WillDaSnail Wrote:@kanedalvier: Do me a favor and read the first link. You simply didnt care that you used a logical fallacy as your argument as long you could discredit someone; you simply steamrolled over what people have said. Even if I go ahead and pick apart the bill, I will still feel like speaking to a wall because of your throat-shoving attitude. That's what you're doing right now.
Read it and does not apply. You have yet to actually pick the bill apart as you still have not read it. You pick an chose things from the media and that about it. I say again, you continue to amuse me.
kanevaldier Wrote:Read it and does not apply. You have yet to actually pick the bill apart as you still have not read it. You pick an chose things from the media and that about it. I say again, you continue to amuse me.
Then why should I spend time arguing my side, when you're going to simply ignore what I may going to post like its just a piece of junk? You do know your attitude is ticking a lot of people off in this thread, yet you don't give a damn about it.
For those of you who still refuse to read the bill I will add this key note. As many of you have already stated concerns about loosing colective bargining rights, here is the bills take on that.
Collective bargaining would be allowed only on wage increases up to the rate of inflation.
Also as another key note:
The changes sought by Walker would make state workers contribute more to health insurance and pensions, end government collection of union dues, let workers opt out of unions and require unions to hold recertification votes every year.
I saved you some time in reading and understanding what you are reading. You are welcome.
Pension contributions: Currently, state, school district and municipal employees that are members of the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) generally pay little or nothing toward their pensions. The bill would require that employees of WRS employers, and the City and County of Milwaukee contribute 50 percent of the annual pension payment. The payment amount for WRS employees is estimated to be 5.8 percent of salary in 2011.
[spoiler=My response to "Employee Compensation"]
I’m going to call bullshi’t over the bolded part. The wording is simply misleading
On a serious, more civil note, that provision will screw over the amount of take-home pay that. Do note that in contrast to what you said about teachers, to be honest with you, the pay range for the teachers is not considered good, it’s only OK.
Example: California is probably one of the better known states in terms of having one of the worst budget crises in the nation. And the pay that public school teachers get here is already on the borderline. When I brought the Wisconsin protests up to some of my teachers, all of them said they will consider quitting and going into the private sector if their pay gets slashed even more. They already had furlough days this year (restored after some federal funding was available), and that was enough for many of the teachers.
Health insurance contributions
Health insurance contributions: Currently, state employees on average pay approximately 6 percent of annual health insurance premiums. This bill will require that state employees pay at least 12.6 percent of the average cost of annual premiums. In addition, the bill would require changes to the plan design necessary to reduce current premiums by 5 percent. Local employers participating in the Public Employers Group Health insurance would be prohibited from paying more than 88 percent of the lowest cost plan. The bill would also authorize the Department of Employee Trust Funds to use $28 million of excess balances in reserve accounts for health insurance and pharmacy benefits to reduce health insurance premium costs.
Health insurance cost containment strategies: The bill directs the Department of Employee Trust Funds and the Group Insurance Board to implement health risk assessments and similar programs aimed at participant wellness, collect certain data related to assessing health care provider quality and effectiveness, and verify the status of dependents participating in the state health insurance program. In addition, it modifies the membership of the Group Insurance Board to require that the representative of the Attorney General be an attorney to ensure the board has access to legal advice among its membership.
[spoiler=My response to "Health insurance contributions"] My comments: Again, this is forcing public state workers to pay more into health insurance, which reduces their take-home pay. If their take-home pay gets squeezed – especially in the now-recovering, yet uncertain, economy, many people will get ticked off. Who would want to work in a profession where they won't make too much of a living?[/spoiler]
Pension changes for elected officials and appointees
Pension changes for elected officials and appointees: The bill modifies the pension calculation for elected officials and appointees to be the same as general occupation employees and teachers. Current law requires these positions to pay more and receive a different multiplier for pension calculation than general classification employees. Under the state constitution, this change will be effective for elected officials at the beginning of their next term of office.
[spoiler=Response to "Pension changes for elected officials and appointees"]@ Bolded: I’ll believe it if I see that come to fruit. There’s a major discrepancy when it comes to lawmakers and lower-tier public state workers in terms of pensions.
I know that statement applies to the state that I live in. Just a side note.[/spoiler]
State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations
State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations:
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.
