SECTION 1. (a) Employees of the Federal Government shall have, and shall be protected in the exercise of, the right, freely and without feel of penalty or reprisal, to form, join and assist any employee organization or to refrain from any such activity. Except as hereinafter expressly provided, the freedom of such employees to assist any employee organization shall be recognized as extending to participation in the management of the organization and acting for the organization in the capacity of an organization representative, including presentation of its views to officials of the executive branch, the Congress or other appropriate authority. The head of each executive department and agency (hereinafter referred to as "agency") shall take such action, consistent with law, as may be required in order to assist that employees in the agency are apprised of the rights described in this section, and that no interference, restraint, coercion or discrimination is practiced within such agency to encourage or discourage membership in any employee organization.
Wait for it...
RIGHT TO WORK!!
quote
SEC. 2. When used in this order, the term "employee organization" means any lawful association, labor organization, federation, council, or brotherhood having as a primary purpose the improvement of working conditions among Federal employees or any craft, trade or industrial union whose membership includes both Federal employees and employees of private organizations; but such term shall not include any organization (1) which asserts theright to strike against the Government of the United States or any agency thereof, or to assist or participate in any such strike, or which imposes a duty or obligation to conduct, assist or participate in any such strike, or (2) which advocates the overthrow of the constitutional form of Government in the United States, or (3) which discriminates with regard to the terms or conditions of membership because of race, color, creed or national origin.
It even goes on to specify what labor organizations can bargain for and, wages and benefits aren't included, but the EO is really long and I lost where they are at. I will go look it back up later today.
Ok, I'm done.
I really don't even know why we're talking about this. This EO deals with FEDERAL employees and private contractors that have dealings with the FEDERAL Gov't. It has nothing to do with STATE employees and private contractors dealing with the STATES.
[This message has been edited by Rallaster (edited 03-07-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:05 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Public employees ruined Rome. In the 2nd century BC, the general Marius wanted to turn Rome’s citizen army, then a troop of part-timers, into a professional fighting force. To entice men to sign up for lengthy stints far from home, Marius promised his soldiers cash bonuses and — more importantly — land on which they could settle after their terms expired. It was one of the world’s first government pension plans.
Unfortunately, Marius’ reform turned out to be a recipe for civil conflict and, eventually, economic collapse. Roman soldiers began to look to individual generals, rather than the state, as their benefactors, and began to serve for financial reward rather than patriotic duty. Roman military leaders were forced to promise more and more public resources to maintain the loyalty of their troops, until one day there was no more money — by the 3rd century AD, the army cost more than tax receipts collected, an unmistakable sign that the end was near.
Public employees are now ruining the American republic, though our malefactors come not from the army but from the legions of unionized workers laboring in government service. For decades, public-sector unions have used their influence to help elect their own bosses and demand lavish pension and health care benefits. The result is 44 states facing an estimated budgetary shortfall of $125 billion.
Wisconsin is just one state finding that the cost of its employees exceeds its tax revenues. If something isn’t done to put the state’s finances on sound footing, a $3.6 billion budget shortfall looms. Gov. Scott Walker is attempting to do just that. Among other things, he’s asking his state’s unionized employees to contribute more to their health and pension plans. Those workers, especially teachers, responded with massive protests against Gov. Walker and his plan.
The average salary of a Milwaukee public school teacher is $56,500. But factor in the enormous benefits packages, including health care and pensions, and the annual average compensation is $100,005! In spite of such well-compensated instructors, and per-pupil spending higher any other Midwestern state, two thirds of Wisconsin 8th graders cannot read at a proficient level, according to 2009 data from the U.S. Department of Education. Twenty-two percent, or nearly one in four students, cannot even read at a “basic” level. True, that is slightly higher than the national average — but what a pathetically weak average it is! An atrocious 30 percent of 8th graders nationwide are “proficient” readers.
In spite of this dismaying record, Wisconsin’s teachers had the temerity to walk off the job en masse in protest of Walker’s proposals, flock by the thousands to the capitol in Madison, and force the closure of schools throughout the state. Of course, though they declined to teach while protesting their right to bankrupt the state, they were still collecting their salary. As reported by the MacIver Institute:
In Madison, the school district was closed for three days after hundreds of teachers engaged in a mass sick-out so they could attend protest rallies at the State Capitol. That could cost the district $2.7 million […]. If all the teachers in Milwaukee and Madison are paid for the days missed, the protest related salaries for just the state’s two largest districts would exceed $6.6 million dollars.
American public-sector workers have become more loyal to their unions than to the state, just as Roman soldiers became loyal to generals instead of the Senate. It’s the corruption that comes, and always will come, when one class of citizens is given privileged access to the public purse.
IP: Logged
10:20 AM
blackrams Member
Posts: 32983 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Originally posted by ktthecarguy: As for your arguments against public employees having the right to collective bargaining, it sounds like a good case for electing better representatives,.............................
Finally, something we can agree on. It does appear that the State of Wisconsin has finally elected some folks that are looking after their best interests and not just buying the union vote. Though, I suspect that with the changing demographics, public unions as a whole will go the way of the dinosaur.
------------------ Ron
IP: Logged
10:30 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
I do agree that a "union" for g'ment workers is a bit much. but that doesnt really matter. the right to assemble exists no matter what. if that assembled group of people just happens to all work at the same place - that still does not make the 1st amendment invalid. and if that same group assembles, during work hours - at another location - the 1st amendment is STILL valid. that is a fundamental right in the USA.
and - the school year just gets extended at the end - no school time will be lost.
