Interesting Times in Wisconsin..........

[FinanceDude]

Now, I'm not a beat'em in to submission guy, but removing the paddle really impacted discipline, I believe (Its not a cure all, I know). 15 years ago I was at a school that still paddled, and usually only the threat of it was good enough and things went smooth there. One student however, we reached the end of the line with. I called the parent and notified him we were going to have to paddle him. His Dad said "you ain't laying a finger on my boy". I told him that was fine and he would have to come get him for a 3 day suspension. He said.. "I don't want that little bastard home with me for 3 days, go ahead and hit him." (yes, he said exactly that). 3 gentle swats later, the boy was not in trouble the rest of the year!

 

[Pete]

Yes, but that oversimplifies the debate, I think. Because the feeling is that if we *do* let all the money (or CBA rights, even) stay in the hands of Wisconsin state employees, that it will come out of the pockets of Wisconsin taxpayers who don't directly benefit from it.

No oversimplification for me. I'm not asking Wisconsin taxpayers to foot the bill, I'm waiting for helicopter Ben. If you're a Keynesian and want to grow the money supply, take backs aren't gonna help. The Fed needs to bail out the states and keep wages, benefits, and most importantly confidence high so those union workers will keep on going to WalMart instead of picket lines. I don't necessarily like it, but it's a path that was chosen before I was born.

 

[MasterBlaster]

We have to decide...

Do the public employees serve the populace at large ?

Or, viceversa ?

Who (exactly) is the servant and who is the master.

Once we decide that, it will be clear what to do.

 

[misanman]

Our state requires a certain amount of salary transparency. One of the requirements is that each school district must publish the salaries that are over $100k. I just looked at our district and most of the salaries over $100k are principals or senior administrators. There are 4 teachers, though. As an example, here's the lowest paid teach earning more than $100K:

Base wages $82,386
Other wages 19,056
Subtotal $101,442 (this triggers the reporting requirement)
Soc.Sec $7,669
Pension $17,083 (this is listed as "mandated" ?)
Benefits $13,634
Total $139,828

Add another $10K or so for the highest teacher on the list.

 

[Mulligan]

Our state requires a certain amount of salary transparency. One of the requirements is that each school district must publish the salaries that are over $100k. I just looked at our district and most of the salaries over $100k are principals or senior administrators. There are 4 teachers, though. As an example, here's the lowest paid teach earning more than $100K:

Base wages $82,386
Other wages 19,056
Subtotal $101,442 (this triggers the reporting requirement)
Soc.Sec $7,669
Pension $17,083 (this is listed as "mandated" ?)
Benefits $13,634
Total $139,828

Not commenting on who is worth what, but generally administrators work 230 day(usually called 11 or 12 month contract) or so contracts and teachers work 185 or so(school year contracts, plus inservice days). At least in my state of residence that is generally so.

 

[jayc]

Financedude.

I also agree teacher salaries are fair. Most work hard and work longer hours during the school months than perceived. But WOW...look at those health care and pension contributions....it looks like 71% of salary. The salary of 52,000 is about what I would have expected. Now you have me curious. I wonder if benefits for all states are running at that percentage.

-1. 89K for 9 months work is 118.6K / year. Wayyy over paid. The 22K for health insur is kickback money. Unions are wasteful overhead. If you want to join a union then get a job in the private sector. Drop the unions and tenure to get some competitive fresh blood in the education system.

 

[clifp]

I took a quick look at the Wisconsin pension plan and found online pension calculator.

A teacher with 30+ years in the system could retire at age 57 if she ended up with a finally salary of $72,000 a year (which seems like a reasonable figure for a senior teach in the state) she would a get pension of $3,149/month for life.
To buy an annuity from Berkshire to provide her would cost her $619K. In another thread we discussed a WSJ article which showed only 8% of Americans had 401K with more than $636K which is what they calculated was need for a decent retirement.

The Wisconsin pension is slightly less generous (<2% of salary per year of work) and certainly better funded than the majority of state and local pension. Still going forward it is hard to ask the public to pay for a retirement that is better than 90% of there, especially when public employees make no or modest contributions toward.

 

[GregLee]

-1. 89K for 9 months work is 118.6K / year. Wayyy over paid. The 22K for health insur is kickback money. Unions are wasteful overhead.

I have no opinion about whether teachers are under- or over-paid, but if they are paid too much, I just don't understand how anyone can think this is the fault of their union. The union bargains on their behalf, but it's the state/school authority that must sign a contract that grants them salary and benefits. Is it evil for teachers or their union to ask for raises? You all are talking as though the unions somehow reach directly into taxpayers' pockets.

