Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Milwaukee Public Schools: Prime Example of a Failing School District

What is it about Milwaukee Public Schools that it just keeps failing? Is it the fact that it's an urban school district? Is it the fact that the teachers are over-worked? Is it the fact that the kids who live in the city of Milwaukee just don't care about school? Or, perhaps it's the fact that parents who send their kids to MPS don't emphasize the importance of education at home.

Regardless of which of these you might side with, the truth of the matter is simple: Milwaukee Public Schools is a prime example of a failing school district.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an article in today's paper revealing new studies that show MPS Students consistently score lower than most other urban districts in the country. According to the study, only 38% of MPS 4th graders perform at a "basic or above" level in reading. Only 13% of MPS 4th graders are at a proficient reading level, and only about 10% of 8th graders are reading-proficient.

But what does MPS do best? If it's not giving A's to the kids who can barely read, it's the fact that they continue to think it's not a big deal. MPS Chief Academic Officer Heidi Ramirez defended her schools and students when she said, "The work is complicated and difficult for everybody [other school districts], but Milwaukee is starting from farther behind than other districts." So, is Ms. Ramirez defending her failing statistics by saying "We've always been a failing district, so of course we're going to continue to under-perform national standards." And who is this again? Let me remind you: The Chief ACADEMIC Officer - so isn't her job to improve and meet ACADEMIC standards? But what does she do instead? She admits that Milwaukee Public Schools sucks, has always sucked, and there's no plan to change that. But wait, that's not entirely true...

She says that teachers are starting to be trained in new techniques for teaching math and reading. The MPS Home Page has in its "Programs & Resources" section information about the new comprehensive literacy plans, and comprehensive math and science plans, to bring students to a proficient level in these academics. But, if the Chief Academic Officer doesn't think this is a big deal that only 10-15% of her students can proficiently read, maybe we need a new CAO, or a new game plan. Isn't it the job of schools to teach students to, among other things, READ? And this is not a nationwide problem, this is a MILWAUKEE problem. The Journal Sentinel article says that most of the other districts have been steady & consistent from year to year, and several even saw improvements in Math & Reading. This is the first year MPS has participated in this test, so we don't know which direction we're going, but according to the boss of Academics, Ms. Ramirez, we've always been a low-performing district, so of course we're going to do poorly on these types of standardized testing.

What kind of society would we live in if less than 25% could read? What kind of world would we live in if less than half of the population could add and subtract? Well guess what, if we don't step up our game in places like Milwaukee Public Schools, that anti-utopia world could be just around the corner, certainly within our lifetimes.

Print Page

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Wisconsin Has Done It: Restricted Collective Bargaining. But What's That Mean?

Wisconsin has done it - Governor Scott Walker signed into law historic legislation today that essentially removes most collective bargaining privileges for most public employees in Wisconsin.

Couple things in that sentence above that I want to draw your attention to... first of all, the new law removes most collective bargaining, not all. I can't tell you how many news headlines say something to the effect of "Walker Ends Union Rights" or "Walker has Busted the Unions." Here's one example from the over-the-top liberal newspaper, the Wisconsin Rapids Tribune. He did not "end union rights" - if you think he did, move to a state like Texas, and you'll see a big difference between the public unions in Texas and the public unions in Wisconsin, even after this new law.

Secondly, note the word "privileges" - most people call it "collective bargaining rights" - what rights? The only collective bargaining rights that exist in America are those in the private sector. Every private sector employee in the United States of America has a true right to collective bargaining, as provided by the National Labor Relations Act from the 1930s. However, when we start talking about the public sector, it is no longer a right, but a privilege. As you probably know (at least you would if you read about the Heartless Wisconsin Governor), not all public employees even have collective bargaining at all. For example, in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, there is absolutely no collective bargaining in the public sector - period.

Thirdly, I said "most public employees" -- local police, fire, and state troopers are not affected by these changes.

Something else I've heard a lot of... "Walker Hates the Middle Class!" Oh yeah, like the "middle class" is made up entirely of public employees; let's just ignore the other millions of people in the "middle class" that work in the private sector, who will not be affected by this new law. Don't sit there and tell me "Walker's against the Middle Class/Working Class" when all he's doing is restricting the privileges for what can be negotiated for a very small part of the working class (public employees are probably between 35 and 40% of the middle class).

