I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

rosemary-b

Oops

Hit submit too soon.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of history know that the Nazis were extreme right just as Communists are extreme left. 

otter

(Deleted by otter. I really need to learn to take deep breaths.  Having graduated from public schools, I already know how to count to 10.  So why am I not doing it?)

zap

revkat, you are right.  All unions need to be reasonable and willing  to compromise given the economic times. I think most (at least smaller districts) are doing just that.

lewing

Revkat, that's a great example of how collective bargaining can be - should be - a form of problem solving.  It can be messy at times (just like democracy can be messy at times!), but I trust the decisions that come out of a problem-solving process where everyone has a voice much more than I do decisions that are made unilaterally.

L

leggo

LOL otter! Do like I do...read not logged in (you still get to read the "ignored", but they can't p*ss you off with pm's) and when you're logged in....well... out of sight, out of mind!

OOPS, didn't see yours was deleted. Makes mine seem weird, but still good advice, I think.

rosemary-b

I am grateful for the caring teachers in Wisconsin and elsewhere.

I am so proud at this moment that I went to public school and I would like to thank all the excellent teachers I had. Their many points of view gave a well rounded education. They were always there in their off hours to give help, work on committees run exta curricular activities, correct papers and do many other things of which their students were not aware.

Beesie

I guess I'm slow because I don't understand a lot of the posturing going on here.

Point 1:     When I look at what the Democratic legislators are doing in Wisconsin, I have trouble understanding how anyone can support them.  To me you can't decide when a behavior is acceptable and when it isn't acceptable based on whether or not you support the issue that is driving the behavior (with the possible exceptions of issues related to basic human rights). Either a behavior is right or it's wrong. So if we take the specifics of the issue off the table, are the Wisconsin Democrats right in what they are doing by running away and stopping the government from functioning? They were elected to sit in the legislature and govern. To make the hard decisions. To fight within the process of government for what they believe is best for their constituents.  They were elected to be present.  And to vote. They were elected to run the government, not run away from it.

I understand that the Democrats really really dislike the Governor's budget proposal and that they don't have the votes to stop it.  But does that mean it's okay to run away and hide and stop the government from functioning? Aren't they paid to follow the rules of government?  And to be present? When the Democrats in Washington had the overwhelming majority in the House and the super majority in the Senate, and when the healthcare bill came up for a vote and the Republicans (who surely hated it as much as the Dems in Wisconsin hate the current budget proposal) knew that they didn't have the votes to stop the passage of the bill, would it have been okay if the Republican Congressmen/women and Senators had fled to Canada in order to stop the government and the vote? Of course that wouldn't have been okay.  Isn't that exactly what's happening now in Wisconsin?  So how it is okay?  Am I missing something here?  If so, please educate me. 

Point 2:     To the specifics of the issue, I am surprised at how black and white it all seems to be, based on what's written here.  I know very little about the situation with the teachers in Wisconsin so I won't comment on that.  But I will say that I know in some cases public sector employees are under-compensated (in total compensation, including salary and short & long term benefits) vs. private sector employees. However I also know of other cases where public sector employees are over-compensated vs. private sector employees.  And I've no doubt that there are situations - maybe most situations - where the total compensation is pretty much equal (although it may be divided differently between pay and benefits).  Similarly, I believe that unions have provided a tremendous benefit to employees and society over many many years. However I also believe that in recent years some unions have been overly aggressive to the point of causing companies to go out of business or forcing them to move parts of their business to other countries, or driving governments to the verge of bankruptcy. There are some employee groups who still today need everything that their unions can get for them. But there are other employee groups (some public, some private) who have pay levels and benefits that are totally ridiculous in today's market and completely out of line with non-unionized workers (who've suffered job losses and pay & benefit cuts).  

So how everyone here can be so black and white on this issue amazes me. I don't see anything in this situation that is a simple black and white.  And without understanding all sides of the issue in great depth - which I certainly don't and probably most of you don't - I don't see how anyone can pass judgement. Yes, we all have our basic beliefs and principles and ideology, but this is a very specific situation with very specific details. If we are ever to make a dent in the solid brick wall that divides the right and the left, it should be with a case like this, where there are a lot of grays that could cause reasonable people to cross lines or at least move towards the middle. Or maybe at least have a meaningful, respectful discussion.  

Off my soapbox now. Please ignore me and go on arguing and listening only to those who have positions you support.  

Edited for typos only. 

rosemary-b

Beesie

You always have good points and I always listen to you.

You are right, nothing is ever al black and white. But I tend to tilt toward whichever side my shade of gray is closer to.

