Wis. Supreme Court Allows Walker's Union Restrictions
http://www.newsmax.com/News...al&promo_code=C708-1

quote MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court handed Republican Gov. Scott Walker a major victory on Tuesday, ruling that a polarizing union law could take effect that strips most public employees of their collective-bargaining rights. In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi overstepped her authority when she said Republican lawmakers violated the state's open meetings statutes in the run-up to passage of the legislation and declared the law void. The law, which also requires public employees to pay more for their health care and pensions, sparked weeks of protests when Walker introduced it in February. Tens of thousands of demonstrators occupied the state Capitol for weeks and Democratic senators fled the state to prevent a vote, thrusting Wisconsin to the forefront of a national debate over labor rights. In a one-sentence reaction to the ruling, the governor said: "The Supreme Court's ruling provides our state the opportunity to move forward together and focus on getting Wisconsin working again." Walker has claimed that the law was needed to help address the state's $3.6 billion budget shortfall and give local governments enough flexibility on labor costs to deal with deep cuts to state aid. Democrats saw it as an attack on public employee unions, which usually back their party's candidates. The Supreme Court's ruling will likely be the precursor to an avalanche of lawsuits and legal challenges that couldn't be brought until the law took effect. The decision came just hours before the Wisconsin Assembly was expected to begin debating the state budget. Had the ruling not come down, Republicans planned to put the collective bargaining provisions into the budget so the changes could take effect during the court fight. GOP legislative leaders, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, issued a joint statement saying they always believed the bill was legally approved. "We followed the law when the bill was passed, simple as that," the brothers said in a statement. "We're finally headed in the right direction by balancing the budget and focusing on jobs, just like Republicans promised we would do." Democratic Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, who filed the lawsuit after Republicans pushed through the legislation, was disappointed. "We've done the best we can," he said. "It looks like we've lost." Democratic state senators fled to Illinois in February to try to prevent a vote on the measure, but Republicans got around the maneuver by convening a special committee to remove fiscal elements from the bill and allow a Senate vote with fewer members present. Walker signed the plan into law two days later. Ozanne filed his lawsuit the next week claiming Republicans didn't provide the proper public notice of the meeting in violation of state law. Sumi, the judge who initially heard Ozanne's lawsuit, first issued a temporary order blocking publication of the collective bargaining law while she weighed his arguments and then last month declared the law void. Attorneys for the state Department of Justice, representing the Republicans who control the Legislature, asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case directly, in part to speed the process. Walker counted on the law being in effect in the budget he put forward for the fiscal year that starts July 1. In vacating Sumi's ruling, the Supreme Court said she had "usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature." The Supreme Court said the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction and was wrong to block implementation of the law. The court also rejected arguments that Republicans violated the state open meetings law. "The doors of the Senate and Assembly were kept open to the press and members of the public," the Supreme Court said. "Access was not denied." In a blistering dissent, Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote that the majority decision was "hastily" reached and has unsupported conclusions. She said a concurring opinion written by Justice David Prosser, a former Republican speaker of the Assembly, was "long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant." Abrahamson said the majority "set forth their own version of facts without evidence. They should not engage in this disinformation."

They can cry and moan all they want now, it's official.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 06-15-2011).]

What's of more importance is that the precedent set that allows a smaller number of votes to pass a law gives the Republicans a lot more power than ever in the legislature. Be interesting to see how they wield it in other arenas. Power is something that rarely goes unused in government...

Also, teachers will be getting substantially smaller paychecks in upcoming years, both due to loss of negotiating power and through larger mandatory deductions. I wonder what effect this current-day pay cut will have? Although, I guess if they skip going to the doctor and cash out retirement plans to pay bills it's not really a pay cut after all. It may be balanced by teachers leaving the state for greener pastures, especially as the economy recovers over the next decade. With a shortage of teachers due to lack of desire to work in WI plus less folks interested in becoming teachers in an anti-teacher climate WI may have to spend big just to get qualified teachers back. Wouldn't that be ironic. I guess we'll see what the unintended consequences will turn out to be...

Hey, maybe we can get Pakistani teachers over here on H1-B visas to teach our kids, eh? That'll be a hoot!

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Hey, maybe we can get Pakistani teachers over here on H1-B visas to teach our kids, eh? That'll be a hoot!

Don't they rank ahead of us in education, pretty much the whole world does.
If the teachers got minimum wage that would match the minimum wage education they dish out.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: What's of more importance is that the precedent set that allows a smaller number of votes to pass a law gives the Republicans a lot more power than ever in the legislature. Be interesting to see how they wield it in other arenas. Power is something that rarely goes unused in government... Also, teachers will be getting substantially smaller paychecks in upcoming years, both due to loss of negotiating power and through larger mandatory deductions. I wonder what effect this current-day pay cut will have? Although, I guess if they skip going to the doctor and cash out retirement plans to pay bills it's not really a pay cut after all. It may be balanced by teachers leaving the state for greener pastures, especially as the economy recovers over the next decade. With a shortage of teachers due to lack of desire to work in WI plus less folks interested in becoming teachers in an anti-teacher climate WI may have to spend big just to get qualified teachers back. Wouldn't that be ironic. I guess we'll see what the unintended consequences will turn out to be... Hey, maybe we can get Pakistani teachers over here on H1-B visas to teach our kids, eh? That'll be a hoot!

