Stirring the Pot....How do you feel about the WI labor situation?

GermanGirl2007 · February 2011

I live accross the river in WI, and there was a huge protest out here on Saturday. I also know that there is a solidarity rally at the capitol tomorrow, and I have been seeing a lot about it on Facebook. So it got me thinking.....what to MN nesties think about the whole situation?

Do you think that the unions have too much power and that union employees are not contributing their fair share? Do you believe Gov. Walker, that this is a budget balancing measure?

Or, do you think that Gov. Walker is union busting and that this is another measure that will create a more drastic contrast between the rich and the poor, by holding down the middle class?

This issue has gotten really heated and I am just curious what people think.

wittyschaffy · February 2011

I don't have an opinion one way or another really - but what I do take issue with is the unions seeming to protect workers who should have otherwise been let go from their job for misconduct or other infractions.

Take the crew of pothole workers in St. Paul last year who were busted for taking coffee breaks the majority of the work day - as far as I recall, nobody lost their job over it and the head of the department was quietly re-assigned to a different position. There were very few repercussions for blatant job performance misconduct because the Union sheltered them. If you're wasting my tax money by recording 8 hours of work but actually working for 1 - maybe 2 hours of that - then you deserve to be let go regardless of your Union affiliation.

razamataz · February 2011

Considering that the teachers' unions are willing to concede to Walker's demand for increased contributions to pensions and healthcare, but Walker still will not negotiate on the collective bargaining elements of the bill, it is clear that the issue is not about the budget but about Walker being dead-set on destroying public workers' unions.

Not to mention that the "crisis" is completely manufactured and Walker just pushed through $140 million in spending (via corporate tax cuts) last month AND he pushed for raises (of 26%) for his office buddies. There is no fiscal crisis that requires such extreme action - he made the crisis up so that he could push through his anti-union agenda.

It is really frightening what one man on a power-trip could do to thousands of public workers - most love their job and do it damn well (yes, there are those that should be removed, but that shouldn't diminish the sacrifices and contributions of the majority). What is worse is that there are so many far reaching implications that no one is talking about. Milwaukee public schools' budget could be slashed by an addition 25 % - which is simply unimaginable considering they are already operating with so little. De-unionizing public transit workers has federal funding implications that could destroy urban public transportation. Some say that Walker wants to completely privatize education - - can you imagine?!

So yes, I definitely side with the unions and public works on this issue. My mother was a teacher in Wisconsin, the women closest to me, who were like second mothers to me, are teachers in Wisconsin. My Brother-in-law and best-friend are teachers in Wisconsin. My sister is getting her certification to be a teacher in Wisconsin. This issue hits VERY close to my heart and affects those I love. I support them 100%

(and all those teachers I mentioned have been at the protests in Madison - and not one of them took a day away from their students. They have protested on their own time and moved around their personal schedules so that they could be their making sure their voices are heard)

Steph0871 · February 2011

I don't understand why teachers think they shouldn't contribute to their health care and pension?

Also, I think there's a lot of jumping to conclusions happening (on both sides) where people are reacting to headlines, instead of actually reading and educating themselves on the subject.

From the reading I've done, Walker doesn't want to disban unions, either. He wants the teachers/public workers to vote on union representation every year. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that idea. Unions, do, however, because they know that not all of their employees agree. It'd be different if teachers had a choice in whether or not to be part of the union.

I used to work in a government office, and my position was represented by AFSCME. I was forced to pay dues, even if only 'fair share' amount. It was still equal to one hour of pay every paycheck, for nothing. I got spammed with emails regularly, and when I was asked to be removed from the email list I was told no. I took particular offense to the emails, because they always came during work hours when the sender (president of our union) should have been working. I've encountered so many lazy workers who get away with it because all they have to do is threaten the supervisors with Union action when they are corrected.

Did unions serve a very important role in our employment history? hell yes. Are they still necessary? Absolutely not.

ETA: for the record, I come from a family of teachers and educators (both in MN and WI.) Most of whom agree it's time for changes.

mrsdawnmarie · February 2011

Steph0871:
I don't understand why teachers think they shouldn't contribute to their health care and pension?

i DO contribute to both my pension and my health care.

I don't understand why everyone thinks we don't.

razamataz · February 2011

mrsdawnmarie:
Steph0871:
I don't understand why teachers think they shouldn't contribute to their health care and pension?
i DO contribute to both my pension and my health care.
I don't understand why everyone thinks we don't.

While it is true that WI teachers do contribute less than MN teachers, they are willing to contribute more - even to the levels that Walker is proposing. It would be a drastic increase, but they are willing to do it if it means they keep their bargaining rights. But Walker doesn't care - he wants the financial sacrifice as well as the job-security sacrifice.

