The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Excessive hyperbole and distort much?

Not particularly; it's the logical end point of a lot of right-wing rhetoric (and, to be fair, theory) regarding public sector workers. Of course most people shy away from taking that kind of thing to its logical conclusion.

Torie doesn't espouse such rhetoric or theory....I'm hard pressed to find a pub here who does. I suppose you can find far right whackos who believe it, but it doesn't add to a productive back and forth with Torie.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that is the case, than my level of self awareness still needs some work.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that is the case, than my level of self awareness still needs some work.

Me too........

[Sbane]

Here's a random question/thoughts: If schools are privatized there is no doubt in my mind that adminstrators (and god forbid it's a chain of schools with seperate corporate headquarters), especially at the higher end, would be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and perhaps even $1 Million+ depending on how many schools they own (bet it will still be less than the amount of schools run by the guy in LA County, and I doubt he gets paid much more than 100k, which of course most people will bitch about government employees receiving).

So why do we bitch so much when it's government employees who serve us make a decent wage while we say nothing when the higher ups of corporations that serve us make Millions of dollars? And just like a school administrator making a lot of money will possibly lead to higher taxes, a school administrator in a private school making a lot of money would lead to higher tuition fees. And yet people won't bitch at all about the second situation. Why is that?

Because they are paid with public money that is why. If I were paid with public money, working as a lawyer for the government, what I was "paid" over the years would certainly be fair game - because it would be outrageous. I would be saying extremely nasty things about the lawyers' union - very nasty.

Again I don't see the difference between the administrator at a local public school making a lot of money thus affecting the quality of education or taxes and a administrator at a private school making a lot of money leading to hikes in tuition. I don't care whether my money is going to the government or a business, the point is that it's going more to the administrator than to my child's classroom. Whether it is a private or public school is highly irrelevant. I pay taxes in US dollars and I pay tuition in US dollars.  

Well if the private school tuition gets uncompetitive, students will go elsewhere. It is all set by the market, and that is all the right wants when it comes to public employees - exactly the same thing. Somehow, I strongly doubt the top administrators of private secondary schools make anything like you suggest, and indeed in general they probably make less than similar persons in the public school system. But that is neither here nor there.

Well, the bigger something gets, the more the guys on the top make while the service at the bottom remains the same. You are absolutely right that the top administrator at a private school with just one branch doesn't make anything obscene. But if there was a chain of them, the guys at the top would be making Millions, trust me. And if you don't then just take a look at any industry and find me people at the top making reasonable 200-300k a year salaries. So if these guys get to make a Million, then does the guy who runs the La unified school district also get to make a Million? Wouldn't that be the market rate for him?

Obviously I am not a fan of the teacher's union and the way they get paid is extremely retarded. They should get paid at market rates with those teaching home ec maybe making 40k but a well-liked science teacher who has been working in the district for a while should be making 100k+. And yes, good administrators in huge school districts should make 500k or more. Do you think public employees could ever get that high of salaries? You don't think the Republicans would make it a campaign issue?

Paying teachers at market rates doesn't seem to be something either the Teachers unions want or what the Republicans want. Or at least they want to pay market rate for janitors and gym teachers while paying lower than that for math and science teachers.

[Sbane]

Oh yeah Torie, why do you think workers in public schools make more than those in private schools? Cite?

[patrick1]

The idea that we only pay the salaries of public employees, but that those of private employees are no concern of ours or are not in any way borne by us is quite mind bogglingly illogical to me, quite frankly.

Why is it any concern of yours again as to what some private client of mine and I agree will be my billing rate?  Why is it any concern of yours, or the public, whether we agree on $250 an hour, or $500 an hour?  And why is it any concern of yours whether I make 200K per year, or 600K, if all paid by private clients?

The same bracket who frequently whine and raise holy hell at any tax increases. In regard to budget gaps and how to fill them, both sides are hypocritical, and both parties merely serve to placate their special interests.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Oh yeah Torie, why do you think workers in public schools make more than those in private schools? Cite?

Is there really argument on that, Sbane.  Private schools, most notably Catholic ones, can barely afford to keep the doors open, much less pay their teachers well.  

I found a website where teachers discuss this issue, sbane

http://forums.atozteacherstuff.com/showthread.php?t=12169

[Nym90]

The idea that we only pay the salaries of public employees, but that those of private employees are no concern of ours or are not in any way borne by us is quite mind bogglingly illogical to me, quite frankly.

Why is it any concern of yours again as to what some private client of mine and I agree will be my billing rate?  Why is it any concern of yours, or the public, whether we agree on $250 an hour, or $500 an hour?  And why is it any concern of yours whether I make 200K per year, or 600K, if all paid by private clients?