Career executive transfers – The bill would allow state employees in the career executive positions to be reassigned between agencies upon agreement of agency heads.
Limited term employees (LTE) – The bill would prohibit LTE's from being eligible for health insurance or participation in the Wisconsin Retirement System.
State employee absences and other work actions – If the Governor has declared a state of emergency, the bill authorizes appointing authorities to terminate any employees that are absent for three days without approval of the employer or any employees that participate in an organized action to stop or slow work.
Quality Health Care Authority – The bill repeals the authority of home health care workers under the Medicaid program to collectively bargain.
Child care labor relations – The bill repeals the authority of family child care workers to collectively bargain with the State
[spoiler=My response to "State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations"]tl;dr - direct attack on unions, utterly. Completely eliminates their rights to negotiate their pay with the state of Wisconsin, simply put. If anything, this completely violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I'll bet that if this budget gets challenged in court, there's a strong possibility appeal courts might pick this apart simply on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause
And this provision, if anything, goes above what is outlined in the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. That act was already a blow to the unions. Those provisions are simply ten times worse over what Taft-Hartley already does.[/spoiler]
Provision for the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC) Board and Authority
University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC) Board and Authority – The bill repeals collective bargaining for UWHC employees. State positions currently employed by the UWHC Board are eliminated and the incumbents are transferred to the UWHC Authority.
My Response to the provision on University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC) Board and Authority
Same thing as I have mentioned before in my response to the "State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations" provision
University of Wisconsin faculty and academic staff
University of Wisconsin faculty and academic staff - The bill repeals the authority of UW faculty and academic staff to collectively bargain.
[spoiler=Response to "University of Wisconsin faculty and academic staff"] Simply put, this is NOT fair to the intellectual-minded, hard-working faculty at UW-Madison. UW-Madison is one of the best – if not – well-regarded public universities in the nation, and if this provision takes effect, many of the faculty may consider quitting for the private sector; as a result, this could screw over the quality of education that UW-Madison offers to its students. Especially its top-notch, well-known academic programs they provide (such as their science and political science programs). This will not do the current UW-Madison students any good.
And a bit of off-topicness, but their top-notch academic programs is why I applied to that school in the first place. I do not want to see the quality of UW-Madison go to the dumps. [/spoiler]
Medicaid
Medicaid
Address FY11 Medicaid deficit – Medicaid costs are expected to exceed current GPR appropriations by $153 million. The bill would increase the Medicaid GPR appropriation to address this shortfall.
Authorize DHS to restructure program notwithstanding current law – Medicaid costs have increased dramatically due to the recession and expanded program eligibility. In order to reduce the growth in costs, the bill authorizes the Department of Health Services to make program changes notwithstanding limits in state law related to specific program provisions. The department is expected to develop new approaches on program benefits, eligibility determination and provider cost-effectiveness. The proposed changes will require passive approval of the Joint Committee on Finance before implementation.
Technical correction – Act 28 included language that required unused GPR expenditure authority in the Medicaid GPR appropriation at the end of the biennium to be carried over to the subsequent biennium. The bill repeals this provision in order to ensure unspent funds in Medicaid lapse to the general fund balance.
[spoiler=My response to "Medicaid"] This could tick off the senior voting bloc if reductions are implemented to try to make "efficient use" of Medicaid money. Who doesn’t like their well-deserved entitlements being taken away from them? Especially if it involves their well-being?[/spoiler]
Sale of State Heating Plants
Sale of State Heating Plants – The bill authorizes the Department of Administration to sell state heating plants. The proceeds from any sale, net of remaining debt service, would be deposited in the budget stabilization fund.
[spoiler=Response to "Sale of State Heating Plants"]Minor thing, but why would you go sell “unnecessary” state assets to raise state funds? Completely unnecessary. This similar situation happened in California when our previous governor tried to do that, but it created a lot of controversy; that “state-assets” selling program was reversed by current governor Jerry Brown[/spoiler]
Summing up my argument
The crappy economy has already reduced what states take in in terms of tax revenue, and the obvious response to that is to find ways to trim "wasteful spending". What Governor Walker is doing is already considered extreme to many people. Cost-cutting in government services was already enough to many voters, and they've learned to accept it, albeit with disgruntlement. But where did unions come into this equation? If this bill passes, states will have more excuses to find ways to trim their operating costs. Targeting unions in order to save money is not the way to go.
