Public Employees Protesting WI Governor

[MARIS61]

It cracks me up that people think there's a big difference between public sector and private sector workers. Like many people I've worked in both sectors, often simultaneously, and I'm the same guy giving the same effort with the same personal code guiding my actions no matter who I work for. People are people.

2 personal observations leap out at me.

1. I usually had far better pay and bennies in my private sector positions than in my government positions.

2. Employee-wise, at least 1/3 of the private sector is stealing from their employer. Conservative estimate.

 

[MARIS61]

Has anyone else on this board had to take a pay cut to keep their job or to not have downsizing in their firm?

Self employed, and on an upswing the last 15 months or so, but I'd never take a pay cut when working for someone else. Why would I? Unless the company was struggling due to my incompetence or poor performance, it's not my hit to take.

It's the owner's place to absorb 100% of that. He's the one who profits when it's good. He's the one whose earnings may double, may quadruple, may multiply by 1000 when the economy booms again. The employees will reap no great reward. They'll be lucky to keep up with inflation, never mind ever becoming rich.

That governor is a prime example. When you add his salary to the fact that just about every expense he has while governor is paid by the taxpayer, his food, his travel, his wardobe, his healthcare which eclipses anything they'll ever have, his bodyguards, his aides to tell him how to do his job...he makes far more than any of those people. He probably wastes more tax $ just on office furniture, world travel and entertainment than any of them make in a lifetime. He is paid by the same taxpayers.

But he doesn't even make the politically correct gesture of taking a pay cut himself.

He can certainly afford it. He'd get great press. It would further enhance his career prospects. People would admire him for it.

But he just can't bring himself to do it.

The greed is too strong.

 

[BrianFromWA]

so, you're saying if the governor agrees to give back 7% of his pay (.07*144k=~10k) then you're ok with the union giving up 7% of their employees' pay to pay for their benefits?

I would bet he does that in a heartbeat. The union has shown they would rather fire 1500 people instead. Go Unions!

 

[bodyman5001]

It cracks me up that people think there's a big difference between public sector and private sector workers. Like many people I've worked in both sectors, often simultaneously, and I'm the same guy giving the same effort with the same personal code guiding my actions no matter who I work for. People are people.

2 personal observations leap out at me.

1. I usually had far better pay and bennies in my private sector positions than in my government positions.

2. Employee-wise, at least 1/3 of the private sector is stealing from their employer. Conservative estimate.

I fix cars of course, whenever my boss has a car that is a friend of his or of the company he gives them to me. He always tells me to make sure and do a good job on them, I suspect that is just human nature. Last time when he gave me one of his preferred jobs and told me that I asked him why he always gives me those jobs. He said it was because I do the best work in the shop.

I told him that I never did anything different to his friend's cars because I treat them all like my own car. EVEN THOSE FILTHY PRICKS WHO SEEM TO LIVE OUT OF THEIR FILTHY STINKY CARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't think working for the government would change my work ethic, but it seems like plenty of people work that way.

As for stealing, I have only stolen something out of someone's car ONCE and I still regret it. Please read the story before judging me though.

Years ago when I was a teenager I worked on someone's car during the summer and the lady had an open bag of MINI Abba Zabba candy bars in the back. If you know those treats you might now that they are often as hard as a rock, well these things were soft and squishy and I just couldn't resist taking one. I know that she probably wouldn't have cared but I literally can't say that I have never stolen something out of a person's car. I wish I could go back in time and wait for her to pick up her car so I could ASK her if I could have one.

That soft Abba Zabba was damn good though.

 

[PapaG]

Totally willing to admit my own ignorance on this issue. I just wish someone would scare you away again so I don't have to read the kind of bullshit you were spouting at Sug. Have a little respect.

Why should I respect a freeloader who has zero respect for me and the rest of the private sector? Sug seems to be everything that is wrong with a public union worker, IMO. I don't respect that at all, so I won't give him any respect.

 

[Eastoff]

so, you're saying if the governor agrees to give back 7% of his pay (.07*144k=~10k) then you're ok with the union giving up 7% of their employees' pay to pay for their benefits?

I would bet he does that in a heartbeat. The union has shown they would rather fire 1500 people instead. Go Unions!

this seems relevant

 

[PapaG]

this seems relevant

Well, it's a projected $3.6 billion deficit in reality, but photoshop is fun, so I guess I'll believe you shiny picture.

Also, since the "corporate interests" pay for the public unions, the union doesn't really have much leverage.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Care to explain how?

 

[Eastoff]

Care to explain how?

okay, I give, it's not relevant to your point.

