Charles Woodson and Wis. Protesters

[PackCrazed4]

First, ask yourself WHY the state is in debt. It isn't because of the hired help. It's a part of the world-wide financial collapse.

Second, people should have the right to collectively bargain. Things were not so rosy in the 1800s.

3rd, if you believe that in order to compete with the rest of the world, American corporations (and government) have to lower wages, cut health care costs, and cut retirement benefits by shifting them to the employee, explain this:

How is the average worker supposed to buy food, pay rent (not a mortgage, that is impossible on 10-15 dollars/hr), pay for health care, have a family, and save money for retirement?

Either the private sector pays wages that allow for the worker to care for himself; or the government does. The alternative is revolution.

Workers need to be economically independent and not wards of the state. But you can't be economically independent on $15/hour.

Our economy is doomed if well paying jobs are a thing of the past.

Yeah, but JBlood, that's the point. We live in a country where you can choose where to work, competition. If the government isn't offering you enough money to work for them, then you find a job elsewhere. Not to mention the fact that even with the reduction in pensions, it will still be better than a 401K plan.

Of course it's the Feds fault all the states are bankrupt, but unfortunately, the states still have to run themselves and can only control their own situations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if something doesn't happen with cuts in spending, more government layoffs are imminent. It sucks that they have to do it, but if it were me, I'd rather take a slight pay cut than lose my job all together.

 

[LAG]

Let's face it, there is less money to go around then there used to be. Deep cuts have to be made in the public sector, just as there has been the last few years in the private sector. The problem is, no one wants to be at the receiving end of these cuts and they will howl loud and long if they are.

My property taxes have gone up 75% in the last eight years. My salary and benies have been severely chopped the last several years. Bargain - schmargin. I sure am not one to say go ahead and raise my taxes to continue funding public sector jobs as they currently are and side with the public workers crying fowl right now.

 

[SpartaChris]

Here's my question for those who support the unions and pensions for the public sector:

Why should the individuals who work for the state receive better retirement benefits and pensions than the people who fund their paychecks (ie. the majority in the private sector)? Private companies offer their employees 401Ks where they're LUCKY to have their paid-in portion of their income matched. So for a state that is up to their eyeballs in debt, doesn't it make sense to level the playing field for government jobs in accordance with private jobs so the tax dollars can put towards relieving the debt?

Furthermore, how can you justify retiring at 50 with a tax-payer funded pension while your neighbor, who makes less than you do, has to work until he's 75 and has to provide for his own retirement?

 

[SpartaChris]

My dad was a teacher/Vice Principle in the State of Wisconsin in the 60-70s's and his pension pay is crazy good. He's making more form the State of Wisconsin plus SS now then he did when he was working. He's making over 6 figures in retirement!! He loves the State of Wisconsin teacher retirement fund!! Granted, the pension fund he is in was shut down in the 80's cause they realized how much $$ it would cost the state later. So he lucked out kind of. There is also a COLA he gets each year of 3% (although if you factor in gas/food cost of living is closer to 10%). When he dies, the payments transfer to my mother! No, I'm not kidding you!

The pensions are still pretty good. Which is why your seeing those people protest. They don't want to lose what they have. What they really should be protesting is Wall Street which created the economic mess that is causing all the states to have budget shortfalls.

Due respect to your dad, but it's ridiculous to have that kind of pension system. I get they realized early on that type of system was insolvent, but there is absolutely NO reason why government union workers should receive a pension funded by tax payers. Working for the government doesn't make them special, and they shouldn't be treated as such.

As for pinning all the blame on wall street, I don't think all the blame should fall there but should be distributed equally among them, the government who coerced Fannie Mae into lowering their lending standards, and the consumers who knowingly bought houses they couldn't afford.

The Clinton administration wanted to make it easier for people who couldn't meet normal lending standards to buy homes, so they coerced Fannie Mae to lower their lending standards. They also repealed the Glass-Steagall act, thereby allowing investment and traditional banks to merge.

You also had people making $12/hour buy $1Million homes, using those stated income, no money down, interest only loans. Consumers were being just as greedy as traders on wall street, speculating on the continued dramatic increase of property values.

There was a perfect, greed driven storm created by the government and perpetrated by investors and consumers looking to make an easy buck. The end result is the crisis we have today.