Where is the PAYCUT???? The now will have to contribute more to THEIR retirement plan and to THEIR very nice health care benefits. Hell, they'll turn it around and use their still intact collective bargaining power to wield a higher wage to offset paying more for their benefits. It happens all over. Currently, the federal government is trying to increase the yearly premiums I now pay for my retiree health insurance. It needs to be done. I really don't mind the increase they're proposing. It would still be a great deal in a benefit. USAA and some other groups are "accepting" this increase in premiums. And, they're trying to get Congress to lift a freeze on the COLA (Cost of Living Allowance) and give the retirees a decent "raise" in their retirement pay.

The Wisconsin teachers are paid quite well. In the opinion of many of the voters, they should probably take a paycut AND contribute more to their benefits.

Your "jedi mindtricks" of calling it a paycut will not work here.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Excellent, now we can knock those teachers wages down to where they belong, say, $10 an hour with no benefits and no retirement. Can't save retirement on $10/hour? Tough, should have thought about that before getting a teaching degree and starting a career in teaching. Next they should go after the police and fire workers, there's an even bigger money hole than the teachers ever were.

I'm just discussing this with you and not jumping on you, so please know that and take it that way.


NO one in Wisconsin wants to gut teacher's wages, which is what your obvious exaggeration-for-effect example was attempting to illustrate. That includes staunchly conservative republicans in the state. So that is number 1.


The teachers have TWO forms of protection. They have the teacher's union, and they have a democratic legislature that is beholden to the teacher's union. That didn't change with the legislation to eliminate their collective bargaining power.

The public taxpayer only had the republican legislature to watch out for them. When it was teacher's union rights, democratic legislature, AND collective bargaining power versus only republican legislature, it was COMPLETELY a ONE-SIDED fight.


Wisconsin teacher's total benefits package AFTER the current budget will STILL be well above the national average. STILL.
So I'm not picking on you, but PLEASE don't try to misportray this as some brutal attack on teachers and the gutting of the public education system. It is about SOME semblance of fiscal sanity considering the current financial environment, and about SOMEwhat leveling the playing field.


Now, police and fire workers? Yeah. That is another group who has refused to do anything voluntarily considering the current financial environment. Are they up next? Probably. Why? Should they somehow be immune from financial environmental factors? WITH collective bargaining power, they are.
Regarding the ruling of the supreme court, it was actually 7 to 0 that the liberal judge in Madison over-stepped her jurisdiction. The 4 to 3 vote was whether the legislation violated the constitution's open meetings law. Which is a TOTAL perversion of the constitutional intent, since the legislation was open for TWO DAYS for public to comment on it. And then with the disruption going on, there was ONE committee meeting that was done where people weren't allowed because of the disruption, and via that supertechnical loophole they tried to claim it didn't meet the "open meeting" standard.

quote Originally posted by aceman: Where is the PAYCUT???? The now will have to contribute more to THEIR retirement plan and to THEIR very nice health care benefits. Hell, they'll turn it around and use their still intact collective bargaining power to wield a higher wage to offset paying more for their benefits. It happens all over. Currently, the federal government is trying to increase the yearly premiums I now pay for my retiree health insurance. It needs to be done. I really don't mind the increase they're proposing. It would still be a great deal in a benefit. USAA and some other groups are "accepting" this increase in premiums. And, they're trying to get Congress to lift a freeze on the COLA (Cost of Living Allowance) and give the retirees a decent "raise" in their retirement pay. The Wisconsin teachers are paid quite well. In the opinion of many of the voters, they should probably take a paycut AND contribute more to their benefits. Your "jedi mindtricks" of calling it a paycut will not work here.

I forgot, in your magical fairyland smaller paychecks are not the same as a pay cut. Technically speaking, they're base pay will be the same, for now, though it will likely be shrinking in the near future because without any real collective bargaining power the only option left the teachers is to quit for a different career. However, in reality, the amount they take home and spend on mortgage, groceries, kids college funds, etc, will decrease. Why would this happen? Since by your own words it's not clear to you, let me spell it out: Bigger deductions for health care and retirement savings. Theoretically, the retirement savings are still theirs, but if they take it out before retirement age they'll pay a hefty penalty, but the money for health insurance is gone, they can't spend that money to fix the car.

Now, I understand that you, with your VA health benefits and military retirement that you don't have to contribute toward, don't have a lot of real-world experience with money matters like this (and I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly don't think you do). But the reality on the ground for teachers in Wisconsin is that when they do their household budgets they'll be cutting back pretty significantly because they'll be getting less actual money deposited in their checking accounts, and I don't expect that the governor and his administration will stop with just one net revenue decrease (note, not pay cut) for the teachers.

