Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survives recall election as voters reject unions

[TRIFORCE89]

$65,000 a year for 9 months worth of work is bad pay? Teachers don't work all 12 months out of the year, you know. That doesn't even include the generous medical, dental, and pensions that teachers get.

I am well aware that I wasn't in class in July over these many years. I also have relatives who are teachers. I know it isn't an entire year.

I didn't specifically say bad. I think the nearly $100,000 they can get here is quite a lot for nine months of work, plus everything else on top of that. But I don't think it should necessarily be lower than $65,000 either. My impression of the profession in America is that quite a fair bit of teachers make closer to $45,000.

Teaching is more of a career than a job. I don't see why they can't pick up a part time job in the summer as well. But, at the same time what they get paid for their primary work should be livable. Not excessive, just livable.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Considering the GOP nominee makes tens of millions annually for not working at all and for strapping dogs to the roof of his car, yeah.

Mitt Romney has more private sector work experience in one of his pinky fingers than Obama has in his entire body.

What are you on about?

 

[Mario The World Champion]

I'm wondering now. Since Walker survived the recall and is still the Governor of Cheese Country, what will the Unions in Wisconsin do now? Do they have any options left before they resort to going on strike?

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I'm wondering now. Since Walker survived the recall and is still the Governor of Cheese Country, what will the Unions in Wisconsin do now? Do they have any options left before they resort to going on strike?

When is the actual election supposed to be?

Which, personally, I think would have been a better option. Even if the outcome would have been the same. I just don't like the idea of a recall in general.

 

[Illuminaughty]

It is not the fact that the salary of teachers in the US is not 65,000 dollars!

It's around 45,000 dollars a year. Our teachers teach way too many hours so that we won't have to employ as many, and pay them one of the lowest hourly wages of industrialized nations. The teachers cannot teach as effectively due to these long hours, the countries that are leading the pack like South Korea and Finland employ more teachers for fewer hours, with higher hourly wages.

From a financial standpoint, American teachers that have taught for 15 years make around 40 bucks per hour, where as Korean teachers that have taught for 15 years make 100 bucks per hour.

In the US we seek the cheapest teachers with the bare minimum qualifications since pay-grade is dependent on educational background; schools would rather a bio major teach science than a someone with a doctorate in bio to save money. Korea hires well qualified teachers and pays more for them.

But the main point aside from improving education is the fact that unions protect workers, if we get rid of them, we will essentially be like China.

So to reiterate,
Outsourcing is caused by lax restrictions on corporations like Walmart. We allow them to pay workers at low wages and poor working conditions in China so they can yield higher profits. There needs to be regulation in order to prevent this, rather than lowering wages, and protections of workers in our country which would emulate the conditions of workers in China. Why do you think the Chinese do not have unions or minimum wage? They have tons of wealth, but at whose expense? If we force them, and other countries to protect workers with embargoes and trade limitations, then the competition for outsourcing is eliminated since the cost to protect workers by instating higher wages and working conditions would be more consistent world-round. We are the number one importer of Chinese products, and outsourcer of jobs, we have the power to set the regulations, and create a positive global impact.

It makes more sense than trying to lower our employee standards to the best competitions like China and India.

 

[donavannj]

$65,000 a year for 9 months worth of work is bad pay? Teachers don't work all 12 months out of the year, you know. That doesn't even include the generous medical, dental, and pensions that teachers get.

Many teachers work the equivalent of 12 hour days (because of the time they spend grading student assignments as well as supervising extracurricular activities in addition to the 7 or so hours they spend at school actually teaching as well as the hour or so of preparation they do each morning), and they spend closer to 11 months on the job than 9. You're forgetting the time they spend on coursework preparation for the upcoming school year during the summer. Those hours more closely resemble the time that earners of much higher incomes put in each week.

And I do not know where you're getting your $65,000 figure from, as that is nowhere near the average national salary for teachers.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

It is not the fact that the salary of teachers in the US is not 65,000 dollars!

It's around 45,000 dollars a year.

I think I mentioned both of those figures XD Both somewhat pulled out of the air over the Internet. The first one is apparently the national average, but the second figure is what most teachers make. Probably some outliers out there distorting the first figure.

Also, minimum wage may not have happened initially without union influence. But I think it is no longer a union issue. It is now a political issue. In Canada, Alberta, probably the country's most consistently conservative-voting province has current minimum wage $9.40 an hour. By law, it is set to increase accordingly based on the consumer price index (honestly, cost of living increase should be mandatory for everyone of any wage. The middle class would be much stronger). It is set to increase again this September.

