Protestors on both sides of restricting collective bargaining bill

[Mr. T]

So they should have an ID then.

 

Unless they are trying to defraud the taxpayers then you wont want one.

 

Sounds like you need a loophole to cheat. Are you from Chicago?

 

According to your reason of thought; we should also suggest that poor prople and those who dont have ID's can be exempt from TSA screening when traveling through our airports.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Because voting is a right that all eligible citizens have, and air travel isn't.

 

It's the government's job is to ensure that its elections are free and fair. You don't need a picture ID to vote. You just need an accepted form of ID. It works just fine now, and has for years. Contrary to what conservatives imagine, actual instances of voter fraud are extremely rare. It's not a serious problem that needs a solution that disenfranchises certain classes of voters. (And in Texas, exempts the ones that lean Republican. Imagine that.)

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Because voting is a right that all eligible citizens have, and air travel isn't.

 

It's the government's job is to ensure that its elections are free and fair. You don't need a picture ID to vote. You just need an accepted form of ID. It works just fine now, and has for years. Contrary to what conservatives imagine, actual instances of voter fraud are extremely rare. It's not a serious problem that needs a solution that disenfranchises certain classes of voters. (And in Texas, exempts the ones that lean Republican. Imagine that.)

 

 

Voting is a right, for American Citizens. Having to provide picture ID should be required. All states provide a method to get a picture ID. Otherwise, anyone can vote, even illegal's. That probably turns you on, right?

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, that's not how it works at all. You really imagine that "anyone can vote" in America?

 

No, you have to prove that you're eligible to vote, register, and prove who you are when you show up to vote, or sign an affidavit. You can do that with a picture ID. You can also do it with an ID that doesn't have a picture on it.

 

How do you guys imagine that mail-in or absentee ballots work?

 

Do you also realize that the Bush Justice Department made "voter fraud" a priority and ended up being embarrassed because they're weren't able to find much of it?

 

I know Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart and company tell you about how much voter fraud there is in America. I'm just suggesting that maybe you shouldn't listen to them.

[We need Tom Tupa]

...But my point really has nothing to do with the unions at all. It was simply to say that most of our best teachers go through years of training in order to be teachers, not to mention the kind of qualified, resourceful, knowledgeable teachers we all say that we want in our schools. Flatly stating that one of their remedies is to leave the profession they just spent years and tuitions getting themselves to the point where they're state qualified is a tad flippant, wouldn't you say? Similar - in kind, not in degree - to suggesting the same thing to doctors.

You argued earlier in the thread that without the ability to strike, teachers had no way to bargain at all. I offered a few different threats they were capable of making, in response to that weak argument. You responded by saying that I'd better be ready to say the same about doctors. I am! Doctors have shown an ability to function very well and get compensation that they are happy with WITHOUT unionizing or the ability to strike. I'm sorry if my realism strikes you as flippant, but I'm still waiting to hear why teachers should need unions while many other professions full of passionate people doing important jobs after years of schooling dont need the same (doctors, lawyers, nuclear engineers, mathematicians, economists, etc). I'm not ordering teachers to switch careers, I'm just arguing that preventing people from having to consider threatening to change careers isnt a sound basis for public policy.

 

It's also incorrect to say that the push for teacher qualifications comes purely from the unions. It doesn't. It's not even mostly from the unions. I'm sure you've noticed the common political refrain/call for "qualified teachers" and the legislation that's followed. Are you referring to the union's push to reward those qualifications in the pay structure? I can't imagine that you, of all people, are suggesting that teachers take on these additional expenses out of the goodness of their hearts, and that a system that provide incentives to teachers to become more qualified makes no sense, so that can't be it.

I guess for the moment we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Like most other groups that are regulated by government licensing and certification, teachers unions have long pushed for increased requirements for new teachers. If I come across articles that make my case for me, I'll post them here. Meanwhile, if you're convinced that I'm wrong, I doubt that my narrative of events will persuade you.