Hell, even my own current state governor has not taken this type of a rash approach. He's taking a step-by-step approach, and is only targeting what's wasteful in the current state government. Not coming after unions.
Ok Will, let me start by saying thank you for finally taking the time to respond in this manner.
I will state once more on the collective bargaining, Collective bargaining would be allowed only on wage increases up to the rate of inflation. This is completely fair. No reason to battle over that.
I understand your issues in california. That said it is california not wisconson. As I stated in earlier posts, each state has a different economy and cost of living. I live in nevada, the state with the highest unemployment and home forclosure rate in the entire united states. So I feel your pain. That said, here is a calculation to show the difference in the cost of living from nevada to wisconson...madison wisconson to be exact. If I made 50k a year in nevada, I would only need to make 45k a year to keep my same life style in madison. That said, the average pay for a teacher in wisconson is about 100k. That is way more than is needed to live in that state. Wisconson has one of the lowest costs of living in the U.S. They can afford to take out some of the pay the currently get to put into the pension and health care. Everyone else has to to that there is no reason whay they cant too. Even more to the point there is no reason why the cost of their pension and health care should fall onto the tax payer either.
As for the minor note of selling assets. It is totally needed in order to get the defecit down to a more managable level. Wisconson is facing a 3.8 billion dollar defecit by 2013. Thats pretty big for a state of its population. I know about californias problems as well and I would question the reasons behind not selling assets in that state because I see no way out your states problems. California is and has been for a long time a state that is out of control. Though I think much of the problems there could be solved or at least lessened by getting rid of all the illegal immigrants. I know its a problem in nevada and can only immagine how bad it is there.
kanevaldier Wrote:I will state once more on the collective bargaining, Collective bargaining would be allowed only on wage increases up to the rate of inflation. This is completely fair. No reason to battle over that.
However, I want to point out that the elimination of collective bargaining could lead to many things that could really kill the salaries that state workers get. Unions were there to counter big corporations in the first place (note: I'm not saying states are "big corporations") and they are there to fight for rightful pay.
kanevaldier Wrote:I understand your issues in california. That said it is california not Wisconsin. As I stated in earlier posts, each state has a different economy and cost of living. I live in nevada, the state with the highest unemployment and home foreclosure rate in the entire united states. So I feel your pain. That said, here is a calculation to show the difference in the cost of living from nevada to Wisconsin...Madison Wisconsin to be exact. If I made 50k a year in nevada, I would only need to make 45k a year to keep my same life style in madison. That said, the average pay for a teacher in wisconson is about 100k. That is way more than is needed to live in that state. Wisconsin has one of the lowest costs of living in the U.S. They can afford to take out some of the pay the currently get to put into the pension and health care. Everyone else has to to that there is no reason whay they cant too. Even more to the point there is no reason why the cost of their pension and health care should fall onto the tax payer either.
I just looked up the average pay of Wisconsin teachers, and while its somewhat better than other states on average (not $100K total though), eliminating collective bargaining will trim down what the teachers are currently making. That is not good for those that want to go into the teaching profession.
And just to throw another element in there: Teachers are already under attack by those who think they're giving students a shi'tty quality in education. I can bet you have heard of people "teacher-bashing" all day, every day. I read an article the other day about how the breaking point for teachers in Wisconsin was the fact that they were attacked once more - though in a different fashion - in terms of their right to collectively bargain. That was enough for many Wisconsin teachers.
kanevaldier Wrote:As for the minor note of selling assets. It is totally needed in order to get the defecit down to a more managable level. Wisconson is facing a 3.8 billion dollar defecit by 2013. Thats pretty big for a state of its population. I know about californias problems as well and I would question the reasons behind not selling assets in that state because I see no way out your states problems. California is and has been for a long time a state that is out of control. Though I think much of the problems there could be solved or at least lessened by getting rid of all the illegal immigrants. I know its a problem in nevada and can only immagine how bad it is there.
Though I believe that selling of state assets are not the way to go. I'm sure that there's other ways to cut "wasteful spending".
Sorry for bringing up California again, but in my state, I had already lost faith in state legislatures doing their job balancing the budget due to their antics. Had they done their job and did this on a bipartisanship basis, I can guarantee you the state budget crisis wouldn't be as worse as it is right now. Right now, Jerry Brown is doing a good job by hitting this issue since Day 1, but is not taking any rash actions.