 

[sheehs1]

Well, that's different...

Let's see: put up with a class full of brats, and their equally bratty parents; grade 40 or 80 or 120 tests, at night, at home, on my own time; buy class materials, with my own money; compete for the attention of kids inundated with TV, internet, video games, sext messages, sports, celebrities...

Dang, where do I sign? Sounds like such a deal...

+1HFWR....

I've watched my daughter this year. Granted she is a first year teacher...but I'm fairly confident she puts in 10 hours a day each week-day (7:15 to 5:30 many days a week) plus time on week-ends...preparing materials, lesson plans, grading papers etc........for the upcoming week.
I do not think that in my several careers.....orthopedic research, information systems, operations analyst and finally V.P of family business...that I was pulled constantly in as many directions in a day as she currently is.
Or perhaps it's just that I'm 3 decades older and have forgotten...

 

[Mulligan]

-1. 89K for 9 months work is 118.6K / year. Wayyy over paid. The 22K for health insur is kickback money. Unions are wasteful overhead. If you want to join a union then get a job in the private sector. Drop the unions and tenure to get some competitive fresh blood in the education system.

I would suggest that salary is the exception and not the rule for all. Plus we are looking at it from a retirees perspective. Most teachers come out of the gate clearing a couple a grand a month. 50 % of all teachers leave the profession within 5 years, so a lot of them arent hanging on for the pension (though I concede they are good in most places). An oddity about the profession is that teacher "A" can be making $70K and teacher "B" can be making $35K teaching the same thing, with teacher "B" being the best teacher.

 

[sheehs1]

Now, I'm not a beat'em in to submission guy, but removing the paddle really impacted discipline, I believe (Its not a cure all, I know). 15 years ago I was at a school that still paddled, and usually only the threat of it was good enough and things went smooth there. One student however, we reached the end of the line with. I called the parent and notified him we were going to have to paddle him. His Dad said "you ain't laying a finger on my boy". I told him that was fine and he would have to come get him for a 3 day suspension. He said.. "I don't want that little bastard home with me for 3 days, go ahead and hit him." (yes, he said exactly that). 3 gentle swats later, the boy was not in trouble the rest of the year!

Laughing
After what my daughter has told me I absolutely believe this!!

My daughter met with a parent right as school opened. Parent: Ms. Teacher ...I gotta tell you...I been working with Mr. Student all summer and Ms. Teacher...I gotta tell you ...he is dumb as Dennis the Menace. !

If it was not so funny it would be sad....since it was in front of the child.

 

[sheehs1]

Here is the part of the bill that appears to be fueling the protests:

Collective bargaining – The bill would make various changes to limit collective bargaining for most public employees to wages. Total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum. Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues. These changes take effect upon the expiration of existing contracts. Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes.

Going back to this post....it doesn't seem right that some of the state employees are exempt from this fight.

 

[Mulligan]

Laughing
After what my daughter has told me I absolutely believe this!!

My daughter met with a parent right as school opened. Parent: Ms. Teacher ...I gotta tell you...I been working with Mr. Student all summer and Ms. Teacher...I gotta tell you ...he is dumb as Dennis the Menace. !

If it was not so funny it would be sad....since it was in front of the child.

I shamefully laughed! As she is young, she will accumulate many stories to tell Hopefully she can keep perspective when bad days occur and remember the good she is doing for her kids.

 

[samclem]

There's a huge difference between the role of unions in private enterprise and in the public sector.

In private enterprise the business owners want to maximize profit and have an interest in decreasing labor costs. Workers want to maximize labor costs. The actual labor union leadership wants to maximize labor costs (more pay=more dues). The tension creates positive feedback which is good: If management doesn't meet realistic labor demands, they lose money in strikes. If management gives away too much, then other (maybe non-union) businesses get a competitive advantage and the business goes under.

It's totally different in the public sector. Elected representatives are supposed to be in the role of "management" and keep labor costs in check, but if they receive the support of labor unions in elections, everyone is on the same side. Everyone at the "bargaining" table benefits when labor costs rise. More money for workers, more money for union leaders, and more campaign donations for complicit politicians to keep the whole scheme running for the next go-round. It's not a negotiation, it's more properly viewed as a conspiracy.

The only feedback mechanism to check this larceny is when voters have finally had enough and purge the politicians. As the stockholders, voters replace the board with folks who will represent their interests and get costs back under control. That's what happened in the last election. Now we've got some legislators who've decided that they don't like this new game and have run away from their posts rather than do their jobs. That's not gonna make the stockholders any happier.

