A few things. First of all, I'm a bit lacking in sympathy for these teachers right now since I just received a layoff notice yesterday. I've got 60 days to find another job. Part of the reason why I'm in this situation is because in the last election I (and a bunch of other people) voted for politicians who have a mandate to go to Washington and do something about the budget mess. I think the regulars here all know that I do defense work. It's a given that all parts of the federal government are going to have to take some of the hit, and it would be hypocritical of me now to say that the project that I work for should retain its full funding so I can keep my job.

Second is that the stakes here are much higher than the mainstream media is portraying. It isn't just a matter of one particular negotiating cycle. The record has clearly shown that the public sector unions are a self-perpetrating system. You've heard of regulatory capture by companies? This is regulatory capture by unions. The union obtains the power to mandate membership and dues payments; it uses this money to lobby for more benefits, and then it forces the membership to kick back some of those benefits to the union so it can obtain more benefits. That's why Walker is right to resist the concessions that the union is offering now, because as long as the system remains the same, the unions will get back those cuts and more in another year or two. It's a corrupt system in which the interests of the people who pay for it -- the taxpayers -- are not represented. Walker is attempting to break that cycle.

That's why it's important. To people outside of Wisconsin, this may not seem like much. But it's the beginning of breaking not just a union, but an entire mindset. It's changing the conventional wisdom about what government is for, which is the root of all of our deficit problems today. Until that mindset change, no budgetary reform effort will succeed in doing anything other than nibbling around the edges.

remember that average pay is for teachers that have been teaching 20+ years and what is called for amounts to around a 20% pay cut and what about the firemen and police

It was commented that these changes will not effect police and firemen.

But I believe it should effect them too. An essay/column I found very irreverent but applicable to the firemen is here
http://takimag.com/article/the_price_of_bravery

And another one about cops I forgot about

http://takimag.com/article/the_price_of_bravery_part_ii_dinner_with_a_cop

Another perspective

12 Things You Need to Know About the Uprising in Wisconsin
www.alternet.org

That's why Walker is right to resist the concessions that the union is offering now, because as long as the system remains the same, the unions will get back those cuts and more in another year or two. It's a corrupt system in which the interests of the people who pay for it -- the taxpayers -- are not represented. Walker is attempting to break that cycle.

I'm with Walker; I support removing collective bargaining rights from public sector employees. Private sector employees should retain their union rights, even though I'm not a fan of the role most unions play in our country. There is a key difference between the two. If you are a private employee, your retirement and compensation are supported by a business with real constraints on your pay and benefits; what private unions receive is fundamentally constrained (or should be, UAW members) by the ability of the employer to pay the employees. The public sector faces no such constraints. When they bargain for a compensation package - and these days, it usually comes with retirement benefits that are orders of magnitude greater than those granted private sector employees - there's no bottom line to answer to. Only an ever-increasing amount of money demanded in our taxes.

I've been following this blog for a few years, and in terms of "People I Would Hire in a Heartbeat," Cousin Dave is right up there.

Good luck, CD!

When employees in a private company unionize, they run the risk that they will kill their own golden goose if they ask for too much. Regardless of what they want, they won't get ANYTHING if the company they work for goes out of business. So the laws of supply and demand still work.

When government employees unionize, what is the natural market correction on asking for too much? The taxpayers get hosed, get pissed, and elect representatives who put a stop to the hosing. Which is exactly what's happening right now.

So, how can we apply the same common sense to the federal situation? If I brought in $2,000 a month, spent $3,700 a month, and already had $14,000 in debt, should I call it a smashing success if I take $6.10 out of my spending each month? What's that, one Starbucks foofoo drink? Why are we calling this budget cut a win for the Republicans? This is nothing but a giant call-out for China and everyone else to dump our dollars. Why do you think the stock market is so high? The spreads between company equity and price per share hasn't been this high since 2007.

National Review chimes in on the claim that Walker's tax cuts created the problem:

http://www.nationalreview.com/developing/260169/liberals-are-wrong-walkers-tax-cuts-did-not-create-immediate-budget-shortfall-katr

Andrew Breitbart visits his mom's hometown of Madison, Wisconsin. It's well worth a listen: http://www.breitbart.tv/breitbart-on-the-scene-in-maidson-unions-engaging-in-collective-bullying/

These protests are just a taste of what's to come.