Where I live, in Ontario, it is $10.25 an hour. It was increasing yearly up until that point, until we hit some financial trouble. Once we're in the clear and recovered, it will probably begin to increase again.

If unions are removed from the equation, what changes? I wouldn't think much. A lot of minimum wage jobs aren't even unionized. And it is more of a political issue now.

I think unions are useful in negotiating a starting wage (and that is all it should be. Exceptional employees should not have to be paid the same as everyone else. They should be rewarded) and following up and applying pressure on the employer and government after some accident such that it doesn't happen again.

EDIT: So.... I was always under the impression that Walker was doing something especially egregious. I got this little synopsis from Wikipedia:

The bill would require additional contributions by state and local government workers to their health care plans and pensions, amounting to roughly an 8% decrease in the average government worker's take home pay.
Okay, we do that here. The CPP. It makes sense. We're also a more unionized country than you are. So I don't see how that is a union-breaking move.

The bill also would eliminate, for government workers, most collective bargaining rights except for wages.
Collective bargaining still in place for wages but not other excessive benefits? Okay... for the most part. Health care and other necessities shouldn't be excluded. But, beyond that okay.

Unions would be unable to seek pay increases, for government workers, above the rate of inflation, unless approved by a voter referendum.
That wording is a little strange. I think they should be able to seek the pay increases, doesn't mean they should automatically get them though. I think pay increases should be tied to cost of living. If it is slightly above that, that's cool too. Just not excessively above it. And I don't like the voter referendum.

Under the bill, unions would have to win yearly votes to continue representing government workers, and could no longer have dues automatically deducted from government workers' paychecks.
Don't agree with the having to win votes bit. As for the union dues.... here a couple of the unions here are toying with that idea. Willingly. Of their own accord. And also exploring the possibility of extending union benefits to non-unionized workers of the same industry. Again, there is already a much stronger union presence in Canada than in America.

Law enforcement personnel and firefighters would be exempt from the bargaining changes.
Okay. I don't get why. If you're taking something away from one group, it should be taken away from them all. And the reverse. It is either the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. Not right for certain people and wrong to do to others. This quite the flaw I think.

The main issue, not covered in that little synopsis but you can find information on it when you read the full article, is that several groups appear to lose their collective bargaining privileges entirely. I don't agree with that.

In general, it looks somewhat reasonable - but it goes one notch too far in several instances.

 

[Livewire]

Mitt Romney has more private sector work experience in one of his pinky fingers than Obama has in his entire body.

What are you on about?

You mean storing money in over seas banks (in the Caribbean iirc) so he doesn't pay American taxes? Or the job outsourcing, Massachusetts' giant deficit after he left office. And Bail Capital = Wealth creation, not job creation. On top of him being an elitist, out of touch robot.

And don't start that again.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

It is not the fact that the salary of teachers in the US is not 65,000 dollars!

It's around 45,000 dollars a year. Our teachers teach way too many hours so that we won't have to employ as many, and pay them one of the lowest hourly wages of industrialized nations. The teachers cannot teach as effectively due to these long hours, the countries that are leading the pack like South Korea and Finland employ more teachers for fewer hours, with higher hourly wages.

From a financial standpoint, American teachers that have taught for 15 years make around 40 bucks per hour, where as Korean teachers that have taught for 15 years make 100 bucks per hour.

In the US we seek the cheapest teachers with the bare minimum qualifications since pay-grade is dependent on educational background; schools would rather a bio major teach science than a someone with a doctorate in bio to save money. Korea hires well qualified teachers and pays more for them.

But the main point aside from improving education is the fact that unions protect workers, if we get rid of them, we will essentially be like China.

So to reiterate,
Outsourcing is caused by lax restrictions on corporations like Walmart. We allow them to pay workers at low wages and poor working conditions in China so they can yield higher profits. There needs to be regulation in order to prevent this, rather than lowering wages, and protections of workers in our country which would emulate the conditions of workers in China. Why do you think the Chinese do not have unions or minimum wage? They have tons of wealth, but at whose expense? If we force them, and other countries to protect workers with embargoes and trade limitations, then the competition for outsourcing is eliminated since the cost to protect workers by instating higher wages and working conditions would be more consistent world-round. We are the number one importer of Chinese products, and outsourcer of jobs, we have the power to set the regulations, and create a positive global impact.

It makes more sense than trying to lower our employee standards to the best competitions like China and India.

$40 an hour is low pay? I'd consider that pretty good. $45,000 is an average American middle-class income for 9 months of work. Most school districts have sumer school if teachers need more money.

While I have no objections to increasing the pay of teachers, I do object to making them almost impossible to fire. They have no incentive to keep performing well.