Who to blame.... government or school board (Milwaukee, Racine: buy, school districts)

[Schiben]

My wife is a teacher and I believe has her opinion of Gov Walker swayed by union talk. I'm no fan of unions either having been abused by one and having friends and family have similar experiences. I've been a supporter of Walker for the most part, although it creates tension between my wife and I. My question is... if my wifes school district are doing some things I think is pretty rediculous. Should I be upset that Walker changed poicies to allow this stuff to happen - or - is it still directly and only the fault of the local school board for taking their powers and making poor decisions?

I'm leaning towards blaming the school disctrict for this but I feel a little resentment for this only being able to happen because of the governor I sopport.

[Kchomps]

Originally Posted by Schiben

My wife is a teacher ...I'm no fan of unions

This is a VERY VERY important point that intentionally gets "confused" by people/a union that has a ve$ted interest in it being so.

There are 'unions' and there are 'public employee unions'.
Private sector unions.
Anyone can form a union if they wish, in the private sector. If they raise the costs on their employer too much, then the employer either goes out of business or raises their prices for their product then the consumers get to choose if their product's price is too high or not. If "the people" (aka 'consumers') think it's worth the high price, they'll buy the product/service and the business will keep on functioning and their unionized employees will keep, well, being employed.

PUBLIC unions: These are government workers.
Government, by definition, is a monopoly. "the people" (aka 'consumers') have no choice in whether or not to 'purchase' their services. The police power (enforcement) of government means that once a law/regulation is created, 'the people' are forced to consume their service.

But there are two catches with 'government unions':
1. Even if 'we' as individuals don't choose to consume their product, we are charged for it. (involuntary dispersion of cost)
and;
2. These are the only employees that 'elect' their own bosses (politicians).

So......

[Milwaukee City]

Who's to blame? the wife who spends too much or the husband who says that's it no more spending we need to make some cuts in our spending and reduce our budget to live within our means? Some politicians tread water while in office(Ahem Tommy B/Herb Kohl) and more times than not the politicians who come in and change things(Gov.Christie) and shake things up on both sides of the spectrum end up getting ridiculed or even losing their job. Which is why 99% of politicians stay away from so called "hot-button" issues because while it's usually hot-button tend to be of more importance they are also called by their other nick-name "Career-enders" aka Job Killers. Whatever you think of Scott Walker his willing to actually try to fix things no matter how unpopular they are with the masses is nothing short of commendable. To risk it all for your ideas is something we do not see in politics today and we the voters are to blame. We want government spending to be cut but not from anything that affects us, we want change in our government but nothing that affects us, we want politicians with bold ideas but not too bold.

Before we chastise our leaders I think we need to take a long hard look in the mirror and really ask ourselves what we want and how do we want it and are we willing to make the very hard choices that need to be made.

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by Kchomps

This is a VERY VERY important point that intentionally gets "confused" by people/a union that has a ve$ted interest in it being so.

There are 'unions' and there are 'public employee unions'.
Private sector unions.
Anyone can form a union if they wish, in the private sector. If they raise the costs on their employer too much, then the employer either goes out of business or raises their prices for their product then the consumers get to choose if their product's price is too high or not. If "the people" (aka 'consumers') think it's worth the high price, they'll buy the product/service and the business will keep on functioning and their unionized employees will keep, well, being employed.

PUBLIC unions: These are government workers.
Government, by definition, is a monopoly. "the people" (aka 'consumers') have no choice in whether or not to 'purchase' their services. The police power (enforcement) of government means that once a law/regulation is created, 'the people' are forced to consume their service.

But there are two catches with 'government unions':
1. Even if 'we' as individuals don't choose to consume their product, we are charged for it. (involuntary dispersion of cost)
and;
2. These are the only employees that 'elect' their own bosses (politicians).

So......

I really do not care if there is as many private unions in the USA, but I do not think that public unions should exist.

I as a taxpayer pay for the salaries for all those union bosses as my taxes help pay for the people employed who in turn pay their unions.

since I as a taxpayer do not get a say in their unions and who they can or cannot support, then public unions should never have existed in the 1st place.

[Milwaukee City]

It also depends which school district she works for. Racine, Janesville, Milwaukee signed new contracts before Walkers ACT 10 was in effect so they the school districts weren't able to have more flexibility in talking with WEAC. Therefore they had to lay off a bunch of teachers and they laid off the new ones the young teachers. So these school districts choose to layoff new younger teachers in order to keep their current contracts, so much for union brotherhood.