AnnNYC

Just a little history about Wisconsin, and something called "the Wisconsin idea" by which state employees, particularly those at the University of Wisconsin, contribute to the public good through industry.

A major example is the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), established in 1925.  WARF patents and licenses (to the private sector, for further development) the ideas and inventions of University faculty/employees (the anticoagulant drug warfarin, named for WARF, is just one such invention).  The profits are invested, and the investment profits are "plowed back" into the University:

"Since its founding in 1925, WARF has: Processed approximately 6,000 inventions created by UW-Madison faculty and staff; Obtained 1,900 U.S. patents on these inventions; Completed more than 1,600 license agreements with companies all over the world; Given $1.07 billion to UW-Madison to fund research, programs and initiatives.

"Since 1928, the first year of the WARF grant, the university has used these monies to: Support more than 55,570 research projects, including 1,500 in 2009-2010; Sponsor scores of named professorships, including 46 in 2009-2010; Fund thousands of graduate fellowships, including 145 in 2009-2010; Help retain top faculty; Partially or fully pay for the construction of nearly every research facility on campus, a total of more than 52 projects at last count.

"WARF today: Manages more than 800 pending and 1,200 issued U.S. patents on UW-Madison technologies, as well as more than 2,000 international equivalents; Offers more than 1,000 technologies for licensing; Maintains more than 380 active commercial license agreements; Has completed more than 30 percent of its license agreements with Wisconsin companies; Holds equity in 40 UW-Madison spin-off companies.

"In 2009-2010, WARF: Processed approximately 350 invention disclosures made by UW-Madison faculty and staff; Filed more than 200 U.S. patent applications on UW-Madison technology; Obtained approximately 130 issued U.S. patents; Gave $86 million to UW-Madison to support research; Signed 61 new license and option agreements; Took equity in 2 new UW-Madison spin-off companies."

So -- all these faculty members and staff (public employees from whom Gov. Walker's bill would strip collective bargaining rights) have chosen to work in the public sector instead of the private, where they could have pocketed these millions themselves.  Their work has provided $1.07 billion dollars to the University to date -- a sum that I think ought to be factored in to the "cost" to "taxpayers" (again, these employees are taxpayers as well!) of their employment!

Beesie

In the private sector as a general rule it's the company, not the employee, that owns the patent and reaps the millions.  Only if someone works for themselves would they get the benefit for themselves.  And in most cases they probably wouldn't have the know-how or seed funds to make anything of the patent. So they would sell it and again it would be a company that would benefit over the long term.  

AnnNYC

Beesie, that's true unless the person is a shareholder in the company -- which many scientists have been, for many years.

My main point is that the "public employees" in Wisconsin include world-class scientists (who certainly are "qualified" to work in the private sector) whose work profits the University and state.

1Athena1

Beesie, you make some good points, and often the distant observer is all the more astute.

I would answer your first point by somewhat cynically saying that political posturing is part and parcel of governance and has been so since time immemorial, and that, in a democracy, the act of governing has always gone beyond the narrow description in the books.

I am not sufficiently familiar with Wisconsin law or legislative procedure to say whether there is anything else the democrats could have done. However, those who fled are not merely government workers. They are also politicians, so making bold and even obnoxious statements comes with the territory.

I would also correct your impression that the GOP did no such thing in Washington. No, they did not physically run away, but they have resorted to a myriad of deliberate procedural stonewalling that has indeed paralyzed government and now threatens a shutdown. In the Senate, the filibuster has been used by both parties, but most egregiously by the GOP in recent years and, as a result, the Senate is slower than molasses.

In 2001, the GOP passed Bush's tax cuts as a spending bill so as to override the need for debate; the democrats did the same with the healthcare bill in the House last year. So the GOP did not have a need to run out of the Capitol in 2010 any more than the dems did in 2001 only because they were powerless. Quorum wasn't at issue. Rather, the ruling party used an item in the constitution to maneuver a vote by fiat. You have to understand the many, many ways in which Washington is capable of paralyzing itself while looking as though it is actually working. Frankly, I respect the Wisconsin Dems for at least doing it all openly.  