"remember that average pay is for teachers that have been teaching 20+ years and what is called for amounts to around a 20% pay cut"

Which part of "There. Is. No. Money." don't people understand? You. Can. Only. Squeeze. So. Much. Blood. Out. Of. Taxpayers. Kapish?

It's not just the unions, it's the politicians who are running & hiding from their own legislature like 5-year olds. Even the Greek Communists had the balls & decency to show up in Parliament and vote against the austerity measures, which inevitably passed anyway. What a pathetic spectacle.

Another governor to run for president.

Can we draft some of these people?

I find it interesting that every time some official does something like above, people say run for President. Me I think the person should continue with their present job and double down. When they have fixed or solved what they meant to do, then they will be ready for President running.

I belong to a union in a private sector job. I'm required to pay a small percentage toward my retirement and my health insurance. My wages are very comparable to other non-unionized positions in my industry, or what remains of it at this point. I do have better insurance than the non-union jobs but the same basic retirement. The primary benefit I have, and for which I'm grateful for, is their employment security clause. My department is downsized and I would normally be out of work and with no insurance at this point, which would be devastating (currently 7 months pregnant and on $800 a month worth of meds due to a blood clotting disorder). Because of that clause I am placed into transitional work for a year and get to maintain my current wages and benefits while I look for other work I qualify for in other departments and I get preferential hiring as a "displaced worker" in the company. This means if I meet the minimum qualifications for the position and have the most seniority of those that applied the position will go to me. I've had no luck so far finding a new position but have 11 months left in my transitional status. Other than this clause I have no real extras and get what most other private sector employees get.

I don't feel public/government jobs should unionize. There's no reason for it and results in taxpayers being held hostage if they don't get what they want. The same is not true of the private sector.

I find it interesting that every time some official does something like above, people say run for President. Me I think the person should continue with their present job and double down. When they have fixed or solved what they meant to do, then they will be ready for President running.

The current community organi.. President sitting in the Oval Office claimed that all our problems with the Arab world were because of GWB. Why is it that Afghanistan hasn't gotten better? What about Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and the rest? Have things gotten better since the Great One has been in office?

Hey, let's spend $814 billion in economic stimulus -- we'll stay at less than 8% unemployment.

Let's allow unemployment for 99 weeks.

Quite frankly -- I'd vote for Bozo the Clown as long as he showed he had a grasp on reality.

The United States Government is broke. Let's put it in simpler terms: Obama proposed a budget for this year of about $3.4 trillion. The expected income into the Treasury is expected to be $2.17 trillion. That leaves $1,230,000,000,000 shortfall. That is for a single year

If you were to tell your creditors -- We are barely making the payments on the house, the car, the credit cards -- but we want to borrow $123K to pay for my brother's nephew's friends tummy tuck you would be laughed out of the bank.

We have to stop digging. There is not a single congresscritter that I trust to have a true grip on reality. The governors are closer to reality -- long term I'm worried. But I want anybody other than those that are there.

well Cousin, we'll be pulling for 'ya...
part of the downside to working in the DC industry is that hazard, and I 've known your pain several times, and have been close 3X in the last 2 years.

That's the catch with a fiscal necessity line of thought.. and the reason that many people refuse to think about it.

Some people will lose their jobs. And who are we to wish that on anyone?

But I'm amused by the idea that a buncha public employees are willing to call in sick to rally at a statehouse about how they don't actually care how broke the state is, they still have to get their share, because they are "OWED" it.

I hafta say, it reminds me of my Ex-. She told me last time I was in layoff limbo that I better figure out something quick, because if I fell behind on the support money I pay her, well she'd have me thrown in jail.

Like THAT was some kind of solution. Not that she should be trying to get a better job, since she would then be paying more money into the support kitty.

Public sector unionists just astonish me, because they can't see outside themselves. They think that their jobs cannot be done without. I understand that, I work that kind of job too. I'm an IT support guy. But the fact is, my team would figure out a way, if I wasn't there. It wouldn't be pretty, I do provide a valuable service, but no-one and nothing is indispensable.

And it's worthless to rail about that, as they come into your company and turn off the lights.

They should fire every one of the 40,000 teachers that sicked out, and showed up at the capital. As if they were real employees in real companies that had LIED to their employer about a sick day.

That's WHY the rules, that they had no doubt bargained hard for in their bargaining agreement, exist.