The way in which I would pay for it depends on who the client is (I'm not sure what type of attorney you are so please forgive my ignorance in that regard). If he's a representative of a corporation that sells products or services, the legal expenses are going to be paid for by higher prices. If he's paying you for a criminal defense, it doesn't have nearly as much direct impact, but increases in the going rate for such services does make them that much more inaccessible to those unable to pay the fees.

I could go on, but again, there is no magic reason why public sector wages are the only ones we pay.

[Torie]

Oh yeah Torie, why do you think workers in public schools make more than those in private schools? Cite?

I am not sure what you mean by "workers," but when I researched this issue heavily during the voucher campaign about 15 years ago (I was a speaker on that subject), private school teachers made less than public school ones (sometimes considerably less), and the administrative structures tended to be far learner and meaner than public school, with the latter bloated. I don't know about the janitorial pay scales.

By the way, I really would like to pay public school teachers more. If only they could be hired and fired based on performance, and we were attracting the A students to the profession, rather than the C students from third rate colleges. And then of course, what goes on in the classroom needs to be changed.  

[Sbane]

Oh yeah Torie, why do you think workers in public schools make more than those in private schools? Cite?

Is there really argument on that, Sbane.  Private schools, most notably Catholic ones, can barely afford to keep the doors open, much less pay their teachers well.  

I am sure it depends from school to school. The private schools around here certainly don't seem to be struggling....

And again what do you think will happen if the schooling industry was privatized? Chains will spring up and the guys at the top will make boatloads of money (and perhaps it will be justified by the market but no public school administrator would make that sort of money). If you think otherwise, I would like you to look into this beautiful oceanfront property I have in Baker, Ca. I will give it to you half off.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Oh yeah Torie, why do you think workers in public schools make more than those in private schools? Cite?

Is there really argument on that, Sbane.  Private schools, most notably Catholic ones, can barely afford to keep the doors open, much less pay their teachers well.  

I am sure it depends from school to school. The private schools around here certainly don't seem to be struggling....

And again what do you think will happen if the schooling industry was privatized? Chains will spring up and the guys at the top will make boatloads of money (and perhaps it will be justified by the market but no public school administrator would make that sort of money). If you think otherwise, I would like you to look into this beautiful oceanfront property I have in Baker, Ca. I will give it to you half off.

I'm not looking to privatize, honestly.  The transition would be disasterous.

I may differ from others, but the salaries don't bother me too much, but legacy costs have to be reduced and it as to be easier to get rid of the bums.......that applies to all unions.....and in fact all business.

[Sbane]

Oh yeah Torie, why do you think workers in public schools make more than those in private schools? Cite?

I am not sure what you mean by "workers," but when I researched this issue heavily during the voucher campaign about 15 years ago (I was a speaker on that subject), private school teachers made less than public school ones (sometimes considerably less), and the administrative structures tended to be far learner and meaner than public school, with the latter bloated. I don't know about the janitorial pay scales.

By the way, I really would like to pay public school teachers more. If only they could be hired and fired based on performance, and we were attracting the A students to the profession, rather than the C students from third rate colleges. And then of course, what goes on in the classroom needs to be changed.  

I said "workers" so everybody was included like Janitors, Teachers, Administrators etc. I am sure the private school business is pretty cutthroat right now. It won't be if it is privatized though, just keep that in mind.

I basically agree with your second statement, which is quite similar to what Steve Poizner said in a debate once. Take away the plush benefits from public employees but pay them at market rates. The only problem with that is at the higher up positions where the true market rate is pretty damn high. Again we are fine with CEO's making that sort of money, but there would be extreme outrage if a guy in government did, even if it was the market rate.

[Torie]

The idea that we only pay the salaries of public employees, but that those of private employees are no concern of ours or are not in any way borne by us is quite mind bogglingly illogical to me, quite frankly.

Why is it any concern of yours again as to what some private client of mine and I agree will be my billing rate?  Why is it any concern of yours, or the public, whether we agree on $250 an hour, or $500 an hour?  And why is it any concern of yours whether I make 200K per year, or 600K, if all paid by private clients?

The way in which I would pay for it depends on who the client is (I'm not sure what type of attorney you are so please forgive my ignorance in that regard). If he's a representative of a corporation that sells products or services, the legal expenses are going to be paid for by higher prices. If he's paying you for a criminal defense, it doesn't have nearly as much direct impact, but increases in the going rate for such services does make them that much more inaccessible to those unable to pay the fees.