 

[madcityacct]

This isn't me (don't ask how I know!) - but here is an example of a 2080 hour State of Wisconsin Employee making ~53,000/year

Description - Employer Portion - State Contribution

Family Health Plan - $936 - 16,260
Retirement - $0 - 6,334
Group Life - $32 - 20
OASDI - $3167 - 3167
Medicare - $740 - 740

So family health insurance and retirement, add approx 22,000 to the wage.

It should be noted that the retirement $$ is not necessarily the employee's - it is the amount the employer contributes on behalf of the employee. Certain age/years of service criteria apply before being able to retire with the annuity.

 

[clifp]

I think the middle class is being hit with a lot of divide and conquer from powerful, moneyed corporate elite. It serves them well so we don't all turn on them.

I've long said that I'd rather see the private sector middle class dream restored than to see the public sector taken down. But for this to happen, the private sector needs help, especially if the Wisconsin unions (and other unions and govvies) want the support of the rest of the working class. Many of us are non-union and in right to work states. If we try to protest the wage cuts/freezes and benefit takeaways we've endured for a long time, we're fired (and I don't mean FIRE'd unless we're already financially secure).

I want to support "the deal" for public employees but we can't do it unless the rest of the middle class starts reversing their downward trend. And just as public unions want our support here, we need their support in advocating the halting of the erosion of the private sector employment deal.

I don't have a problem with union for private company, although I am no fan of them. I figure if management treats workers so badly they need union, than management deserves to have to put up with a union My problem is with public unions is the same that FDR worried about in this letter. FDR was worried about public employee strikes and he caution that negotiation between government official and unions are much different than in the private sector.

If am an owner of company (and as shareholders most everyone on the forum is) I am pretty confident that when management and union sit down to negotiate and contract, that management and my incentives are aligned. Give the employee sufficient wages and labor rules to maximize the long term profits of the company. Note that sufficient wages is much different than the lowest wage, workers who feel they are being cheated aren't good workers.

In contrast when mayor, city manager or governor sits across the table from a union, I have little confidence that our interests are aligned. First, the elected official doesn't benefit by saving a few million or a few billion from lower labor costs. In fact just the opposite might occur, a labor friendly official benefits by giving into union demands in the form of future campaign contributions, and enthusiastic labor volunteers in the next election. Even when the politician is Republican he doesn't gain much by being to tough in negotiations. The majority of Wisconsin public employee supported Walker's opponent in the last election, but the probably didn't hate the guy. I am sure this has changed and in the 2014 his opponent will receive tons of help. Even when the mayor negotiates in good faith, it is very tempting to agree to benefits who's true cost won't be realized for 10-30 years well after you are out of office. I think this is reason that Walker is smart to focus on benefits.

I think is naive to think that US workers can negotiate their way back to prosperity. We live in a global world and there is no way we can (or in my case want to) go back. If American workers try and prop up wages artificially via unions, companies will just hire Indians, Chinese, and soon Vietnamese, and hopefully in a few years Middle Eastern and African workers. The way for American workers to enjoy a high standard of living is by working harder, but primarily by working smarter.

AFAIK, DC and 25 states allow collective bargaining for public employee unions, 13 prohibit and the rest are a hybrid, say allowing it for Police and Firefighters. Looking at the states that prohibit bargaining vs that those that allow it, I am hard pressed to see how collective bargain makes better government. I don't think the collective bargaining has produce smarter kids, less crime, better roads, or nicer parks. In fact other than schools I'd
say that dozen southern and southwestern state without collective bargaining have a better and certainly less expensive government.

 

[Gumby]

If am an owner of company (and as shareholders most everyone on the forum is) I am pretty confident that when management and union sit down to negotiate and contract, that management and my incentives are aligned. . . .

In contrast when mayor, city manager or governor sits across the table from a union, I have little confidence that our interests are aligned.

Your analogy is that you are both the owner of the company and the owner of the state. However, could not one also say that your position as a resident of the state is the same as the buyer of the company's goods or services? You are a consumer of state services. Do we expect someone who buys from Walmart to say "you know, I want that bath towel cheaper, so I'll try to force the workers to take less pay"?

The mutual incentive for both management and labor is to keep the customers from going somewhere else, while making a profit and paying a decent wage.