/rant.

best of luck CD.

I live in Ohio and I read this THE NEWS-HERALD about a local school district: "Two teachers at the elementary level are retiring and will be replaced with new staff allowing the district to save $102,005"
They are hoping to pass a tax levy in May. This lead me to the comment section where someone posted a link to

http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/teacher-salary

This is an interesting site. Beside teacher salary histories, it has just about all public employee's salary information. I discovered that the 23 highest paid state employees in 2009 were psychiatrists. The highest paid received $308,617. Number 23 earned $197,455. About 40 of the next 50 highest paid state employees also worked for the department of Mental Health.

I don't how other states fair, but my initial response is that Ohio must have some pretty bad mental problems.

Amy, PJ, and Swiss, thanks for the encouraging words. Yesterday was my day to sulk about it. Today I get busy.

I guess I don't have a problem with what BunnyGirl mentioned. Her employer did negotiate that provision with the union, and they are still subject to the forces of the market. One problem I've noted over the years with unions in general is that companies are often all too willing to give in to their unions and mortgage away the future in order to buy labor peace in the present. That's what happened to GM. It's sort of understandable because I've seen the results of companies who try to stand up to unions. Back when I was a teenager, one of the two newspapers in the town I lived in had a strike by its pressmen and support workers. After three months, the paper fired them and replaced them with non-union workers. That set off a campaign of property destruction, threats and intimidation against the paper. Vending machines were vandalized; workers reporting to work had bricks and rocks thrown at them. Union goons identified the houses of subscribers and threatened some of them. There were several arson attempts aimed at newsstands that carried the paper. This went on for nearly two years after the workers were replaced.

Part of the problem is that the federal government has never really gotten serious about rooting organized crime out of the unions. Union supporters still want to trot out the Pinkerton bloody shirt, but that was a century ago and the corporate world is largely free of Pinkerton thugs today. Union thuggery, on the other hand, is still pretty common. About six years ago, a manufacturer here (now shut down) had a nasty wildcat strike, and the union brought in professional agitators. Union thugs tried to block all the entrances to the industrial park and menace any of that company's employees who tried to get to work. About a week in, a car pool with three guys in it had a union thug throw a cinder block through their car's side window. The passenger riding in that seat suffered a critical head injury. The people in the car had nothing to do with the strike; they worked for another company in the industrial park. Dozens of witnesses identified the guy who threw the cinder block, but within hours the union had smuggled the perp out of the state, and no arrest was ever made. I'm convinced that this sort of thing, as much as or more than the usually given reasons, accounts for the decline of unionism in America.

I guess I should have clarified my situation a little better. My department at the hospital was downsized due to technology advances resulting in a decreased need for employees in that area, not a financial issue. The hospital currently has numerous other departments that are short-staffed and behind so we have been relocated to those areas to help out (which leaves us still employed during this time) until we obtain a new permanent position they've posted openings for. I work for Kaiser in their Northwest region (Portland metro area) and this is part of our contract.

I don't feel a company should be forced to keep you for a specified period of time if they can't afford you and should have the ability to cut employees or shuffle them elsewhere in the organization if there is a need.

Sorry about the grammer errors on my previous post. I rushed to post it before I left the house this morning and I did proof read it. Can you tell I'm a numbers guy and not a grammer guy?

It's a corrupt system in which the interests of the people who pay for it -- the taxpayers -- are not represented. Walker is attempting to break that cycle.

It's even more corrupt than that: the union lobbies for an increase in pay/benefits/etc, the politicians pass the bills approving said increase, the unions collect the dues from members, and then turn around and contribute to the election funds of politicans who helped them or provide in-kind donations - buying ads, providing "volunteers". Or working against those who oppose them.

Money laundrying at its finest.

I am pretty certain that this style of thought will eventually lead to the destruction of civilized society.

A couple of things to keep in mind. First: Of course unions are not perfect. They are an organization of people that are sometimes radically myopic. However, they have also civilized society, allowed workers to bond and to struggle together, and, most importantly, they have helped workers form a power unit that is at least moderate compared with the massive power that corporations wield. As a libertarian, Amy, I cannot understand why you wouldn't support unions. The point of libertarian economics and social policy, as I understand that incoherent doctrine, is that work should be a freely entered agreement (I think this is something Murray Rothbard would agree with); you cannot have a "freely" entered agreement with disparate amounts of power. You might in the abstract--but it would be "free" in the same sense that I am free to give my wallet to or keep my wallet from a person who is brandishing a gun and promising that he will either get my wallet or my brains. Unions at least make such agreements between employees and employers a bit more fair.