So feel free to say they're not getting a pay cut, I'm sure all those teachers will agree with you as they have to put stuff back on the store shelves and spend less money in their local economies.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I forgot, in your magical fairyland smaller paychecks are not the same as a pay cut. Technically speaking, they're base pay will be the same, for now, though it will likely be shrinking in the near future because without any real collective bargaining power the only option left the teachers is to quit for a different career. However, in reality, the amount they take home and spend on mortgage, groceries, kids college funds, etc, will decrease. Why would this happen? Since by your own words it's not clear to you, let me spell it out: Bigger deductions for health care and retirement savings. Theoretically, the retirement savings are still theirs, but if they take it out before retirement age they'll pay a hefty penalty, but the money for health insurance is gone, they can't spend that money to fix the car. Now, I understand that you, with your VA health benefits and military retirement that you don't have to contribute toward, don't have a lot of real-world experience with money matters like this (and I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly don't think you do). But the reality on the ground for teachers in Wisconsin is that when they do their household budgets they'll be cutting back pretty significantly because they'll be getting less actual money deposited in their checking accounts, and I don't expect that the governor and his administration will stop with just one net revenue decrease (note, not pay cut) for the teachers. So feel free to say they're not getting a pay cut, I'm sure all those teachers will agree with you as they have to put stuff back on the store shelves and spend less money in their local economies.

Correct. I did not have to contribute to my current retirement. However, If I died or was kicked out or quit after 19 years, I would have ZERO Dollars in my retirement account. And that 50% retirement I can draw immediately..... It's about 1/3 of what I took home for pay and allowances. I don't complain about it, but I damn well know I earned that retirement. And next year, the federal government could strip that retirement and once again, I have no "account" of money to call my own. However, I did contribute to my thrift savings account that was not matched.

Incorrect. I don't have these VA health benefits you speak of. As a retiree I pay a yearly premium and co-pays and deductibles for my and my family's health care. It's a very good deal and benefit, that can be stripped away or jacked up in rates without any "bargaining" to stop any of that action. Now, once my disability claim gets worked, I will get 100% free work done on any more problems with my feet that were screwed up from my Air Assault/Light Infantry days. I will get free care for my hearing loss that was caused by my time in the Engineers and Field Artillery. I will get free coverage for medical issues caused by my time in the Army.

And my experience in real world money matters? I was an owner of an H&R Block office. I was a bookkeeper and payroll manager and a for major motels. I wasn't your "stereotypical grunt" in my career in the Army. I dealt with finance and personnel matters most of my career.

What you are failing to mention is that the contributions these teachers will now have to make towards their benefits was taking away 5% of their current paycheck. I'd rather have 5% of my current paycheck be going towards my benefits than to take a %5 pay cut in my salary. Those teachers are well paid with extraordinary benefits packages. Of course they're going to complain. Their free ride and living the high-life is coming to an abrupt stop. They now may have to have their own reality check of what the private sector has to deal with with their paycheck.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I forgot, in your magical fairyland smaller paychecks are not the same as a pay cut. Technically speaking, they're base pay will be the same, for now, though it will likely be shrinking in the near future because without any real collective bargaining power the only option left the teachers is to quit for a different career. However, in reality, the amount they take home and spend on mortgage, groceries, kids college funds, etc, will decrease. Why would this happen? Since by your own words it's not clear to you, let me spell it out: Bigger deductions for health care and retirement savings. Theoretically, the retirement savings are still theirs, but if they take it out before retirement age they'll pay a hefty penalty, but the money for health insurance is gone, they can't spend that money to fix the car. Now, I understand that you, with your VA health benefits and military retirement that you don't have to contribute toward, don't have a lot of real-world experience with money matters like this (and I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly don't think you do). But the reality on the ground for teachers in Wisconsin is that when they do their household budgets they'll be cutting back pretty significantly because they'll be getting less actual money deposited in their checking accounts, and I don't expect that the governor and his administration will stop with just one net revenue decrease (note, not pay cut) for the teachers. So feel free to say they're not getting a pay cut, I'm sure all those teachers will agree with you as they have to put stuff back on the store shelves and spend less money in their local economies.

Damn.....Wisconsin teachers and other public employees might have to readjust their budgets because their paychecks aren't as big. Well, I'll ask you again. Why is it more important that the public sector employees keep their take home pay at the same levels during a financial difficult time for all of us? My pay was cut. My hours were cut. I'm on a temporary layoff at the moment. I have less money to spend and I've had to adjust MY budget because my paychecks aren't as large. Since I pay the salaries and benefits for these public sector employees why is it that I have to suffer MORE than they do? I PAY FOR THIS! I HAVE LESS MONEY! I'm sick and tired of liberals telling me that I'm not worth protecting so their ilk don't have to suffer. How much more do you want to pull out of MY wallet? Do I need to sell my house so some teacher can retire comfortably? Where is MY retirement paycheck other than the 401K that *I* pay over 90% for? Where shall I live? Do I have to move into a trailer so a teacher can keep his/her really nice home? Kiss my ass. Our Governor is doing this because of the abuses of the unions over the years. Enough is enough. Leave my wallet alone. The schools have enough of my money. If the school districts and the local governments want to give their employees a better benefit package, they can still do that. It's just not a part of collective bargaining....just like the private sector.