Here's the underlying major problem with all of this... Collective Bargaining in the public sector does not work. It doesn't. Period. Why? In order to answer this question, we have to understand exactly what are the purpose(s) & objective(s) of collective bargaining, and how they are accomplished. Collective bargaining is when a group of employees "unite" (form a union) to negotiate with the employer together. "There's safety in numbers." It's a very practical set-up.

A union elects representatives to go sit down at the table with the employer, and negotiate a contract (pay, benefits, working conditions, etc) on behalf of the entire union. The workers' union has its goals (more pay, better benefits, likable working conditions, etc), while the employer has goals of its own (keep costs as low as possible, whatever that might entail). In a perfectly balanced equation, the two party's are "polar opposites," and they sit down together at this table to find a middle point -- it's a compromise. Now let's look at an example...

If my 12 employees decide to form a union, and wish to collectively bargain with me, their employer (a private-industry company), there are certain limitations to that bargaining. For example, as an employer, I cannot realistically bargain and agree to add $1,000 per month towards each of their compensation packages ($12,000/mo), when my average net income is only about $10,000 per month. If I did, my business would lose $2,000 every month, and we'd be out of business within a year. No matter how badly the union wanted it, or how long they wanted to strike, as an employer, I simply cannot afford them that benefit -- it's not possible. That's how it works everywhere in the private sector. The company and the union bargain, and things certainly change (either in favor of the union or the company, depending on the variables), but no matter what, there are limits as to what the company can give the union, regardless of how hard the union fights. That's how it works everywhere... in the private sector.

In the public sector, however, it's a different ballgame. The employer is no longer a private company (like in the example above), but the government (whether local, state, or federal). When the government's playing the role of 'employer,' things change, because who's sitting across the table from the union? In my example above, it would be me, the business owner. I have a personal interest in my own business, and that's why no matter what, I'm not going to allow my employees to take that extra $1,000 per month in compensation, because that would drive me out of business. But when it's the government, it's not someone who has a personal interest sitting across from the union - it's an elected official: a politician. And what do we know about all politicians? They want to get... re-elected. Right? For many politicians, everything they do centers around one simple question: "How do I get re-elected?" And part of the answer, no matter who you are, involves getting financial contributions to use in your campaign. What's the largest contributor to, say, political candidates of the democrat party? Public unions. So who never want to upset those public workers? Democrats. And rightfully so - that's where a lot of their money comes from!

So why is all this relevant? Why is this a problem? Because there are many politicians who are willing to give the unions what they want, with no real consideration of what they can afford to give, because they know that if they do, that union will continue to contribute to his/her political campaign. And that is the reality of all this.

The democrat party and public employee unions depend on each other. The unions are strong when democrats are elected into power, because (chances are) the democrat received lots of funding from the union, and is now "paying them back," both as a thank-you, but also to keep the union's support, so that when they are up for re-election... you get the picture.

So the major problem with collective bargaining in the public sector is that instead of sitting across the table, with two different interests, and two different goals, they are actually on the same side of the table, with the same goal. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." When unions get too powerful, the inevitable result is a state that's not governed by the people, but by the unions. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I believe is happening all over the country, especially in Wisconsin.

Something else that Walker has done in Wisconsin along these same lines is he's cutting state aid to school districts throughout the state as part of his budget. Now these two things work hand in hand, the collective bargaining changes, as well as cutting the state aid. The state is in a massive financial crisis, and Walker's solution has two parts. First, you reign in the power of the unions. Then, you cut the amount of money the state is going to give to local governments. Why are both aspects important? Because by cutting state aid, he is essentially forcing the local governments to realize they don't have an unlimited supply of money to share with these public employees, like they feel like they've had in the past (think about that example from earlier with me as the business owner). By realizing they have finite financial resources, they MUST reign in the unions. However, history has shown that just telling localities to "do it" doesn't necessarily get the job done. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Wisconsin is being controlled by these unions, so even if there's no money, the politicians will STILL give the unions just about whatever they want, and the state will eventually be responsible for funding those bad deals. So what's the second part from Scott Walker? Remove the collective bargaining privileges that allow the union to make these demands that are driving the state (and local governments) towards bankruptcy.