IP: Logged
10:36 AM
aceman Member
Posts: 4899 From: Brooklyn Center, MN Registered: Feb 2003
MADISON, Wis. - The leader of the 14 Wisconsin Senate Democrats who fled to Illinois 18 days ago to delay passage of a bill taking away public employees' collective bargaining rights has asked Gov. Scott Walker for a meeting.
Democratic Sen. Mark Miller asks Walker in a letter delivered on Monday for an in-person meeting "as soon as possible to resume negotiations" on how to resolve the impasse over the bill.
Miller also asks Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald to attend the meeting.
Miller says Democrats are "ready and willing to find a reasonable compromise." He asks for the meeting with Walker and Fitzgerald, or their representatives, somewhere near the Wisconsin-Illinois border.
Walker and Fitzgerald's office did not immediately respond to requests for reaction to the invitation.
I know where Senator Miller can meet to find a reasonable compromise.....
IN THE SENATE CHAMBER OF THE WISCONSIN CAPITOL!
Fulfill your duties as elected representatives, Senator Miller and the other Democrat Senators.
IP: Logged
10:45 AM
blackrams Member
Posts: 32983 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
I know where Senator Miller can meet to find a reasonable compromise.....
IN THE SENATE CHAMBER OF THE WISCONSIN CAPITOL!
Fulfill your duties as elected representatives, Senator Miller and the other Democrat Senators.
That is precisely what, where and how the Governor should respond. Edited: Although, I would be tempted to show up with the rest of the Senate, once there, they would have a quorum and could get on with business. All he has to do it set the location, bring ample security, walk in with all the other senators, put guards on the doors so no one can leave and conduct the people's business. Might be a little sneaky but, at least it's better than running and hiding. ------------------ Ron
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-07-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:03 AM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
In 1962, President Kennedy signed an executive order giving public-employee unions the right to collectively bargain with federal government agencies.
Good god, you don't even read your own source material. Talk about looking STUPID!!!
The State employee unions should have the exact bargaining rights as the federal employees!
What JFK gave, Carter and the Democrats took away!
Carter Took Away Fed Bargaining Rights
In 1978, Democratic President Jimmy Carter, backed by a Democratic Congress, passed the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA). This act abolished the US Civil Service Commission and handed all federal labor disputes over to an arbitration board. It also did quite a few other things along the way. Labor-Management Relations
Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), established into law a system for federal employees to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal…
Key elements of the labor-management program are:
* Federal employees have the right to join or not to join any labor organization. Unions with exclusive recognition have the right and the obligation to represent all employees in an exclusive unit. Third-party procedures are provided for resolving labor-management disputes… * The scope of matters subject to negotiated grievance and arbitration procedures includes such adverse actions as discharge, demotion, and long-term suspensions. The negotiated procedures do not cover prohibited political activities, retirement, life insurance or health insurance, suspension or removal for national security, examination, certification or appointment, position classification which does not result in loss of grade or pay or any matter the union and agency agree to exclude. Concerning matters covered by the negotiated grievance procedure with binding arbitration is the sole procedure available to bargaining unit employees—except that in adverse actions, unacceptable performance and EEO discrimination cases the employee may use either the negotiated procedure or the statutory appeals procedure (but not both)… * The Act clarifies “management rights,” reserving to agency officials the authority to make decisions and take actions which are not subject to the collective bargaining process, and excludes bargaining on federal pay and benefits or non-voluntary payments to unions by employees. In the management rights area, the Act: (1) prohibits agencies from bargaining on mission, budget, organization, number of employees or internal security; and (2) permits, but does not require, them to negotiate over the methods, means and technology of conducting agency operations. Management’s right to select or non-select from a promotion certificate or to fill a position from any appropriate source (internally or externally) is specifically stated. The Act contains the basic rights of federal employees to form, join and assist labor organizations or to refrain from these activities. It also contains prohibitions against strikes and slowdowns, as well as picketing which interferes with government operations…
You will observe that the CSRA severely limits the issues over which federal employees can bargain. Under the CSRA, for instance, no collective bargaining is allowed on salaries, health insurance or pension benefits. And any and all strikes are strictly prohibited.
The CSRA also prohibits employees from being forced to join the union or to have their dues deducted from their paychecks. Which, of course, is the main objection that the unions are raising in Wisconsin and elsewhere.
In sum, thanks to Jimmy Carter’s ‘Civil Service Reform,’ federal employees enjoy far fewer rights than the public unions in Wisconsin would have even under Gov. Walker’s supposedly draconian plans. http://sweetness-light.com/...ed-bargaining-rights
IP: Logged
12:21 PM
Rallaster Member
Posts: 9105 From: Indy southside, IN Registered: Jul 2009
kt has stated time and time again, that it's his opinion about collective bargaining being a guaranteed right.
Even the dyed in the wool socialist FDR thought public sector unions were unworkable.
And, of course, he was absolutely correct. As the events in Wisconsin and elsewhere around the country are proving every day.
Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service
August 16, 1937
Mr. Luther C. Steward President, National Federation of Federal Employees 10 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.
My dear Mr. Steward:
As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.
Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.
The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.
Yes, you are correct. My apologies. An Executive order just carries the requirement that a law does. Sorry for the semantics issue. I had thought you would understand with your vast knowledge of the legal system.