Something else to consider, as it pertains to government deficits, is many local and state governments made these pension deals when times were good, never taking into account what could happen if times were bad. It's classic mismanagement, which is why you see so many cities having problems today.

 

[SpartaChris]

Your right, but the Governor wants em to pay more for em. my bad.

Are they paying anything to begin with?

We had two union strikes here in CA over the last couple years- The food workers and the teachers union. Both were because their respective organizations wanted them to actually start contributing something towards their own health care and retirement, rather than having it fully funded.

Ridiculous.

 

[mradtke66]

Furthermore, how can you justify retiring at 50 with a tax-payer funded pension while your neighbor, who makes less than you do, has to work until he's 75 and has to provide for his own retirement?

Well, that's a falasy--state employees do not make more than private employees.

DISCLAIMER: I am a state employee (UW), NOT union.

The benefits of state employment are good. The straight pay (salary) isn't. I laughed at the first salary offer that was made to me--I could have gotten much more elsewhere and $12,000 more than the offer I ended up accepting. That is not a made up number, that is the number I received from a competing, private-sector job.

When state benefits + public salary are compared to private benefits + private salary, ergo 'total compensation,' it's not so out of whack. Depending on what numbers you read, the state ends up as "right about average" to "slightly below average."

Specifically about teachers, they're the ones that will get hurt the worst. My job easily translates to the private sector and I can leave (relatively easily) if this adjustment hurts me bad enough. A teacher's job does not and they cannot leave so easily. I greatly fear teachers leaving the state for a state that does pay better and fewer college students becoming teachers, leading to a teacher shortage.

 

[LombardiChick]

This was drawn by a liberal cartoonist (Phil Hands) in the Wisconsin State Journal, as I understand it. It rather sums it up for a lot of the people out here who are buying their own health care and planning for their own retirement. When teachers lose a guy like this, and lose public opinion (polling is starting to come out), maybe they need to think things through a little more - just sayin':

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[SpartaChris]

Well, that's a falasy--state employees do not make more than private employees.

DISCLAIMER: I am a state employee (UW), NOT union.

The benefits of state employment are good. The straight pay (salary) isn't. I laughed at the first salary offer that was made to me--I could have gotten much more elsewhere and $12,000 more than the offer I ended up accepting. That is not a made up number, that is the number I received from a competing, private-sector job.

When state benefits + public salary are compared to private benefits + private salary, ergo 'total compensation,' it's not so out of whack. Depending on what numbers you read, the state ends up as "right about average" to "slightly below average."

Specifically about teachers, they're the ones that will get hurt the worst. My job easily translates to the private sector and I can leave (relatively easily) if this adjustment hurts me bad enough. A teacher's job does not and they cannot leave so easily. I greatly fear teachers leaving the state for a state that does pay better and fewer college students becoming teachers, leading to a teacher shortage.

It's not a fallacy in my state. Here in CA, most state union workers make way more money their their private corporation counter parts.

In fact, take a look at this: PayScale - Receptionist Wages, Hourly Wage Rate by Employer Type

Compare the national average Government- State and Local wages for a receptionist to that of a private practice or company receptionist. The wages are in fact higher.

 

[LombardiChick]

Well, that's a falasy--state employees do not make more than private employees.

DISCLAIMER: I am a state employee (UW), NOT union.

The benefits of state employment are good. The straight pay (salary) isn't. I laughed at the first salary offer that was made to me--I could have gotten much more elsewhere and $12,000 more than the offer I ended up accepting. That is not a made up number, that is the number I received from a competing, private-sector job.

When state benefits + public salary are compared to private benefits + private salary, ergo 'total compensation,' it's not so out of whack. Depending on what numbers you read, the state ends up as "right about average" to "slightly below average."

Specifically about teachers, they're the ones that will get hurt the worst. My job easily translates to the private sector and I can leave (relatively easily) if this adjustment hurts me bad enough. A teacher's job does not and they cannot leave so easily. I greatly fear teachers leaving the state for a state that does pay better and fewer college students becoming teachers, leading to a teacher shortage.

Aren't you kind of comparing apples to oranges? Your situation, because you are non-union, rings very true to me. I have a friend - not a teacher, not a union member - who works at a state college here who is continually getting screwed because when cuts are made, it is the non-union employees that must sacrifice, while the union members enjoy their raises.