 

 

I dont think I understand your frustration with my willingness to concede your evidence without dropping my point. The recurring theme in me doing that has been you claiming dishonesty or insincerity on the part of GOP politicians, and dismissing their policies as a result of the political motivation attached to it. If you think that politics de-legitimizes any policy it is attached to, stop paying attention to American politics. There is no exception to the rule of bullshitting politicians with any significant role in either party. In order for me to take your criticism seriously, you're going to have to persuade me that the case at hand contains uniquely bad behavior. So pointing out that a politician has some political motivation is something that I will both concede and not consider persuasive by itself. Considering your penchant for dismissing conservative arguments/policies/speeches/campaigns as cynical and politically driven, expect this pattern to continue repeating. In the immediate case, I think you are even more off base than usual. As I've said, the GOP is and has for decades been opposed to unionization on economic grounds. The fact that it is politically beneficial for them to break up unions is a direct result of this substantive position. Claiming that using their current power to achieve core policy goals is just politicking is about as weak as this category of argument could be. If enacting substantive policies that you have always driven toward is too political to be considered valid, what ever will escape your scorn? We end up in a position where you think that anything that benefits the GOP is illegitimate. Boring. Honestly, we're probably better off just discussing policies for their merits, as trying to weigh the margin of cynicism in the acts of any given politician is guaranteed to be a waste of our time. Dont worry, we'll still get to slam crappy politicians, as crappy politicians give us crappy policy.

 

 

Back to the unions - teachers unions result in lower pay for good teachers and higher pay for bad ones. They obstruct much needed reform. What is makes teachers unique in their need for unionization? What outweighs the costs that unions deliver? Is there some anti-education interest group out there that teachers need to be protected from?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Huh? I didn't argue that teachers "had no way to bargain at all." I said they now have no real way to bargain for a raise above inflation, and without the ability to strike, no serious way to pressure employers or lawmakers. Because they now have no real way to bargain for a raise above inflation and have lost their ability to strike. I don't imagine you thought I believed that Wisconsin was entering into a world where teachers couldn't quit and become dental hygienists, or quit and work for a charter school. But congratulations on beating down that straw man.

 

Off to the tubbie. More later.

[calfoxwc]

Off to the tubbie. More later. Heck

*********************************

Ah. Heck is a teletubbie. NOW i understand why he is the way he is. GGG

[heckofajobbrownie]

As for the doctors example, it's hardly your "realism" that strikes me as flippant. As if someone is suggesting that the goal of teacher unionization is to prevent people from ever having to consider a career change, or that this is what the understanding of people going into the teaching profession should be or is. That's nonsense, not realism. Now, I'm not accusing you of murder. I'm simply accusing you of being overly dismissive of a legitimate issue. Additionally, since nobody is telling doctors to go find another profession if they don't like what they're being told they can accept, it doesn't buy much with me that you're willing to imagine that we're saying the same thing to doctors. Because we aren't.

 

From what I can tell, what you'd like to do is dismiss any argument about political tactics as a waste of time. Well, for one, you're taking the posts to people who don't even see the political dimension to these decisions and then using posts where I describe the political decisions to say I'm ignoring the substance of the policy disagreements. Clearly, that's not what those posts were discussing. They never discuss much. But enough about that.

 

I find your dismissal (or is it acceptance?) of the political questions to be odd, especially since I know you're of the opinion that politics interferes with good policy, and all the time. To give you an example from this topic, there isn't a single argument that you're making that couldn't be directly applied to the unions representing firefighters or policemen. So if you want me to get on board with the idea that this is a policy-first idea that the GOP has been clamoring for since the 60s, and why can't I see that, it'd probably help if they also targeted those unions. But they didn't and everyone knows why. But apparently there's no such thing as too cynical, even though, as we've discussed, this is part of an overall pattern. All of this isn't worth mentioning, even if we find it a tad obvious, and degree doesn't matter. I don't see the benefit of this approach, except to achieve some sort of libertarian cleanliness in our argument.

 

As for the argument that since nuclear engineers and doctors and lawyers and economists don't have unions, why should teachers or anyone else, I find that to be a good place to start. My answer would be fairly obvious, I would think: it would be fine with me if they did, but they probably don't need one - or should I say, wouldn't benefit from it enough to make the benefits of unionization clear.

 

You listed nuclear engineers, doctors, lawyers, and economists. I'm wondering if you listed those professions instead of people with less political and economic clout for a reason. Nuclear engineers, doctors, lawyers, economists - these are all high income professions, highly specialized, and they all carry a far greater ability to create an individual market for their talents than someone like a teacher or a sheet metal worker. (Most teachers salaries also being subject to state budget constraints, limiting their market even further.) And while they don't have unions, they do have large trade associations that lobby on their behalf - the American Medical Association or the ATLA, for instance - which suggests that they do understand the economic benefits of association, even if it's to a lesser degree than union membership. Would you stipulate that? Because it seems clear to me that doctors do like having an association of doctors to lobby on their behalf, and for many of the same things that teachers lobby for: pay, working conditions, pending legislation, etc.