As for 'bagger' language, why can't you be civil? Bothered by the fact that you are looking worse and worse eacha nd every day with your stance and opinions? Maybe you should sit down, take a deep breath, have a beer ( if you are old enough ) and relax. When you get yourself together, come back and discuss. We'll be here. Not like our State Senators that are gone. Our side, the 'baggers' that we are, will be happy to offer all the facts you need....and when wrong on something, such as I was, we'll be happy to correct the mistake and apologize. Is your side capable of that?
Mark the proud Wisconsinite and supporter of Governor Scott Walker.
I was talking with a few of my friends that go to UW-Madison, and granted they are hardcore republicans, but apparently the teachers/professors there are robbing the students too!
quote
An excerpt from FB:
K.H. - "I AM SO F***ING SICK OF TAs AND OTHER UNIVERSITY PEOPLE B!TCHING ABOUT HOW THEY ARE GETTING SCREWED AND THEN WALKING OUT ON US! I HOPE THIS BILL PASSES AND EVERYONE WHO MISSED WORK TO PROTEST IT GETS LAID OFF." February 21 at 8:19pm
K.H. - "ps this is in response to my bio lab getting canceled again and me still being responsible for the information." February 21 at 8:19pm
J.H. - "hahahah jeremy literally just walked in b!tching about it. i think it's F***ING RIDICULOUS that they would do that to you, especially the week of exam. and now you're f***ing required to meet w/ your group on your own time, w/o the assistance of a TA....ARE YOU F***ING KIDDING ME! i'd send your prof and TA an email complaining"
Sorry about the language, its not common for the two twins that shared the Valedictorian award from my high school to use language like that. But I think its obvious that they are a little upset.
edited their names out.
[This message has been edited by 1988holleyformula (edited 03-07-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:37 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17104 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
I offer my opinions while strongly RESPECTING the opinions of those who disagree with me.
I strongly support the governor I voted for in his battle with the state employees to hold down cost and thus control taxes.
Btw, my local teachers union is trying to extend their contract before this thing gets settled. I sure hope my school board isn't stupid enough to approve a contract extension if offered one by the union.
Yeah....Walker isn't too worried about his approval rating. While the Milwaukee County Executive, his approval ratings were always in the toilet. If he listened to the polls then nothing would have happened in Milwaukee County to get that budget close to being balanced. Each and every year that he was County Executive he presented a zero budget increase to the Milwaukee County Board who modified the budget each year to add some of their pet projects. Walker vetoed them but some were overridden so any tax increase at the County level was a result of the County Board...not Walker. He did his job and was reelected to his post. Then when running for Governor, against the Mayor of Milwaukee Tom Barrett, he won that election because he ran on his record.....as did Barrett. Barrett is a big taxer and raised my taxes each year he was in office. Walker has a record of succeeding where others have failed. I lived in Milwaukee County under Scott Walker ( and the city of Milwaukee under Barrett ) and I was grateful for Walker's persistance to keeping the budget under control.....not like his predecessor who set up a huge pension scandal that really screwed the taxpayers ( yeah...he was a Democrat ( Tom Ament ) ). Walker did his job correctly. The polls showed that he was very unfavorable but he was still elected. He did his job then and he's going to do the job now. It needs to be done and I'm one of those taxpayers that supports him wholeheartedly.
Polls don't mean much......actions do.
Mark
IP: Logged
02:49 PM
Firefox Member
Posts: 4307 From: New Berlin, Wisconsin Registered: Feb 2003
Any thoughts on this? One full years worth of pay, paid out over 3 years, for 10 days of work each year? How much does that cost the taxpayers? How many other districts have something like this? How can anyone defend this kind of expense??????
U.S. public-school teachers are facing the biggest challenge to their job security in more than half a century as politicians target seniority rules that make the last hired the first fired when jobs are cut.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent, are among officials pushing for changes in laws in coming months to let them fire underperforming teachers. As budget cuts threaten the jobs of thousands of school employees, officials are demanding the right to keep the most talented, even if they’re the least experienced.
The proposed changes may undercut the power of teachers’ unions. They intensify the debate on how to judge instructor’s effectiveness as U.S. students lag behind international peers. As officials cut education budgets, they should focus on what is best for children, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said.
“Layoffs based only on seniority don’t help kids,” Duncan said in a conference call with reporters March 3. “We have to minimize the negative impact on students.”
In 14 states, including New York, California and New Jersey, districts can consider only seniority when dismissing teachers, and they are home to 40 percent of public-school instructors, according to a report published last month by The New Teacher Project, a New York organization founded in 1997 by Michelle Rhee, Washington’s former schools chancellor.
Cutting the Future Even as states cut billions from their budgets, federal officials and executives from Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) Chairman Bill Gates to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke are lamenting the damage caused by education reductions.
“No economy can succeed without a high-quality workforce, particularly in an age of globalization and technical change,” Bernanke said in a speech March 2. “Cost-effective K-12 and postsecondary schooling are crucial.”
In New York, Bloomberg is pushing the Legislature to pass a law eliminating the “last-in, first-out” policy, saying as many as 4,666, or 6 percent, of the city’s teachers may be fired. In New Jersey, Christie proposed eliminating seniority rules for teachers at a town hall meeting Sept. 28. And in California, a Senate bill was introduced Feb. 15 that would replace seniority with a system based on several factors including student performance.
Superintendents argue seniority rules force them to retain incompetent teachers instead of young talent.
‘Ignorance Factories’ Changing the system would be a “pretty substantial boost” to student performance, said Chester Finn Jr., who was assistant secretary of education under President Ronald Reagan from 1985 to 1988. He is president of the Washington-based Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a nonprofit research group focused on improving K-12 education.
“Just as some schools are dropout factories, there are teachers that are ignorance factories,” Finn said in a telephone interview. “You’re going to have to let some people go, so why not get rid of the people who aren’t getting the job done?”
While seniority isn’t the “end-all and be-all,” mayors and superintendents don’t want any system at all, said Randi Weingarten, president of the Washington-based American Federation of Teachers, which has 1.5 million members.
“They just want individual principals to make decisions based on who their favorites are,” Weingarten said in a telephone interview March 4. “Instead of trying to figure out who to work with and how to deal with a terrible budget, they’re trying to attack teachers and attack people who made an investment and commitment to this profession before it was cool.”
Recession’s Effects The recession that began in 2008 and the resulting budget crises devastated teacher employment. About 172,000 U.S. public- education jobs, including those of teachers and clerical workers, have been eliminated since September 2008, according to John See, an American Federation of Teachers spokesman. In the past 12 months, 99,800 have disappeared, he said, citing federal labor statistics.
Preserving seniority prevents cronyism, said Steve Wollmer, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, which represents 200,000 current and retired teachers.
“Administrators who are pressed to save money may become tempted to target their veteran teachers” who earn more, he said.
Abolishing seniority is a “major threat” to teachers unions, said Grover Whitehurst, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “Since they acquired the rights to bargain, surely this is the biggest challenge they’ve faced.”
Married Teachers While teachers’ professional organizations have existed since the National Education Association’s founding in 1857, seniority rules were adopted gradually, following their development in industrial unions, said Marjorie Murphy, a history professor at Swarthmore College in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania. In 1909, New Jersey adopted the first statewide employment protections, in part to keep women from being dismissed after marrying, said Rebecca Givan, an assistant professor of collective bargaining at Cornell University, in Ithaca, New York.
The last time teachers unions were under a similar threat was in the late 1940s, when “red scare” laws banned strikes from public service workers, Murphy said.
No Silver Bullet Eliminating last-in, first-out rules won’t mean dramatic improvements, said David Abbott, executive director of the Cleveland-based George Gund Foundation, which supports education initiatives. Education needs innovation, he said.
“There’s too much emphasis placed on that issue as a silver bullet,” Abbott said. “We say, ‘If we can just get rid of this work rule, of this industrial workforce mentality, that will solve our problem.’ No, it won’t.”
In New Jersey, which had 112,933 teachers in the 2009-10 school year, Christie is seeking to make it easier to fire the ineffective and to overhaul tenure laws. Under his plan, student performance would become the prime factor in tenure, promotions and firing in the event of budget cuts.
Districts trimmed payrolls for the current school year after Christie cut state aid by $820 million. New Jersey relies on the nation’s highest property taxes, an average $7,281, to fund education. Christie enacted a 2 percent cap on growth of the tax as of Jan. 1, leaving the teachers union and some educators to warn a second round of staff cuts may be coming.
Bloomberg’s Efforts In New York, Bloomberg said he needed to cut teaching jobs to close a $2.4 billion deficit in a $65.6 billion budget he proposed Feb. 17. Bloomberg called upon the Legislature and Governor Andrew Cuomo to empower him to determine whom to fire.
A bill Bloomberg supports passed the Republican-dominated Senate March 1. Cuomo intends to push his own that doesn’t eliminate seniority.
“The bottom line is, we need an alternative,” said Josh Vlasto, a Cuomo spokesman. Once New York has an objective evaluation system, last-in, first-out can be replaced, he said.
Bloomberg’s threat to fire 4,666 teachers is a “political ploy,” said Michael Mulgrew, president of the New York United Federation of Teachers, in an interview. “Even the governor says they’re unnecessary,” he said.
“Experience matters,” said Mulgrew, who taught high school English and film studies for 13 years. “Mike Bloomberg ran for a third term saying ‘experience counts.’ Well, we have class sizes exploding, and we need all the experience we can keep.”
The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.
In Los Angeles, Villariagosa, a former union organizer, favors performance-based criteria, according to Sarah Hamilton, his spokeswoman.
No Luxury California state Senator Bob Huff, a Republican from the Los Angeles suburb of Diamond Bar, introduced a bill Feb. 15 that would replace seniority with a system that weighs factors including student performance. Huff’s bill is not scheduled for a vote, nor has it been assigned to a committee.
“You won’t find the luxury of seniority protection in the private sector and we shouldn’t apply such an ineffective policy to an important profession like teaching,” Huff, 57, said in a written statement.
Eliminating seniority will hurt teachers and children, said Jennifer Schenk, 38, a sixth-grade counselor in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where collective bargaining by public employees is under attack by Governor Scott Walker.
“Without seniority protections we’d all be on an even playing field, allowing schools to fire higher-paid teachers with more experience,” said Schenk as she stood in Madison on March 4 to protest the proposed changes. “That would cause the quality of instruction to go down.”
Just because one has seniority it doesn't mean they are a good teacher.
IP: Logged
03:19 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
Originally posted by Firefox: Polls don't mean much......actions do.
Mark
He was left with a mess, just like Obama, and he needs time to get it straighteded out, right libs? And even with the size of their teeth and power of their jaws, he has chosen to take the pigs by the snout. All will be fine in the end, and bacon will be served!
IP: Logged
03:38 PM
Firefox Member
Posts: 4307 From: New Berlin, Wisconsin Registered: Feb 2003
The Milwaukee teachers union has dropped a lawsuit seeking to keep Viagra coverage in its health insurance plans, a spokesman for the organization confirmed Monday.
Just because one has seniority it doesn't mean they are a good teacher.
No, it doesn't. But, it does mean they're finally making a decent living after they've suffered through all of the low paying years and obtaining advanced degrees to move up the salary scale. It also means that the easiest way to balance a system's budget is to get rid of these veteran teachers and hire new people right out of college. If you don't believe that will happen, I've got a bridge to sell you. Of course that may sound like a good idea until your kid ends up in a classroom of somebody who doesn't know what they're doing.
IP: Logged
08:11 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Ya life was so much better for the working man before Unions.
Well... we now have labor laws, Osha, and worker sympathetic courts, so things wouldn't be the same as they were before unions.
I also stand by my statement above. I have suffered through a couple terrible teachers and proffesors in High School and in College. They were well known by the students and their peers. The only thing keeping them there was their tenure. One college proffesor I had was so bad that most of his students ended up failing his class (about 75%). I was one of the only ones to pass and it was a required class for the curriculum. Those who didn't pass had to retake the course and he was the only instructor, so they were stuck with him. I know a few students who just dropped out because of this situation. The proffesor was also in his late seventies and wasn't very likeable. Sometimes some new blood IS a good thing.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-07-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:12 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
Ford offered the best wages of anybody in his industry before the unions came in. The unions have served their purpose helping pass most labor laws and the government even created organizations to protect the workers and their working conditions. Once these thing became the law of the land there was very little left for the unions to do. If one knows what their constitutional rights are, there is even less for the unions to help the workers with.
IP: Logged
08:23 PM
DL10 Member
Posts: 2350 From: Bloomington IL Registered: Jun 2000
Ford offered the best wages of anybody in his industry before the unions came in. The unions have served their purpose helping pass most labor laws and the government even created organizations to protect the workers and their working conditions. Once these thing became the law of the land there was very little left for the unions to do. If one knows what their constitutional rights are, there is even less for the unions to help the workers with.
I don't respond to most Political or Union bashing threads, everyone has the right to their opinion. But you state your opinion as if it is the actual fact allot.
[This message has been edited by DL10 (edited 03-07-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:03 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Originally posted by DL10 I don't respond to most Political or Union bashing threads, everyone has the right to their opinion. But you state your opinion as if it is the actual fact allot.
You may not like my opinion but it is what it is. If you believe I am wrong show me how I am wrong, that is why it is called a discussion. Trying to twist my opinion into something I haven't stated is not having a discussion and is a bit insulting in an indirect way. If you don't like the way I state my opinion that is too bad. It is my opinion and I may state it any way I like. Trying to attack it without adding any opposing view does not add anything to the discussion and it makes me wonder what the real reason is behind your statement.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-07-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:26 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17104 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
You may not like my opinion but it is what it is. If you believe I am wrong show me how I am wrong, that is why it is called a discussion. Trying to twist my opinion into something I haven't stated is not having a discussion and is a bit insulting in an indirect way. If you don't like the way I state my opinion that is too bad. It is my opinion and I may state it any way I like. Trying to attack it without adding any opposing view does not add anything to the discussion and it makes me wonder what the real reason is behind your statement.
As long as you know most of what you post is just your opinion. I never said it was wrong, I never tried to twist it in to something you haven't stated, and I wasn't trying to have a discussion with you.
You make the statement Ford offered the best wages of anybody in his industry before the unions came in. I was just pointing out that it's just your opinion.
Don't get me wrong there is plenty of things I don't like about unions. but collective bargaining is not one of them.
IP: Logged
12:00 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
You want civility? You start being civil FIRST! And I will respond in kind. Otherwise kiss off.
How old are you? Honestly, I don't think I've used the "Well he started it!" excuse since 3rd grade.
and I honestly don't see where he was anywhere near as rude as you have been, but I am willing to see proof that I may have missed if you would like to provide it.
and again,
quote
Originally posted by 1988holleyformula:
I just skimmed through the last few pages, but could you point out where he had to resort to cuss words (and circumventing Cliff's rules) to make his point?
edit: Though I guess I should apologize for my "assume" comment from awhile ago when you thought that Brad was a wealthy guy. "Sorry."
IP: Logged
01:18 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
How old are you? Honestly, I don't think I've used the "Well he started it!" excuse since 3rd grade.
and I honestly don't see where he was anywhere near as rude as you have been, but I am willing to see proof that I may have missed if you would like to provide it.
and again,
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 1988holleyformula:
I just skimmed through the last few pages, but could you point out where he had to resort to cuss words (and circumventing Cliff's rules) to make his point?
edit: Though I guess I should apologize for my "assume" comment from awhile ago when you thought that Brad was a wealthy guy. "Sorry."
[/QUOTE]
Good god, just reread the posts! Is it that difficult for you to do? I mean seriously, I am not going to reread everything FOR you.
As for "he started it", I make no apologies. He started being uncivil, and I responded in kind. I tend to give as good (or as bad) as I get. If he doesn't like the tone, HE CAN CHANGE IT, and I will respond in kind. So far, he has shown no willingness to do that.
IP: Logged
01:40 AM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17104 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Good god, just reread the posts! Is it that difficult for you to do? I mean seriously, I am not going to reread everything FOR you.