He keeps the job because jobs are hard to find right now, but he took about a $20K paycut to work there. (Yes, he can leave, and someday I'm sure he will.)

As for Wisconsin teachers, I looked up a few salaries in public records this past week, including the salary of someone I know personally. Taking into consideration how few days they actually work, they seem to me to be doing just fine. The administrator of the tiny school district I grew up in makes over $100K before his benefits package is factored in.

It's just hard for a lot of us to feel sorry for these people, given the small sacrifice the governor is asking of them. (See the cartoon above.)

 

[LombardiChick]

Wisconsin’s teachers make a little more money than they’re letting on

Wisconsin’s 2010 Teacher of the Year, Leah Lechleiter-Luke of Mauston, told CNN the budget changes would force her to look for additional part-time work.

“When people say that public sector employees live high off the hog, I’d like to share that for 13 of my 19-year teaching career I have held a part-time job either in the summer or teaching night class at the local technical college,” Lechleiter-Luke told CNN. “In addition to tightening the belt even more and crossing our fingers that nothing breaks, I will need to find part-time work again.”

Lechleiter-Luke makes $54,928 in base salary and $32,213 in “fringe benefits,” which include health insurance, life insurance and retirement pay.

Brad Lutes and his wife, Heather Lutes, told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz that Walker’s budget would hit them twice as hard.
“Having to explain to an 8- and 10-year old that the governor of your state basically wants to take money away from dad and mom? It’s just really, really frustrating,” Brad Lutes told Schultz.

He makes $49,412 in base salary with $27,987 in fringe benefits and his wife makes $50,240 with $9,413 in benefits. That’s $137,052 annually between the two of them.

I know engineers with long, impressive resumes (Microsoft and more) who work twelve months a year and make less money than Leah Lechleiter-Luke...and I live in an area where the average house still costs half a million dollars.

​

 

[mradtke66]

Just some quick notes before I finish my lunch and stop reading here....

1) Union vs. Non-union pay scales: they generally are on par here. Feel free to visit Employment Opportunities at UW-Madison to look at the jobs postings.

2) When I say "teachers," I mean teachers, not administrators. What does a fresh college grad teacher make? How does that compare to their education level? The total hours spend working each day? Yes, they get summers "off," but being a teacher has some of the most-stringent professional-growth requirements, ie, more education, that is typically done over the summer.

2a) The teachers that make, by your opinion, a more-than-fair wage, how many of them have an advanced (masters) degree?

 

[SpartaChris]

Wisconsin’s teachers make a little more money than they’re letting on

I know engineers with long, impressive resumes (Microsoft and more) who work twelve months a year and make less money than Leah Lechleiter-Luke...and I live in an area where the average house still costs half a million dollars.

​

Excellent post. Most every time the unions here in California try and paint some kind of dire picture, it's discovered they're really just entitled, self absorbed jerks who really don't care if everyone else has to make sacrifices, so long as you don't ask the to.

 

[packers4life]

super bowl 45 woulda been even easier for the packers if charles woodson didnt get hurt

 

[LombardiChick]

Excellent post. Most every time the unions here in California try and paint some kind of dire picture, it's discovered they're really just entitled, self absorbed jerks who really don't care if everyone else has to make sacrifices, so long as you don't ask the to.

Posting from my phone...per capita income in Mauston is $21k, median is $32k. Just a bit of perspective regarding the information above.

One other point regarding what teachers make: we all make choices in life in our career path. I'm fairly certain that teachers at any stage of their employment - just out of college or nearing retirement - had some idea what their compensation would be. Looks to me like it's more than fair, especially since we're talking about nine months of work per year.

Will answer more when not on my phone.

 

[JBlood]

Yeah, but JBlood, that's the point. We live in a country where you can choose where to work, competition. If the government isn't offering you enough money to work for them, then you find a job elsewhere. Not to mention the fact that even with the reduction in pensions, it will still be better than a 401K plan.

Of course it's the Feds fault all the states are bankrupt, but unfortunately, the states still have to run themselves and can only control their own situations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if something doesn't happen with cuts in spending, more government layoffs are imminent. It sucks that they have to do it, but if it were me, I'd rather take a slight pay cut than lose my job all together.