Employers have naturally disdained unions since their inception (they like to have a massive disparity in power for obvious reasons); and since the 70's, attacks on unions have become nearly maniacal. The "free" trade agreements of the 90's are the apogee of this trend. The trade agreements allow corporations to move from nation to nation without consequence; upon the other hand, workers cannot freely move from country to country (as we can see in our own country with the hysteria that breaks out about immigration)--so they are "free" in accordance with standard political usage: they benefit those in power (including corporations) and they harm regular workers.

The amazing thing is that neoliberalism has created (not a conspiracy, just a natural development) an incoherent ideology that is maintained by intellectuals and that is used as a justification for the unprecedented assault on human freedom and dignity: libertarianism. This is a truly impressive propaganda achievement; one that I never cease to marvel at.

Let's look at what is really happening. First, our country just went through a horrific economic meltdown, a meltdown caused by a housing bubble, which was facilitated by the financial sector (caused, for example, by unscrupulous investment banks, et cetera). No worries because the conservative nanny state kicked in and bailed out the super wealthy, who are now making record profits. Remember, this means that taxpayers bailed out the super wealthy and received almost nothing in return. The rationale for the bailout was that the institutions were "too big to fail" and that their demise would create an even greater economic catastrophe. However, no evidence was ever adduced, and most competent economists dismissed such assertions and arguments as specious.

Such an economic meltdown is going to leave many economic problems in its wake, including massive deficits. (Deficits are not always bad, by the way. In fact, after world war two, when our economy was booming, we had a higher debt to GDP ratio). What is strange, now, is that instead of attacking the culprits and getting income back from them (if such measures are needed), a plethora of people have begun to attack public workers, to blame them for the deficits, and to criticize them for making LESS than the average private worker (this is a fact that is easily discovered). Again, the most profound propagandist would be impressed with this achievement.

Another thing to consider for all of you who consider yourselves "libertarian." One of the quickest and easiest ways to resolve the deficit problem is to institute a system of universal healthcare. Private healthcare is incredibly inefficient because voluminous funds are spent on administrative costs, commercials, and other such things. Universal healthcare, on the other hand, makes those costs otiose. Again, these are facts that are easily discovered.

Finally, it is important to note that there is no such thing as a "free market"--likewise, there is no such thing as a "inherent market price caused by supply and demand." These are figments of an economist's imagination. Value is a complicated, socially created "entity." Peyton Manning might be "worth" (able to procure) millions upon millions of dollars here; in the Congo, he would be "worth" virtually nothing. I would propose that instead of beginning with the notion of a market, one starts with the notion of power--and then one can view supply and demand as variables that alter power relations. I am not saying that supply and demand are worthless economic abstractions; I am saying, however, that it is important to keep in mind their complicated relationship to power. I, for one, am happy to contribute my tax money to social workers, teachers, firefighters, and police officers. In fact, I only wish I could pay more. These workers are vitally important for a civilized society and deserve decent recompense for their efforts. Are teachers perfect? Of course not. Is our educational system perfect? Of course not. However, by and large, I think most of us can agree that the public education that we received was invaluable and that we are all thankful for it.

The question is Bo, why do public sector employees NEED to unionize, not do we pay them enough. Private sector empls. have had problems in the past because the simple reason for business to exist is to make money. To do so you need to drive cost down... and some were [and still do] taking advantage of workers.

But we aren't talking private sector, we are talking public servants. Working for organizations that are supposed to be public services.

Meaning they work for us. Are we evil corporate overlords?

Explain to me why the public sector must have unions.

I see Bo is back with his socialist teal deer. (And I thought I was long-winded...) Bo, anyone who can discuss the housing bubble while totally ignoring the role of Freddy's Fanny, and do so with a straight face, is someone who cannot be taken seriously.

Keep in mind that at least one media outlet is not reporting this correctly. The language used indicates that Wisconsic teachers are being asked to pay "more" for their health care, etc.

In fact, they do not now pay anything.

The media is, effectively, lying for them.

Aaaaannnnnd this would not be happening if health care was built this way.