 

[MARIS61]

I am a teacher, I work hard and I didn't negotiate my contract or pay. My pay is on a set scale and determined by the amount of education I have and my years of service. I applied for a job and got it, and attached to that job were certain promises. I worked in the "private" sector for several years before teaching, and the same thing was the case. I applied for jobs and got them, and attached to those jobs were certain promises. In either situation if those promises were not kept I am sure that I would be angry. Regardless if you are a public or "private" sector employee, I think you should feel secure in what you have been promised. That is why you have a contract, so that both sides honor it. My PERS situation can change, but as it stands now I pay in and my district matches. That is the same situation I had at every private sector job. Just like the private sector jobs, I am earning my retirement benefits based on years of service and how much I contribute.

I am not sure where I have leeched, taken advantage, or stolen from anyone. I work an honest days work, and live up to my professional responsibilities. I don't break the law, I am a upstanding member of my community, and I serve the government of my state and country. I work with other peoples children to make them better individuals, and often find that several adults have not done a very good job of parenting. I have broken up fights, stayed late to make sure kids had transportation, counseled students living in terrible situations, and done my best to demonstrate compassion and humanity. Then I come read statements like many made in this thread and I am disgusted at the ugliness of some people and their views of what my profession. The hatred some have for the government in this country is simply unhealthy, and as a result it turns into politics rather than government. I don't appreciate the insults from some of you posting in this thread, I am an honest person working hard to take care of my family.

repped for making a difference.
Consider the source(s).

From their posts one thing is clear. Whether their teachers' faults or their own laziness, they didn't larn much in skool.

 

[PapaG]

repped for making a difference.
Consider the source(s).

From their posts one thing is clear. Whether their teachers' faults or their own laziness, they didn't larn much in skool.

The infamous "they're dumber than us" liberal mantra. YAWN

YER a dumbdumb!

Not very effective, MARIS, and not accurate at all. It's at the apex of your own intellectual debating abilities, though, so I'll cut you a break. Poor guy.

 

[PapaG]

The average Wisconsin taxpayer makes $33,140.

The average Teacher in Wisconsin makes $46390+ Benefits of $20-$30K

The average Madison, Wisconsin teacher makes $67K+ $30-$40k In benefits, for 180 days work @ 7.5 hours per day, with 13 Paid Days off.

The public already has spoken. Enough is enough.

 

[MARIS61]

This is where we differ. In my mind, my customers are my bosses. Without them, I don't have a job.

The same applies to the public sector workers.

You are their customers. You (through your elected reps) agreed to pay them _____ for their efforts. Now you want to renege on your promise.

How would you feel if your customers decided to pay you less than you blled them for your services? Don't bother answering, we know the answer.

 

[MARIS61]

The average Wisconsin taxpayer makes $33,140.

The average Teacher in Wisconsin makes $46390+ Benefits of $20-$30K

The average Madison, Wisconsin teacher makes $67K+ $30-$40k In benefits, for 180 days work @ 7.5 hours per day, with 13 Paid Days off.

The public already has spoken. Enough is enough.

So you think they should settle for "average Wisconsin workers" as the standard for teaching requirements?

Teaching is a highly specialized job requiring rare talents and skills, AND an advanced education.

"Average" is a very low bar to hop, and the "average Wisconsin worker" is simply not up to the task of teaching. They're barely up for learning.

 

[MARIS61]

so, you're saying if the governor agrees to give back 7% of his pay (.07*144k=~10k) then you're ok with the union giving up 7% of their employees' pay to pay for their benefits?

I would bet he does that in a heartbeat. The union has shown they would rather fire 1500 people instead. Go Unions!

He already didn't, so don't hold your breath.

Of course I'm okay with the union giving up 7% of their employees' pay to pay for their benefits if they want to.

They don't want to, and I don't blame them at all. They made an agreement and held up their end. Their government is trying to renege on the deal, breach the contract. Of course, that's morally wrong.

Have you decided to take a 7% cut yourself? Has PapaG?

LOL!

 

[PapaG]

Have you decided to take a 7% cut yourself? Has PapaG?

LOL!

Another red herring. I don't leech off of myself. I provide for myself, my family, and also for people like Sug. I'm not putting money into my own retirement right now, because I am making less income than last year. I don't have a guaranteed income.

You public sector leeches really don't know how things work out here in the real world. The good thing is, the public is waking up to your scam, and yes, we can smell your fear.

I will say that I fully support the military, police, and firemen, and I have no issue with what I pay for the service that they provide me and society in general.

 

[PapaG]

DU, Rachel Maddow, and DailyKos couldn't possibly be liars, could they?

Wisconsin Gov.-elect Scott Walker was the recipient of the unwelcome news that he will be inheriting a projected budget deficit as high as $3.3 billion over the next two years. Last week, the Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA) published a report announcing there would be a $1.5 billion gap between state revenue and state spending through June 30, 2013. It appears that the news is much grimmer than that, however.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: WI Gov.-elect Scott Walker to inherit projected $3.3 billion budget deficit - Madison Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/political-b...cted-3-3-billion-budget-deficit#ixzz1ESAsIXFT

 

[Denny Crane]

I can see the point people make about the benefits being earned. However, I think this really raises the issue of whether govt. employees should be allowed to unionize at all.