Yes, competition is good. But if the prevailing wage is $15/hr, who is going to pay more and still stay competitive? And if "free trade" means that the prevailing wage drops to $5/hr, what recourse does the average worker have but to accept it, assuming the idea of collective bargaining is tossed aside?
The prevailing wage scale limits mobility of workers between jobs. I suppose if there are no jobs, you could say that everyone has the right to become a doctor, lawyer or financier and still do fine. Is that reasonable?

The point I'm trying to make is that the aim of any successful economy is to provide for the common man. If that isn't accomplished, the economy will crumble.

Just before the economic collapse in 2008 Steve Forbes claimed that the world's economy was healthy due in large part to the number of new billionaires that had appeared. He was wrong, but Forbes still likes to talk about all the new billionaires that have been made during the world collapse, while country after country are on the brink of credit default--including the United States.

Market supplies require market demand to balance them. A few billionaires can not possibly buy everything that a consumer economy needs to produce to stay healthy.

 

[Forget Favre]

Posting from my phone...per capita income in Mauston is $21k, median is $32k. Just a bit of perspective regarding the information above.

One other point regarding what teachers make: we all make choices in life in our career path. I'm fairly certain that teachers at any stage of their employment - just out of college or nearing retirement - had some idea what their compensation would be. Looks to me like it's more than fair, especially since we're talking about nine months of work per year.

Will answer more when not on my phone.

I don't really know all that much there is to know about this issue.
I do think that workers deserve rights and what is coming to them.
However I have a hunch that a lot of these workers are just blindly following what the unions are telling them to do and not really thinking for themselves.
And are they really going to be hurting with the proposed changes? Or are they so spoiled and used to the way things are for them?
Change is never easy, especially when it's something beyond someone's control.
Maybe it's a natural urge to rebel against change in some cases.

They wanna protest? Fine. I don't like the governor either, but I'm not going to waste my time against something I don't care about in the first place either.

And I really don't care about this issue since it isn't one of my battles but I do have an opinion and this is a place to express that.

 

[Lunchboxer]

Sence when this Board be come a Political forum.

I dont give a **** about Politics.

All I care about is The Green Bay Packers,Football,Hockey and other stuff.

 

[jkrelt]

That said, while I'll fully admit I don't know what they're arguing about, and nor do I care,

“I’m teaching the novel ‘1984’ right now where they try to keep the people stupid and out of power,” said Milwaukee high school teacher Katherine Katter. “I don't want to live that here."



On topic:
I'm glad Woodson spoke up. He has a voice and he should be able to use it...especially in the off-season. He is speaking on behalf of himself, not the GBP.

Off topic:
I'm a 2nd year middle school teacher; not too removed from college at the University of Minnesota with a masters in education...and for good measure, a life long packer fan. Without going into a long story here, I can tell you that I'm not rich, I'm not greedy and I'm not irrational.

Wisconsin: I encourage you to know your facts. Too much is nationally at stake (in historic proportions) for you guys to take sides without knowing BOTH sides of the story. Simply stated, be informed.

 

[fettpett]

“I’m teaching the novel ‘1984’ right now where they try to keep the people stupid and out of power,” said Milwaukee high school teacher Katherine Katter. “I don't want to live that here."

The teacher obviously didn't read 1984 very well as that is NOT what is going on in WI.

On topic:
I'm glad Woodson spoke up. He has a voice and he should be able to use it...especially in the off-season. He is speaking on behalf of himself, not the GBP.

He's entitled to his opinion as are all the Packers, I would just prefer that they kept their opinion on such matters to themselves at a time like this as there are a lot of emotion on both sides attached to the issue.

Off topic:
I'm a 2nd year middle school teacher; not too removed from college at the University of Minnesota with a masters in education...and for good measure, a life long packer fan. Without going into a long story here, I can tell you that I'm not rich, I'm not greedy and I'm not irrational.

no, but even as an entry level teacher in WI you make more than the median for less time on the job. And main focus is on how greedy and powerful the Teachers Unions are, not individual teachers

Wisconsin: I encourage you to know your facts. Too much is nationally at stake (in historic proportions) for you guys to take sides without knowing BOTH sides of the story. Simply stated, be informed.

I agree with this. Many on both sides that don't know the info. Though I've seen much more on the left using their Union's talking points instead of doing their research.