 

Would you also stipulate that union members receive better pay and benefits than they would have absent the union?

[Mr. T]

We loose to many good teachers because of what the teachers unions have done. And guys like Heck' want to save the statis quo because he is scared if the unions lost their dictorial power over their minions/members his socialist loving politicians may loose out on some very large campaign money. The teachers unions really dont protect their members, they will make compromises when a teacher is being reprimanded instead of backing the teacher up when they need legal council. The power has gone to the students and the teachers have been stripped of being able to demand discipline in the classroom because of cowardly teachers unions. The teachers Union bosses could care less about whatand who they represent; they only want the money and the power. Sounds like your typical elite liberal.

 

Teachers Unions Spent $100 Per Teacher on Politics per year

 

The five states in which the two unions spent more than $100 per teacher were Oregon, Colorado ($173.98), Montana ($141.74), Utah ($140.60) and South Dakota ($132.15)—states in which there were hotly-contested political campaigns during the 2007-08 election cycle. Massachusetts came in sixth with $81.24 per teacher, followed by North Dakota ($68.17), California ($41.21), Washington ($40.75) and Minnesota ($40.04). The full chart available here shows the total expenditures by the NEA and AFT in each state as well as what those expenditures translate into per teacher.

 

It should be remembered that in all these jurisdictions the state forces teachers to pay dues, too, even if they don't wish to belong to the union. With the cozy relationship developed between unions and their bought-and-paid-for Democrat politicians, laws have been created in these states to force teachers to pay dues in a sort of pay-to-work extortion policy. It's no different than a criminal racket, protection money extorted from teachers to keep unions in the dough they need to pay off politicians.

 

And these millions have been spent in an effort to keep Democrats in power, thwart the will of the voters, and keep union bigwigs in the high income brackets in which they've become used to enjoying.

Source

 

It's all a perfect example of why public employees unions should be illegal. Public employees unions are antithetical to good government.

 

 

 

 

Wouldn't you like to tell your boss who you want to spend your extorted union dues on when it comes time for election? Instead of letting a few elites left in charge dictating who they will support.

[We need Tom Tupa]

You realize how silly it is to just throw in the word libertarian to denigrate my argument, right? Ok, just making sure. More later...

[We need Tom Tupa]

Huh? I didn't argue that teachers "had no way to bargain at all." I said they now have no real way to bargain for a raise above inflation.

I'm sorry, is that supposed to be a real distinction? Forgive me for slightly exaggerating your point. You didnt say that they couldnt bargain at all, just that they couldnt ever improve their real compensation at all. Feel free to re-read my previous posts as addressing this equally weak argument.

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, not really. It's a descriptive term.

[We need Tom Tupa]

As for the doctors example, it's hardly your "realism" that strikes me as flippant. As if someone is suggesting that the goal of teacher unionization is to prevent people from ever having to consider a career change, or that this is what the understanding of people going into the teaching profession should be or is. That's nonsense, not realism. Now, I'm not accusing you of murder. I'm simply accusing you of being overly dismissive of a legitimate issue. Additionally, since nobody is telling doctors to go find another profession if they don't like what they're being told they can accept, it doesn't buy much with me that you're willing to imagine that we're saying the same thing to doctors. Because we aren't.

You seem to think that teachers should not be put in a situation where they need to consider changing professions if they cannot get the compensation they want as a teacher. Your arguments in this vein have been made while defending teachers unions and responding to arguments that teachers unions are not necessary or helpful. As a result, you have been arguing that one of the benefits of teachers unions is that teachers are protected from that dire choice. I replied to that obvious implication of your argument. If you dont think that there is any reason that teachers should be less exposed to situations where they would consider changing careers, then I'm not sure why you are bothered by my comment. If you dont think that unions help them avoid that situation, then I'm not sure why you think anything will change in this regard based on the issue we are discussing - the loss of collective bargaining rights. If you DO think that teachers should be protected from that situation AND that unions help them do that, then I dont have a clue how you can argue that it isnt a goal of teacher unionization. That is, unless you are arguing that it isnt THE goal, in which case I see you've found a new straw man. Well done.