Just went through this entire thread, using Ctrl+F for Firefox (while using Chrome ). There was nothing that I could find. "emocratic" to describe the senators, and "sorry I forgot you were a liberal" to you were about the most un-civil statements I could find. I think there was one statement towards you that said something to the fact that "your childish rhetoric is making you look stupid" (and really with a statement like "He started it!" I tend to have the same opinion)
I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but we just had one forum member leave because discussions couldn't be held civilly. So please, present your side with a little more tact, and then we can continue to have an intelligent discussion. That's all I'm really asking for.
edit: a simple apology to the forum from you and I will gladly leave this thread.
[This message has been edited by 1988holleyformula (edited 03-08-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:18 AM
Firefox Member
Posts: 4307 From: New Berlin, Wisconsin Registered: Feb 2003
Good god, just reread the posts! Is it that difficult for you to do? I mean seriously, I am not going to reread everything FOR you.
As for "he started it", I make no apologies. He started being uncivil, and I responded in kind. I tend to give as good (or as bad) as I get. If he doesn't like the tone, HE CAN CHANGE IT, and I will respond in kind. So far, he has shown no willingness to do that.
You can't change facts. Sorry. Changing history might be a part of your playbook but it still doesn't change what the actual facts are. Seems like pointing out the truth is offensive to you. Sorry you can't handle that. As for being uncivil, I'd like to know what you think was uncivil. You've had several members here post that they couldn't find anything that would be considered uncivil by normal standards so now it's time for you to step up and point this out. If I indeed was being uncivil then I will apologize....something that you don't seem to be able to do.
Ok....ball is in your court. Show us all and I'll apologize. Otherwise stop your crying.
Mark
IP: Logged
09:26 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
MADISON, Wis. -- Wisconsin Democrats who fled the state nearly three weeks ago asked Monday for a meeting with Gov. Scott Walker to talk about changes to his plan to eliminate most public workers' union rights, a request the governor dismissed as "ridiculous."
Walker said he and his administration have been in communication with at least a couple of the AWOL Senate Democrats about a deal that could bring them back, but the lawmaker who asked for the meeting, Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller, "is firmly standing in the way."
That accusation led to a flurry of angry responses from Democrats who said Walker was misrepresenting the talks. The sometimes-angry exchange suggested that any resolution to the stalemate was farther away than ever.
"Right now, I'm so damn mad at his misrepresentation of the truth and the public should be as well," said Sen. Bob Jauch, one of two Democrats who had talked last week with the Senate Republican leader about possible compromises. "Trust is completely broken down now. I don't believe anything he says."
The standoff has drawn national attention and placed Wisconsin at the center a vigorous debate over the future of union rights. Walker's proposal to balance the state budget remains in limbo because, without the 14 Democrats, the state Senate does not have enough members present for a quorum.
In addition, polls show substantial opposition to the governor and his plan, and recall efforts have been launched against Republican senators. Recall efforts have also begun against the Democrats.
"The problem for the Democrats is to figure out how to come back and not be seen as conceding," said Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin-Madison political science professor and founder of pollster.com.
"Both sides have been so strongly supported by their constituencies that it makes it awfully hard to compromise unless they can find a way to both claim victory," Franklin said. "And that's certainly difficult."
Walker tried to place blame for the stalemate on Miller, the Democratic leader in the Senate, saying he blocked progress on talks with Jauch and Sen. Tim Cullen.
"It leads you to question who's in charge," Walker said at a news conference also attended by the Republican leaders of the Senate and Assembly.
Miller issued a statement saying if Walker didn't want to talk with him, the governor could meet with any of the 14 Senate Democrats. And Democratic Sen. Jon Erpenbach said it was Walker who was standing in the way.
"We continually reach out with suggestions, ideas, offers," Erpenbach said. "We're not the ones getting in the way."
Before Walker refused the meeting request, Democrats were talking more openly about the need to return sooner rather than later. And even if they lose in a Senate vote, the lawmakers said, they had accomplished their broader goal of striking a nationwide political blow against the GOP's plans to cut back union rights.
"I don't think anyone expects us to stay here forever," Jauch said in a telephone interview from Illinois.
Walker's proposal would remove most collective bargaining rights for public employees, except over wage increases no greater than inflation. Police and fire departments would be the only exemptions. The legislation would also require state workers to start paying more for their pension and health care benefits starting in April, which amounts to an 8 percent pay cut on average.
The unions have agreed to the pay concessions as long as they can retain their bargaining rights. Over the past three weekends, rallies at the Capitol in opposition to the bill have grown as large as 80,000 people.
"We want to come back to the state of Wisconsin and stand with these hundreds of thousands of citizens who are now engaged," Jauch said. "Every day I feel like I'm closer to getting back because there has to be a transition from us to the rest of us. This isn't our fight. This is the citizens' fight."
Since last week, Miller has been talking about the importance of returning to oppose Walker's larger budget bill, which cuts about $1 billion from public schools and local governments to deal with a projected $3.6 billion shortfall.
"I don't think a lot of us have the stomach to stay away and watch our state plummet off a cliff," Democratic Sen. Chris Larson said.
Miller sent a letter Monday to Walker and the Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald asking for an in-person meeting "as soon as possible to resume negotiations" on how to resolve the impasse over the union bill.
Fitzgerald replied to Miller's request saying he forfeited his right to make changes to the bill when he skipped town rather than propose changes on the floor of the Senate.
"While we wait for you and your colleagues to finally show up, Senate Republicans continue to stand ready to do the job we were elected to do, here in Wisconsin," Fitzgerald said in the letter. "I hope you are enjoying your vacation, and your vacation from reality."
Both sides had been talking last week, but Democrats said negotiations broke down Thursday. Walker said his administration continued talks over the weekend, and he personally called a senator Monday morning.
Walker refused to describe what specifically was being negotiated, other than to say there were multiple ideas that get to the "mechanics of the process."
He reiterated that any part of the proposal dealing with collective bargaining rights could not be altered because doing so would make it more difficult for schools and local governments to deal with $1 billion in cuts he's proposing.
Senate Republicans have tried to increase pressure on Democrats to return with a variety of tactics, including holding their paychecks instead of allowing them to be deposited directly. The GOP also voted last week to allow police to essentially arrest the senators and force them to return if they are found in Wisconsin.
Erpenbach said that threat of arrest squelched progress last week on a possible return.
"What we have been doing from the beginning is trying to reach out and find some sort of compromise," Erpenbach said. "I think the pressure is really on them to find and forge some way to resolve this this week."
Sponsored LinksThe state Democratic Party on Monday filed an ethics complaint against Walker, alleging, among other things, that he violated campaign finance laws during a recorded prank call recently posted online. The Democrats contend that Walker's apparent request for help shoring up politically vulnerable Republican lawmakers from a caller he thought was a wealthy campaign donor constituted "illegal third-party coordination," of campaign donations. Walker's spokesman, Cullen Werwie, called the allegations baseless.
Among the 14 senators who fled the state are Sen. Julie Lassa, who is pregnant, and Sen. Fred Risser, who at 83 has been in the Legislature since 1956. He is the longest serving lawmaker in the country.
"There are some realities that have to be faced," Jauch said, referring to the fact that Lassa is more than seven months' pregnant.
If Democrats return without meaningful concessions, the protests will only intensify, Jauch said.
"It's very difficult because I realize even though we didn't plan it this way, people are resting their hopes on our decisions," he said. "I know that at the point we return, some people are going to be terribly let down. We have to communicate with them that we stand together."
quote
Originally posted by DL10 You make the statement Ford offered the best wages of anybody in his industry before the unions came in. I was just pointing out that it's just your opinion.
My statement about Henry Ford and the wages he offered is a historical fact. Here is an article about it. I'm surprised you didn't know that. If you don't believe me look it up.
On this date in 1914, Henry Ford made history once again. The auto manufacturer established an unheard of $5.00 a day minimum wage in his factories.
Former Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca, also known as I-ka-zizzle in a TV commercial in which he plays straight man to the redoubtable artiste Mr. Snoop Dogg, wrote in Time Magazine that Ford "shocked the world with what probably stands as his greatest contribution ever: the $5-a-day minimum-wage scheme. The average wage in the auto industry then was $2.34 for a 9-hr. shift. Ford not only doubled that, he also shaved an hour off the workday."
Whether that was Henry's greatest contribution is questionable. Less uncertain is what his primary motivation was in raising employee wages and reducing work hours.
It wasn't, as has been argued, because he wanted to establish a solid-middle class to buy his product. Nor was it an act of charity. In the magnate's own words, it was "one of the finest cost-cutting moves we ever made."
Henry Ford was acting in his company's best interests. His factories had been plagued with very high turnover rates and excessive absenteeism. This was to be expected. Almost all jobs (at least the ones I've had) are monotonous, but assembly line work, performing the same procedure over and over all day long, must be extraordinarily tedious. Many employees looked for, and found, better alternatives.
Hiring replacement workers and training them were too expensive. Something needed to be done.
The higher wage Ford offered made the jobs much more attractive. Morale shot up, employee turnover sharply dropped, and, most important from management's perspective, productivity surged. Henry Ford was on his way to being a billionaire.
Interestingly, advocates of increases in government-mandated minimum wages or what's called the Universal Living Wage (ULW) cite the Ford experience as a reason their proposals should be adopted.
On its Web site, the National Coalition for the Homeless includes a white paper on the ULW that enumerates the results of Henry Ford's revolutionary move and then notes: "All of these savings/benefits are possible today with the enactment of the Universal Living Wage. The ULW will dramatically reduce employee turnover."
But would it? If all employers are required to pay the same minimum salary, what incentive would people have to stay where they're at?
When Santa Fe, New Mexico was giving consideration to raising the city's minimum wage in 2003, the 1914 pay hike was also introduced as evidence that it was a good idea. On this New Year's Day, the minimum wage paid to most employees in Santa Fe was raised to $9.50 an hour. Next year it'll go to $10.50 an hour.
The city's proposal had been challenged in court, but the lawsuit was thrown out by the same judge who recently granted a restraining order to a woman who claimed talk-show host David Letterman was using coded words, gestures and eye expressions to express his undying love over the airwaves. Such is the quality of Democratic jurisprudence in parts of the Land of Enchantment.
So has Santa Fe's increased minimum wage helped the working poor? Not according to a study released last month by the nonprofit Employment Policies Institute.
Authored by economics professor Dr. Aaron Yelowitz, the research found that the likelihood of unemployment for employees in Santa Fe went up by 3.3 percent. And for less-educated workers the likelihood of unemployment was more than double that. Moreover, workers put in fewer hours on the job than prior to the legislated increase, with less-educated employees again disproportionately affected.
One group that did benefit from the higher minimum wage was unmarried high school employees. Significant evidence suggests they displaced low-skilled adults.