 

[clifp]

Your analogy is that you are both the owner of the company and the owner of the state. However, could not one also say that your position as a resident of the state is the same as the buyer of the company's goods or services? You are a consumer of state services. Do we expect someone who buys from Walmart to say "you know, I want that bath towel cheaper, so I'll try to force the workers to take less pay"?

The mutual incentive for both management and labor is to keep the customers from going somewhere else, while making a profit and paying a decent wage.

.

The market balances all of the competing forces, so I don't need to worry about why bath towels are cheaper at Walmart, if I don't like the price I can shop somewhere else. I can even elect to pay a higher price if I value the selection, customer services, or quality at place like Nordstrom's more than price.

I agree that as a resident I am consumer of states service. My objective is to get the best value. So for instance cops that are paid so little that they end up extracting bribes, maybe a cheaper but they are a horrible value

There generally aren't other organization for government services, unless I want to move. So the balancing process is very long and very crude, taxpayer revolt against higher taxes by throwing the politician out and electing a new bunch who promise to change things. I believe that many/most state employee actually try and do a good job. The problem is their union reps are almost entirely focused on increasing pay, and benefits, preserving jobs and not at all interested in providing better services to the public.

 

[GregLee]

The problem is their union reps are almost entirely focused on increasing pay, and benefits, preserving jobs and not at all interested in providing better services to the public.

That's a rather odd point of view. If I'm a worker and management shows an interest in increasing my productivity, I understand that. That's management's job. But if my union rep does that, he won't be union rep for very long. The union is supposed to represent my interests, not managements'. Hey, did you ever work on an assembly line?

 

[antmary]

Thank God I never became a teacher.

 

[jayc]

I have no opinion about whether teachers are under- or over-paid, but if they are paid too much, I just don't understand how anyone can think this is the fault of their union. The union bargains on their behalf, but it's the state/school authority that must sign a contract that grants them salary and benefits. Is it evil for teachers or their union to ask for raises? You all are talking as though the unions somehow reach directly into taxpayers' pockets.

IMO. The union demands help no one else but this special interest, the union members. There is no benefit to the taxpayer. It is the same ole special interest at the trough. You are right, there is bargaining, now the states latest offer is on the table. But the spineless democrats (pro union) part of the negotiations, will not show up at the table. Pass the law, if they don't like the terms, let them quit. Run an ad in the paper and there will be 6 over qualified people apply for every one that quits.

You all are talking as though the unions somehow reach directly into taxpayers' pockets.

I would say 22K for insurance is exactly that, with both hands.

 

[samclem]

The union bargains on their behalf, but it's the state/school authority that must sign a contract that grants them salary and benefits.

But the union makes donations directly to the folks who are supposed to be their "opponents" in this process (political leaders). These leaders depend on this tribute so they can be re-elected. The whole shakedown racket stinks.

I think, too, that there's a general misunderstanding about what "collective bargaining" is. Any group of workers can get together and elect representatives to present demands to management. That's not what official collective bargaining is. Collective bargaining is, in effect, a special concession made to labor unions that codifies a special deal for unions. It requires the unions, and the unions alone, will be the sole route for workers to negotiate with management. It's a codified monopoly for the existing unions. It actually impinges on a worker's right to freely associate for the purpose of negotiating with management. It's certainly not a "right," and eliminating it gives workers more freedom, not less.

 

[GregLee]

IMO. The union demands help no one else but this special interest, the union members. There is no benefit to the taxpayer.

Of course they help no one else, and of course there is no benefit to the taxpayers. Your complaint is with management, which is supposed to be representing the taxpayers. The union is just doing its job representing its members' interests, not yours.

 

[GregLee]

... eliminating it gives workers more freedom, not less.

Oh, yeah, right. Governor Walker is doing the teachers a tremendous favor by breaking their union. Someday, they will come to be properly appreciative, I suppose.

 

[samclem]

Oh, yeah, right. Governor Walker is doing the teachers a tremendous favor by breaking their union. Someday, they will come to be properly appreciative, I suppose.

So, you see the union as a welcome participant in the process, an entity just doing what it supposed to do, but apparently don't think it's right when the other side of the table ("management") plays their role. Governor Walker and the Wisconsin legislature represent the "people" in this "people power" drama. The shoe is on the other foot--Pete Seeger and Joan Bayez should be out there singing songs calling out the corrupt big money interests (unions) who are opposing the people. I won't hold my breath.

Anyway, no one is breaking the union. Removal of collective bargaining just takes away an unfair monopoly that the government had granted the unions. Removal of collective bargaining would give workers more options, not fewer. Freedom is good! Peace, brother!