Scott Walker is tying their hands, and he's a genius in how he's doing it. Both parts are necessary in order for it to be successful.

Don't believe me? I can imagine SO MANY of you reading this, probably thinking, "The politicians are controlled by unions? Is this really about the budget at all?" If you're still doubting me, take a look at local governments across the state of Wisconsin. People say the 14 democrat senators were staying away "to give people time to read and understand the bill" and to "stick up for the protesters" - bull! They were staying away to give these local governments and unions time to pass new contracts BEFORE the collective bargaining changes passed, so their contracts could be exempt from that! If that's not proof of what I'm telling you, I don't know what is! There is really only one of two possibilities here. One, these local governments are sticking up for the unions (remember the analogy... they are sitting next to the unions instead of sitting ACROSS from them), which means the entire purpose of collective bargaining has failed, or two, the government officials who are entering these new contracts with the workers are just too stupid to realize what they're doing. Some of these cities signed contracts with their unions through 2013! Why else would they do that? If they've been fighting since 2009, unable to sign a contract, which many of them have, why would they do it NOW, right before this bill passes, taking away A LOT of what the employees get? Why would they do that, KNOWING that the locality is going to suffer major decreases in state aid based on the state budget? How can these localities promise teachers, for example, all these benefits through 2013, when they don't even know what the state is giving them aid-wise, because the budget for the next fiscal year hasn't even been passed yet?!? Does this make sense to ANY of you? Why else would they do this? These cities are no-doubt screwing themselves on this one, and nobody seems to care! What is wrong with this?

Here's a story on teacher unions all across the state hurrying to get their contracts signed before the new law takes effect.

Once this whole thing blows over, people will see the world has not come to an end, and Wisconsin will slowly start to recover from years of poor government-spending habits.

Now, wait and see what happens during the next state election cycle. The next time we see democrats campaigning, we all know they will remind us of this day when the republicans "ignored" the public employee protests -- we all know that will be part of their political advertisements. However, something else I think they will try to make everyone believe is that local school districts are left in financial ruin because of "Governor Walker's devastating state budget," when in reality, those of us informed people know the REAL reason those school districts are broke: because they refused to reign in the unions when Gov. Walker gave them the ability to do so. Instead, those school districts CHOSE to make the STUPIDEST decision possible and enter contracts through 2013, despite the fact that they KNEW about losing state aid, and they KNEW that within a short time, unions would have more restrictions on what they could bargain for. But, you watch - the democrats will lie and blame Scott Walker, saying that the school districts are in financial ruin because of his devastating budget - I know it already.

Print Page

Friday, March 4, 2011

Sufficient Time for Legislation to be Read

Do you remember a while back when the democrats were trying to ram health care reform through the legislative process so fast that nobody could read the bill and see what was in it? Well, that one was probably the most hated one at the time, but there have been other bills rushed through the process so fast that people don't even know what's being proposed before it's being voted on (granted, usually not a bill that's over 1,000 pages, like the health care reform law).

So what do we do to fix this problem? Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has an idea, and proposed a resolution to the Senate a few days ago. S.Res.82 is a short and to-the-point resolution that will require 1 session day per 20 pages of legislative text, plus another session day for "anything less than 20."

So, for example, a 20-page bill would require 1 session day of "reading time" before it could be considered for a vote on the Senate floor, and a 25-page bill would require 2 session days.

Of course, there's always a way around it, if for example, something major happened, and we needed to act *now* - what would we do? With a 2/3 vote in the Senate, they could waive these requirements and consider a bill earlier than the mandated time. Now, this is just a resolution in the Senate, which means it will not affect actual law, or the House of Representatives - just standard procedures for the Senate.

So is the House of Representatives doing anything similar? Kind of. The closest thing we could find was H.Res.30 which would require that a "plain English section-by-section" analysis of every legislation be posted publicly online for 72 hours. But, we feel the wording of this resolution is weak at best. For instance, the resolution doesn't say who writes the "plain English analysis," so it could be very biased, or miss points, or misinterpret points. Also, no where does the resolution actually require the official bill text to be available for 72 hours, just a "plain English analysis."