Though I have to add that only last-minute compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans got the past state budget passed. Still ridiculous (and budget gap was still huge), but at least something was done (albeit not in a satisfactory manner).
In the case of Wisconsin: The problem is Governor Walker (and his fellow Republican) lawmakers are not willing to negotiate with Democrats. They act like they have the right to do anything to cut the costs. Including taking this extraordinary, unusual action of targeting unions in order to trim costs. That's just a recipe for disaster. Its already has been seen on the streets of Madison, Wisconsin. That's what I don't like about those Wisconsin Republican lawmakers. Not compromising with the opposition can only take one so far before things blow up. Wisconsin Democratic lawmakers have no choice but to go AWOL, and I believe that they had no choice but to do so given what Governor Walker being a hard-head in terms of being inflexible with compromise. Horrible move on his part. Small wonder why a lot of people think he's an idiot.
And as history goes in the United States, compromise is what saved certain crises from breaking out within the nation (exception: Civil War).
Also...do note that unions wanted to give up a little of what they have - in terms of pay - as a way to compromise. But nope. Governor Walker squashed all of those proposals and said his proposal was the only way to go.
WillDaSnail Wrote:I just looked up the average pay of Wisconsin teachers, and while its somewhat better than other states on average (not $100K total though), eliminating collective bargaining will trim down what the teachers are currently making. That is not good for those that want to go into the teaching profession.
The salary is about 100k when you also add in the current benefits package. Which is exactly the problem here.
kanevaldier Wrote:The salary is about 100k when you also add in the current benefits package. Which is exactly the problem here.
Well, do note that in this craptastic economy, things can go wild if people's salaries are getting hit too hard.
But either way, I wouldn't say that the problem lies within their package. Their salary depends on what type of school they are working in (preschool, elementary, junior high, high school). Hell, I would consider that amount somewhat nice for teachers to get paid for their profession (but not excessive IMO); its a rarity nowadays given the animosity towards the teachers thanks to a few "rotten ones" that can't teach for beans.
But the bottom line is....Governor Walker's was foolish enough not to not sit down with Democrats and say "okay, lets work things out". He just wants to shove his proposal down through people's throats, "quick and easy", as he liked to call it, with the strong backing of his fellow Republican lawmakers. Now tell me, you think shunning compromise is a recipe for disaster? I think so. :\
I can bet you that teachers may be willing to sacrifice a bit of what they have so there wouldn't be so many problems compared to what's going on right now. I can bet you if Governor Walker sat down and worked with Democrats, he would've not have caused so much controversy to bestow on himself. Way2fu'ckyour public image Governor.
First off, kanevalider, your hypocrisy is astounding. You claim the only "truth" in this matter with regards to factual debate lies in disseminating the bill itself. You've bashed news sources by quite literally saying, to an effect, than ANY news source from the media is false/illogical/incorrect. So, I ask you, how do you get your news? How do you know that anything reported upon in any part of the world is actually true, if the "media" is always false? This is one of your glaring logical fallacies.
Going along the same sentiment, how do you know unions are busing people from out of state if you don't believe any media source is truthful/factual? How can you claim teachers in Wisconsin make 100k a year if you don't believe any media source is truthful/factual? Essentially all you've said is that the only "truth" in this matter lies in the bill itself, yet the bill doesn't address half the "factual claims" you've attempted to make. And you wonder why we laugh at you? You're blatantly hypocritical, as I've outlined.
But if we are to address some of your factual claims, as based on what was stated in the bill, let's start by discussing how collective bargaining would be allowed only on wage increases up to the rate of inflation. You act like that's more than enough. I can flat-out tell you it's not, as collective bargaining is necessary for maintaining reasonable class room sizes, curriculum decisions, TA flexibilities, and other important factors that affect the quality of education in Wisconsin. Let's not forget, also, this is just teachers. You claim that unions are "collectively bargaining to get paid for no reason." You believe union workers do nothing but sit on their asses draining money from taxpayers? These are the people who plow your streets when it snows. Who arrest the people who ruin communities. Who put out fires that threaten loved ones. And you claim they do NOTHING BUT peach FOR MONEY? pineapple you. Like seriously? I spoke earlier about the importance of the actual content of union jobs towards the upkeep of society, and you piss on that saying they're only in things for the money. I can't explain how upset I am right now by your utter ignorance at what runs a community.