I'm tired of being told I'm not important. I'm tired of being told I'm not worth fighting for. Governor Scott Walker is fighting for me as a Wisconsin taxpayer and I'll support him. For those of you that feel that I'm not important and feel that public sector employees are more important than I, well then you can kiss my ass.

Mark the pissed off Wisconsin taxpayer.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: See my reply to aceman WRT wage cuts versus net spendable, budgetable revenue into household checking accounts. WRT the overall picture, the proof will be in the pudding. It will probably take a few years before it becomes apparent, but if, as I honestly believe, this action results in a teacher shortage due to early retirements and decreased desire to choose teaching as a career in WI, the damage will be done and the repair costs high. The perversion of the open meetings aspect, well, that was kind of to be expected I guess. Don't be too terribly surprised if that successful tactic continues to be used in your state for more and more minority partisan legislation. Just to reiterate: From a household budget point of view, money you can't spend on expenses in the current term is money that's not of real use in running a day to day household budget. When my employer added in a $50/month insurance copay a few years ago I didn't get a raise to go with it, so my net pay went down $50 a month. Was that a pay cut? Semantically, no, but in the real world I live in I had to cut expenses so that my rent check didn't bounce. What did I cut? lots of things, it took a bit of work to make my budget balance again. Unplugging my refrigerator helped quite a bit. These teachers will have to do the same, no matter what you want to call it. That's real.

Of course it's real, just as it's real anytime anyone encounters an added expense to their budget, whether it be a new car payment, a additional family member, a car repair, a rent increase or anything else.
The key to living within one's income, is not to just cut their expenses--that exercise in futility rarely works because as soon as ya do, something new (like $4/gal gas or increased KW/hr rates) pops up, and they find themselves right back in the same boat, with no expenditures left to cut. Ya have to both cut expenses AND increase income. How many times, have I seen very skilled, extremely intelligent people complain that they can't make it, yet adamantly stick with the same old job, constantly crying "If they would just pay me a "living wage", while driving right by businesses on the way home from work that have "part time help needed" signs in their windows. That makes absolutely no sense to me, and i raised 4 kids on my own without haveing to resort to extortion type collective bargaining--and I never had to cut the fridge off either. But, to each his own.

Anyone that has ever been in the military knows exactly what good "real world" money management is, and how hard it is to make it thru the month. COA rarely meets increases in the local or regional economy (assuming there is even a COA approved that year) and it's always a huge struggle to make ends meet, especially when the male member of the military household is on deployment. BTDT too, and tho I am not privy to aceman's financials I suspect he has not had the bed of roses some think military life is. It's certainly not a financial utopia. I've known thousands of military folks, and after 61 years on the p[lanet, have yet to see a single one who became even close to "wealthy" on military pay.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-15-2011).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: It will probably take a few years before it becomes apparent, but if, as I honestly believe, this action results in a teacher shortage due to early retirements and decreased desire to choose teaching as a career in WI, the damage will be done and the repair costs high. The perversion of the open meetings aspect, well, that was kind of to be expected I guess. Don't be too terribly surprised if that successful tactic continues to be used in your state for more and more minority partisan legislation.

I specifically mentioned PAY as opposed to total compensation, because you made the (intentionally for effect) absurd statement about taking their pay to $10/hour.


Yes, absolutely, their TOTAL compensation package IS being reduced. The proposal was about $165/month as I recall. They would have had to pay that much more to get the SAME benefits (not for reduced benefits. Same level). That isn't insignificant. Almost $2000 per year.

As I stated, that STILL left them well above the US average, and was STILL LESS than what the private sector has been dealing with.


So it was a very REASONABLE reduction, while still, yes, being a reduction. But FAR from the GUTTING of total compensation that you were portraying.

Regarding the open meeting law issue, this was a TECHNICALITY that the DEMOCRATS were trying to pull. The meetings regarding the collective bargaining HAD BEEN OPEN FOR 3 DAYS. Open discussion. The ONLY thing was a committee meeting that was done in a not open way BECAUSE THE LEFTIES WERE MAKING IT PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

There was ZERO attempt to subvert the SPIRIT of the law, and the court rightly ruled that the meetings on this topic WERE open to the public FOR DAYS, and the reason for this "technical violation' (which it wasn't), was due to the obstructive actions of the mob.


So, no, this is NOT some precedent and ooh, look out in the future.