Why is this resolution worded so weakly, when Rand Paul's resolution in the Senate is quite descriptive, forward, and strong? Well, H.Res.30 was proposed by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a democrat. So, our Republican majority in the House can't come up with anything to mirror Rand Paul's legislation, and all we have to go on is Deutch's garbage, full of possible loopholes, and not very demanding? Send Ted Deutch an email and tell him that H.Res.30 is not good enough.

GOP Destroying Jobs?

Well, it's happening again, ladies and gentlemen, the liberal party is pointing the finger at the Congressional Republicans for "posing an unnecessary risk to the economy" with their planned spending cuts. The House has already approved several billion dollars in spending cuts through the remainder of the fiscal year, and Speaker John Boehner is being criticized for posing an unnecessary risk to our economy.

Let's take a look at the facts here... the REAL "unnecessary risk" here is not Boehner's proposed spending cuts, it's the danger of a government shutdown, which everyone's been so worried about for the last week or so. As you may know, Congress did pass a joint resolution (H.J.Res.44) to extend the funding through March 18th (another 2 weeks). The problem is, these "temporary fixes" are not going to solve anything. Our Congressional leaders need to start working on a real solution, one that will last us until September 30.

A stalemate between the Senate and the House could be detrimental to our already devastated economy, but perhaps a stalemate would show people how big of an issue this is. If Harry Reid and the Senate is not willing to budge, then why should Boehner and the House? It's about time somebody put Reid in his place, why not have it happen March 18, when we're on the verge of a government shutdown?

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Bold, Young Senator

Greetings, Friends,

It is with a speck of hope that I write to you today about a bill that was introduced in the Senate on Jan. 25, S.162 "Cut Federal Spending Act of 2011."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced S.162 hoping to make a much bolder point than the GOP-led House of Representatives has been talking about. Paul has openly criticized plans to cut Federal Spending in the next fiscal year by around $35 billion. The problem, according to this rookie, is that "We spend $35 billion in five days. We add $35 billion to the debt in nine days. It's not enough and we will not avoid financial ruin in our country if we do not think more boldly."

So just what does he propose we do? The simple, earmark-free, 11-page bill proposes a total of about $500 billion in cuts... for one fiscal year. I have got to say that is the boldest proposal of any of the 535 "leaders" on Capitol Hill. $500 billion in spending cuts. How does he do it?

S.162 cuts the budget of NUMEROUS federal programs and entitlements, and different branches of the federal government. Some of the proposed changes are as follows:
  • Cuts the legislative branch by about $1.3 billion
  • Cuts the judicial branch by about $2.4 billion
  • Cuts the Dep. of Agriculture by $42 billion, completely annihilating things like the Agriculture Research Service, and the National Institute of Food & Agriculture
  • Cuts the Dep. of Education by about $16.2 billion
  • Completely defunds & destroys the Department of Housing & Urban Development
  • Cuts the Dep. of State by about $20 billion
  • Destroys things like the "National Endowment for the Arts" and the "Commission on Fine Arts" - did you know we were previously spending billions of dollars on things like these? Is that necessary for the federal government to care about the "arts"?
  • Among others
Now, this is the kind of thing that the Republican Party should be moving towards. During the last few years, we may not have had enough Congressional Seats to influence anything, but holding a 56% majority in the House of Representatives is certainly enough to make some demands, and get things done. The problem is, if the Republicans in the House don't start acting more like Rand Paul, we're going to lose big time in the 2012 elections, and have a de ja vu experience from the 111th Congress. If you recall, during the 111th, the democratic party controlled the House, Senate, and the White House - do you remember what that allowed them to do? First and foremost, it allowed them to continue to trash our economy, and devalue the dollar, leaving us with a $1.3 trillion budget deficit, the largest in American history. We cannot let that happen.

