Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6517)

eeeeeeeli 02-19-2011 01:11 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 198300)
Best line so far from Matt Welch:

"We are witnessing the logical conclusion of the Democratic Party's philosophy, and it is this: Your tax dollars exist to make public sector unions happy. When we run out of other people's money to pay for those contracts and promises (most of which are negotiated outside of public view, often between union officials and the politicians that union officials helped elect), then we just need to raise taxes to cover a shortfall that is obviously Wall Street's fault. Anyone who doesn't agree is a bully, and might just bear an uncanny resemblance to Hitler."

So fun to see the democrats back to normal regarding hate speech and eliminationist rhetoric now that their false meme regarding Tucson was rejected by the American public.

The reason that the Governor excluded police and fire personnel from the bill for now is because if the cops and firefighters had shown the same blatant disregard for their jobs as the teachers did, chaos (on the order called for by Frances Fox Piven) may have ensued.

Looks like the citizens of Wisconsin aren't falling for the Mussolini/Hitler comparisons and agree with the governor. Imagine (I guess you don't have to, Bjk has already provided a source) teachers being asked to shoulder a portion of their share of the fiscal mismanagement of their state being characterized as 'demonizing' them - lol
Imagine asking public servants to pay a portion of their pay for retirement and medical that brings them in a bit closer to what private sector workers already recognize as reality and then being compared to Hitler....I guess it's not history teachers that are walking out on the kids.

Let's see.....dem representatives hiding in IL, union stooges and thugs being bussed in to protest, teachers walking off the job and protesting with accrued sick pay instead of waiting for a weekend, protesters trashing the capital by leaving behind all their union-supplied protest signage, the president's campaign group doing PR for the hate-mongers....and the president himself being a complete hypocrite on his civil discourse facade and taking the sides of his union benefactors.....

Change You Can Believe In!

That was a terrible sign. But is there much evidence of that type of rhetoric elsewhere?

But there seems a couple of assumptions implicit in Welch's and your response.
1 - Because few private pensions exist, public pensions shouldn't either.
2 - Public workers shouldn't be allowed to unionize, because they'll end up capturing politicians and getting paid too much.

1 - Should private pensions not exist? It would seem that pensions are a form of compensation set up in an environment of job stability. For a number of reasons, they couldn't be maintained. But does that necessarily apply in public sector work, which is almost by definition a very stable industry (we'll always need cops, teachers, firefighters, etc.)?

2 - Public workers have the same needs as private workers. Aside from basic questions of labor rights, unions can be an invaluable way for an organization to get objective input from its "members on the ground" - middle managers are just as interested in preserving a status quo that makes themselves look good at the expense of larger truths. (Our teachers union is greatly interested in best-practices and is often the only bottom-up link politicians and administrators have with what is really going on in the classroom. To the extent that they are receiving information they otherwise could not that affects students, it is a structure that ultimately benefits student learning).

The argument against political capture is valid as far as it goes. But if you accept the argument that all workers ought to have organized advocacy, not only to benefit themselves, but to benefit the larger organization, this weighs against it. And if you look at union-backed public compensation in general, it isn't terrible out-of-control at all. Obviously there will be debate, but if you think public workers are living high on the hog you're sorely mistaken. The compensation I see seems perfectly reasonable.

Welch is making a slippery slope argument when he says worries that the democratic position on public unions will lead to a political capture that will spiral out of control. The problem with slippery slopes is that they aren't logically predictive. Just because something could, in some perfect scenario, happen, it doesn't mean it will. This is why we don't have speed limits of 150mph - or 10 mph for that matter. Other pressures come to bear. With public sector unions, that pressure has kept compensation pretty reasonable, and is certainly coming to bear now.

Yet what to make of Welch's claim that the current situation is proof that public workers will always require an increase in taxes - if tax rates were sufficient to cover compensation before, why are they inadequate now? A picture is painted in which closed-door negotiations conspire to grab ever-more of public coffers. Yet the public consistently supports services they are unwilling to pay for. This schizophrenia pits public confusion (manipulated in no small part by ideologues and politicians) against sound fiscal policy. What's more, the electoral reality is that this also reflects a bitter split between competing visions of what public services should exist to being with.

Furthermore, while the recession has hit all states, each fiscal situation is different. It is simply not the case that state deficits can all be pinned on compensation negotiated by public unions. Frequently, pension coffers are drawn from to finance other areas government. To blame pensioners now is not only an unfair breach of contract, but it is a dishonest manipulation of fact.

bkjazfan 02-19-2011 03:26 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 198421)
Ok sorry, I didn't see the other thread. My feeling is that there is less support for teachers now after what happened with the stimulus. Most of that money went to the states who used it to keep their employees (teachers, administrators etc....) at the same pay level (or avoid furloughs, lay offs etc..). But these are exactly the people with the highest job security in the country. So a stimulus bill that was touted as needed to stop the wave of unemployment actually went to reinforce already strong positions.

Throwing a ton of money into the economy and expect measureable results in the way of lower unemployment looks to be a nonstarter these days - especially as it concerns small businesses. I wasn't alive during the 30's and early 40's but it appears the situation is different now.

As far as helping public empolyees keeping their jobs I don't fault the Obama administration since he did save those jobs which are important to public safety like firemen & police and public school teachers who aren't paid enough as it is. As an aside, it's a headscratcher how bus drivers and the like start off with comparable pay with teachers who attend school for as long time in order to get their jobs. Also, there is some self interest there since they tend to vote for democrats.

Unit 02-19-2011 04:06 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bkjazfan (Post 198432)
Throwing a ton of money into the economy and expect measureable results in the way of lower unemployment looks to be a nonstarter these days - especially as it concerns small businesses. I wasn't alive during the 30's and early 40's but it appears the situation is different now.

As far as helping public empolyees keeping their jobs I don't fault the Obama administration since he did save those jobs which are important to public safety like firemen & police and public school teachers who aren't paid enough as it is. As an aside, it's a headscratcher how bus drivers and the like start off with comparable pay with teachers who attend school for as long time in order to get their jobs. Also, there is some self interest there since they tend to vote for democrats.

They aren't paid enough because they prefer the job-security, the union guarantees, the nice pension plans etc....

brucds 02-19-2011 08:07 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
The problem with the lying, bullshit "conservative" horseshit on display in many of these comments and the asinine contrivances of the right-wing blogosphere also on display is that the protests aren't about sitting down at the table and reaching compromises with the public employees unions, but the attempt to strip workers of basic rights even to engage in such negotiations.

I hate right-wing sociopathy, which seems to get more bloated and cancerous with each passing day...

God help us and God bless America!

bjkeefe 02-19-2011 08:13 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brucds (Post 198452)
... the protests aren't about sitting down at the table and reaching compromises with the public employees unions, but the attempt to strip workers of basic rights even to engage in such negotiations.

In Scott Walker's defense, it is believed that under his plan, school teachers will still be permitted to ask, once every five years, "Please sir, may I have another?" (They will have to provide their own begging bowls, though.)

Not4Navigation 02-20-2011 08:38 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Although the concept of: "Because few private pensions exist, public pensions shouldn't either." has been bandied about, you will have to show me where either Welch or Harkin made this argument...even implicitly. A bit disingenuous to source them with it just because it was an point you wished to expand upon. Regardless, your argument is rather flimsy. Public sector employees deserve free, forever pensions because they work in a "stable" environment??? That is not only simply fatuous but sputters next to exactly what we are running into over the last decade. You also have it backwards, stability itself is the perk. In days gone by, people took public sector jobs with lower monetary compensation because OF the stability it offered. Now with public sector jobs on average paying more and having better benefits, you wish us to believe it a natural offshoot of this stability!?!. How convenient for them and, I guess, you.

Also exhumed and then lost in your assertion is the fact that private sector jobs and the benefits that come with them are buffered and/or enhanced by markets while public sector jobs more and more exist in monopolistic circumstances.