These benefits and salaries are not being negotiated (especially in good faith) between private parties, but between recipients of campaign donations and the donors. It's not a private corporation paying for it, but the taxpayer.

I happen to be a big fan of unions under the right circumstances - this doesn't seem to be one of them.

 

[PapaG]

I can see the point people make about the benefits being earned. However, I think this really raises the issue of whether govt. employees should be allowed to unionize at all.

These benefits and salaries are not being negotiated (especially in good faith) between private parties, but between recipients of campaign donations and the donors. It's not a private corporation paying for it, but the taxpayer.

I happen to be a big fan of unions under the right circumstances - this doesn't seem to be one of them.

I am as well. Private sector unions still provide a service, and those workers need to be protected against unlicensed or even illegal workers.

Public unions are largely a scam, IMO, and primarily are used to launder private sector money to politicians and Democratic Party voters. First responders, I have no issue with paying for, as they provide a service that I appreciate and respect as being unique and rare.

 

[BrianFromWA]

He already didn't, so don't hold your breath.

Of cioursee I'm okay with the union giving up 7% of their employees' pay to pay for their benefits if they want to.

They don't want to, and I don't blame them at all. They made an agreement and held up their end. Their government is trying to renege on the deal, breach the contract. Of course, that's morally wrong.

Have you decided to take a 7% cut yourself? Has PapaG?

LOL!

What's their "end" of the agreement? How are they "breaching" the contract? I thought this was about "banning unions"? WTH are you attempting to show? That gov's with (R) after their name are bad, or that the first time someone wants to cut back on gov't spending you're up in arms?

(Waiting in vain...)

 

[maxiep]

The same applies to the public sector workers.

You are their customers. You (through your elected reps) agreed to pay them _____ for their efforts. Now you want to renege on your promise.

How would you feel if your customers decided to pay you less than you blled them for your services? Don't bother answering, we know the answer.

Your assumption is that I have the money. To put the problem in the parlance of residential real estate, it's akin to a short sale. Sure, I made a promise to repay my mortgage, but circumstances have changed since I purchased the house. Sure, I could just hand back the keys (meaning fire the teachers I can't afford), but often times a better solution is a short sale (asking the teachers to pay a portion of the benefits they receive). Of course, the bank is going to get less than they originally thought they would, but they're going to get more than they would under a foreclosure.

It's happening in Wisconsin right now, but it's going to happen all over the country soon. To get elected, politicians made public unions promises with other people's money. They wrote checks our asses couldn't cash. We're broke and we don't have the money. I wish we did.

 

[maxiep]

I can see the point people make about the benefits being earned. However, I think this really raises the issue of whether govt. employees should be allowed to unionize at all.

These benefits and salaries are not being negotiated (especially in good faith) between private parties, but between recipients of campaign donations and the donors. It's not a private corporation paying for it, but the taxpayer.

I happen to be a big fan of unions under the right circumstances - this doesn't seem to be one of them.

There is an unholy alliance between politicians who make sweetheart deals with unions, deduct the union dues from the public employees' paychecks and send them to the unions, then have the unions send back much of that money in the form of political contributions to ensure future sweetheart deals. That kind of employee/union relationship doesn't exist in the private sector. I have long argued that public unions should be illegal; they're not arms-length relationships.

Margaret Thatcher once opined about socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. We've reached that point at virtually all levels of government.

 

[PapaG]

"Sick notes" being handed out at Madison rallies by licensed MDs who work for UW-Madison.

Isn't this both fraud and malpractice? Welcome to ObamaCare! Who gets billed for these "medical evaluations"?

[video=youtube;hQRcNBWTOr8]

 

[MARIS61]

My son is not yet three, but already I've crafted an education plan with the help of some friends of mine. My son's education is my responsibility. Period. I would hate to be my son's teacher in future years; I plan on auditing and micromanaging them. I won't allow my son to be limited by the low expectations of their teacher. I had a couple of wonderful teachers and several really shitty ones. The shitty ones my son encounters will be called out.

Your son's education is your responsibility, absolutely.

What that means is you need to teach him the skills he will need to be able to seek out and absorb knowledge, while discerning for himself what is fact and what is fiction and what is influenced opinion...

You've been doing it already I'm sure, through basic interaction. But there's no reason for schooling to wait until he is of school age. My mother taught my siblings and I how to read and do basic math as toddlers. When I began kindergarten I was reading at a 3rd grade level. To say it helped me tremendously is an understatement.