 

[PackCrazed4]

Yes, competition is good. But if the prevailing wage is $15/hr, who is going to pay more and still stay competitive? And if "free trade" means that the prevailing wage drops to $5/hr, what recourse does the average worker have but to accept it, assuming the idea of collective bargaining is tossed aside?
The prevailing wage scale limits mobility of workers between jobs. I suppose if there are no jobs, you could say that everyone has the right to become a doctor, lawyer or financier and still do fine. Is that reasonable?

The point I'm trying to make is that the aim of any successful economy is to provide for the common man. If that isn't accomplished, the economy will crumble.

Just before the economic collapse in 2008 Steve Forbes claimed that the world's economy was healthy due in large part to the number of new billionaires that had appeared. He was wrong, but Forbes still likes to talk about all the new billionaires that have been made during the world collapse, while country after country are on the brink of credit default--including the United States.

Market supplies require market demand to balance them. A few billionaires can not possibly buy everything that a consumer economy needs to produce to stay healthy.

Unless Wisconsin minimum wage drops to $5/hour, which it isn't at, then you'll never have to worry about jobs reaching that pay level. There's a reason it's called competition, in the private sector, all jobs have a value and are paid accordingly.

The original intent of unions was to protect workers from being taken advantage of by big business or big government at a time where there was absolutely no regulation of business and the workplace. Well, since their ingratiation into society, things like Minimum Wage, Injured Workers' compensation, Child Labor, Paid Vacation, Maternity leave, and a myriad of other job protections have been adopted into the U.S. legal system, therefore, making things like Collective Bargaining slightly obsolete. Regardless of where you work, you're protected, everyone has rights and no one can violate them without a lawsuit.

It's the matter of whether someone has the RIGHT to 100% paid retirement. All the governor wants is a reduction in that pension plan so that the public's taxes can be put towards relieving debt. Wisconsin is broke, where else can this money be acquired? Taxes are already high, that's out. It's a brutal reality, but something has to be done.

 

[fettpett]

I think it was Belling or Skyes a few years ago made the comment that it seemed that in WI they look over the tax code see what isn't in the top 10 nationally and make the move to put it there. At the time they were talking about the cigarette tax hike, but it's not surprising that they have that attitude.

 

[JBlood]

"Wisconsin is broke, where else can this money be acquired?"

Excellent point. Why are we broke? Maybe it's Wall Street and the handful of banks that control 90+% of the derivatives trading. That's who lost the world's money, and that's who is being paid back by "stimulus" money, which will be paid back by our taxes.

Wouldn't it make sense to identify the reasons they were allowed to gamble and lose 10 times the GDP of the world, and then be bailed out because they were "too big to fail"?

After identifying the problems maybe then they could be corrected. That would save a lot more tax money than what the governor is trying to do.

That's assuming that saving tax money is the most important part of this to him.

 

[PackersPete]

Why are we broke? Ask the Liberals why we pay so much in taxes and why we're broke. Their answers are AMAZING.

 

[PackCrazed4]

"Wisconsin is broke, where else can this money be acquired?"

Excellent point. Why are we broke? Maybe it's Wall Street and the handful of banks that control 90+% of the derivatives trading. That's who lost the world's money, and that's who is being paid back by "stimulus" money, which will be paid back by our taxes.

Wouldn't it make sense to identify the reasons they were allowed to gamble and lose 10 times the GDP of the world, and then be bailed out because they were "too big to fail"?

After identifying the problems maybe then they could be corrected. That would save a lot more tax money than what the governor is trying to do.

That's assuming that saving tax money is the most important part of this to him.

Like I said before, you're identifying a larger issue that is out of the State's hands. Sure, lets go riot the White House to get Obama to do something, but really, how realistic is that? My only hopes of the National financial situation to be resolved at this point is a new President with a plan of attack. Obama has seemingly exhausted his tactics to get us out of this mess, so 2012 here we come. In the meantime, Walker's trying his best to at least put a band-aid on the situation, or hopefully a nice cast, haha.

 

[JBlood]

Every state has lost money gambling in interest rate swaps, credit default swaps, etc. just like the federal government. It is the reason we are where we are. It isn't isolated.

Walker's actions are more like putting a tourniquet on a wound instead of a bandaid. Eventually the limb dies with a tourniquet.