Those mandatory deductions they will be making are done pre-tax. This will artificially lower their taxable income. This could translate into less taxes being taken out of their paychecks, if it puts them into a lower tax bracket. The amount they are forced to contribute might just be a wash because of the possible gains they may get from it.
They should contribute the maximum of 15%, like everyone else with a good retirement plan does, and not count on taxpayer money to pay for their retirement. That isn't fair to the tax payers.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Oh yeah, regarding retiring teachers. There WILL be some teachers retire NOW while they have the current contract and current retirement package. Those that are 55 and above, financially, it will make sense. Because the retirement package they PROBABLY will get under any new contract will be significantly less generous. But I can guarantee you that those that retire will not cause a teacher's shortage. There is a LARGE group of younger graduates out there right now who haven't been able to get teaching jobs that are ready to go. Part of that is is DUE TO the greater pay that Wisconsin gives teachers compared to other states, and the emphasis Wisconsin puts on public education. That draws teachers. And the total compensation reduction STILL leaves Wisconsin teachers among the best paid in the country. They certainly won't have the experience level of the retiring ones, and so quite honestly won't be (generally speaking) as good. But Wisconsin consistently is among the top in education scores across the nation anyway. So it isn't going to devastate the system. On a personal level, I have had 2 state employees I have seen in the office this week that are retiring this year, while they can still get the better retirement package. You are right. People are retiring. But lack of replacement workers? Not in this economy.

Average teacher pay in WI is rated 20th in the nation, out of 50 states, so that's fairly in the average category. Starting pay at $25,222 pre-medical/pre-retirement ranks Wisconsin at 49th place, solidly at the bottom. Newly-degreed teachers in WI would be well-advised to go anywhere else, where they would have a 98% chance of making more money.

http://teacherportal.com/sa...onsin-teacher-salary

Even Texas, a state well-known to be the lowest ranking state in social infrastructure expenditures, pays starting teachers over eight thousand bucks more, $33,775.

http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

BTW, Texas doesn't have an income tax, and our winters only last a few weeks around here (and in good years, maybe just a few days). I welcome your newly-degreed teachers to my state.

Some info on WI's tax burden distribution, middle class gets hammered at the expense of the bottom and the top:

http://www.jsonline.com/new...consin/90546309.html

Actually, I find it pretty funny that so many who are in favor of redistribution of wealth find this whole thing to be so intolerable. So the entire collective of teachers takes a small reduction in total pay in order to save the jobs of how many other teachers. Seems like redistribution in some form to me. I guess what appears to be a tasty snack has for them, become an indigestible meal.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Actually, I find it pretty funny that so many who are in favor of redistribution of wealth find this whole thing to be so intolerable. So the entire collective of teachers takes a small reduction in total pay in order to save the jobs of how many other teachers. Seems like redistribution in some form to me. I guess what appears to be a tasty snack has for them, become an indigestible meal.

I'm actually just wanting to stop the current redistribution of wealth. Right now, the bottom 95% is having their wealth redistributed to the top 5%. If that stopped, I'd be satisfied.

And by the way, they're not taking a reduction in pay.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I'm actually just wanting to stop the current redistribution of wealth. Right now, the bottom 95% is having their wealth redistributed to the top 5%. If that stopped, I'd be satisfied. And by the way, they're not taking a reduction in pay.

Well, it is interesting that you started out saying how it is unfair to say their salaries aren't being reduced (which they aren't) because their TOTAL COMPENSATION was being reduced.

Yet then when you state figures, what do you focus on? Comparative SALARIES.


And then you focus on STARTING salaries and not the more typical salaries. Anything you can use to try to make it appear most how you want it to appear.


Wisconsin gives over $20,000 in benefit packages on average, or more. So the total AVERAGE compensation paid to the average teacher in the state is about $75 to 80,000 per year.


Still, I would change my statement to say that Wisconsin teachers are above average in pay (since among the best paid seems to be a statement you want to dispute) compared to the U.S., and it also doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of teachers waiting if there is a mass retirement.


Regarding redistribution of income from the 95% to the 5%, that is just lunacy to say such a thing.

And if you have a problem with the taxation in Wisconsin, that was put in place by a democrat governor and controlled state legislature.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Wisconsin gives over $20,000 in benefit packages on average, or more. So the total AVERAGE compensation paid to the average teacher in the state is about $75 to 80,000 per year.

The problem with semantics is that when you say to the average Joe who isn't into the details that teachers in WI are making "$75-80,000" a year they think, "hmmm, that's like take-home pay, or maybe that's just pay before taxes, so let's see, 80,000 a year divided by 2,040 work hours in a year means those teachers are making over $38 an hour! That's triple what I make!" It gives a truly false impression about what WI teachers are really taking home and using to pay for their expenses and expenditures.

The problem with the way you stated it is that most people don't think of the dollar amount of the total compensation amount. How many people here (who have insurance) know how much your company pays toward your health insurance? My company pays $6,050, I know this because I asked. Is that $6,050 relevant in my budgetary life? Not at all, because I never see it, can't spend it on groceries, can't really do squat with it. So, I don't consider it income, even though technically the dollar amount is part of my "compensation package". If a lender asks me what my income is, I don't include my health insurance costs because, frankly, it's doesn't matter to the lender. The lender only wants to know if the money I actually take home is enough to pay the loan.

As to starting salaries, it's important only if WI wants to replace the teachers who are retiring due to the newly unfavorable pay climate there. If as you say a lot of teachers take early retirement then WI, with the second lowest starting pay and very nearly the highest tax burden, is going to have a hard time retaining good talent. Maybe y'all can make do with the teachers nobody else will hire?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: How many people here (who have insurance) know how much your company pays toward your health insurance?