 

I'm not telling teachers to leave their profession. I was quickly listing exit as a bargaining strategy that teachers could use in the same way that every other non-unionized profession in the country uses it. For some reason this appears to be a touchy subject for you, so I apologize for muddling the discussion with my original single sentence on it. My point was merely that teachers would be left with all of the bargaining tools that most other professionals have, not that they should quit teaching because I'm a heartless bastard. My non-unionized teacher sister can attest to the fact that I have never told her to become a janitor.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm sorry, is that supposed to be a real distinction? Forgive me for slightly exaggerating your point. You didnt say that they couldnt bargain at all, just that they couldnt ever improve their real compensation at all. Feel free to re-read my previous posts as addressing this equally weak argument.

 

Yes, it is a real distinction. If your response to it is that their options are to quit and find another line another line of work or to take a pay cut in order to work at a charter school, I think we can agree that these options were obvious to us both at the beginning of this conversation.

 

Your other option is for teacher's to ask for a raise. Well, as you know, it doesn't really work like that in the public school system, so that's not really an option either. You may not like that it works like that, and I may agree with you. But principals don't have a pile of money to throw around when disgruntled teachers walk into their office.

 

So, if these are your retorts to my "weak argument" that teachers in Wisconsin are no longer in a position to bargain for a raise, I suppose I'm underwhelmed by its strength.

[heckofajobbrownie]

"You seem to think that teachers should not be put in a situation where they need to consider changing professions if they cannot get the compensation they want as a teacher. "

 

That is not what I think.

[We need Tom Tupa]

From what I can tell, what you'd like to do is dismiss any argument about political tactics as a waste of time. Well, for one, you're taking the posts to people who don't even see the political dimension to these decisions and then using posts where I describe the political decisions to say I'm ignoring the substance of the policy disagreements. Clearly, that's not what those posts were discussing. They never discuss much. But enough about that.

There is a very quick solution to this problem: respond to my initial complaint by saying, "I agree that there is nothing unique about this issue. I just wanted to point out that it was not more noble than any other." Game over. We both win.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Yes, it is a real distinction. If your response to it is that their options are to quit and find another line another line of work or to take a pay cut in order to work at a charter school, I think we can agree that these options were obvious to us both at the beginning of this conversation.

 

Your other option is for teacher's to ask for a raise. Well, as you know, it doesn't really work like that in the public school system, so that's not really an option either. You may not like that it works like that, and I may agree with you. But principals don't have a pile of money to throw around when disgruntled teachers walk into their office.

 

So, if these are your retorts to my "weak argument" that teachers in Wisconsin are no longer in a position to bargain for a raise, I suppose I'm underwhelmed by its strength.

Public school teachers cant go in and ask for a raise because the wages are set by collective bargaining between the govt and the union. Take out the unions, and now you have a situation where teachers can be paid differently for their abilities, performance, etc. We dont need to look very far to see that that is the case. There are non-unionized workers in every level of government. Yes, all are restricted by generally narrow salary restrictions that come with government jobs, but most of them can ask for promotions, raises, improved benefits, etc for their individual performance. I agree that it will be harder for teachers as a group to push for higher pay, but not for individuals.

 

And let's not pretend that all non-public schools pay less than public schools. Better teachers have better options. There are private schools in every city in America that pay more than the public schools do.

 

And again, getting rid of the unions will increase the ability of policy-makers to reform education, and many of the currently preferred reforms in both parties will result in more more efficient market for teacher labor, improving their options and (for many) their salaries. I understand that this is not an immediate result, but it's one that we are incredibly unlikely to acheive without taking this first step.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Again, that eliminates any discussion of degree, does it not? There's yes, it's the worst thing in the world and cannot stand, and then there's no, there's nothing so awful so as to raise an eyebrow, and nothing in between.

 

I don't understand why that's preferable. Which is why I used the "cleanliness" line. We got here during the discussion of gay marriage, for Christ's sake. We always get here.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Public school teachers cant go in and ask for a raise because the wages are set by collective bargaining between the govt and the union. Take out the unions, and now you have a situation where teachers can be paid differently for their abilities, performance, etc.

 

Tupa! What did I just say right above here? you don't have to point this out to me. But since it's the reality of the situation as it exists today, you can't exactly present that as an option for teachers when it doesn't exist.

 

Kid is waking up. More later.

[We need Tom Tupa]

I find your dismissal (or is it acceptance?) of the political questions to be odd, especially since I know you're of the opinion that politics interferes with good policy, and all the time. To give you an example from this topic, there isn't a single argument that you're making that couldn't be directly applied to the unions representing firefighters or policemen. So if you want me to get on board with the idea that this is a policy-first idea that the GOP has been clamoring for since the 60s, and why can't I see that, it'd probably help if they also targeted those unions. But they didn't and everyone knows why. But apparently there's no such thing as too cynical, even though, as we've discussed, this is part of an overall pattern. All of this isn't worth mentioning, even if we find it a tad obvious, and degree doesn't matter. I don't see the benefit of this approach, except to achieve some sort of libertarian cleanliness in our argument.

Yes, I am of the opinion that politics comflicts with policy all the time. And I am more than happy to spend time pointing out more egregious examples. But I dont see much value in stopping to point it out in every single issue. It becomes incredibly redundant. it is a waste of our time. Even worse though is the fact that where we would really end up if I engaged you more on this topic is just keeping score of which party did this stuff more frequently. I dont bother pointing out every politicking move by the Democrats, because you have a history of defending them in most cases, and I dont care to re-litigate the fact that politicians are less than perfect twice a week. The benefit of this approach has nothing to do with libertarianism (especially since most libertarians would want to dive into the public choice implications of each policy rather than brush them aside. sidenote: you might think it's a descriptive term, but if so, you are using it very poorly.), and everything to do with not wasting our time re-scoring the same political fight over and over again.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Tupa! What did I just say right above here? you don't have to point this out to me. But since it's the reality of the situation as it exists today, you can't exactly present that as an option for teachers when it doesn't exist.

 

Like I said:

I understand that this is not an immediate result, but it's one that we are incredibly unlikely to acheive without taking this first step.

 

There is a better option. We cant get there until we get rid of the current system. Constantly protecting the current system based on the fact that the better option isnt here yet gets us nowhere. For evidence, see the US Education system over the past 40 years.

[We need Tom Tupa]

You listed nuclear engineers, doctors, lawyers, and economists. I'm wondering if you listed those professions instead of people with less political and economic clout for a reason. Nuclear engineers, doctors, lawyers, economists - these are all high income professions, highly specialized, and they all carry a far greater ability to create an individual market for their talents than someone like a teacher or a sheet metal worker.

I listed them because I wanted to stay within the category you were referencing - people with graduate degrees who were doing what they went to school to do. I could have just as easily listed bank tellers, paralegals, mechanics, disc jockeys, mall retail workers, etc. I suppose it's possible that you think much of the country should unionize, but I'm operating under the assumption that that isnt the case.

 

And while they don't have unions, they do have large trade associations that lobby on their behalf - the American Medical Association or the ATLA, for instance - which suggests that they do understand the economic benefits of association, even if it's to a lesser degree than union membership. Would you stipulate that?

Yes, I would stipulate that almost any group in America can that form a functional political arm would consider it economically beneficial to do so. For that reason, I assume teachers would be very quick to strengthen their non-union political organizations if their unions were eliminated.

 

Would you also stipulate that union members receive better pay and benefits than they would have absent the union?

 

As I said, I think weakening or eliminating unions would lead to more reform of the education system. I think teachers are better off in most of the currently popular non-unionized but reformed systems.

 

However, if we are assuming that there would be no reform, then I think some teachers are better off, some that are worse off and others that are unemployed as a result of the union, but that average compensation is probably somewhere around 5-10% higher due to unionization.

[We need Tom Tupa]

"You seem to think that teachers should not be put in a situation where they need to consider changing professions if they cannot get the compensation they want as a teacher. "

 

That is not what I think.

Then I'm not sure what your complaint is unless you read my comment as, "If those useless teachers dont like what we're good enough to give them, then they can take a hike!" I assure you, that is not what I was trying to say. I was merely naming exit as one of several strategies available to non-union professions that would also be available to non-unionized teachers.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, man. I wish I had more time for this today. This is fun.

 

Here's how I read it, because here's what it said: teachers have three options in the event that they don't like the idea that they can no longer bargain for a raise above inflation or benefits: they can find another line of work; they can quit and try to find a job at a private or charter school; or they can ask for a raise. Except that we both understand that they can't do #3, so scratch that off. It doesn't exist.

 

Meanwhile, everyone seems to agree that it's a basic right of workers to ask their employer for a raise. You, me, Steve, everyone. They might get it, they might not. And in the event they don't feel that they're being properly remunerated, they can try to find another job.

 

Except what's just happened is that the governor and the Republicans are effectively saying, "You can't ask for a raise anymore." So, that thing that we think is so important and one of the options all workers should have is no longer an option. Therefore, realistically, this reads as: you have two options. One is to find another line of work. And the other is to quit and work in the private or charter school system.

 

What's more, what teachers can now ask for is to not have the purchasing power of their salary eroded over time - in other words, not only can you not ask for a raise, your salary is going to start going down unless you succeed in keeping it level. That's the best you can do. And if you don't like it, there's the door.