Steph0871 · February 2011

razamataz:
mrsdawnmarie:
Steph0871:
I don't understand why teachers think they shouldn't contribute to their health care and pension?
i DO contribute to both my pension and my health care.
I don't understand why everyone thinks we don't.
While it is true that WI teachers do contribute less than MN teachers, they are willing to contribute more - even to the levels that Walker is proposing. It would be a drastic increase, but they are willing to do it if it means they keep their bargaining rights. But Walker doesn't care - he wants the financial sacrifice as well as the job-security sacrifice.

I'm being genuinely curious here, because I keep trying to find a definite answer on this. But most of what I've found so far says that Walker just wants union employees to vote on the unionization every year, not that he wants to immediately disban them. If that's not true, please let me know, because thats' what I'm basing my opinions on

Steph0871 · February 2011

mrsdawnmarie:
Steph0871:
I don't understand why teachers think they shouldn't contribute to their health care and pension?
i DO contribute to both my pension and my health care.
I don't understand why everyone thinks we don't.

Are you a WI teacher and/or public worker?

I know teachers (even WI) do contribute, but again... from what I've read, it's not a whole lot compared to other states (and it's still reasonable compared to private insurance costs!)

I'll admit. I'm still trying to find the new proposed government contributions to union benefits. If Walker is trying to completely cut government contribution and force employees to pay for 100% of their health care benefits, that's ridiculous.

razamataz · February 2011

Steph0871:
razamataz:
mrsdawnmarie:
Steph0871:
I don't understand why teachers think they shouldn't contribute to their health care and pension?
i DO contribute to both my pension and my health care.
I don't understand why everyone thinks we don't.
While it is true that WI teachers do contribute less than MN teachers, they are willing to contribute more - even to the levels that Walker is proposing. It would be a drastic increase, but they are willing to do it if it means they keep their bargaining rights. But Walker doesn't care - he wants the financial sacrifice as well as the job-security sacrifice.
I'm being genuinely curious here, because I keep trying to find a definite answer on this. But most of what I've found so far says that Walker just wants union employees to vote on the unionization every year, not that he wants to immediately disban them. If that's not true, please let me know, because thats' what I'm basing my opinions on

I haven't heard anything of that sort - if it was a matter of the unions deciding whether or not to disband, I don't think there would be as much of an uproar. Walker wants unions to surrender all collective bargaining power on all issues except wages - that means that unions could not protect more experienced (thus more "expensive") teachers and districts could fire experienced high-performing teachers and bring in newer, less experienced (thus cheaper) teachers to solve budget problems.

If unions can only influence salary issues, then districts will hire the cheapest candidate - not the best. Would you want your child to be watched over, taught, and influenced by the bargain teacher or by the best teacher?

mrsdawnmarie · February 2011

Steph0871:
mrsdawnmarie:
Steph0871:
I don't understand why teachers think they shouldn't contribute to their health care and pension?
i DO contribute to both my pension and my health care.
I don't understand why everyone thinks we don't.
Are you a WI teacher and/or public worker?
I know teachers (even WI) do contribute, but again... from what I've read, it's not a whole lot compared to other states (and it's still reasonable compared to private insurance costs!)
I'll admit. I'm still trying to find the new proposed government contributions to union benefits. If Walker is trying to completely cut government contribution and force employees to pay for 100% of their health care benefits, that's ridiculous.

No, MN, but in my experience, I get "Oh, nice, a teacher, summers off, awesome, free pension and free health care!" all.the.time. Which is bullshiit.

MichellePete · February 2011

I'm not pro union by any chance. But I think that what he is doing is kind of scary. Unions, in their heyday, were very important. In some jobs they're still very important. Taking away collective barganing from a major part of your workforce is a big change. And considering that WI was one of the first states to allow cololective barganing when unions came into power, taking it away there is sending a big sign to other states.

I kind of lost respect for the WI governor when he said that he wouldn't even consider the teachers paying for their health care & retirement if they could keep bargaining. In that case it told me that it's not about the budget, it's about making a name for himself by pushing the issue no matter what.

I voted down a union inn my job because I didn't think it was necessary. But I can see where they would be of benefit if the budget crisis fallout continues and we're made to cut more and more things.

Steph0871 · February 2011

MichellePete:
I'm not pro union by any chance. But I think that what he is doing is kind of scary. Unions, in their heyday, were very important. In some jobs they're still very important. Taking away collective barganing from a major part of your workforce is a big change. And considering that WI was one of the first states to allow cololective barganing when unions came into power, taking it away there is sending a big sign to other states.
I kind of lost respect for the WI governor when he said that he wouldn't even consider the teachers paying for their health care & retirement if they could keep bargaining. In that case it told me that it's not about the budget, it's about making a name for himself by pushing the issue no matter what.
I voted down a union inn my job because I didn't think it was necessary. But I can see where they would be of benefit if the budget crisis fallout continues and we're made to cut more and more things.

