses, especially those infected with management incompetence, cronyism and nepotism. This is also the case of for government management, except that the causes are collectively called partisan politics.

Click to expand...

NO, not really. At least not as mean it. I could do 40-50 students in a writing class. Production. But quality would suffer. Hence, production would result in lack of quality. And no, government has very little contact with those who work at schools. Schools present lobbyists just as employers do. You overstate as many on your side does.

Boo Radley said:

Makes no difference. Market is magic. In fact, the market also produces inferior products sold cheap.

Click to expand...

What in the **** does that have to do with my point? The market drives the wages in private school while the government is not governed by it.

And like I said, next time you car breask down, or you're ill with something serious, go to your hairdresser. And don't tell me being educated is an excuse. Just let her or him fix your car and treat your illness. It will likely be cheaper.

Click to expand...

Educational level is an excuse for wages by public teachers. It's that simple. There is no reason to suspect that if you have so and so degree you should expect such and such wage.

Boo Radley said:

NO, not really. At least not as mean it. I could do 40-50 students in a writing class. Production. But quality would suffer. Hence, production would result in lack of quality. And no, government has very little contact with those who work at schools. Schools present lobbyists just as employers do. You overstate as many on your side does.

Click to expand...

Let me try to make this clear. If there were others, and I'm not saying there are, who could teach the same amount of students without sacrifice to quality, is there any reason on earth why they should not be given your position?

Meathead said:

Let me try to make this clear. If there were others, and I'm not saying there are, who could teach the same amount of students without sacrifice to quality, is there any reason on earth why they should not be given your position?

Click to expand...

There are not. To even suggest it shows a lack of understanding of the job and subject matter. But it is an issue constantly on the forefront. Adminstrators want to put more studnets in the classroom and lower wages. The market suggests such thinking, and it does, make no mistake about it, hurt quality.

Henrin said:

What in the **** does that have to do with my point? The market drives the wages in private school while the government is not governed by it.

Click to expand...

No, it really doesn't. Job availaiblity and easier students bring people to private schools. Not the market.

Educational level is an excuse for wages by public teachers. It's that simple. There is no reason to suspect that if you have so and so degree you should expect such and such wage.

Click to expand...

I know. Knowing how to fix cares and treat illness is an excuse for mechanics and doctors. I understand, which is why you'd willingly use your hairdresser instead.

Boo Radley said:

There are not. To even suggest it shows a lack of understanding of the job and subject matter. But it is an issue constantly on the forefront. Adminstrators want to put more studnets in the classroom and lower wages. The market suggests such thinking, and it does, make no mistake about it, hurt quality.

Click to expand...

This is where you wander far, far away from reality. You have been told, and will readily accept, AND CONSTANTLY REPEAT, that ONLY people holding a certain degree or certificate, defined as needed ONLY by those currently holding such degrees and certification, CAN effectively teach children in PUBLIC schools. Yet, with our own eyes, we SEE private schools using "less qualified" and lower paid PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS to attain BETTER (not just as good as) student performance on STANDARDIZED tests than those PUBLIC SCHOOLS using your "very qualified", certificate bearing, higher paid public teaching staff.

Only a moron would believe that ONLY a master mechanic can the change oil, fix a flat tire or perform a tune-up on your car, yet YOU constantly assert that nothing short of a masters degree permits ANYONE from teaching a 3rd grader basic math skills. This is EXACTLY why we can not allow teachers unions to set the rules, and then "negotiate" how much to pay those that "meet the qualifications" that they defined as necessary using NO BASIS other than their own say so.

The argument ALWAYS used is that the public school teachers are BETTER because they hold fancy, higher level, paper credentials that deserve "reverence" and thus command "higher pay". Yet, the professional teachers (but not as "well educated"), used in private schools, SOMEHOW manage to constantly (consistantly?) produce better educated STUDENTS while spending less money, per pupil, to do that job; IMHO that proves that private teachers, although BOTH less "educated" and lower paid are, in fact, BETTER.

Boo Radley said:

No, it really doesn't. Job availaiblity and easier students bring people to private schools. Not the market.

Click to expand...

*Rubs eyes in disappointment*

Are public schools governed by supply and demand? yes or no.

Are private schools governed by supply and demand? yes or no.

Why people decide on the job has nothing to do with my point. If I was talking about teachers and why they decided on private schools your point would be valid, but I didn't do such a thing.

I know. Knowing how to fix cares and treat illness is an excuse for mechanics and doctors. I understand, which is why you'd willingly use your hairdresser instead.

Click to expand...

*Facedesk* What drives payment? If it was degrees than every last field that needed a BA or MA would pay you extremely well. Again, its wonderful you found some talking point, but it has nothing to do with anything.

And many people DO know how to teach that are not teachers. Did you forget the success of homeschooling?

Boo Radley said:

There are not. To even suggest it shows a lack of understanding of the job and subject matter. But it is an issue constantly on the forefront. Adminstrators want to put more studnets in the classroom and lower wages. The market suggests such thinking, and it does, make no mistake about it, hurt quality.

Click to expand...

The question was conditional and your reaction was as impotent as it could possibly be. The problem with the internet is that you usually have no idea of who or what you're dealing with.

The problem with teaching is perhaps that often stupidity begets stupidity and dogma begets dogma. This is probably where all these politically-correct a-holes that I deal with find their inspiration.

The right to work for less. In right to work states average pay is lower. eace

cpgrad08 said:

I would like to see a national right to work law past.

Click to expand...

jpevans said:

The right to work for less. In right to work states average pay is lower. eace

Click to expand...

Not if you adjust for cost of living.
Richest and Poorest States in the United States - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Among the 10 states on the bottom, only 3 are right to work. Namly Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas.