You've got to be shitting me! Mitch McConnell has suddenly decided that it's Congress's job to stop a President from going to war? WTF was he in 2003 when we invaded a country where the dictator was NOT waging war against his own people, was NOT criticized by the U.N. AND the Arab League, did NOT have WMD (as it seems to have turned out), and clearly did NOT have anything to do with the 9-11 attacks? Where was he to stop an invasion in which we were NOT joined by every neighboring military force?
Is his (and the rest of Congress's, and the entire Fox News audience's) memory really that short? I guess we can forgive him for forgetting our nearly solo, non-U.N. sanctioned invasion of Iraq. After all, the strategy was so well planned that it was over and done almost immediately.
What's that? Oh, this just in: we're still mired in that useless OIF mess!
So really, before we go casting those stones, let's glance outside our shattered glass houses for a minute and just admit that the only reason to criticize the current president for going along with the rest of the world and preventing the wholesale slaughter of innocent Libyans at the hands of their completely f'd up dictator is because nothing President Obama does will ever be good enough for his opponents. EVEN if what he does is kind of the right way of what his predecessor got so wrong just 9 years ago!
Please.
Luth
Out
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Apples, oranges, and more myths about teaching
You hear a lot of talk these days about how teachers only "work" for 9 months a year. Technically, even that's a stretch according to the logic of the comment. They really only "work" for about 180 days. (well, most contracts cover something like 192 days, give or take but still...) In many circles, that's really only 6 months! So the teacher in my previous example, (the one with 27 years experience and a PhD) could make $89,000 for just 6 months worth of "work." Holy shit. How are so many people laying off a job like that? Could it be there's more to it? Is it possible our definition of "work" when applied like this is a little twisted?
The problem with this logic is that it only makes sense when you define the word "work" as "performance delivery." Let's look at how this definition might apply to other professions to gain a better understanding of what that means.
Wal-Mart is a retail giant. Their actual "work" consists solely of selling stuff to customers. So by the definition that says teachers only "work" for 6 months a year, Wal-Mart employees only "work" when customers pass through the checkout line. Stocking shelves isn't work. Unloading trucks isn't work. Cleaning floors or bringing carts in from the parking lot isn't work. Hiring, paying, scheduling employees isn't work. Hell, by this definition, Wal-Mart management and administrative folks never work a day in their lives! The only folks who actually work for Wal-Mart are the cashiers. And they only work when accepting money from customers during the actual exchange of that money for a Wal-Mart good or service. Bagging purchases isn't work. Answering questions isn't work. Counting out a drawer at the end of a shift isn't work.
How about actors or entertainers? The average musician is lucky to make one hit song in his lifetime. That song is usually around three minutes long. So by our definition of work, the average musician only works about three minutes in a lifetime. The missed takes in the studio while recording this song aren't work. Subsequent play of the song on a radio, in a commercial, etc. aren't work. The time spent learning to play an instrument, writing a thousand shitty songs that eventually become the hit, rehearsing, auditioning, putting bands together, touring, breaking bands up...not work.
Actors appear in a play or on a movie screen for about 90 minutes. So they only work for the 90 minutes that it takes an audience to see the movie or play. Producers, directors, set-builders, stunt men... none of those people ever actually work by our current definition of working. Just the actors who actually deliver a performance - and then, only during the actual performance. The fact that it can take up to a year to film a movie doesn't factor into our definition of work. The only actual work we're counting now is the time during which the performance is actually delivered.
How about manufacturing employees? Their job is to put things together. So stocking their supply bins isn't work. Cleaning their areas and keeping them free of hazards isn't work. Gathering, inspecting, maintaining tools? Not work. Attending production meetings isn't work. They only work when actually putting a part on whatever they're building. Picking up the part isn't work. Inspecting it isn't work. Tossing a bad part aside isn't work. Work, by our definition, only happens when the employee is in the act of putting that part on whatever he's building. Clearly, by this definition of work, people like production schedulers, HR specialists, or, say, quality assurance engineers don't ever actually work. Truck drivers who deliver the parts don't work (at least not in this scenario), the people who process payroll for manufacturing plants don't actually work. The folks who built the building don't work. Not by our new definition that says work is only performance delivery.
How about boxers? They only work something like 7.5 to 25 minutes - or three to ten 2.5-minute rounds, maybe ten times a year. We've all heard people say, "I'd get in the ring with Mike Tyson for $10 million!" And according to our new definition of work, we should all be able to do that. Training isn't work. Developing one's talents isn't work. Starting in Golden Gloves at the age of 10 and living in the gym for ten years isn't work. A decade as an amateur getting the shit beat out of you isn't work. Going from normal training regimens to intense 12 hours/day, 7 days/week workouts for 8 weeks before the fight isn't work. Work, by our definition, only consists of the time spent in the ring during the actual fight.
I like that comparison because like a boxer, when the bell rings, teachers are ON. There are no timeouts between the bells. Teacher's "rounds" usually last around 45 minutes. They get a little longer than boxers between rounds. (During which, technically, they are not working.) These breaks between rounds are usually something like 3 to 5 minutes, during which they get to do fun things like break up fights, answer homework questions, call parents, meet with their boss, set up for the next class, monitor a hallway or playground, and occasionally even go to the bathroom.
Those "6-hour" days that teachers "work" are pretty intense. There's no leisurely stroll from the coffee machine to the bathroom or the water cooler. There's no asking if a colleague saw that episode of Idol last night - those are all saved for the 20-minute lunch period, which, by the way, does not count as work either! There's no room to nurse a hangover, or check your portfolio, call the bank, drop off a library book... or pretty much anything else, as is generally the case in most non-teaching jobs. You can't fake it. You can't call it in. Kids will eat you alive... but only for the 180 days you're actually "working" so it's no big deal. Hell, it's a part-time job.
Of course, grading papers isn't work. Meeting with parents for conferences isn't work. Helping students with homework outside of class time isn't work. Neither are getting a degree before being qualified to apply for a license, continuing with one's education (at one's own expense) over the entire course of the career in order to be able to keep a license, or writing lesson plans, serving on committees, planning and overseeing graduation ceremonies, field trips, pep-rallies, interventions, drug programs, teen pregnancy programs, or just listening to a student whose parents are never home or never sober or never not yelling at them. These things aren't work and teachers don't get paid to do them. They only get paid for their 9-months of "work."
And then there's the whole concept of working for an "entire year." The apples and the oranges. Let's take a closer look at that as well. The typical American work week is 40 hours over 52 weeks, adding up to 2080 hours a year. No one in America regularly works every single one of those weeks. It is common practice for manufacturing to shut down between Christmas and New Years. Now we're down to 2040 hours. Many manufacterers repeat this for inventory (not work, by the way) again in the summer. 2000 hours. Most full-time employees take at least a week off (and if they're full-time, most are paid for it) each year. 1960 hours. But let's be generous and say the average American "works" 2000 hours a year. That's 250 days. Hmmm. Nine months is 270 days. The average American employee works LESS than 250 days. Sounds like MOST Americans only "work" 9 months a year!! (Of course, by our definition, they're not really "working" all that time... they're just getting paid.) So when you "adjust" teacher pay to reflect what it would be IF teachers worked for an entire year, do you also adjust the pay of people with "real jobs" AS IF they worked for an "entire year?"
And we haven't even begun to cover the actual hours worked during the school year for most teachers. I'll bet it's closer to that 2080 figure than most people with similar education and experience work in their "whole year" jobs.
C'mon man...Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh can oversimplify tougher arguments this! Apples and oranges, my friend, apples and oranges.
Luth
Out
The problem with this logic is that it only makes sense when you define the word "work" as "performance delivery." Let's look at how this definition might apply to other professions to gain a better understanding of what that means.
Wal-Mart is a retail giant. Their actual "work" consists solely of selling stuff to customers. So by the definition that says teachers only "work" for 6 months a year, Wal-Mart employees only "work" when customers pass through the checkout line. Stocking shelves isn't work. Unloading trucks isn't work. Cleaning floors or bringing carts in from the parking lot isn't work. Hiring, paying, scheduling employees isn't work. Hell, by this definition, Wal-Mart management and administrative folks never work a day in their lives! The only folks who actually work for Wal-Mart are the cashiers. And they only work when accepting money from customers during the actual exchange of that money for a Wal-Mart good or service. Bagging purchases isn't work. Answering questions isn't work. Counting out a drawer at the end of a shift isn't work.
How about actors or entertainers? The average musician is lucky to make one hit song in his lifetime. That song is usually around three minutes long. So by our definition of work, the average musician only works about three minutes in a lifetime. The missed takes in the studio while recording this song aren't work. Subsequent play of the song on a radio, in a commercial, etc. aren't work. The time spent learning to play an instrument, writing a thousand shitty songs that eventually become the hit, rehearsing, auditioning, putting bands together, touring, breaking bands up...not work.
Actors appear in a play or on a movie screen for about 90 minutes. So they only work for the 90 minutes that it takes an audience to see the movie or play. Producers, directors, set-builders, stunt men... none of those people ever actually work by our current definition of working. Just the actors who actually deliver a performance - and then, only during the actual performance. The fact that it can take up to a year to film a movie doesn't factor into our definition of work. The only actual work we're counting now is the time during which the performance is actually delivered.
How about manufacturing employees? Their job is to put things together. So stocking their supply bins isn't work. Cleaning their areas and keeping them free of hazards isn't work. Gathering, inspecting, maintaining tools? Not work. Attending production meetings isn't work. They only work when actually putting a part on whatever they're building. Picking up the part isn't work. Inspecting it isn't work. Tossing a bad part aside isn't work. Work, by our definition, only happens when the employee is in the act of putting that part on whatever he's building. Clearly, by this definition of work, people like production schedulers, HR specialists, or, say, quality assurance engineers don't ever actually work. Truck drivers who deliver the parts don't work (at least not in this scenario), the people who process payroll for manufacturing plants don't actually work. The folks who built the building don't work. Not by our new definition that says work is only performance delivery.
How about boxers? They only work something like 7.5 to 25 minutes - or three to ten 2.5-minute rounds, maybe ten times a year. We've all heard people say, "I'd get in the ring with Mike Tyson for $10 million!" And according to our new definition of work, we should all be able to do that. Training isn't work. Developing one's talents isn't work. Starting in Golden Gloves at the age of 10 and living in the gym for ten years isn't work. A decade as an amateur getting the shit beat out of you isn't work. Going from normal training regimens to intense 12 hours/day, 7 days/week workouts for 8 weeks before the fight isn't work. Work, by our definition, only consists of the time spent in the ring during the actual fight.
I like that comparison because like a boxer, when the bell rings, teachers are ON. There are no timeouts between the bells. Teacher's "rounds" usually last around 45 minutes. They get a little longer than boxers between rounds. (During which, technically, they are not working.) These breaks between rounds are usually something like 3 to 5 minutes, during which they get to do fun things like break up fights, answer homework questions, call parents, meet with their boss, set up for the next class, monitor a hallway or playground, and occasionally even go to the bathroom.
Those "6-hour" days that teachers "work" are pretty intense. There's no leisurely stroll from the coffee machine to the bathroom or the water cooler. There's no asking if a colleague saw that episode of Idol last night - those are all saved for the 20-minute lunch period, which, by the way, does not count as work either! There's no room to nurse a hangover, or check your portfolio, call the bank, drop off a library book... or pretty much anything else, as is generally the case in most non-teaching jobs. You can't fake it. You can't call it in. Kids will eat you alive... but only for the 180 days you're actually "working" so it's no big deal. Hell, it's a part-time job.
Of course, grading papers isn't work. Meeting with parents for conferences isn't work. Helping students with homework outside of class time isn't work. Neither are getting a degree before being qualified to apply for a license, continuing with one's education (at one's own expense) over the entire course of the career in order to be able to keep a license, or writing lesson plans, serving on committees, planning and overseeing graduation ceremonies, field trips, pep-rallies, interventions, drug programs, teen pregnancy programs, or just listening to a student whose parents are never home or never sober or never not yelling at them. These things aren't work and teachers don't get paid to do them. They only get paid for their 9-months of "work."
And then there's the whole concept of working for an "entire year." The apples and the oranges. Let's take a closer look at that as well. The typical American work week is 40 hours over 52 weeks, adding up to 2080 hours a year. No one in America regularly works every single one of those weeks. It is common practice for manufacturing to shut down between Christmas and New Years. Now we're down to 2040 hours. Many manufacterers repeat this for inventory (not work, by the way) again in the summer. 2000 hours. Most full-time employees take at least a week off (and if they're full-time, most are paid for it) each year. 1960 hours. But let's be generous and say the average American "works" 2000 hours a year. That's 250 days. Hmmm. Nine months is 270 days. The average American employee works LESS than 250 days. Sounds like MOST Americans only "work" 9 months a year!! (Of course, by our definition, they're not really "working" all that time... they're just getting paid.) So when you "adjust" teacher pay to reflect what it would be IF teachers worked for an entire year, do you also adjust the pay of people with "real jobs" AS IF they worked for an "entire year?"
And we haven't even begun to cover the actual hours worked during the school year for most teachers. I'll bet it's closer to that 2080 figure than most people with similar education and experience work in their "whole year" jobs.
C'mon man...Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh can oversimplify tougher arguments this! Apples and oranges, my friend, apples and oranges.
Luth
Out
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Teacher pay and "tenure" myths
Strangely, I've been in two conversations in the past month wherein a conversant has invoked the outrageous pay for teachers in a particular area school district.
I'm going to make up names to protect the innocent here, but I can't help but be amused at the way some people arrive at what they believe to be facts, especially when it involves something so easy to track down like the public salary of a public employee in a public institution.
So anyway, in the first conversation my counterpart noted as fact that teachers in this school district can achieve "six-figure retirement packages." She added that she's seen the contract that guarantees this.
Given that the general formula for calculating teacher retirement in the state of Ohio is something along the lines of 80% of your highest three years, this means teachers in this particular district must average $125,000 a year for three years in order to make $100,000 a year (six figures) in retirement. So, in the course of those high three years, they'll actually make more than $125,00 in order to achieve that as their average.
A quick check of the particular school's website gives us the following myth-busting information:
The top pay on this year's scale (presumably the highest) is $89,354.00.
I know, I know... seems like a lot for a teacher, right? Does it seem like a lot for someone with 27 years of experience in their field and a PhD? 'Cuz that's the only way you'll hit this rare territory. I'm willing to bet there are few outside of teaching with those qualifications who make that little... and even fewer who are entrusted with the responsibilities of a teacher.
But the bigger point is, 80% of 89,000 will never be six figures.
This doesn't mean no teacher in that district could ever retire with a six figure pension. All he or she would have to do is pick up a mere $36,000 in supplemental contracts, like coaching, class advisor, band director, department head, etc. Given that the average supplemental contract runs somewhere in the $1,500 neighborhood (according to the district's April 2010 board minutes) this teacher would merely have to coach 24 different sports each year... for three straight years, after teaching for 27 years and earning a PhD. That sounds do-able.
I'm calling this one busted.
While the other conversation referenced this same district, it was in relation to "tenure." Another popular myth when it comes to teaching these days. If by "tenure" what you refer to is a "continuing contract," then yes, tenure still exists in the teaching profession - as it does in just about every profession. But here's where the misconception begins. New teachers are typically offered one-year contracts. Like all contracts, upon termination, there is no expectation of renewal. Do your job, and you will likely get renewed, but there's no obligation either way. You don't have to stay. They don't have to keep you. Various districts then have procedures to move returning folks into two- or three-year contracts, typically for the first five to ten years of their career. Once you reach that stage, you are then eligible to be offered, or to ask for a "continuing contract."
This, apparently, is what folks think of when they say "tenure." What most folks outside the profession don't realize is that this is where MOST employees OUTSIDE of teaching start. You may have to survive a probationary period of between 30 days and a year, but once that's over, you become a "permanent" employee... just like teachers on a continuing contract. This doesn't mean you can't be fired. It just means your employer must show cause to fire you. As long as you perform according to your job standards, it's pretty tough to show cause for termination. Again, this is no different for most employees than it is for "tenured" teachers on a continuing contract. The only difference is that few employees outside of teaching need to prove themselves for three-five years AFTER getting a degree AND a license to achieve this "tenure."
So yeah, teachers in this district could retire with six-figure pensions, but it's pretty unlikely. And yeah, teachers can still achieve "tenure," but I don't think what you think is what I think we were really thinking. What?
Luth
Out
I'm going to make up names to protect the innocent here, but I can't help but be amused at the way some people arrive at what they believe to be facts, especially when it involves something so easy to track down like the public salary of a public employee in a public institution.
So anyway, in the first conversation my counterpart noted as fact that teachers in this school district can achieve "six-figure retirement packages." She added that she's seen the contract that guarantees this.
Given that the general formula for calculating teacher retirement in the state of Ohio is something along the lines of 80% of your highest three years, this means teachers in this particular district must average $125,000 a year for three years in order to make $100,000 a year (six figures) in retirement. So, in the course of those high three years, they'll actually make more than $125,00 in order to achieve that as their average.
A quick check of the particular school's website gives us the following myth-busting information:
The top pay on this year's scale (presumably the highest) is $89,354.00.
I know, I know... seems like a lot for a teacher, right? Does it seem like a lot for someone with 27 years of experience in their field and a PhD? 'Cuz that's the only way you'll hit this rare territory. I'm willing to bet there are few outside of teaching with those qualifications who make that little... and even fewer who are entrusted with the responsibilities of a teacher.
But the bigger point is, 80% of 89,000 will never be six figures.
This doesn't mean no teacher in that district could ever retire with a six figure pension. All he or she would have to do is pick up a mere $36,000 in supplemental contracts, like coaching, class advisor, band director, department head, etc. Given that the average supplemental contract runs somewhere in the $1,500 neighborhood (according to the district's April 2010 board minutes) this teacher would merely have to coach 24 different sports each year... for three straight years, after teaching for 27 years and earning a PhD. That sounds do-able.
I'm calling this one busted.
While the other conversation referenced this same district, it was in relation to "tenure." Another popular myth when it comes to teaching these days. If by "tenure" what you refer to is a "continuing contract," then yes, tenure still exists in the teaching profession - as it does in just about every profession. But here's where the misconception begins. New teachers are typically offered one-year contracts. Like all contracts, upon termination, there is no expectation of renewal. Do your job, and you will likely get renewed, but there's no obligation either way. You don't have to stay. They don't have to keep you. Various districts then have procedures to move returning folks into two- or three-year contracts, typically for the first five to ten years of their career. Once you reach that stage, you are then eligible to be offered, or to ask for a "continuing contract."
This, apparently, is what folks think of when they say "tenure." What most folks outside the profession don't realize is that this is where MOST employees OUTSIDE of teaching start. You may have to survive a probationary period of between 30 days and a year, but once that's over, you become a "permanent" employee... just like teachers on a continuing contract. This doesn't mean you can't be fired. It just means your employer must show cause to fire you. As long as you perform according to your job standards, it's pretty tough to show cause for termination. Again, this is no different for most employees than it is for "tenured" teachers on a continuing contract. The only difference is that few employees outside of teaching need to prove themselves for three-five years AFTER getting a degree AND a license to achieve this "tenure."
So yeah, teachers in this district could retire with six-figure pensions, but it's pretty unlikely. And yeah, teachers can still achieve "tenure," but I don't think what you think is what I think we were really thinking. What?
Luth
Out
Save Money by eliminating collective bargaining?
I'm about the most anti-union liberal you'll find, but Governors Walker, Kasich, and Christie must be on crack if they think anyone other than complete idiots believes collective bargaining by public employees is the cause of today's state budget struggles.
I can't blame them for trying. To quote one of my favorite movies:
"They got this depression on. I gots to do for me and mine."
And as another character in that movie says,
"Hard times will flush the chumps. Everybody's looking fer answers."
Here's an answer: It's a recession (and it has nothing to do with collective bargaining rights)
I don't want to get into the arguments about whether or not raising taxes increases or decreases revenue, (although Walker's office's own figures make pretty clear that he's offered Wisconsin corporations, whose taxes are already ridiculously reduced, more in tax cuts - over two years - than their one year gap needs) but I will get into some of the myths you have to buy in order to think Walker... or Kasich (who's been a lot quieter with his union-busting plans since the protests in Wisconsin grew so loud)... or Christie are on track with this wacky idea.
Myth 1: Public employees make more than private employees
I know, I know, two charts in a million-page BLS report showed this was true, but those two charts don't prove much other than the old saying, "figures lie, and liars figure." If you look beyond those two charts made famous in USAToday, at some of the rest of those million pages in the BLS report, you'll note that simple adjustments for little things like education, or the size of the employer, tell us what common sense tells us: public employees still make between 5 and 15% LESS than private employees.
Here are some examples from a Rutgers study that dug a little beyond the two BLS charts:
Average National Salaries by Education
Public ..... Private
$44,000 ..... 44,000 ... high school diploma
$56,641 ..... 89,041 ... bachelors degree
$79,330 ..... 157,141 ... professional degree (lawyers, doctors)
(note how teacher and professor salaries tend to hold the high end of this down! NICE! What do they do to create jobs?)
Yep, those public employees are ROBBING us with their out of control salaries.
OK, you say, but what about retirement benefits? Well, if we're talking about states like Wisconsin, the benefits currently being paid to retirees of the state of Wisconsin are being funded out of the salaries of current Wisconsin employees, as is the case in most retirement systems, including Social Security.
In fact, another study by University of Wisconsin Econ professors showed after adjusting for education and employer size, public sector employees make 11% less than their private sector counterparts.
The Economic Policy Institute says it's more like 4.8% (8.2 until you factor in benefits)... but it's still LESS. Public employees make LESS than their private sector counterparts. No one's saying they're underpaid or overpaid, just that they make less. LESS. L-E-S-S.
What these big business, dare I say Koch-addled? governors are telling us simply isn't true.
Myth 2: Unions won't discuss cuts in desperate times
Bullshit. Like the auto industry showed us, management gave away the store rather than bothering to negotiate with unions during the good times. This same shortsightedness leaves them searching for someone to blame during the tough times. How much discussion has Governor Walker had with the unions that represents Wisconsin public employees? Collective bargaining simply means that management and labor DISCUSS these cuts, not that cuts can't be made. In fact, government intervention that prohibits such discussion sounds like just the opposite of what Republicans came to Washington to do. It sounds like bigger government forcing itself into matters where it doesn't belong.
Myth 3: Eliminating collective bargaining is the ONLY way for Wisconsin to balance their budget
Well, let's check in with free-market, high rolling, big business Texas, who did away with their public employees' collective bargaining rights years ago. Oh wait, maybe we shouldn't, since their deficit is bigger than Wisconsin's!! Hmmm, must have been something else wrong there. OK, how about we look at Federal Air Traffic Controller salaries. Seems like I remember some little incident wherein they gave up their rights to bargain. Oh, that's right, FEDERAL employees are even MORE overpaid than state and local employees. Sounds like doing away with the bargaining rights might just have the opposite effect Governor Walker is looking for in their case. So we'll skip them too.
OK, let's look at some of the numbers in Wisconsin. They're facing a one year shortfall of about $140 million. Governor Walker would have us believe that doing away with collective bargaining rights so he can cut the salaries of public employees is the only way to fix the problem. In essence, he wants to TAX - that's right, I said TAX 175,000 Wisconsin residents (public employees). How else would you describe taking money from their paychecks to run the government? But I thought he wasn't going to raise taxes?!
Before you look up what percentage that is of Wisconsin's total population, let's point out that the governor's own figures claim they'll cut $165 million just by restructuring debt. The governor won't discuss the fact that a 1.5% tax increase on just the wealthiest 2% of Wisconsin residents and corporations - a far smaller chunk of the population - would more than cover their woes even during this recession... even if these hikes were temporary, because he won't discuss raising taxes. Not even 1.5% on the wealthiest 2%. (but wait...he'll raise them by a far higher percent on 175,000 public employees??) Never mind the fact that corporate tax revenue to the state has been cut in half since 1981. Never mind the fact that the Wisconsin Department of Revenue reports 2/3 of Wisconsin corporations pay NO taxes. NONE. NADA. ZIP. In what kind of world is it right for corporations to have more rights than actual citizens? Is this what he won't discuss with public employee unions? Is it because these corporations don't use the public roads, utilities, police and fire protection, or other services the state provides? (seriously?) NO. (you weren't actually thinking about that were you?) It's because these corporations funded the governor's campaign.
All right, all right. I got off the rails a little there. The point is, it sure seems like there's a lot more wiggle room in this budget than the governor is letting on.
Myth 4: Public employee salaries are insulated from and therefore do not reflect what the market would support
Have you been following this story at all? OK, even if we use the most conservative figures, public employees make about 95% of what their private sector counterparts make, less when compared equally by education, less still when comparing by size of employer, but let's go with 95%. So this means that they make about 95% less than what the free market supports in the outside world. In other words, the marketplace has determined these salaries are about where they should be. So... why then are these free-market governors trying to intervene with what the free and open market has established. Isn't this exactly the opposite of what they came to Washington to do? Oh wait, that's right. They only manipulate the free and open market for the banking industry and the hedge fund managers who made $1.5 million PER HOUR last year! We certainly can't discuss raising their taxes even temporarily to close the recession induced gaps. After all, we can squeeze a little more out of teacher and garbage collector pay before we have to burden those guys!
So... tell me one more time how doing away with collective bargaining rights of public employees solves the recession-induced budget woes of the state of Wisconsin?
Or is this just a political move capitalizing on desperate times in order to bust the union and claim a quick, hollow victory to brag about in the next election cycle? Hmmm... maybe it's that kind of shortsighted thinking that helped Wisconsin get into this mess in the first place. Or maybe it just has something to do with the worst recession in 75 years.
Shhhhh, my common sense is tingling.
Luth
Out
I can't blame them for trying. To quote one of my favorite movies:
"They got this depression on. I gots to do for me and mine."
And as another character in that movie says,
"Hard times will flush the chumps. Everybody's looking fer answers."
Here's an answer: It's a recession (and it has nothing to do with collective bargaining rights)
I don't want to get into the arguments about whether or not raising taxes increases or decreases revenue, (although Walker's office's own figures make pretty clear that he's offered Wisconsin corporations, whose taxes are already ridiculously reduced, more in tax cuts - over two years - than their one year gap needs) but I will get into some of the myths you have to buy in order to think Walker... or Kasich (who's been a lot quieter with his union-busting plans since the protests in Wisconsin grew so loud)... or Christie are on track with this wacky idea.
Myth 1: Public employees make more than private employees
I know, I know, two charts in a million-page BLS report showed this was true, but those two charts don't prove much other than the old saying, "figures lie, and liars figure." If you look beyond those two charts made famous in USAToday, at some of the rest of those million pages in the BLS report, you'll note that simple adjustments for little things like education, or the size of the employer, tell us what common sense tells us: public employees still make between 5 and 15% LESS than private employees.
Here are some examples from a Rutgers study that dug a little beyond the two BLS charts:
Average National Salaries by Education
Public ..... Private
$44,000 ..... 44,000 ... high school diploma
$56,641 ..... 89,041 ... bachelors degree
$79,330 ..... 157,141 ... professional degree (lawyers, doctors)
(note how teacher and professor salaries tend to hold the high end of this down! NICE! What do they do to create jobs?)
Yep, those public employees are ROBBING us with their out of control salaries.
OK, you say, but what about retirement benefits? Well, if we're talking about states like Wisconsin, the benefits currently being paid to retirees of the state of Wisconsin are being funded out of the salaries of current Wisconsin employees, as is the case in most retirement systems, including Social Security.
In fact, another study by University of Wisconsin Econ professors showed after adjusting for education and employer size, public sector employees make 11% less than their private sector counterparts.
The Economic Policy Institute says it's more like 4.8% (8.2 until you factor in benefits)... but it's still LESS. Public employees make LESS than their private sector counterparts. No one's saying they're underpaid or overpaid, just that they make less. LESS. L-E-S-S.
What these big business, dare I say Koch-addled? governors are telling us simply isn't true.
Myth 2: Unions won't discuss cuts in desperate times
Bullshit. Like the auto industry showed us, management gave away the store rather than bothering to negotiate with unions during the good times. This same shortsightedness leaves them searching for someone to blame during the tough times. How much discussion has Governor Walker had with the unions that represents Wisconsin public employees? Collective bargaining simply means that management and labor DISCUSS these cuts, not that cuts can't be made. In fact, government intervention that prohibits such discussion sounds like just the opposite of what Republicans came to Washington to do. It sounds like bigger government forcing itself into matters where it doesn't belong.
Myth 3: Eliminating collective bargaining is the ONLY way for Wisconsin to balance their budget
Well, let's check in with free-market, high rolling, big business Texas, who did away with their public employees' collective bargaining rights years ago. Oh wait, maybe we shouldn't, since their deficit is bigger than Wisconsin's!! Hmmm, must have been something else wrong there. OK, how about we look at Federal Air Traffic Controller salaries. Seems like I remember some little incident wherein they gave up their rights to bargain. Oh, that's right, FEDERAL employees are even MORE overpaid than state and local employees. Sounds like doing away with the bargaining rights might just have the opposite effect Governor Walker is looking for in their case. So we'll skip them too.
OK, let's look at some of the numbers in Wisconsin. They're facing a one year shortfall of about $140 million. Governor Walker would have us believe that doing away with collective bargaining rights so he can cut the salaries of public employees is the only way to fix the problem. In essence, he wants to TAX - that's right, I said TAX 175,000 Wisconsin residents (public employees). How else would you describe taking money from their paychecks to run the government? But I thought he wasn't going to raise taxes?!
Before you look up what percentage that is of Wisconsin's total population, let's point out that the governor's own figures claim they'll cut $165 million just by restructuring debt. The governor won't discuss the fact that a 1.5% tax increase on just the wealthiest 2% of Wisconsin residents and corporations - a far smaller chunk of the population - would more than cover their woes even during this recession... even if these hikes were temporary, because he won't discuss raising taxes. Not even 1.5% on the wealthiest 2%. (but wait...he'll raise them by a far higher percent on 175,000 public employees??) Never mind the fact that corporate tax revenue to the state has been cut in half since 1981. Never mind the fact that the Wisconsin Department of Revenue reports 2/3 of Wisconsin corporations pay NO taxes. NONE. NADA. ZIP. In what kind of world is it right for corporations to have more rights than actual citizens? Is this what he won't discuss with public employee unions? Is it because these corporations don't use the public roads, utilities, police and fire protection, or other services the state provides? (seriously?) NO. (you weren't actually thinking about that were you?) It's because these corporations funded the governor's campaign.
All right, all right. I got off the rails a little there. The point is, it sure seems like there's a lot more wiggle room in this budget than the governor is letting on.
Myth 4: Public employee salaries are insulated from and therefore do not reflect what the market would support
Have you been following this story at all? OK, even if we use the most conservative figures, public employees make about 95% of what their private sector counterparts make, less when compared equally by education, less still when comparing by size of employer, but let's go with 95%. So this means that they make about 95% less than what the free market supports in the outside world. In other words, the marketplace has determined these salaries are about where they should be. So... why then are these free-market governors trying to intervene with what the free and open market has established. Isn't this exactly the opposite of what they came to Washington to do? Oh wait, that's right. They only manipulate the free and open market for the banking industry and the hedge fund managers who made $1.5 million PER HOUR last year! We certainly can't discuss raising their taxes even temporarily to close the recession induced gaps. After all, we can squeeze a little more out of teacher and garbage collector pay before we have to burden those guys!
So... tell me one more time how doing away with collective bargaining rights of public employees solves the recession-induced budget woes of the state of Wisconsin?
Or is this just a political move capitalizing on desperate times in order to bust the union and claim a quick, hollow victory to brag about in the next election cycle? Hmmm... maybe it's that kind of shortsighted thinking that helped Wisconsin get into this mess in the first place. Or maybe it just has something to do with the worst recession in 75 years.
Shhhhh, my common sense is tingling.
Luth
Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)