Saturday, February 11, 2017

Unions and The Middle Class

So I got this interesting link of the Facebook of a friend who is a teacher in MN.  Of course he finds it horrifying, where as I find it just interesting.  The Atlantic Unions and the Middle Class

Apparently the Teachers in Wisconsin are starting to have to pay something for their great benefits.  This is normal for folks who work in private industry, but apparently it is pretty shocking to folks who have spent their career in the public sector. Then of course there is the idea of people moving between employers, and employers actively seeking to hire the best Teachers.

Then of course there are financial savings, which of course is deemed terrible by the Teachers.  Yet I am pretty sure the local tax payers are happy to hear about.

Wiki Wisc Act 10
WP Walker Anti-Union
NR Reforms Helped Wisc
GB Teachers Union New Role
JS A Hard Fast Fall

I especially liked this quote from the last source. It seems typical of many organizations.
"To labor leaders, Walker is the obvious villain, given his stated desire to conquer unions. In addition to Act 10, he signed a “right-to-work” measure blocking private employers and unions from requiring fees from workers. 
But missteps by labor leaders and a backlash against union political clout helped set the stage for Act 10 years ago, the Journal Sentinel found after interviewing dozens of current and former union members and leaders. And even union leaders see dim prospects for a return to power anytime soon. 
Dave Weiland, an Oconomowoc school district teacher and local union leader, thinks the state union was stuck in a 1920s mentality. 
“The gravy train was running, and they didn’t see the curve,” he said.

5 comments:

John said...

I forgot to add my thoughts, so I will add them here.

Is it better to have the Public Employees enjoying the gravy train? Or is it better to keep their compensation, job security, etc based on the normal employment market, and keep the taxes lower for all of the citizens in the State?

Why do Union supporters think that mandatory dues are acceptable? It amazes me.

Anonymous said...

Apparently the Teachers in Wisconsin are starting to have to pay something for their great benefits. This is normal for folks who work in private industry, but apparently it is pretty shocking to folks who have spent their career in the public sector.

Compensation should be thought of as an entire package. When an employee is asked to pay for benefits he previously received as part of his compensation from an employer, that's a pay cut. When an employer adds benefits that's a pay increase. This is true for both the public and private sectors.

Why do Union supporters think that mandatory dues are acceptable?

Because all employees receive the benefit of union representation.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
They also receive the costs of union representation.

Remember some of those:

- younger gifted Teachers make less than they could because they are trapped by the steps/lanes compensation system

- highly motivated dedicated workaholic Teachers are exposed to negative peer pressure by the status quo and possibly the contracted work rules.

- gifted experienced Teachers lose seniority, compensation and job security if they want to change jobs to another union district. (in essence they are trapped in their district, whether the are happy or miserable)

- the Teacher head count and class size may be higher because some of the Teachers simply are costing more than they are worth.

- many people simply do not consider Teachers to be professionals since they are represented by a union, questionable workers are protected, etc (ie not typical for Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Accountants, etc and other Professionals)

John said...

I forgot:
- newer lower paid Teachers are placed with the most challenging students because the experienced high cost Teachers have significant say over which schools / jobs they work. (bad for new Teachers and unlucky kids)

John said...

Now I do understand that the Unions do some good for their older, more degreed and more outspoken members. I mean tenure after ~3 years and all the perks that come with are great for those workers.

I just don't think it is that good for the kids or for the tax payers.