 

So yes, I think that's a tad disrespectful to teachers, not to mention unfair, especially when concessions from the unions on benefit contributions would have helped address the state's fiscal issues. They now have fewer rights than their private sector counterparts, and in the one area that is the most vital, and their union has been effectively gutted.

 

Now, you'd like to make up for it by the promise of a better tomorrow somewhere down the line when reforms take hold and a market for teacher talent begins to take shape. Which I tend to think sounds better coming from you, a policy wonk, than it does coming from the Republican Party, which is far more concerned with politics than policy. But when I point out the politics are the main driver here, not policy, I'm told that's boring and to look away. And that this is the "realist" viewpoint.

 

In short, it's exactly because of the political nature of these efforts that I'm not convinced this is really a long-term effort to institute Republican-style education reform, whatever that is, especially when it's largely a party that doesn't have an answers or ideas on education reform beyond "I hate the teachers union." (Much like they didn't have many ideas on health care but "tort reform." It's almost like they're supplied with a line to say when the subject comes up, but don't really know anything about the policy.) There simply aren't enough Republicans like you to think otherwise, and I suspect that you'd begrudgingly admit that point, too.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And back to the political part of it, I wonder if we had a discussion about movies it would take the same shape as this. If we were to discuss Schindler's List, and I made the point that it's a masterfully shot, acted, and important film, but not a great one because it dodges some of the larger questions about the nature of the conflict in order to tell a story and capture what life was like in the camps, which is obviously of great value, but doesn't get at the true nature of where this evil came from ...would you then say that it's a really good film, but not so much different than all the others that it's not worth pointing out what makes it marginally more effective than, say, The Pianist - or even The Piano - because they're all just movies and talking about this is rather boring?

 

I'm being a dick, of course, but you get my point.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Here's how I read it, because here's what it said: teachers have three options in the event that they don't like the idea that they can no longer bargain for a raise above inflation or benefits: they can find another line of work; they can quit and try to find a job at a private or charter school; or they can ask for a raise. Except that we both understand that they can't do #3, so scratch that off. It doesn't exist.

I did not claim that the list was all-inclusive of their options. I threw out some of the things they can do.

 

Under almost any circumstance, teachers can do #3. Walker is telling them that they cant do it collectively, which is much different from saying that you cant do it individually. In fact, Walker is simultaneously supporting pay for performance measures that would likely result in schools being able to reward individual teachers who deserved higher pay.

 

In short, it's exactly because of the political nature of these efforts that I'm not convinced this is really a long-term effort to institute Republican-style education reform, whatever that is, especially when it's largely a party that doesn't have an answers or ideas on education reform beyond "I hate the teachers union." (Much like they didn't have many ideas on health care but "tort reform." It's almost like they're supplied with a line to say when the subject comes up, but don't really know anything about the policy.) There simply aren't enough Republicans like you to think otherwise, and I suspect that you'd begrudgingly admit that point, too.

 

Education will increasingly become a Republican issue in the coming years, as they try to shrink government without looking like heartless monsters. It's a nice coincidence that education reform will also end up scoring big politically, that it will damage the strength of unions, and it fits very nicely within the traditional GOP platform. Even if the motivation for the current move was to target a specific teacher that Walker didn't like, the end result is still going to be positive. For the very same reasons that I don't care to rehash the political motivations right now, I certainly am not interested in turning this thread into a discussion about the discussion about the discussion. So humor me and consider just the policy implications here.

 

Not only do I think that the GOP will be serious about education reform (see Boehner making noise about vouchers), but Wisconsin isnt exactly Texas. It has gone for the Dems every 4 years since '84. The politics there will push for reform, regardless of what Walker wants. And, purposefully or not, he's helping deliver it by weakening the unions.

 

more later...

[heckofajobbrownie]

Maybe we should just drop our jobs and do this. Because my job is cutting into my Tupa time.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Better yet, you quite your job, and I'll do it for awhile, giving you time to hang out on message boards. (mostly this would consist of me collecting the paycheck. you'd probably still have to do the actual work. i doubt your boss would be okay with the dropoff in useful production.)

[We need Tom Tupa]

speaking of things I have time for, did anyone see that tenn/mich game just now? wtf was that?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Well, like any good union member, I measure out my production carefully, always making sure to do enough, but not more than that, so no one gets wise to the fact that we can do this job more efficiently with fewer people.

 

See you at the bar!