Now, the question is, will Rand Paul's bold bill ever see the Senate Floor? Probably not. We already know Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will do whatever he can to keep this from passing. When this bill was introduced on the floor, he (obviously) objected to taking it up, which means it was placed on the Senate's calendar. As of today, the bill has not even been assigned to a committee for review. So how's the future look? As explained, probably not good. If this bill every does see the Floor again, it will likely be a completely different bill, proposing like $3 billion in cuts (even that probably wouldn't satisfy Harry Reid, who apparently feels government spending of any kind is a good thing).

Paul's introduction of S.162 is certainly a bold statement, one that demonstrates the growing presence of the anti-big government Tea Party in Congress. All we need now is more people like Rand Paul, in both chambers, and eventually, as a candidate for the 2012 Presidential race.

Heartless Wisconsin Governor...

Governor, Scott Walker, the heartless Republican from Wisconsin, has asked Public Employees to start chipping in towards their own health insurance policies. Greetings, my friends, I apologize it's been some time since I've updated you on modern issues in our nation.

Unless you've been living under a log for the last couple of weeks, you are no doubt aware (at least in part) of what's been going on in Madison, WI. "No - I don't live anywhere near Madison. I don't even live in WI!" This issue has received NATIONAL attention in the last few weeks. There's no reason you should have no clue about what's going on. Wake up, and learn how to flip on the TV once in a while, and watch something actually worth your time; by that I mean something other than MTV or ESPN.

In case you are part of the ignorant minority (or even part of the group that THINKS they know what's going on, but really doesn't), I'm going to give you a crash course on what's been going on. Why? So that you can make a semi-educated opinion, instead of just a "political opinion" (i.e. "I'm a democrat, so I'm against what Walker's doing," or "I'm a republican, so I support Walker's decisions"), or the "emotional opinion" (i.e. I'm a teacher/public employee, so I hate what Scott Walker is doing). So I'm going to first, do my best to educate you on some simple, but important, facts that are surrounding this issue. (That's right, for starters, I'm just going to give some FACTUAL information, not opinion or political. I'll share my interpretation later).

FACT #1: (if you think these are "just opinions," go back to school... if your teachers are still there): The state of Wisconsin is currently facing an estimated $3.3 billion deficit over the next two years. (some figures say 3.6, for our purposes, we'll just use 3.3... that's what I've heard more of). Now, sometimes "big numbers" get so big that they are just meaningless, and we don't realize how big it really is, so I'll illustrate that for you: $3,300,000,000 over two years; or, $137,500,000 every month (over 24 months). That's the equivalent of spending $188,356 EVERY HOUR of EVERY DAY, and bringing in absolutely NOTHING. That's like buying a new house every hour, every day, for 2 years straight, without ever bringing in a penny. Hopefully now the "$3.3 billion" figure has a little more meaning than just "some big number."

FACT #2: The proposed budget repair bill is estimated to save the state approximately $300 million over the same two year period. Granted, that's not a lot compared to the massive deficit, but it's the single-biggest saving that has been proposed and investigated. Sure, there might be something else we could do, but right now, THIS is the single most significant change we can make.

There are 4 main things the bill is proposing to change:

CHANGE #1: The bill will require state employees (police & fire exempt) to pay approximately 12.6% of the overall health insurance premium for the individual or family plan the employee is currently enrolled in. The government will continue to pay approximately 87.4% of the cost of these health insurance policies. The average Wisconsin state employee (prior to this bill) contributes closer to 6% of their health insurance policy. Therefore, their health care costs (on average) will double. Nationally, the average cost to the worker is around 27%, meaning on average, employers pay only 73% of the health insurance policy costs.

CHANGE #2: The bill will require state employees (police & fire exempt) to pay approximately 5% of their pay into their state pension fund. This will be an increase from the almost-nothing that state employees currently pay into their own retirement fund. That means the government (prior to this bill) pays nearly 100% towards state employees' retirement. The national average for government contributions to similar pension funds is approximately 83%. Under the new bill, the state of Wisconsin would decrease its payments into this pension from nearly 100% to around 94/95%, still 10% higher than the national average.

CHANGE #3: The bill will restrict collective bargaining rights (police & fire exempt) to wages only. According to Scott Walker and the GOP, removal of these rights will "give local governments the tools they need to balance their own budgets, making it easier for the state to balance its budget."