I DO!! The last job I had paid $0.00 in benefits. I took the job because I enjoyed the work I did(Isn't that why teachers do what they do?). There's only been 2 jobs out of the 6 that I've had that I had insurance through and that was when I was in the Army and drove OTR.

[This message has been edited by Rallaster (edited 06-16-2011).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: As to starting salaries, it's important only if WI wants to replace the teachers who are retiring due to the newly unfavorable pay climate there. If as you say a lot of teachers take early retirement then WI, with the second lowest starting pay and very nearly the highest tax burden, is going to have a hard time retaining good talent. Maybe y'all can make do with the teachers nobody else will hire?

What you're not considering is the fact, at least in the upper midwest, is that most of those teachers starting off in Wisconsin are home grown teachers or from neighboring states. And this is not pulling something from my ass or "my little fantasy world". This is from what I've seen living in the upper midwest most of my life, having many friends that are teachers, from having a parent that was on the school board for many years and a boss that was on the school board for many years. So, your thought process doesn't hold much water. That graduate from the University of Wisconsin is likely looking for a teaching job at home, first. The graduate from University of Minnesota is looking in Minnesota, first and if nothing comes up in Minnesota, they're looking in Wisconsin and Iowa. I don't know too many 23 year olds fresh out of the local state university in the upper midwest that say, "Hey, I think I'll move 1000 miles away to a completely different part of the country to take a non-tenured job that pays about $5000 more a year."

[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 06-16-2011).]

When the unions are gone, education will be much better.

The BAD teachers, many of whom make tons of money since they've been there for 20 years and can't be fired, can finally be fired... in addition, the good, energetic, and young teachers will finally be able to get hired on. The good, seasoned and veteran teachers will finally be recognized as the experienced teachers they are, and won't be held back by the other crappy teachers that have the same or more seniority than they do.

EDIT: The teachers will also be making more money now since so many of the teachers will be voting NOT to renue the union membership, and they won't get dues taken out of their paychecks... instant pay raise!!!

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 06-16-2011).]

quote Originally posted by aceman: What you're not considering is the fact, at least in the upper midwest, is that most of those teachers starting off in Wisconsin are home grown teachers or from neighboring states. And this is not pulling something from my ass or "my little fantasy world". This is from what I've seen living in the upper midwest most of my life, having many friends that are teachers, from having a parent that was on the school board for many years and a boss that was on the school board for many years. So, your thought process doesn't hold much water. That graduate from the University of Wisconsin is likely looking for a teaching job at home, first. The graduate from University of Minnesota is looking in Minnesota, first and if nothing comes up in Minnesota, they're looking in Wisconsin and Iowa. I don't know too many 23 year olds fresh out of the local state university in the upper midwest that say, "Hey, I think I'll move 1000 miles away to a completely different part of the country to take a non-tenured job that pays about $5000 more a year."

Well, that graduate from WI can go ahead and take a job for $25,222 in WI, or can go a few hundred miles (not 1,000 miles, not even 500 miles) and get a higher starting salary in these nearby states:

$31,532 Minnesota, an increase of $6,310 and still close enough to come home to visit family regularly.
$27,284 Iowa, only $2,062 more, but still...
$29,281 Missouri, $4,059 more (that's $338.25 more a month)
$37,500 Illinois, $12,278 more! What can anyone do with over a grand more a month in income?
$30,619 Kentucky, $5,397 more in just the first year, more than enough to cover moving expenses.
$33,671 Ohio, $8,449 helps pay off the student loans a lot faster than zero extra in WI
$30,844 Indiana, $5,622 in the first year, after taxes that's still a good down payment on a new home, and new life.
$35,557 Michigan, $10,335 extra income in the first year, you can buy a lot of groceries and pay a lot of bills with that, oh yeah!

Or, you can start back in Wisconsin with the second lowest starting pay in the nation at $25,222, pay more for your benefits, live with a pretty hostile environment toward teachers, and live at home because $1,200 net take home a month doesn't really pay the rent and school loans, or allow for much of anything but living from paycheck to paycheck.

Reply #666.. devil post, devil post!

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 06-17-2011).]

I'm confused, if Wisconsin has had the lowest starting salary for, how long(?), how do they still have teachers in their schools?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: How can not having union dues taken out be a pay raise, but having more retirement and medical taken out not be a pay cut? Just a semantic logic question...

Well, for one, I never said that increased benefit cost wasn't a "pay cut." But technically, both of these are benefit cost adjustments. Not paying union dues is no more a pay increase than the cost of health care is a pay cut.

In either case, it would be something they have to look forward to. Not having a union means that employees now have to be more responsible for their actions, their conduct, and their performance. I think I can speak with some authority on this considering that I have two family members that actually work for the union... NOT union members, but actually union employees. One of them is a district teacher representative (drives around to schools in his region) for the Broward Teacher's Union, and the other is a representative manager, that manages all the district representatives for the United Teachers of Dade.