AnnNYC

"NFCR scientist Dr. Jack Gorski at University of Wisconsin at Madison provided the crucial groundwork for today's use of hormone therapies for breast cancer. His research helped us understand how the hormone, estrogen, interacts with its protein partner or receptor, and how the two together regulate cell functions such as growth. This work helped lead to the development of Tamoxifen and Aromatase Inhibitors -- breast cancer drugs that block or prevent the growth signals of estrogen and its receptor."

http://www.nfcr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=933%3Asuccess-stories&catid=45%3Aresearch&Itemid=28

lewing

Beesie, you asked the question (cut and paste here):

"When the Democrats in Washington had the overwhelming majority in the House and the super majority in the Senate, and when the healthcare bill came up for a vote and the Republicans (who surely hated it as much as the Dems in Wisconsin hate the current budget proposal) knew that they didn't have the votes to stop the passage of the bill, would it have been okay if the Republican Congressmen/women and Senators had fled to Canada in order to stop the government and the vote? Of course that wouldn't have been okay."

That *is* in effect what Republicans in the Senate did.  Not flee to Canada, of course, but block (or try to block) action through the filibuster.  The difference, as I see it (and obviously others will disagree), is that the Republican filibuster threat came at the end of a long process of discussion in multiple committees in which Republican Senators were extensively involved.  They may not have liked the final bill, but it still bore their imprint.  Walker, in contrast, has been in office for just over a month, and is trying to ram through a bill that will undo more than 50 years of public sector labor relations history and precedent.  IMHO, using whatever procedural means are available to slow the process down so that it can be undertaken more thoughtfully is completely appropriate under the circumstances.

L

Beesie

Ah, but what the Republicans did in Washington was all within the rules of government. They played the rules as well as they could to stall things.  That's normal.  The Dems have done the same when they've been in a similar position.  

Running away to another jurisidiction because there are no rules that you can use to stall the government is going one very big step further.  

1Athena1

Actually, that is within the rules. It is a way to deal with the quorum issue. And rules are not so much written as evolved in politics. The filibuster was only supposed to be for that very rare occasion. It was never meant as a tool for governing, as the GOP has used it. The reconciliation bill issue was within the rules, but it was politically heavy handed.

I suppose I don't see the "rules" as king in these situations, especially because one knows that they are subject to interpretation. I am personally more interested in finding out whether the Wisconsin dems are right or wrong in their quest to protect the unions than in whether they broke any bylaw (which they did not). Maybe it depends on what you feel is important.

Anonymous

Thank goodness we're a right to work state.

Some pages back someone asked me, after divulging that my SIL does not make much money, if I was missing the point of being a member of a union.  Of course it was asked BECAUSE of my SIL's pay.  No is my answer. Why?  Because my SIL knew before he entered teaching what he would pay.  You see, he was laid off BECAUSE of the economy from a six figure job.  He worked for a development company.  However, he needed a job.  And this was his chance to check out teaching.  He is still working on getting his teaching certificate.  He passed the courses he need to teach.  I believe he'll get his certificate this summer.  He has worked his butt of and is planning to get his Masters. 

I'm going to try to remember to ask him if he pays into his retirement and what percentage.  I do know that when my DD was laid off that insurance for her and the children would have been over $700 a month.  She decided to go with COBRA.  Fortunately, within a couple of months she found another GOOD paying job.

Anonymous

JB, just want to tell you I admire you for wading in..............

I won't post my opinions because I believe the posters here would know what they are.  No need to waste my time.

AnnNYC

JBinOK, I don't think there is really a conflict on this point (Gorski doing the groundwork at a University, pharmaceutical companies doing the manufacturing and selling).  Some people work more productively in a university environment, some in private industry.  Some are highly motivated by discovery itself, and/or by strictly scientific ambition, and some need money as a motivation.  The strategy of WARF is to create liaisons between these groups, and it works well.

Again, my main point was that the public employees at UW-Madison are highly qualified, and contribute economically to the University and State.

lassie11

Shirley - If a person doesn't have a teaching certificate here, they don't teach. There are enough qualified teachers who want jobs that unqualified are rarely hired. In the rare circumstances that  they are, their position on the pay scale is at the bottom, below those who have already done the work and earned the certification. Yes, you say he "worked his but of [sic]" but the qualified teachers did that already.  Saying your SIL is "planning to get his Masters" is very nice, but you don't get paid for something you are planning.

In unionized teaching situations, both salary and working conditions are improved. Working conditions means things like class size, special education assistance, textbooks, equipment and all sorts of things. Education is one of the crucial foundations of a democracy.  Not supporting education is not supporting democracy.

leggo

Lassie, you say "in the rare circumstance"...I've never heard of someone without a teaching certificate being allowed to teach here. Has it happened? I mean other than asisstants and librarians (who were I live, also need their certification, BTW).

lassie11

In my recollection, it might have been for something like music where a qualified teacher was temporarily unavailable and a local musician was willing to step in. Really rare circumstances.

I agree with you, Gracie, that assistants need qualifications (different, but still necessary) and in high schools here, librarians are qualified teachers with extra training. In elementary schools there has been a tendency to hire library technicians who are not teachers and who still need qualifications.