CHANGE #4: The bill will decrease the power of a union over its members, by making it illegal to force employees of a specific job to join a union and union dues, against their will. Instead of mandatory, union membership will be voluntary, and a decision that the worker can make. If they want, they can keep that extra $1,000/year (or so) in union dues in their own pocket, instead of automatically having that deducted and sent to the union. This will also require unions to be re-certified, ensuring there is still a proper majority in order for the union to continue to exist and operate.

Now here's some of my interpretations, and opinions on this matter.

The first thing I want to say is this: Asking people to contribute 5% to their OWN retirement, and 12% towards their own health care, when these are still very generous (comparably), is not a ridiculous request. People are calling Scott Walker and the GOP horrible, horrible things, when (at least this part of the bill) is not an unreasonable request. This is his solution to making sure we don't have to make cuts in employment. He spent like 15 years in Milwaukee County, constantly trying to find ways for people to keep their jobs. He has proven that he will do what's necessary to prevent people from losing their jobs. This bill proposes nothing in the area of job cuts. So, when the people get to keep their job, they shouldn't be complaining about these changes, when the alternative is losing their job.

The next thing to note is that this is exactly the thing Scott Walker campaigned on. If you are surprised by what Scott Walker is attempting to do here, you have been asleep for the last 15 years when he was the County Executive, and during his campaign. Unions have always been his enemy, and he has always believed and been open about his feelings that public unions are the biggest enemy to the taxpayer. If you are surprised by this, you are simply just waking up to Scott Walker: This is who he is. And for the most part, this is why he was elected, and that is why he is not negotiating. In his experience, you cannot do both: Balance a budget, and leave the unions in their reign of power. You cannot do both. For the longest time, we have allowed them to rule this state, and the people of Wisconsin have elected Scott Walker to make some changes. But, in the words of my friend, Pam Akey, it certainly shouldn't be impossible, because there should be accountability for the government to negotiate only what they can afford, and we should be able to both allow the unions bargaining power, and keep a balanced budget. It should work. Yes, in theory... it *should work* just fine. But, in theory, communism looks beautiful, too. Things that *should work* (in theory) don't always work on the practical level. Scott Walker is doing what he's doing because it's what the people of Wisconsin elected him to do. He was duly elected, with a fair, true majority of voter turnout. Same holds true for everyone in the State Assembly, and the State Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Now, I have heard time and again, from many different people, that "This is not about the money! If it were, then why are you busting the unions? The unions will accept the pay cuts and other things, just don't take away the collective bargaining rights! Separate the two issues! The unions are willing to make concessions on pay, if the collective bargaining remains in tact." I have heard this by many different people, including my own father, a veteran teacher in the Milwaukee Public Schools system. This issue has hit home for me, because both my parents are teachers, as well as my sister. My father and sister disagree with me on this issue, so it has made it difficult for me to hold the position I do, seeing the argument first-hand from my close family.

Anyways, this claim of "accepting the pay cuts" is a bit naive, in my very humble opinion. First of all, there are over 1,000 different public employee unions in the state. There is no way that every single union has already agreed to these pay cuts. Some of the larger ones, perhaps, or the state-wide ones, but about all the little local ones? In the words of 620-WTMJ host Jeff Wagner, it's an "easy deal for many unions to get out of... 'I never made that agreement!'" Even if *most* of the unions did accept these concessions, how long would it be before we end up in the same fiscal mess we're in now? Everyone knows unions won't give up on fighting for better benefits, so it's only a matter of time before we end up in the same mess we're in now.

The Wall Street Journal has some interesting information on the history of collective bargaining in Milwaukee Public Schools. It says "the magic number is 74.2, for MPS." That's the number of cents the employer (district/government) pays in benefits to each employee per dollar of salary. The "benefits package" is equal to 74.2% of the salary. What's the average in the rest of WI that an employee benefits package will be? About 24.3%. Nearly three times more in benefits awarded to teachers in MPS. The article goes on to digest the number, explaining all the different benefits - feel free to check it out if you're interested, but I'm not going to bore everyone else with the nitty gritty details. The point of the article is in its conclusion: "What these numbers ultimately prove is the excessive power of collective bargaining ... As the costs of pensions and insurance escalate, the governor's proposal to restrict collective bargaining to salaries - not benefits - seems entirely reasonable."