@froznite...First of all, if you want to talk about logical fallacies you might want to take a good hard look in the mirror. I have stated many times that if you want to argue/debate this issue then you should at least read the bill before doing so. You stated directly that you not only didnt read the bill but that you didnt care to read it. So if you dont want to read the bill then you have no place to piss and moan about something that you know little to nothing about. The fact is that the media simply does not report every detail. So if you want all of the detais then you need to go to the source to find out what the problem is. I dont rely on just media stories. Yes I read them but I also look up thing that they claim too. In many cases I find that they have only reported a little piece of the puzzle. That make the picture unclear. That what I am talking about when I say to do actual research. I dont just look up other media stories I also look up the key points in order to find out the truth. That is all I am after.
I am sorry but unions do not run the community. You can take a long look throughout the U.S. and see that. Not every community is unionized. I know quite a few people who have worked in unions, most of them say that the unions are not worth it. Many have left unions in favor of non-union jobs. This bill is not so anti-union as lead to believe. It does not get rid of collective bagaining entirely, rather it reduces its ability to force better than market wages/benefits. The actual amount of pay the worker looses is miniscule and is being redistributed into their pension and health care, something every single other person has to do. What it does do is offset that reduction in take home pay by elliminating the need for paying union dues. Under this bill, union dues are no longer required. Also it makes it so that the unions have to recertify each year. That makes it easier for those who dont like the unions to get out of it. This is the kicker, none of this takes affect until the end of the current contracts. So where is the problem? Well, quite simply, it is with the union bosses themselves. Because not instead of collecting fat checks they will have to earn what the rest of the union earns. I stated this in an earlier post as well, the union boss for the teachers union alone makes 450k a year. That is paid by the taxpayer. The one thing that you seem to not understand is that no matter what, the government is not going to get screwed. If they do, then we all do. Why? Because we pay the government. It is our money that makes the government able to function. When I see figures like that, it makes me sick. That is almost twice what the president makes per year. So dont tell me that they do that much work because I am certain that the president does a hell of a lot more for much less pay.
kanevaldier Wrote:What it does do is offset that reduction in take home pay by elliminating the need for paying union dues. Under this bill, union dues are no longer required.
So being in the union is free due to this? Wrong.
Dues still need to be paid. All the bill does is remove it from the list of automatic deductions. All union funding comes from the union members, NOT the taxpayers.
Also, you keep saying "salary." Do you mean net, or gross?
kanevaldier Wrote:The one thing that you seem to not understand is that no matter what, the government is not going to get screwed.
Then why not end the tax breaks that are active rather than extend them?
Lugin Wrote:So being in the union is free due to this? Wrong.
Dues still need to be paid. All the bill does is remove it from the list of automatic deductions. All union funding comes from the union members, NOT the taxpayers.
You need to go read the bill again. Not only does it remove the automatic deductions but it also states that an employee has the right to refrain from paying dues while still remaining part of the collective bargaining agreement. This means that they do not have to pay dues if they do not want to. While you are correct in the statement saying that union funding comes from union members, you are not correct in saying it does not come from the tax payers because it is the tax payers who are paying the union members.
Glad to see this thread die . kanevalider, I've addressed everything you've said, while you haven't given the same respect to me. I specifically asked you for your sources on union bosses and their salaries, and you simply reiterated your point without any support. You claim the media doesn't do enough research and doesn't provide the whole story, yet you're doing the exact same thing. There's no way to believe any of your comments as factual if you don't support any of your statements or even respond to questions posed directly to you.
So before I close this thread, I'll leave you with some fact to completely decimate one of your logical fallacies: the President of the United States earns a $400,000 a year salary, which, assuming you're actually correct with your statement that the WI teachers' union boss makes $450k a year, is clearly not half as much as the boss. Yet again, you are wrong.
. kanevalider, I've addressed everything you've said, while you haven't given the same respect to me. I specifically asked you for your sources on union bosses and their salaries, and you simply reiterated your point without any support. You claim the media doesn't do enough research and doesn't provide the whole story, yet you're doing the exact same thing. There's no way to believe any of your comments as factual if you don't support any of your statements or even respond to questions posed directly to you.