I wish I could bold, so this would be easier to follow.

but, I don't think he's trying to make a name for himself. I think he's trying to balance the budget, and I think he's trying to get rid of the unions; I don't think he's ever said otherwise. Yes, he's said it's a budget thing, but it's obviously about unions too. He's a Republican. Let's not forget he was voted into office by a MAJORITY of the state. That makes me believe a MAJORITY of the citizens agree with his political ideals; if not, then that's their fault for not researching more before voting him into office.

Also... he's promised to not cut a single public employee if this bill passes. That's far more than Dayton can promise, I guarantee you that.

Dawn- I totally hear what you're saying. Reading what I wrote, I hate that it came across that way. I know teachers work far harder than most people would ever believe (I'm married to one!)

But, to be honest? The new bill proposes that public workers contribute half the cost of their pension and 12.9% of their health care costs. That's nothing. There are a ton of jobs in the private sector who are having their pension plans cut drastically. This is still providing a 100% match from the employer to pension benefits.

Question to everyone else out there... go look at your health benefits package. Find the total cost and the total amount you contribute. I'm guessing it's at least 13%

I found this article once before, so I'll share it here:

http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/showdctmdoc.jsp?url=Master_Brand_2/USA/Press_Releases/2008/20080924/2008_09_24b.htm

CN: in 2009 the average health care cost was broken down to $9660 total with $2169 employee contribution for an average of 22%.

soooo that was really long winded, but basically. I don't think he's asking too much of state employees to up their contributions.

Steph0871 · February 2011

re: bargaining rights. What rights is he taking away? I'm being genuinely curious.

Also, I find it discerning that the Union Bosses are saying "ok! We concede to let you take money away from our members, as long as you don't take away our power!" If I was a member of that union, I'd be pissed.

And, do you really need the union anyway if you can just go march down and protest on your own with everyone else? That's kind of spitting in the face of the union. As is faking sick to get out of working. The union worked hard to get you those sick days, and you're abusing that benefit. I, personally, think any teacher who is protesting needs to be deducted their day's salary for every day they're absent from the classroom.

Aaand now I feel the need to disclaimer myself a little so you all don't think I'm nuts. FTR, I'm most definitely NOT a Republican. I'm somewhere inbetween, but I usually vote more towards liberal. In this case, though, I have to disagree with the unions.

GermanGirl2007 · February 2011

I guess I will weigh in too...

First of all, unions absolutely still are necessary. Maybe not in every profession, but in many, they still serve a very important purpose. My parents retired from the airline industry, and if it hadn't been for the union, they would have gotten royally screwed over by the company on many different occasions. My parents are NOT wealthy, and even after retirement, my dad is looking for a part time job to help with expenses. He is 70 years old.

That said, when I was working for a huge Fortune 500 company, there were some employees who unionized and I didn't think it was necessary. The company was ranked one of the 100 best in the country, and they treated their employees very well. In that case, I struggled to understand why employees felt it necessary to unionize.

I am pro-union, pro-labor. However, I do believe that especially in the political endorsement process, unions have more power than I would like. All that aside, I think in the case of the Wisconsin situation, I agree completely with razamataz. This isn't about a budget so much as it is about Scott Walker pushing his agenda. it is about pushing down the middle class and providing more tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations.

http://www.alternet.org/rss/1/479560/12_things_you_need_to_know_about_public_workers_and_the_uprising_in_wisconsin/

This is a really interesting link I found...obviously a little biased, but interesting nonetheless.

JosiePosy · February 2011

I find the whole situation to be a giant clusterfvck. Dems fleeing the state. A Gov that refuses to negotiate. The protests are getting bigger and bigger. Allegations of fake doctor notes.

Honestly, I'm on the side of the unions from the little that I know. I give credit to the teachers that are showing up to class every day and then going to protest. But the districts that have to shut down are creating huge problems for parents who have to take time off or find backup care on short notice. It's a domino effect on a lot of people.

pattymctatty · February 2011

I don't know. I'm divided at the moment. I think there's going to be a lot more cuts like this across the country and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Republicans in WI said that unions would be one their issues to begin with and the majority still voted Republican so... there is that too.

I think that this whole "change" idea that people wanted wasn't exactly what they thought they were getting into. To see change in government takes time and I think that the majority of America in today's world has a need to see it immediately.