Now, to switch to a slightly different issue... What about these 14 Senators that just decided to take off? Are you kidding? Because something is happening in government that they don't like, they just leave? Is that fair at all? I live in the city of Milwaukee, and my state senator is Tim Carpenter, one of the democrats Missing in Action. When he (along with the rest) decided to flea to another state, my representation in the State Senate ceased to exist. And in my very humble opinion, he, along with the rest, should be fired for failing to do their job: representing me (and the rest of us) in the State Senate. You don't just put an illegal stop to democracy because you don't like what's happening. Doesn't work that way. They should be fired, and we should hold special elections to replace them. Flip the coin... what if the tables were turned, and when the Republicans in the US Congress were against health care reform, say, what if they all decided to flea Washington DC to halt future legislation? Would that be any different? NO! SAME THING! Their job is to be in Madison, and vote on legislation, and if they lose, move on to the next piece of legislation. That is your JOB.

OK, now in the course of discussing this with numerous people, I have encountered some common myths, and I want to spend a moment addressing (and correcting) five of them here:

1. It is a constitutional right for workers to collectively bargain!

No, you're an idiot, and you're wrong. No where in the constitution is there anything of the sort. Stop using big words and thinking you sound intelligent, because you are just plain wrong. It is most definitely not a constitutional right for workers to collectively bargain, at all.

2. There are federal laws preventing this sort of thing! Sure, it's not in the constitution, but there are federal laws that give rights for workers to collectively bargain! What Walker is doing is illegal, because federal law allows workers to collectively bargain!

Again, wrong. There is not one single federal law making it illegal to do what Scott Walker is doing. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (what most people cite when they say what Walker is proposing is illegal) relates to employees in the PRIVATE SECTOR. It leaves it up to STATES to decide how to handle collective bargaining within the public sector. Laws at the STATE level govern what issues are subject to bargaining. All Walker is doing is changing the allowed bargaining rights - he's not even removing them all together. There are 5 states - Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia - that prohibit collective bargaining by public employees - period. So, don't sit there and tell me this is "illegal" and "in violation of federal law" - the fact is, YOU are the one not aware of the true facts, if you think Walker's proposal is "illegal." Like I said before, go back to school... if your teachers are still there.

3. But, if we change these laws, things will go back to the way they were in the 30s with really crappy working conditions! After all, that was the purpose of unions: fixing working conditions so they were better for the employees. Now we want to remove them? That means we will go back to the way things used to be, with crappy working conditions, 12-hour work days, no vacation, etc. etc.! Why on earth would we want to do that?

The National Labor Relations Act (which deals with the private sector) was in response to these poor working conditions IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR (i.e. factories, etc). That is why the federal laws regarding collective bargaining relate directly to the private sector, never the public sector (at the state level). State employee bargaining rights are ALWAYS (and always have been) governed by the individual state, or non-existent in some states. Therefore, to suggest that we'll go back to the way things were in the 30s would mean overturning the NLRA, which is not even close to what this issue is about.

This one comes from my father:

4. We need the union. Without it, they could tell us, as teachers, that we have to work a 12-hour work day, or even come in on Saturdays without extra pay. The union is a good thing, and without it, there will be ridiculous demands on us, as teachers, demands which would not be fair.

That is a very irrational argument against what Walker is doing. While it theoretically could happen without a union, it also could theoretically happen WITH a union. A union *guarantees* nothing. In response to the irrationality, I would use the same irrational logic, saying that "with a union, it's possible to drain the state so much when public employees work 2 days a week for a full salary." Same logic. You can't argue against what Walker is doing by saying what "could" theoretically happen as a result. Any one of us could die in a fatal car accident - does that mean the rational person will never get into a vehicle? Secondly, keep in mind that not every single work place has unions or collective bargaining at all. It's extremely irrational to start any sentence with "we need a union, because without it ...." when only 11.9% of the working population in America are union members (2010 Bureau of Labor Statistics). The rest of us 88% not paying union dues are doing just fine without the help of da union. If the 88% "really isn't doing fine without a union," they'd unionize (at least, most of them would. The point is there is a HUGE majority, not just a small majority, like 55/45, that are not involved with unions).

