Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh poor GOP. Yall thought sticking it to teachers was good politics.
LOL
How does asking teachers in unions to partially contribute to their pensions and health insurance equate to "sticking it to teachers"? Collective bargaining in this bill remains for teachers and their unions to negotiate their salaries, just not all the addtionals like insurance and benefits.
Do Democrats and the unions really think that them sticking it to the children (closing schools so they can neither get an education or their state funded meals) and the taxpayer (by requiring them to pay what they cannot afford) is going to garner them empathy in future contract negotiations? Really?
It is a poor point. individuals do not pay $7 million to watch an athlete. No one is compelled to pony up money for sports events. Plus in most cities they have choice in sports. Maybe it teachers aloowed school choice you would see some very well compensated employees. teachers want all the upside but none of the down side. Bad teachers are paid trhe same as good teachers not so, in sports, bad athletes loose their jobs, but fast.
I am not sure what role coporate interests play in the fact that we are out of money, something has to give. Asking teachers to make modest concessions is not outrageous. their behavior in Wisconsin is.
Throwing money at education does zero to improve it. Are you suggesting if we paid teachers more they would teach better?
You don't get it. We value athletes more than teachers. We don't bat an eye if an athlete is making that much money. However, people get upset that the teacher making $41,000 a year wants decent healthcare coverage. It's more about the cultural attitudes of education, not about directly paying salaries.
Teachers allowing or disallowing school choice would have no bearing on compensation.
We shouldn't subsidize the large corporations in the world and then have cuts for teachers. THAT'S outrageous. Teachers asking to have COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (WHICH IS THE MAIN POINT!!!) is not outrageous, it's justifiable.
LOL, it seems the teachers, their unions and the Dems are looking very bad here. It is the same scenario that played out in NJ. Except the Dem politicians weren't dumb enough to ignore the will of the people.
Cutting teachers, police officers, and firefighters to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
Cutting teachers, police officers, and firefighters to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
Great strategy.
Tsk, tsk, tsk tax cuts for the rich? Crazy talk. You know eventually you will run out of other peoples money. It is time to put on our big boy pants and live within our means. Fortunately the people of the great state of New Jersey understand this. I suspect the people of Wisconsin do too.
By the way who said anything about cutting . It's the teachers choice, make a modest contribution to their benefits or saving will have to be acheived thorugh layoffs. The teachers hard line position is hardly a great strategy. Againsomething we saw in NJ. Half our school budgets were voted down because teachers wouldn't contribute to their benefits.
Cutting teachers, police officers, and firefighters to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
Great strategy.
No, that is just to pay benefits for the unionized teachers unwilling to compromise and join in contributing toward their own benefits.
There has been no "tax cut" for the rich. You are trying to combine a state issue with a federal one and using false premise in the process.
I know it is tough Winter_S*cks; but, please try to contribute to this thread with something of substance instead of the usual deflection and hyperbole.
How does asking teachers in unions to partially contribute to their pensions and health insurance equate to "sticking it to teachers"? Collective bargaining in this bill remains for teachers and their unions to negotiate their salaries, just not all the addtionals like insurance and benefits.
Do Democrats and the unions really think that them sticking it to the children (closing schools so they can neither get an education or their state funded meals) and the taxpayer (by requiring them to pay what they cannot afford) is going to garner them empathy in future contract negotiations? Really?
That's still outrageous. Why should people end collective rights on HEALTHCARE, or tuition repayment (you have to have at LEAST a bachelors degree to become a teacher and then a year on top of that for credentialing), or pension (it's not as if the high wages of teaching will be enough to create a wonderful nest egg after retirement).
Cuts are one thing, ending collective bargaining is another. Shouldn't we focus on providing more incentives to become a teacher to attract more talent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