Alpal

In our school district, you can get an emergency certificate. You would have to have a bachelor's degree to get an emergency cert. It's my understanding they are awarded when there is an opening that the dist is having trouble filling. All teachers in our system have 10 years to obtain their masters.

Anonymous

In some parts of the US, you can get an emergency certification, but those jobs tend to be in inner city schools, or remote rural areas, or in schools that are in other less desirable situations.  Jobs in good paying suburban districts go to highly qualified, and frequently well connected candidates.

Bren-2007

Patmom .. the same applies to private industry as well.

leggo

Thanks for clearing that up for me, lassie. Patmom, that seems messed up.

suzfive

I normally don't post here, but I live in Wisconsin and my dh is a state employee and we support this bill even though our income will take a hit. I think you have to live in Wisconsin and pay Wisconsin taxes before you can comment on what is taking place here. My husband is a professor and laments every year how the quality of the students just keeps getting worse (suburban not MPS students). His best students have been those who are home schooled.  I don't think my neighbors should have to pay higher taxes so that we can have a better health care plan and pay less for it and a better pension and pay next to nothing (0.2% as of 01/11) for it (as it is currently). Public employees are not special - they should have to sacrifice like the rest of the taxpayers who are paying them. On the collective bargaining, these people would be back demanding the same things and then some as soon as the budget deficit was fixed. MPS teachers can't even agree on reforms to make the schools better. If they worked in the private sector most would be fired just on their student test results. And those UW professors do have relationships with private industry and are compensated quite nicely for it.

450

Beesie

lassie, I remember years ago being on a vacation trip - one of those situations where a bunch of strangers are put together in close quarters - with a teacher and a union teacher rep from Ontario. By coincidence, the union was just about to put forward their demands for the next contract.  I talked with them for much of the day and eavesdropped on the rest of their discussion. I don't remember many of the details now, but my strongest recollection is that I was appalled. Rarely if ever have I seen two people were who were so much "on the take" as those two were. I also remember being shocked at how little the welfare of students played into their discussion. That day was an eye-opener for me. 

The fact is that some of the people who have influenced me most in my life were teachers. I have the greatest respect for the profession and I don't think that teachers are given the stature that they deserve in our society. I think that teachers have a tremendously difficult job and often they are not given the support they need to do the job. But I don't know how much they are helped by their unions.  In some ways, yes, of course they benefit. But in other ways, not so much. There are good teachers and bad teachers - we all know that. But most teachers' unions - or at least the ones here in Ontario - make it difficult to compensate and recognize the good teachers and weed out the bad.  Why is that?   Wouldn't it be better for children, for the education system, and for the teachers themselves if the quality of teachers was consciously and intentionally elevated over time by weeding out the poorer performers? Frankly isn't that what the good teachers want?  (From Macleans:  Why it's so hard to fire bad teachers  ) 

You say "In unionized teaching situations, both salary and working conditions are improved. Working conditions means things like class size, special education assistance, textbooks, equipment and all sorts of things."  Yes, that may be true - in some cases. However I don't think it's fair to assume that in a non-union environment the working conditions, and the benefits to the students, would be worse. How do we know that? In all the examples of charter schools in the U.S. that do amazingly well with their students, is it the funding and textbooks and equipment that makes the difference or it is the quality and committment of the teachers? When has a union focused on teacher quality in their negotiations? (By the way, I'm not suggesting that charter school teachers aren't unionized; I'm using the example to point out what I think is important in education - it's the teachers more than the textbooks.) 

You also say "Education is one of the crucial foundations of a democracy. Not supporting education is not supporting democracy."  I agree with that.  But what does supporting a teacher's union have to do with support for education?

As I said in my earlier post, I don't see any of this as being black and white. I'm not against teachers' unions, but I am also not blindly supportive of them. I'm sure that every situation with every teacher's union is different and some I probably would agree with and support 100% while others I would probably agree with very little.  So I'm not passing judgement on what's happening in Wisconsin, but I know that I have some questions about what the teacher's unions have done in Ontario.  Seems that the teachers have had some questions about that too:  Elementary teachers question union over failed deal

Anonymous

My SIL has his Bachelors.  He had to take some courses and, as I said, pass a test.  He also teachers in a Title 1 school.  Also, he teaches math.  Perhaps math teachers are considered an emergency. 

As far as pay scale, a year ago or so I ran across the pay scale for teachers in our state....not good! 

leggo

I'm so confused....so you can be a teacher in the US without a degree in education? You just have to pass a test?