I compare this to the child's father who regularly takes the time to play catch and hit grounders to his son so he'll be able to perform on the ballfield.

It doesn't mean limiting his educational opportunities by interfering with his teachers and their methods, thinking you know better how to do their job which they are trained for and you are not.

I compare this to the father who comes to his son's ballgame and yells at the coach, the ref, the kids on the other team, and generally embarrasses everyone.

 

[MARIS61]

To put the problem in the parlance of residential real estate, it's akin to a short sale. Sure, I made a promise to repay my mortgage, but circumstances have changed since I purchased the house. Sure, I could just hand back the keys (meaning fire the teachers I can't afford), but often times a better solution is a short sale (asking the teachers to pay a portion of the benefits they receive). Of course, the bank is going to get less than they originally thought they would, but they're going to get more than they would under a foreclosure.

Except that's not at all how short sales work, on the rare occasions that they work at all.

Banks nearly always will get more $ by going through the foreclosure process and selling the home themselves after kicking the family to the curb. This is why short sales almost always fail to close.

The Stimulus Plan guarantees the government will repay up to 20% of the loss when a bank forecloses and sells the home at a loss.

There is no such provision for a short sale.

 

[MARIS61]

None of this money is being returned to the taxpayers. The 7% will go to help balance the WI budget. They owe $56 million to Minnesota, for example, on a interest-bearing loan that needs to be paid.

A debt owed by ALL Wisconsin taxpayers, not just a few state workers.

They (ALL Wisconsin taxpayers) voted to spend the money, or their reps did, and they reaped the benefit of the programs it was spent on.

 

[PapaG]

A debt owed by ALL Wisconsin taxpayers, not just a few state workers.

They (ALL Wisconsin taxpayers) voted to spend the money, or their reps did, and they reaped the benefit of the programs it was spent on.

Um, I meant that the state owes the money. That should have been obvious. Why are you so against the state public union workers paying a small fraction of their "own" bloated pensions? Is it your superior education that brings you to that conclusion?

Anyhow, the WI GOP is convening the Senate again on Tuesday and will be voting on all non-spending bills, even those that they don't have a unified majority on in this case. For example, a 10-9 vote will end public union collective bargaining for everything except wages and some benefits, and the GOP members in more liberal districts will be able to vote against it.

The Dems really pooped the bed on this one.

 

[MARIS61]

Um, I meant that the state owes the money. That should have been obvious. Why are you so against the state public union workers paying a small fraction of their "own" bloated pensions?

I'm not against them paying whatever they want to pay.

I'm against them being forced to pay while the rest of the state government including the governor and reps pushing this and all of the private sector workers are not paying an equal amount for a debt they owe equally on.

Oregon is in the same boat.

PapaG, have you sent in your 7%? Or are you just an Armchair General?

 

[MARIS61]

Your assumption is that I have the money. To put the problem in the parlance of residential real estate, it's akin to a short sale. Sure, I made a promise to repay my mortgage, but circumstances have changed since I purchased the house. Sure, I could just hand back the keys (meaning fire the teachers I can't afford), but often times a better solution is a short sale (asking the teachers to pay a portion of the benefits they receive). Of course, the bank is going to get less than they originally thought they would, but they're going to get more than they would under a foreclosure.

It's happening in Wisconsin right now, but it's going to happen all over the country soon. To get elected, politicians made public unions promises with other people's money. They wrote checks our asses couldn't cash. We're broke and we don't have the money. I wish we did.

To compare again to short sales, it seems the politicians are the ones who bought the house they no longer can afford, so they should either be reduced to part-time employees, or laid-off entirely. This would drastically curb their ability to write more bills (spend tax $) and the yearly tax revenue would eventually catch up and pay off the debt as programs and tax levies expire.

The unions/teachers had nothing to do with the state being mismanaged so atrociously, so why single them out while ignoring the real culprits?

That's like punishing the honest families losing their homes while rewarding the crooked lenders who defrauded them.

If you don't like teachers simply vote no on all school levies for your district. That's the one your $ goes to.

 

[PapaG]

I'm not against them paying whatever they want to pay.

I'm against them being forced to pay while the rest of the state government including the governor and reps pushing this and all of the private sector workers are not paying an equal amount for a debt they owe equally on.

Oregon is in the same boat.

PapaG, have you sent in your 7%? Or are you just an Armchair General?

I pay a hell of a lot more than 7%. Also, I pay 100% of my own retirement, as well as paying for slugs like Sug's retirement. This is commonplace for Oregonians who own their own business. Plus, the public employees have the private taxpayers and voters as their "boss". In Wisconsin, the "boss" is saying enough is enough, yet your Dems run and hide like little children.

The ignorance by the libs in terms of basic economics exhibited in this thread is striking and obvious to me.