5. So, his proposal involves all public employees in Wisconsin, except for fire and police personnel? Come on - if that's not a political move, I don't know what is. Those are the unions that supported him in the election, so of course he's going to reward them! I told you this is all political, and has nothing to do with money!

OK, excuse me if I get a little condescending in this paragraph, because this particular claim against Scott Walker is one that especially offends me, as a future police officer. There is nothing more annoying than an ignorant idiot that thinks he knows what's going on, and then he says something like this. Are you kidding me? Don't even speak on this matter anymore if you refuse to learn at least a little bit about what you're talking about. Do NOT think Scott Walker is exempting the police & fire unions because they supported him - you're an idiot who doesn't have his facts straight. Of the 314 fire & police unions in the state of Wisconsin, do you know how many supported Walker? If this claim of yours was right, it would have to be a huge majority, right? So, maybe like 200 at least? At least. Nope - not even close. FOUR. That's right, 4 out of 314. That's like 1%. Don't sit there and tell me (or anyone else) that this is a "political move" because those unions supported him, so he's protecting them. That's BS, and if you did a little research before talking, you wouldn't have sounded like a complete moron who doesn't even understand what's going on. OK, that's my rant on that issue... returning to civil discussion.

Truth of the matter...

As a whole, unions are self-serving bodies that do not care about the public, taxpayers, or the well-being of anyone else. When you abandon your classroom, walk off your job, and break the law, you are doing anything BUT setting a positive example for our children. Teachers are to be held to a moral standard, and are supposed to care about the well-being of others. If you are a teacher, and you protested in Madison, SHAME ON YOU for setting a very poor example for the people you are supposed to be teaching. You abandoned your students, screwed the parents who had to come up with another form of child care for the day, or call in the sick themselves, and for what? So you could protect your greedy pensions, health insurance, and privileges? (That's right - privileges, not rights). In the words of Mary Bell, the President of the Wisconsin Education Association Council (state teachers' union), "This is not about protecting our pay and our benefits. It is about protecting our rights to collectively bargain." Ah yes, Ms. Bell - *clears throat* - and what "rights" are those? As explained previously, you do not have any right to participate in collective bargaining. If you collectively bargain in the public sector, you are given a privilege, and that privilege is not a guarantee to last. It is the decision of the state whether or not you keep those privileges, or whether or not those privileges are restricted, revoked, etc. Just because you held a privilege at one time does not mean tough economic times will allow you to keep those exact same privileges. It doesn't work that way - sorry.

One of the reasons my father believes this is so unfair is because "these are all things we've fought for over the last 30 or 40 years, and now they're all going to be taken away. Is that fair?" Yes, dad - we, the over-taxed taxpayers (the ones who pay the bill) cannot afford at this time to continue paying for your over-generous, fat pensions and health insurance plans. We cannot afford it. "What part of 'broke' do you not understand?" "Well we'll take the pay cuts!" That's not the point - we cannot afford to have your union collectively bargain the way it has in the past, and get us in the same fiscal mess we are now in the next 30/40 years. It's not just about today, it's about tomorrow, next year, and in the year 2020, and beyond. The fact that you, as a union, "have bargained for something for the last 40 years" does not guarantee that it will always be there. Once again, this is not a right of yours, it's a revoke-able, or award-able privilege. I am so sick of the American "entitlement mentality." "I'm entitled to ______," "I have a right to ______" - no, you don't. This is the United States of America, not the United States of Entitlement, where you can work for 25 years, and have a 25+ year tax-funded retirement, of which you contributed almost nothing toward.

Welcome to the real world, where there is a sense of personal responsibility, personal accountability, and a bit of maturity. Oh, there's just one thing ... here in the real world, nothing's free.



Sources / Further Reading:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/22/6106569-do-public-employees-have-a-right-to-collective-bargaining

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164290717724956.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166034245532792.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/21/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-has-a-choice-union-buster-or-real-l/