I would be putting it mildly if I said we clashed on this topic... I don't regularly discuss this with them. I believe teachers DEFINITELY need legal representation... as they are often guilty until proven innocent. But that's ALL they need in my mind. Performance should dictate your pay and your promotions... NOT tenure. What the hell is tenure anyway... it's a ridiculous concept. If someone goes above and beyond, they should be rewarded for it. Everyone is capable of giving an extra effort, regardless of how intelligent or unintelligent they might be. You're always going to find bad bosses and good bosses, but generally speak, people are rewarded when they work hard, especially in an institution.

People forget that the public educational system is NOT a business, it's a fundamental institution that serves to promote education and improve the intelligence in our society... so it doesn't EARN money, it's always going to be a draw on ftaxpayer funds. What people ALSO forget is that the union IS in fact a business. They earn money... they make money by getting more dues. They get more dues money by increasing pay and benefits to the teachers which cost the taxpayers more.


EDIT: I'm hoping you'll ask me about the benefits my family members get... it's a long list. I'd say it's probably better than what a congressman gets. (meaning union employees, not union due-paying members)

EDIT2: JazzMan, I would argue your representation of the cost. While I am taking your comments as fact, I will say that there's probably a pretty good reason why the pay is so low for starting teachers. For one, it's probably all that they can afford to pay. When you get a teacher (who's not very good) and you cannot fire the teacher unless they commit a violent felony... these teachers stay in their job for decades. The amount of pay they end up getting is astronomical by the end of their career. Under normal circumstances you would have many of these teachers who would have already been fired... probably close to half of them... either because they found better paying private jobs, or because they were garbage employees to begin with. This would allow for a higher starting salary, and might result in better more competitive teachers.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 06-17-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Rallaster: I'm confused, if Wisconsin has had the lowest starting salary for, how long(?), how do they still have teachers in their schools?

Easy, despite Jazzman's fantasy land that all those Wisconsin graduates are going to apply for jobs out of state and actually get them over the Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota graduates, they're happy to stay in their home state and actually have a job in comfortable surroundings. They're probably saying, "I probably could have applied for that teaching job in Minneapolis that would pay me $5,000/year but I'd be paying $400/month more for rent."

Jazzman, Why haven't you moved to a different state to make more money? Surely you could find a job paying more than $13/hr and crappy benefits where you currently are at.

quote Originally posted by aceman: Easy, despite Jazzman's fantasy land that all those Wisconsin graduates are going to apply for jobs out of state and actually get them over the Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota graduates, they're happy to stay in their home state and actually have a job in comfortable surroundings. They're probably saying, "I probably could have applied for that teaching job in Minneapolis that would pay me $5,000/year but I'd be paying $400/month more for rent." Jazzman, Why haven't you moved to a different state to make more money? Surely you could find a job paying more than $13/hr and crappy benefits where you currently are at.

The part that has me confused is that the legislation deals almost solely with benefit contribution and collective bargaining, yet Jazzman is arguing about base salaries...

quote Originally posted by Rallaster: The part that has me confused is that the legislation deals almost solely with benefit contribution and collective bargaining, yet Jazzman is arguing about base salaries...

yes, I would think "overall compensation will be reduced" would be more a more accurate statement

quote Originally posted by Rallaster: The part that has me confused is that the legislation deals almost solely with benefit contribution and collective bargaining, yet Jazzman is arguing about base salaries...

Sure it does. Jazzman is now using deflection in his argument.

A) He doesn't post or analyze how much more the Illinois teacher may have to pay in out of their salary for benefits.

B) The reality is that now that the teachers have lost collective bargaining on benefits, but not wages, they'll simply bargain for higher wages to offset what they now have to pay in for their benefits. So they'll have to pay in now say $200/month more for their benefits. They'll politic for $3000 pay increase since they are far below other states' salaries. They win that argument and since the payments for their benefits shaves off their taxable income, they're actually going to get a nice pay raise. IT'S A SHELL GAME!

But don't take it from me, I apparently don't understand finances because I was just a stupid Army grunt all my life. I've apparently forgotten everything my college degree taught me. I've forgotten that I once ran a successful business. I've forgot how to do payroll and bookkeeping and hiring negotiations from my time as a hotel manager.

[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 06-17-2011).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: My company pays $6,050, I know this because I asked. Is that $6,050 relevant in my budgetary life?

It isn't relevant to YOUR budgetary life, but it IS relevant to YOUR EMPLOYER!


And it is relevant to the TAXPAYER, in the case of teachers.


Apparently contrary to what you give credit to teachers for, they actually ARE intelligent people.

The can figure out how much they get in actual cash salary. They can see how much they are getting in LONG TERM benefits. They can figure their cost of living, and they can put a value judgement on how much it means for them (or not) to live in Wisconsin.