There is just as much (more) benightedness coupled with impuissant metaphors put forth in the second issue you attempt to expand upon. However, because you seemingly do not even see a problem housing foxes with chickens I am not going to bother going there with you and will just hope that the 90% are not bullied into submission by the 10 who are currently screaming hysterically for the cameras and fraudulently calling in sick. Stability indeed.

bjkeefe 02-20-2011 09:14 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198502)
There is just as much (more) benightedness coupled with impuissant metaphors ...

Whoa. Check out the New Whatfur Word Power!

I don't think the online thesaurus thing is going to mask the underlying tone forever, though.

graz 02-20-2011 10:31 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Shorter whatfur: I will leave no metaphor untortured in attempting to discredit an opposing view. While I will offer nothing more than conjecture, I will lard-up the prose with insult and homespun witticisms.

Shorter shorter: I'm still silly.

P.S. Welcome back!

eeeeeeeli 02-20-2011 01:23 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Before I begin, let me start by thanking you for your civil and respectful tone. It is so refreshing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198502)
Although the concept of: "Because few private pensions exist, public pensions shouldn't either." has been bandied about, you will have to show me where either Welch or Harkin made this argument...even implicitly. A bit disingenuous to source them with it just because it was an point you wished to expand upon.

You're entirely right. Re-reading the post, I didn't see them make that argument anywhere! It has been bandied about, and I think I unconsciously "assumed" it into my response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198502)
Regardless, your argument is rather flimsy. Public sector employees deserve free, forever pensions because they work in a "stable" environment??? That is not only simply fatuous but sputters next to exactly what we are running into over the last decade.

First, pensions aren't free. They are deferred compensation, regardless of how much an employee is expected to"pay in". It is a contract. Employees "deserve" them to the extent that they deserve any wage.

Second, my point on stability is that in an industry in which workers have long-term prospects of employment with a single organization, a pension system makes sense. Pensions have always been primarily found in the civil service sector.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198502)
You also have it backwards, stability itself is the perk. In days gone by, people took public sector jobs with lower monetary compensation because OF the stability it offered. Now with public sector jobs on average paying more and having better benefits, you wish us to believe it a natural offshoot of this stability!?!. How convenient for them and, I guess, you.

You make two claims here: 1)public sector jobs used to pay less and 2)current public sector jobs on average pay more.

Public sector jobs have had pensions for decades. There's been no change here. What has changed, is that corporations have sold out the American worker in a global race to the bottom, with savings from production efficiencies generally funneling to the top. One of the "efficiencies" gained was cuts in pensions. You can't outsource teachers, cops and firefighters. The irony is that by cutting pensions, the loss in compensation for public workers will mean state budget savings, which will primarily benefit the wealthy, again.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198502)
Also exhumed and then lost in your assertion is the fact that private sector jobs and the benefits that come with them are buffered and/or enhanced by markets while public sector jobs more and more exist in monopolistic circumstances.

More and more? If anything, due to privatization, there is less and less monopolization than there used to be. (Private police forces here we come!) But the essential category error you are making here is that public services are paid for by one entity - the state. You can call that a monopoly if you want. Whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198502)
There is just as much (more) benightedness coupled with impuissant metaphors put forth in the second issue you attempt to expand upon. However, because you seemingly do not even see a problem housing foxes with chickens I am not going to bother going there with you and will just hope that the 90% are not bullied into submission by the 10 who are currently screaming hysterically for the cameras and fraudulently calling in sick. Stability indeed.

Let me just stop here and thank you. I've never had the honor of being called benighted or impuissant. Well done, sir!

Politicians are going to be influenced by whomever has the power to do so. Just because the state, by definition, pays its own employees, they should not be forced to surrender bargaining rights. This is a democracy, so there will always be competing interests, and hopefully what is right shall win the day. What you are asking, simply, is to reduce speech by not allowing workers to organize.

Wouldn't the logic of your argument extend to any special interest group that might derive financial gain from government action. Would not that be the fox watching the henhouse as well?

I'm actually sympathetic to this argument, as I support limits on political speech. The main problem I have with corporate speech is that it assumes that $ = speech. Yet when a corporation or union spends $300 million dollars campaigning, there is not necessarily any representation behind those dollars (although at least unions are run democratically). An individual who spends a million dollars lobbying is getting unfair representation compared with an individual that can only afford $100.

bjkeefe 02-20-2011 01:25 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 198425)
Just one question...has Joe Klein lost his mind?

Maybe!

brucds 02-20-2011 01:58 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
We're pretty much just back to the "old reliable" Joe Klein. Anyone registering shock at Klein's schtick re: the "virtues" of busting public employee unions hasn't paid much attention to his cliched punditry over the years. (Of course, no one should be criticized for not paying attention to "JokeLine.")

eeeeeeeli 02-20-2011 05:49 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 198425)
Just one question...has Joe Klein lost his mind?

"He is also trying to limit the unions’ abilities to negotiate work rules–and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time. "

This is entirely anecdotal, but I used to work at non-union charter, and now work at a union district school. The difference is unbelievable.

For the first time in my career I actually have a prep-period. Imagine, a whole hour a day in which I can use to plan my instruction and collaborate with staff! I'm also receiving regular, process-oriented observations from my principal. I have the freedom to discuss my disapproval of school policies and organize with other teachers to get them changed. I don't have tenure yet, but I can already be more blunt and earnest with my principal, being able to worry about the issues at hand as opposed to flattering him. Our union is very involved at both the state and local level with curriculum and instructional reforms. Overall, the site has a more bottom-up feel. Teachers are seen as equal leaders in the decision-making process. I have ideas, and the principal tries to find ways of supporting me, instead of "taking it under advisement".

Like I said: anecdotal. There were many things wrong with the charter I was at that had little to do with not having a union. But I truly think that there was a very authoritarian, top-down culture that had been allowed to develop because administration had no accountability - in the form of collective bargaining - from below. So when prep-periods were taken away, or time was wasted on too many frivolous meetings, or protocols weren't followed, student learning was ultimately affected (With no prep-period, and having to do recess duty, my teaching day became that much more harried and sloppy). Teachers were expected to simply "suck it up", and a climate of fear prevented an honest dialogue about effective policy.

And these are exactly the kinds of things that Klein would enjoy forcing out of teachers, without a thorough understanding of the granular impacts on student learning. Teachers are professionals, and unions ultimately help students in so far as they allow teachers the freedom and autonomy to think critically about their profession and to innovate. Of course there are downsides (too many bad teachers), but in my - expert? - opinion, the benefits far outweigh the costs (most teachers I've ever seen/worked with are incredibly dedicated and hardworking far beyond their pay-grade).

Shorter me: Klein (who's never taught) can get stuffed.

Johnwerneken 02-20-2011 07:10 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Stumbled has he? I think not. afaik only two US Pesident be as smart as I and he is one of them.

Nothing can be done right now except to survive. The brilliant we-watch-our-own-lives closely, ignore publuc stuff, but have political opinions anyway, fellow citizens are too ignorant and not scared enough. In general the constituency for a solution prolly is about 1000 of us, in the whole d*mn country. Some dont want to pay via more tax. Some dont want to pay via less benefit. All say they think they already pay through noses in risk of debt, default, inflation, deflation, recession, etc.

Anyone who can keep a governing coalition through this atmosphere - and he can although I can't promise that he will- will have a chance to do a first step Grand Bargain IF and only IF he win next election. Maybe a VAT for SS, medicare, plus tax incentive shift from housing and medicine to private investment and humam and physical infrasturcture, significant REDUCTION in military costs, less stupid so-called 'green' subsidies for those rich enough to pretend country should be their 'national park', and leaders on both sides giving their base the middle finger.

The problem is that the 'base' of both party is their anchor and they are not in a boat anymore.

If I were sure I was in my own boat and unlikely to capsize, I would LMAO. But its not funny.

Not4Navigation 02-20-2011 07:11 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli (Post 198540)
"

For the first time in my career I actually have a prep-period. Imagine, a whole hour a day in which I can use to plan my instruction and collaborate with staff! .