I also think there are going to be more cuts in other areas and people won't be happy about those either. Like Planned Parenthood. I saw that one coming from a mile away!!! If this does not pass, then what other issues is he going to cut to budget?

BUT I work for a privately funded agency and we are that way because there's no money in government funding to hand out. It's like new legislation for new programs - people see the good in it, but they can't tell you where the funding is going to come from because they don't know. Money is a killer to legislation because it's just not there.

Then there's all the questions that I have - historically unions have made changes for workers for the better. Can they continue to do so? What are the major benefits of unions besides what's being fought over? What bargaining issues are left on the table besides wages, pensions and healthcare? Is there even enough money in the pension fund to cover CURRENT workers when they retire? Is there enough contributions? How is the union currently structured and if Walker wants to do away with unions, is a reorganization possible to keep bargaining AND unions?

See, a lot of my questions I have no answers to. I'm sure there aren't answers and it's a lot of what ifs.

Ugh. And then I'm back to square one. I don't know.

MrsGo4Hockeychick · February 2011

I'm with the unions. The budget shortfall was Walker's own creation. Huge tax breaks for corporations and large raises for his staff (I've read somewhere between 18 and 26 percent!). The state was on track for a budget surplus this year. He created this problem himself. And, IMO, he did it so he could focus on union busting.

The teachers have said they will pay what he wants in both pension and health care contributions. But keeping their bargaining rights is huge. It affects retirement, lay offs (if needed), seniority, tenure and most importantly, class sizes.

Steph0871 · February 2011

MrsGo4Hockeychick:
I'm with the unions. The budget shortfall was Walker's own creation. Huge tax breaks for corporations and large raises for his staff (I've read somewhere between 18 and 26 percent!). The state was on track for a budget surplus this year. He created this problem himself. And, IMO, he did it so he could focus on union busting.

That tag line was started by Rachel Maddow, and although it's a fabulous anti-Walker chant, it has been proven more than once to be an exaggeration. The state WAS on track to have a small surplus, but that was before setting other debts anyway (including the money WI owes MN!)

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

MrsGo4Hockeychick · February 2011

I don't watch Maddow. I find her to be the Glenn Beck of the left.

I believe I read it in on huffpost, but I'm not sure.

But if the surplus claims in there are untrue, there is nothing about the raises...which I have read from multiple articles.

Steph0871 · February 2011

I've heard about those, too, but I don't know where....

This is all I could find, but it's really outdated.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/32492604.html

MichellePete · February 2011

If it really is soley about breaking up the unions, then why signal out only a portion of your public employees to do so? Why were the police/fire not included in this? Or other unionized employees? And why not just say so, instead of putting it out there as something to be done with save the budget?

And who's to say that no jobs will be cut this year? How about on 1/1/12?

I guess part of my issue is feeling like the public at large what cuts the public sector employees have already gone through. Yet, they rant and rail about how public employees need to cut back because it's our turn to feel what the private sector is feeling. Not ever public employee, department, agency is living high.

Those teachers aren't bad people. They''e fighting for what was promised to them when they decided to take that job. And while they can't have everything, they're open to conceeding to paying what the governor asked them to pay and yet it's still not good enough. So it comes down again to just breaking up the unions. And that brings me back to wanting to know why he only chose to do this with a portion of the public employees. It commes across as him wanting to make a name for himself as the first governor who broke the unions.

razamataz · February 2011

MichellePete:
If it really is soley about breaking up the unions, then why signal out only a portion of your public employees to do so? Why were the police/fire not included in this? Or other unionized employees? And why not just say so, instead of putting it out there as something to be done with save the budget?
And who's to say that no jobs will be cut this year? How about on 1/1/12?
I guess part of my issue is feeling like the public at large what cuts the public sector employees have already gone through. Yet, they rant and rail about how public employees need to cut back because it's our turn to feel what the private sector is feeling. Not ever public employee, department, agency is living high.
Those teachers aren't bad people. They''e fighting for what was promised to them when they decided to take that job. And while they can't have everything, they're open to conceeding to paying what the governor asked them to pay and yet it's still not good enough. So it comes down again to just breaking up the unions. And that brings me back to wanting to know why he only chose to do this with a portion of the public employees. It commes across as him wanting to make a name for himself as the first governor who broke the unions.

I could be wrong, but from what I've heard, the Police and Fire (public saftey?) Unions backed/endorsed him in the election and so in return he's spared them from his attacks. However, police AND Fireman have been at the rallies supporting the teachers and other public employees - health and social workers, medical centers, you name it.

How Walkers Bill could reshape health policy: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116164054.html

Stirring the Pot....How do you feel about the WI labor situation?

Re: Stirring the Pot....How do you feel about the WI labor situation?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards