The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on August 16, 2011, 12:47:03 PM

Title: Awww!
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on August 16, 2011, 12:47:03 PM: Quote
Playinghardball (992 posts) Tue Aug-16-11 05:40 PM
Original message
Wisconsin teachersâ€™ union blames Walkerâ€™s â€˜union-bustingâ€™ for massive layoffs
Source: Raw Story

The largest teachers' union in Wisconsin is blaming Republican Gov. Scott Walker's "union-busting legislation" for layoffs that will result in a 40 percent reduction in union staff.

Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) executive director Dan Burkhalter told reporters Monday that the staff layoffs were necessary due to a projected loss of revenue because Walker's law ends payroll deduction for union dues.

The law also requires most public employees to pay more for retirement and health care, making collecting dues even more difficult.

"Across the state, school districts are eliminating positions either through layoffs or not hiring staff," Burkhalter said. "Fewer school employees means loss of revenue for WEAC that represents them."

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/16/wisconsin-teacher... /

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4962980&mesg_id=4962992
Title: Re: Awww!
Post by: FiddyBeowulf on August 16, 2011, 12:51:17 PM: That and the fact the WEAC health insurance provider plan the unions forced school districts to use has either been negotiated to a lower cost or replaced with a lower cost provider. This was possible because of ACT 10 being passed.
Title: Re: Awww!
Post by: Erasmus on August 16, 2011, 12:53:39 PM: Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks. :whatever:
Title: Re: Awww!
Post by: USA4ME on August 16, 2011, 12:54:40 PM: Quote from:
Nuclear Unicorn

1. Not layoffs. Silencing

Without staff unions cannot represent their members.

Sounds like they'll have enough staff to represent the teachers who are willing to pay union dues in order to be represented. Seems you want teachers who don't care to have the union speak for them to be forced to pay into the system anyway. Thank you for making it clear just what kind of anti-American trash you are.

.
Title: Re: Awww!
Post by: Karin on August 16, 2011, 01:02:46 PM: I'm sure these were grueling, high stress jobs where they were required to get in early, bust their ass, stay late, and be brutally accountable. :bawl:
Title: Re: Awww!
Post by: Erasmus on August 16, 2011, 01:06:58 PM: Could'nt the teachers staff the unions themselves and do all of their negotiations during the 3 @#$%ing months they're NOT WORKING?
Title: Re: Awww!
Post by: miskie on August 16, 2011, 02:12:28 PM: So, the short version is now that the teacher's union in Wisconsin has to get their money themselves, many teachers have stopped contributing 'voluntarily' though their paychecks every two weeks (or maybe weekly, state workers get paid every two here in Massachusetts - I don't know if this applies nationwide or not). This suggests three things to me.

A ) 'Winsconsin' is not as Democrat-friendly as it once was.

B ) The liberal policy of making the rich pay has tricked down to union members who feel they aren't rich enough to hand over some green.

C ) The union has grown fat - and is now filled with overpaid bureaucrats who have become the rich and powerful they are supposed to be protecting the little guy from.
Title: Re: Awww!
Post by: Bodadh on August 16, 2011, 02:23:39 PM: I guess they should have joined the national union of union staff workers so they could stand up to those fat cat unions. ALL THEY WANT IS THEIR PIECE OF THE (union fee) PIE!!!!
Title: Re: Awww!
Post by: BlueStateSaint on August 16, 2011, 02:24:23 PM: Quote from: miskie on August 16, 2011, 02:12:28 PM
So, the short version is now that the teacher's union in Wisconsin has to get their money themselves, many teachers have stopped contributing 'voluntarily' though their paychecks every two weeks (or maybe weekly, state workers get paid every two here in Massachusetts - I don't know if this applies nationwide or not). This suggests three things to me.

A ) 'Winsconsin' is not as Democrat-friendly as it once was.

B ) The liberal policy of making the rich pay has tricked down to union members who feel they aren't rich enough to hand over some green.

C ) The union has grown fat - and is now filled with overpaid bureaucrats who have become the rich and powerful they are supposed to be protecting the little guy from.

I think miskie nailed it. H5.
Title: Re: Awww!
Post by: wasp69 on August 16, 2011, 02:53:01 PM: Damn, bummer....

:lmao:
Title: Re: Awww!
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on August 16, 2011, 03:42:22 PM: An awful lot of teachers have never like being ripped off to support these leeches, but really had no choice because the union and government had it set up so there was no way to replace the union and the teachers had no choice but to support it with involuntary card-check-type dues. There is far from universal unhappiness with the union-trimming among the teachers, you can be sure.

You can also be sure the only ones you'll see featured in the media are the unhappy ones.
Title: Re: Awww!
Post by: GOBUCKS on August 16, 2011, 03:54:05 PM: I don't think Wisconsin is a right-to-work state. So, teachers are required to join the union as a condition of employment.

If dues aren't deducted automatically, and they don't pay them voluntarily, it seems to me they'd be tossed from union membership, which would
mean forfeiting their jobs, unless closed shops only apply to private enterprise.

Or maybe "voluntary" dues payment is one of those union deals where it's voluntary, but there's always a risk your house may accidentally catch fire.
Title: Re: Awww!
Post by: tanstaafl on August 16, 2011, 05:11:41 PM: Quote from: Bodadh on August 16, 2011, 02:23:39 PM
I guess they should have joined the national union of union staff workers so they could stand up to those fat cat unions. ALL THEY WANT IS THEIR PIECE OF THE (union fee) PIE!!!!

That truth is that most Union Employed staff are not allowed to unionize. IIRC, several years back when the Teamster's staff tried to unionize, that great paragon of unionism fought them tooth and nail. I thought WalMart could learn a thing or two from the Teamster on how to keep the unions out of their offices and WalMart Stores.
Title: Re: Awww!
Post by: marv on August 16, 2011, 09:26:01 PM: (http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/files/2011/06/Right-to-Work-State-Map.gif)
Quote
...all 22 Right-to-Work states are in the top 25 states for having the best workforces.
http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/06/30/best-workforces-are-in-right-to-work-states-survey-finds/
Title: Re: Awww!
Post by: Aristotelian on August 18, 2011, 05:33:51 AM: Quote from: GOBUCKS on August 16, 2011, 03:54:05 PM
I don't think Wisconsin is a right-to-work state. So, teachers are required to join the union as a condition of employment.

Really?

I know that used to be the case in some occupations over here (called a Closed Shop) - thankfully it was banned in 1992. Scary that it's still allowed in some places.