Keep in mind that Dr. Yelowitz's research covers the period in which the minimum wage was still set at $8.50 an hour. At the higher rates, the results should be even more profound.
The people who were supposed to be helped are the very ones who are hurt. The pesky law of unintended consequences strikes again.
A genuine increase in wages has to be linked to greater productivity, not the magic wand of government. Henry Ford understood that. Maybe even I-ka-zizzle and Snoop Dogg do. Unfortunately for workers with marginal skills, many lawmakers don't.
This appears in the January 5, 2006, Oak Lawn Reporter.
Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($110 in current dollar terms), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.[23] A Cleveland Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement, "shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression.".[24] The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.[25][26] Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. (Using the consumer price index, this was equivalent to $111.10 per day in 2008 dollars.) It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts. Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[27] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week.[28] (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later it was changed to a day off.)
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-08-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:03 AM
DL10 Member
Posts: 2350 From: Bloomington IL Registered: Jun 2000
Originally posted by avengador1: My statement about Henry Ford and the wages he offered is a historical fact. Here is an article about it. I'm surprised you didn't know that. If you don't believe me look it up.
I was wrong, that statement was a fact. Henry was a great businessman. He knew how to make money. From the article you posted Henry Ford did not offer those wages because he wanted to establish a solid-middle class to buy his product. Nor was it an act of charity. In the magnate's own words, it was "one of the finest cost-cutting moves we ever made."
Henry Ford was acting in his company's best interests. His factories had been plagued with very high turnover rates and excessive absenteeism. This was to be expected. Almost all jobs (at least the ones I've had) are monotonous, but assembly line work, performing the same procedure over and over all day long, must be extraordinarily tedious. Many employees looked for, and found, better alternatives.
Hiring replacement workers and training them were too expensive. Something needed to be done.
The higher wage Ford offered made the jobs much more attractive. Morale shot up, employee turnover sharply dropped, and, most important from management's perspective, productivity surged. Henry Ford was on his way to being a billionaire.
There are still good businessmen and good non union companies that understand happy employees are good employees. but my opinion is most businesses are run like Walmart Wal-Mart employs more people than any other company in the United States outside of the Federal government, yet the majority of its employees with children live below the poverty line.
The employees on average take home pay of under $250 a week. The salary for full-time employees (called "associates") is $6 to $7.50 an hour for 28-40 hours a week, which is typical in the discount retail industry. This pay scale places employees with families below the poverty line, with the majority of employees' children qualifying for free lunch at school. When closely examined, this amounts to a form of corporate welfare, as the taxpayer subsidizes the low salaries. One-third are part-time employees - limited to less than 28 hours of work per week - and are not eligible for benefits.
Whereas Wal-Mart employees start at the same salary as unionized employees in similar lines of work, they make 25 percent less than their unionized counterparts after two years at the job. The rapid turnover - 70 percent of employees leave within the first year - is attributed to a lack of recognition and inadequate pay, according to a survey Wal-Mart conducted. Yet this can work to the company's advantage, since it is more difficult for unions to organize when there is constant employee turnover.
Full-time employees are eligible for benefits, but the health insurance package is so expensive (employees pay 35 percent - almost double the national average) that less than half opt to buy it. Another benefit for employees is the option to buy company stock at a discount. Wal-Mart matches 15 percent of the first $1800 in stocks purchased. Yet most workers can't afford to buy the stock. In fact, not one in 50 workers has amassed as much as $50,000 through the stock-ownership pension plan. Voting power for these stocks remains with Wal-Mart management.
Life is all about balance......to much or to little of anything is not a good thing. I have no problem with paying all workers less, not just the union workers. For every union worker that you feel makes to much there are several non union workers working for the same company who make lots more. They are called company employees, you know supervisors, foreman, Department mangers, all office staff and on on on...........
This thread is about taking away collective bargaining rights. My question is without collective bargaining who will decide what each job will pay??
[This message has been edited by DL10 (edited 03-08-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:15 PM
css9450 Member
Posts: 5557 From: Glen Ellyn, Illinois, USA Registered: Nov 2002
Do you really think that without collective bargaining, all those AFSCME government workers and teachers in WI will be making Walmart wages?
No I don't think will be making Walmart wages, my question was how would those wages now be set? I agree with everyone view that we can't afford to pay the salary and benefits that keep getting higher but you do need to maintain balance between the workers and boss. The problem is much bigger than just the unionized workers.
The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.
Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.
The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.
The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.
"There's no way to justify this to the American people. It's ridiculous," says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a first-term lawmaker who is on the House's federal workforce subcommittee.
Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.
USA TODAY analyzed the Office of Personnel Management's database that tracks salaries of more than 2 million federal workers. Excluded from OPM's data: the White House, Congress, the Postal Service, intelligence agencies and uniformed military personnel.
The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.
Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries:
•Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.
•New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.
We need to cut wages from the Top down, These facts are for the private sector
In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks.
The 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s have been prosperous times for top U.S. executives, especially relative to other wage earners. This can be seen by examining the increased divergence between CEO pay and an average worker’s pay over time, as shown in Figure A. In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) causing CEO pay to moderate to 143 times that of an average worker in 2002. Since then, however, CEO pay has exploded and by 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861).
It does appear that the State of Wisconsin has finally elected some folks that are looking after their best interests and not just buying the union vote. Though, I suspect that with the changing demographics, public unions as a whole will go the way of the dinosaur. 
