[FONT="Tahoma"]
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.