I could go on, but again, there is no magic reason why public sector wages are the only ones we pay.

If the corporation can find an equally good and responsive lawyer for less, than the corporate officer who retained me is a dumb. In fact, I sometimes do send clients away, and refer them out. I tell them that my rate is too high, and given the skill level required for what they need done, they can get it done elsewhere for less. I tend to gravitate to matters where I have a lot of value to add, because it is within my core skill set - often involving complex financial matters as to which, as I lawyer, I have an unusual ability to parse. That nexus between the law, economics, and finance is my sweet spot, and folks in the past paid me a lot of money for it.

[Sbane]

Oh yeah Torie, why do you think workers in public schools make more than those in private schools? Cite?

Is there really argument on that, Sbane.  Private schools, most notably Catholic ones, can barely afford to keep the doors open, much less pay their teachers well. 

I am sure it depends from school to school. The private schools around here certainly don't seem to be struggling....

And again what do you think will happen if the schooling industry was privatized? Chains will spring up and the guys at the top will make boatloads of money (and perhaps it will be justified by the market but no public school administrator would make that sort of money). If you think otherwise, I would like you to look into this beautiful oceanfront property I have in Baker, Ca. I will give it to you half off.

I'm not looking to privatize, honestly.  The transition would be disasterous.

I may differ from others, but the salaries don't bother me too much, but legacy costs have to be reduced and it as to be easier to get rid of the bums.......that applies to all unions.....and in fact all business.

Salaries are certainly not the problem, the bums who are protected from being fired are. I knew a teacher who had been teaching at my school for 30 years, probably making close to 100k, and the class she taught was basic computer skills (which most high schoolers know by elementary school these days). On the flip side I had an AP chemistry teacher who just finished her PhD and had taught at the school for only a year. I doubt she made more than 40-50k. Perhaps the district supplemented some of her income since we are a wealthy district, but that can't happen in most schools.

Also at this school I had a AP history teacher who identified himself as a communist (he is really a socialist but he wanted to shock us). Even he had a huge problem with the union. Now I hear he has left the school for the private sector. He was one of the best teachers at our school and raised AP scores during the time he was there. If there was ever a person deserving of higher merit pay (he was also a young so he get a pittance) it was him. Now he is gone but all the incompetents are still there. Oh well.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Oh yeah Torie, why do you think workers in public schools make more than those in private schools? Cite?

Is there really argument on that, Sbane.  Private schools, most notably Catholic ones, can barely afford to keep the doors open, much less pay their teachers well.  

I am sure it depends from school to school. The private schools around here certainly don't seem to be struggling....

And again what do you think will happen if the schooling industry was privatized? Chains will spring up and the guys at the top will make boatloads of money (and perhaps it will be justified by the market but no public school administrator would make that sort of money). If you think otherwise, I would like you to look into this beautiful oceanfront property I have in Baker, Ca. I will give it to you half off.

I'm not looking to privatize, honestly.  The transition would be disasterous.

I may differ from others, but the salaries don't bother me too much, but legacy costs have to be reduced and it as to be easier to get rid of the bums.......that applies to all unions.....and in fact all business.

Salaries are certainly not the problem, the bums who are protected from being fired are. I knew a teacher who had been teaching at my school for 30 years, probably making close to 100k, and the class she taught was basic computer skills (which most high schoolers know by elementary school these days). On the flip side I had an AP chemistry teacher who just finished her PhD and had taught at the school for only a year. I doubt she made more than 40-50k. Perhaps the district supplemented some of her income since we are a wealthy district, but that can't happen in most schools.

It appears we don't disagree much.......like I said, hey I wouldn't be teacher regardless of salary, but the legacy costs are not sustainable, period. 

[Brittain33]

Seven Green Bay Packers come down on the side of the unions.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wi_house_dems_warn_gov_walker_not_to_cross_packers.php

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wow. I actually respect something about the Packers.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Seven Green Bay Packers come down on the side of the unions.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wi_house_dems_warn_gov_walker_not_to_cross_packers.php

Hey maybe they can pitch in to help the budget deficit and end this nonsense!  

[Landslide Lyndon]

Ezra Klein's take of the situation.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/unions_arent_to_blame_for_wisc.html#more

...

The Badger State was actually in pretty good shape. It was supposed to end this budget cycle with about $120 million in the bank. Instead, it's facing a deficit. Why? I'll let the state's official fiscal scorekeeper explain (pdf):

    More than half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2 (health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees).

In English: The governor signed two business tax breaks and a conservative health-care policy experiment that lowers overall tax revenues. The new legislation was not offset, and it turned a surplus into a deficit. As Brian Beutler writes, "public workers are being asked to pick up the tab for this agenda."

But even that's not the full story here. Public employees aren't being asked to make a one-time payment into the state's coffers. Rather, Walker is proposing to sharply curtail their right to bargain collectively. A cyclical downturn that isn't their fault, plus an unexpected reversal in Wisconsin's budget picture that wasn't their doing, is being used to permanently end their ability to sit across the table from their employer and negotiate what their health insurance should look like.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Nice to see the DNC stay involed

[Brittain33]

Nice to see the DNC stay involed

This is the first battle of the 2012 election.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Nice to see the DNC stay involed

This is the first battle of the 2012 election.

Good point

[Landslide Lyndon]

Nice to see the DNC stay involed

This is the first battle of the 2012 election.

LOL at Bohener for asking Obama to stay away. Apparently only he and other national Republicans have the right to get involved.

[bullmoose88]

Its my ancedotal experience that private school teachers in suburban collar county areas make less than their counterparts in public schools (which are in typically wealthy districts).  I went to a catholic prep school outside Philly and the teachers openly admitted that either (they had worked in the public schools, made a ton of money, but liked this atmosphere more and were willing to take less) or that they were starting off here (first job and all) but when the school really couldn't compete with another suburban public school...they left.

Whether thats the same situation inside the city of Philadelphia or in a archdioscean school situated in a poorer suburb...hard to say.  Maybe salary values are near equal.

Thats all I have to say about that.

[Beet]

This video pretty much describes how I feel without me feeling the need to go on a long tangent about it myself.

This has nothing to do with the budget, this has nothing to do with anything. This is about politics. It is about crippling the Democratic Party in Wisconsin and beyond. This is about winning elections. Nothing less.

px,

cinyc is citing Politifact (Pulitzer prize, called Michelle Bachmann "beyond preposterous", acknowledged that the stimulus created 1 million jobs, etc. etc. etc).

You're citing TPM, an obviously unhinged Madison newspaper editorial, and a legislative document with no context which you are almost surely misinterpreting. Your story-- that a $1.5 billion deficit as of late 2010 was transformed into a $100 million surplus in early 2011, which was transformed back into a $2-3 billion deficit by $140 million in budget changes by the Walker administration is makes no sense on face. If the roles were reversed, all of us would be saying that it's another example of how the tea party, the birthers, etc. have driven the GOP off the rails. Let's not do the same thing.

I haven't taken the time to look up anything about the budget situation in Wisconsin, so I don't pretend to know everything about it. (Because, frankly, this issue has nothing to do with the budget. The budget is the excuse.)

If this was about the deficit in Wisconsin, why pass nearly 200 million dollars in tax cuts as one of your first actions in a state with a supposedly critical budget situation? If unions must sacrifice, why not even try to negotiate with them? Why go whole hog and effectively remove the ability for these unions to negotiate and collectively bargain at all? If you're going to take this drastic action, why exempt the three unions that, conveniently, supported your election bid, while taking the knife to everyone else?

This has nothing to do with the budget. This isn't even about public employee unions trimming up their salaries at all. Negotiating over cuts is one thing, and maybe you could even provide a winning argument that that is what is needed, but Walker didn't negotiate, he never wanted to negotiate, he proposed something and wanted it passed immediately that went straight for the jugular of the unions in Wisconsin. (Which, in and of itself, actually has nothing to do with the deficit anyway.)

This is about politics. It's about winning elections. What we are witnessing here is the first major power grab against unions in the new modern American economy. The powers that be have taken off their gloves. (God, I hate sounding like this, but it's the truth.) They're not hiding anymore, they're not pretending anymore. They have the numbers right now and while they've got them, they're going wild. If it isn't stopped here, the consequences will be dire, not just politically, but economically and socially. All because of Wisconsin.

I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint. Here's the thing that gets me, though. You say this issue has nothing to do with the budget. Yet the outcome of this battle will surely impact the budget, not only in Wisconsin but in many other states, and not only this year but for many years to come. I mean, when does it become about the budget? We've been putting off the budget discussion for 10 years, which is why we're in this mess to begin with. In Washington, they're not seriously discussing it either. I demand to have the budget discussion. And since no one is giving it to me, I want to take it where-ever I can get it, including this union-busting bill. In other words, I'm not buying px75's bullsh**t. Even the Ezra Klein blog post makes no refutation of the $2 billion-$3 billion deficit claim. So the cuts have to come somewhere. Where do you think they should come?