The sum total of that is Wisconsin has not had, and will not have in the future, problems attracting excellent teachers to their system.

quote Originally posted by aceman: Easy, despite Jazzman's fantasy land that all those Wisconsin graduates are going to apply for jobs out of state and actually get them over the Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota graduates, they're happy to stay in their home state and actually have a job in comfortable surroundings. They're probably saying, "I probably could have applied for that teaching job in Minneapolis that would pay me $5,000/year but I'd be paying $400/month more for rent." Jazzman, Why haven't you moved to a different state to make more money? Surely you could find a job paying more than $13/hr and crappy benefits where you currently are at.

Because I've got roots here, a home that I've owned for years, and a community that I'm part of. If I'd had a traditional graduate college career and earned a degree in my 20's I'd have easily moved to where the pay was good relative to the cost of living, because at that time I didn't have roots. Now, I'd need a pretty hefty increase to allow me to move, and I do look regularly at some states' employment situation with the eye of moving if I find a job that meets my needs and desires. For instance, I'd move to northern GA, AL, or eastern TN in a hearbeat for a $10,000 increase in pay. That's almost 1K miles away, but the value to my career's finances would be worth it.

You can use the derogatory "fantasy" term all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Wisconsin starting teacher pay isn't competitive and that fact is going to hamper finding talented young teachers (or even talented experienced teachers) from other states (and from within), and will be a significant factor in the decision of any teacher on where to look for a job. It has to be. Look at it this way: I certainly wouldn't take a $10,000 pay cut to move to WI if I was a teacher, especially with the rancorous and hostile environment the governor has ginned up against teachers in that state. Pay cut and be treated like shite? No thank you, plenty of greener pastures everywhere else in the country to move to...

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: with the rancorous and hostile environment the governor has ginned up against teachers in that state. Pay cut and be treated like shite?

Since you didn't live through this daily, you wouldn't know how ridiculous your comment is.


The governor AND the republican state senators, AND hundreds of thousands of taxpayers in Wisconsin were FOR eliminating the LOPSIDED ADVANTAGE the teachers have had for decades.

Removing a lopsided advantage and making it a playing field that is STILL tipped to teachers, but just not as much so, is NOT a rancorous and hostile environment. It is a REASONABLE environment that REASONABLE people find OBVIOUS.

Here is HOW rancorous. While he COULD have asked for even MORE reductions in benefits by asking teachers to contribute even MORE to their already way above average benefit package, he only asked them to contribute $150/month. Why? Because he is REASONABLE.

AND in doing so, it allowed districts to NOT have to lay off more teachers. How hostile is THAT?
If you have been seeing rancor and hostility in Wisconsin, it IS there. Just look at how the teachers and the unions acted during the process. Mob like mentality. $5 million in damages to the capitol.


Teachers aren't treated poorly in this state even after the change in government to republican control. TOTAL misportrayal by you.


But no one has to believe me. Teachers by and large aren't mad. They aren't thrilled about having to contribute $150/month that they didn't before. Who would be? But they understand. Those that can retire are doing so because of SWEETHEART retirement packages.

We will get plenty of new, excellent teachers inspite of your erroneous assertions.

It isn't because I say so. It is because I live here and see what is going on, and that is what is happening.

You, for whatever reason, are SO biased in your pre-existing outlook on life that you don't want to see things in Wisconsin as they REALLY are. That's fine. It is ok that you are wrong about this. But you are wrong.

So, a college graduate doesn't have roots to consider?

I was offered for my first assignment in the Army:

Peoria, IL
Mankato, MN
Boston, MA

Peoria had the cheapest cost of living of the three. With my housing allowance, Boston was actually a better than Mankato. Which one did I choose? Yep, Mankato. I was transferred to Johnstown, PA after 3 years. It was my only choice. 2 years later, I was promoted and given the choice of: Omaha, NE, Houston, TX or Pittsburgh, PA. Which did I choose? Omaha, NE. 3 years later I was promoted again and given the choice of Minneapolis, MN or Houston, TX. Which did I choose? Minneapolis, MN. (Houston would have been a better cost of living)

My wife got her Associates Degree 120 miles from where she grew up. Where do you think she got her first job? Yep, where she grew up.

My first clerk under me graduated from Mankato State with his teaching degree. Where did he end up taking his first job and staying there for now 20 years? 20 miles from Mankato.

Four of my college roommates from University of South Dakota got their teaching degree. They all took a job less than 150 miles from Vermillion, SD.

Why? Roots and comfort. A 22 year old still has roots planted. Yes, it is very easy to tear those roots up and go. Most have no desire.

I could take a job in Kentucky for $50,000/year right now. I'd rather take a much less paying job here in Minneapolis or Omaha. Yes, my roots planted are a driving factor. Comfort is a bigger factor.

"I never said they were not intelligent, don't appreciate your lie."


Didn't mean it as a statement of fact. But still, I can see why you didn't appreciate it, and I'm sorry I said it, and sorry I said it that way.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: "I never said they were not intelligent, don't appreciate your lie." Didn't mean it as a statement of fact. But still, I can see why you didn't appreciate it, and I'm sorry I said it, and sorry I said it that way.

Don't waste your time walking on egg-shells... if it's not one thing, he'll find a dozen more reasons not to like you. He feeds on the pity...