Is that an hour a day to prep for the 3 hours of class you teach while getting paid for 8. Excuse me, "pensions are not free", while getting paid for what? 14? ;)

Were you not a substitute teacher previous to this and a kindergarten teacher for half of that? What kind of pull did you think you were suppose to have in those roles?

eeeeeeeli 02-21-2011 12:52 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198548)
Is that an hour a day to prep for the 3 hours of class you teach while getting paid for 8. Excuse me, "pensions are not free", while getting paid for what? 14? ;)

Were you not a substitute teacher previous to this and a kindergarten teacher for half of that? What kind of pull did you think you were suppose to have in those roles?

Despite my desire to respond to your insulting remarks, you're obviously not arguing in good faith (trolling). So I'll depart.

Not4Navigation 02-21-2011 09:28 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli (Post 198579)
Despite my desire to respond to your insulting remarks, you're obviously not arguing in good faith (trolling). So I'll depart.


I was not arguing at all. Just asking questions. So, please, enlighten us with a rebuttal. I really am interested. You see I have a number of close friends and an ex-wife who are union teachers and they at most had 4 classes a day to teach in days gone by. However like you, at some point they were able to drop one of those classes for a "prep hour". Also, like you, they were overjoyed. Who wouldn't be? Most all of us also went to school and still remember the intense "collaboration" held daily in the teachers lounge while witnessing our teachers laboring at their desks during their "off" hours. We also witnessed the massively changed lesson plans from year to year.

So lest some think your departing was actually avoidance. Seriously, how many classes a day do you teach? If its 3, with 1 hour of prep time. How are the other 4 hours categorized? Maybe you can share with us a rundown of your average day and maybe how it compares to Mr. Jones who has been teaching the same American history classes for 20 years or Betty who teaches the amoeba like algebra or Butch the phy ed teacher.

Admittedly, my statement about 14 hours was being a bit facetious but did I not include a quote from you where you were you were doing the same?

Is it that far off though? Lets say I am a tutor unaligned with any union and charging my student's parents $30 an hour (roughly giving me the wage of a WI teacher), would I not have to work about 14 hours a day to accumulate the wealth to pay for the same healthcare, the additional taxes I'd pay being self-employed, and safely squirrel away enough for a retirement that will cover me at a PVIF 80% rate when I retire at 55 (God forbid I live past 72.5 years)?

It is understandable why union teachers get a little protective of their turf. In comparison, that turf sounds like a fairway.

Please explain to me what I have wrong.

[added] The tutor, of course, would not have the summer months off.

bjkeefe 02-21-2011 09:54 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198586)
If its 3, ... Lets say ...

I see 'fur still hasn't learned that apostrophes are required when forming contractions.

graz 02-21-2011 10:54 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 198587)
I see 'fur still hasn't learned that apostrophes are required when forming contractions.

It's clearly the basis for why he resents teachers. Or maybe it's the ex-wife?
Or maybe it's just Apostrophe. He was failed by his apostrophe teacher. But he's still a champion at clownhall.

Don Zeko 02-21-2011 11:07 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198586)
I was not arguing at all. Just asking questions. So, please, enlighten us with a rebuttal. I really am interested. You see I have a number of close friends and an ex-wife who are union teachers and they at most had 4 classes a day to teach in days gone by. However like you, at some point they were able to drop one of those classes for a "prep hour". Also, like you, they were overjoyed. Who wouldn't be? Most all of us also went to school and still remember the intense "collaboration" held daily in the teachers lounge while witnessing our teachers laboring at their desks during their "off" hours. We also witnessed the massively changed lesson plans from year to year.

So lest some think your departing was actually avoidance. Seriously, how many classes a day do you teach? If its 3, with 1 hour of prep time. How are the other 4 hours categorized? Maybe you can share with us a rundown of your average day and maybe how it compares to Mr. Jones who has been teaching the same American history classes for 20 years or Betty who teaches the amoeba like algebra or Butch the phy ed teacher.

Admittedly, my statement about 14 hours was being a bit facetious but did I not include a quote from you where you were you were doing the same?

Is it that far off though? Lets say I am a tutor unaligned with any union and charging my student's parents $30 an hour (roughly giving me the wage of a WI teacher), would I not have to work about 14 hours a day to accumulate the wealth to pay for the same healthcare, the additional taxes I'd pay being self-employed, and safely squirrel away enough for a retirement that will cover me at a PVIF 80% rate when I retire at 55 (God forbid I live past 72.5 years)?

It is understandable why union teachers get a little protective of their turf. In comparison, that turf sounds like a fairway.

Heaven forbid that we let a bit of data interfere with this conversation...
http://www.epi.org/page/-/wisconsin_public_sector.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198586)
I have a number of close friends and an ex-wife who are union teachers

This explains a lot.

eeeeeeeli 02-21-2011 11:42 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198586)
I was not arguing at all. Just asking questions. So, please, enlighten us with a rebuttal. I really am interested. You see I have a number of close friends and an ex-wife who are union teachers and they at most had 4 classes a day to teach in days gone by. However like you, at some point they were able to drop one of those classes for a "prep hour". Also, like you, they were overjoyed. Who wouldn't be? Most all of us also went to school and still remember the intense "collaboration" held daily in the teachers lounge while witnessing our teachers laboring at their desks during their "off" hours. We also witnessed the massively changed lesson plans from year to year.

So lest some think your departing was actually avoidance. Seriously, how many classes a day do you teach? If its 3, with 1 hour of prep time. How are the other 4 hours categorized? Maybe you can share with us a rundown of your average day and maybe how it compares to Mr. Jones who has been teaching the same American history classes for 20 years or Betty who teaches the amoeba like algebra or Butch the phy ed teacher.

Admittedly, my statement about 14 hours was being a bit facetious but did I not include a quote from you where you were you were doing the same?

Is it that far off though? Lets say I am a tutor unaligned with any union and charging my student's parents $30 an hour (roughly giving me the wage of a WI teacher), would I not have to work about 14 hours a day to accumulate the wealth to pay for the same healthcare, the additional taxes I'd pay being self-employed, and safely squirrel away enough for a retirement that will cover me at a PVIF 80% rate when I retire at 55 (God forbid I live past 72.5 years)?

It is understandable why union teachers get a little protective of their turf. In comparison, that turf sounds like a fairway.

Please explain to me what I have wrong.

[added] The tutor, of course, would not have the summer months off.

Sorry. There are plenty of criticisms of my profession that I would have been more than willing to engage you on. But my assessment of your intentions stands. If you expect to have a meaningful conversation with people, where you and they have a chance of learning something from one another, I suggest you be more respectful.

Not4Navigation 02-21-2011 11:42 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 198590)
Heaven forbid that we let a

This explains a lot.

Is that nice, Don? What does it explain to you, Don?

I actually have seen your chart and it has some obvious shortcomings. "Heaven forbid", you let that interfere with this conversation. I realize it is easier to deflect from the discussion with a meaningless, barely-related chart and take pot-shots than to genuinely partake in a discussion. Is there not another post you have left unresponded to? Would you rather I just ignore you also? I certainly can do that. Let me know.

graz 02-21-2011 12:06 PM

Return of the 'fur troll
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198592)
Is there not another post you have left unresponded to?

The poison spreads as the trap is set. Who can bear unrespondedness, he queries? His mission is to instruct the apostrophe users, not to mock. He fancies himself on the high road. How low can he go?

Not4Navigation 02-21-2011 12:10 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli (Post 198591)
Sorry. There are plenty of criticisms of my profession that I would have been more than willing to engage you on. But my assessment of your intentions stands. If you expect to have a meaningful conversation with people, where you and they have a chance of learning something from one another, I suggest you be more respectful.

I guess I don't understand how my feeling that most teachers have it pretty easy is somehow disrespectful. It is just an opinion. I left it wide open for you to shoot holes through. You choosing to be offended seems to explain much more than Don's chart. Engage me.

In any case, enjoy your day off. I have to get back to work.

graz 02-21-2011 12:14 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198595)
... I have to get back to work ...

The dog crap it does not pick it self up if unresponded to?

handle 02-21-2011 05:41 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 198596)
The dog crap it does not pick it self up if unresponded to?

The furball was always saying he "had to work" and then obviously spent most of the oil company's time on this forum. What a waste of over inflated middle management money, bonuses and benefits. Then he has the cajones to point the finger at the poor bastards that had to try and undo the damage he no doubt did to his brats.
I knew he couldn't honor his banned status while the evil unions were protesting in his backyard. I bet he's out there promising them knuckle sandwiches... in a "civil" way of course. After all, he's not a "thug" ;).
But it's Bannin' time again, you're gonna leave us....

Unit 02-22-2011 12:21 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 198590)
Heaven forbid that we let a bit of data interfere with this conversation...
http://www.epi.org/page/-/wisconsin_public_sector.jpg



This explains a lot.

EPI board of directors

AemJeff 02-22-2011 01:25 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 198635)

Do you have a problem with their data, or are you just engaging in ad hominem smears?

(source) (cited)
Quote:

Data Appendix

This study uses the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series
(IPUMS) of the March Current Population Survey (CPS).
The CPS is a monthly U.S. household survey conducted
jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. The March Annual Demographic File
and Income Supplement is the most widely used source
for earnings used by social scientists. We are using the
CPS database created by the Minnesota Population Center
(King et al. 2009). This sample provides organizational
size, a critical variable for our analysis of benefits. The
sample is restricted to private sector and public sector state
and local employees and excludes federal employees, the
self-employed, and part-time, agricultural, and domestic
workers. The IPUMS-CPS identifies an employee’s fulltime
status, education level, experience level as a function
of age minus years of education plus five, gender, and race;
and an employer’s organizational size and industry. The
IPUMS-CPS sample was selected for this analysis because
the March CPS Annual File provides information on
organizational size not provided by the larger CPS sample
in the Merged Outgoing Rotation Groups (MORG).
The Employer Cost of Employee Compensation
(ECEC) data, part of the National Compensation Survey,
was used to calculate total compensation costs as a markup
on wages. While we would have preferred to analyze
compensation costs by each state, because the survey’s
method of data collection is expensive, the sample is not
sufficiently large enough to provide reliable estimates of
state-level benefit costs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
did share their unpublished sample estimates for 10 major
occupations by organizational sizes for private employers
and state and local government in the East North Central
Census division. This study uses these ECEC sample
estimates to calculate relative benefit costs for each
private and public employee in the sample; it calculates
the relative benefit markup for each private sector employee
based on the size of the employing organization
and the employee’s occupation. State and local government
employees’ wages were similarly marked up by an occupational
benefit weight calculated using the ECEC data. It
is assumed that when employees share information about
their earnings they do not distinguish paid time off from
time worked in salary data. Therefore paid time off is not
included in the markup. CPS wages also include supplemental
pay (Table A1). Specifically, this is a markup of
total compensation relative to W-2 wages.
The IPUMS-CPS sample for March 2005 to 2010
was used for the estimates, covering pay for 2004 through
2009. The sample size was 6,622 total observations and
1,059 public employee observations.

Unit 02-22-2011 02:13 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 198638)
Do you have a problem with their data, or are you just engaging in ad hominem smears?

(source) (cited)

How's it ad hominem to point out the source of a study?

By the way, seeing that private-sector unionization is very low, if indeed "the data" shows that public employees are getting such a raw deal while being unionized, then maybe they'd be better off without the representation.

handle 02-22-2011 02:39 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 198640)
How's it ad hominem to point out the source of a study?

By the way, seeing that private-sector unionization is very low, if indeed "the data" shows that public employees are getting such a raw deal while being unionized, then maybe they'd be better off without the representation.

The chart doesn't specify union membership private or public.
Usually the only public or private workers that are in the union are from the lower income brackets, or those in the trenches, if you will.
The fact that you think all public employees are unionized, especially those in management, is evidence of how familiar you are with the reality of the situation.
FYI the contract negotiations are between workers and the higher ups, who control how your tax dollars get spent. It's not uncommon for them to give themselves large salaries, raises and even bonuses, while the workers (mostly union, but many opt out) in recent years have seen raises disappear, mandatory furloughs, pensions and benefits cut, and retirement age is now 65 for those hired in the last 15 years in many states. Most of the beefs from the propaganda machine have actually been addressed in bargaining.

Not4Navigation 02-22-2011 08:49 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 198635)

and some not so "obvious shortcomings".

handle 02-22-2011 04:46 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198652)
and some not so "obvious shortcomings".

Looks like we're getting the banned back together! Where's Lyle?

Not4Navigation 02-22-2011 07:16 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 198708)
Looks like we're getting the banned back together! Where's Lyle?

I think there are a number of you confused about my identity. I am not Lyle, or Whatfur, or Fur, or Dave. You all seem to gain some pleasure by thinking so. It is a bit confusing, but I am happy to oblige.

Unit 02-22-2011 07:52 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 198641)
The chart doesn't specify union membership private or public.
Usually the only public or private workers that are in the union are from the lower income brackets, or those in the trenches, if you will.
The fact that you think all public employees are unionized, especially those in management, is evidence of how familiar you are with the reality of the situation.
FYI the contract negotiations are between workers and the higher ups, who control how your tax dollars get spent. It's not uncommon for them to give themselves large salaries, raises and even bonuses, while the workers (mostly union, but many opt out) in recent years have seen raises disappear, mandatory furloughs, pensions and benefits cut, and retirement age is now 65 for those hired in the last 15 years in many states. Most of the beefs from the propaganda machine have actually been addressed in bargaining.

What I'm saying: causation could be going the other way. They're stuck in with lower income *because* they're unionized.

TwinSwords 02-22-2011 08:01 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198715)
I think there are a number of you confused about my identity. I am not Lyle, or Whatfur, or Fur, or Dave. You all seem to gain some pleasure by thinking so. It is a bit confusing, but I am happy to oblige.

I knew it! It's kidneystones!!!





;-)

Don Zeko 02-22-2011 08:19 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 198716)
What I'm saying: causation could be going the other way. They're stuck in with lower income *because* they're unionized.

You don't really think that unionization leads to lower wages relative to other workers, do you? Can you come up with any even vaguely plausible account of how that would happen?

Unit 02-22-2011 09:13 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 198720)
You don't really think that unionization leads to lower wages relative to other workers, do you? Can you come up with any even vaguely plausible account of how that would happen?

The best way to get a raise or being treated better is to go to your employer with a job-offer from someone else. If you're unionized, your employer can't do anything about that. That's why the higher ups don't want unions for themselves.

AemJeff 02-22-2011 09:29 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 198724)
The best way to get a raise or being treated better is to go to your employer with a job-offer from someone else. If you're unionized, your employer can't do anything about that. That's why the higher ups don't want unions for themselves.

So that's why plumbers only make minmum wage!

Unit 02-22-2011 09:33 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 198730)
So that's why plumbers only make minmum wage!

Not my plumber!!! He comes in looks at the leak and charges me 200 dollars....

handle 02-22-2011 09:48 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198715)
I think there are a number of you confused about my identity. I am not Lyle, or Whatfur, or Fur, or Dave. You all seem to gain some pleasure by thinking so. It is a bit confusing, but I am happy to oblige.

Pretty sure Lmaki posted something strikingly close to the above, so no sale nanook.

Not4Navigation 02-23-2011 08:42 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 198737)
Pretty sure Lmaki posted something strikingly close to the above, so no sale nanook.

Now, I have done some searching based on these attributions and see that the list contains a bunch of users marked "Banned". I also see the same names (like yours, handle) surrounding them. Hyenas? The ones I have found all seem to hang "right" or at least a little right of center like myself. Is that the norm here? or are there left-leaning posters who have been banned?? There certainly are a couple that I would remove from this arena for one reason or another.

With that said, no not Lmaki, Nanook, or Kidneystones either. I do wish you would not conjure up all your personal eidolons from the past and have them floating through your mind as you read my posts, however. They seem to affect your ability to engage with anything significant. If however, you are unable to engage with anything significant, feel free to allow me to continue to intimidate you with the reputation of others. I don't have a real pack here to run interference for me.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.