Victory: Wisconsin Teachers Just Voted to Disband Their Teachers Union

[asterism]

Unless you have a highly unique skill set (and really, not even then), your employer has all of the bargaining power in the "negotiation".

Yes, the one that takes 100% of the risk should have 100% of the power.
But the worker has the power of his skills and education and that is in demand.
NO employer in a business that requires something higher than "do you want fries with that" wants to treat employees unfairly.
He makes less $$$ that way.
No one cares or gives a rat's ass how much you know.
They want to know how much you CARE.
And I care about employees and their families and they make more than union wage of the same worker in a union up north here in Georgia with me.
Half of them are former union workers moved south for the freedom of no union, freedom of not being restricted to a certain union job description and not being robbed to pay for political candidates they do not support yet have to contribute to their campaigns through union dues.

No business cares about "fairness". It cares about maximizing profits. That comes, in part, of paying employees the lowest wage the market will bear.

That's only true for some businesses. That's why it might be a good idea to not make a career out of being easily replaceable.

 

[Polk]

It's true for all businesses.

 

[asterism]

They get a lot of "paid Holiday time" if you count the summer as "paid" time (they're really just getting paid less over the course of the year and receiving it in the summer).

Been down this road before. These discussions always go the same way. Numerous Teachers will show up on the thread to vehemently defend their constant whining. And then i'll grow tired & bored laying reality on em. So i won't be going down that long road this time. Teachers have played the victim and cried wolf for too long. They do enjoy fantastic perks unique to their profession. They don't have it nearly as bad as they claim. They are by far the biggest whiners of all the professions. And the Taxpayers are sick of being held hostage. If they're so unhappy, they should simply find another profession. No one likes a whiner.

The "discussions" go the same way because you claim teachers have "fantastic perks", then when pressed on the point mention a few mundane things most workers have.

Most workers do not have 3 months off each year. Most workers do not have guaranteed raises over time just for not getting fired. While teaching is one of the hardest jobs to do, it's one of the easiest careers to get get. It's a trade off and the compensation on average is fair. The main problem with teacher compensation is that there is no way for the top achievers to get wealthy and that should change.

 

[Polk]

I doubt most workers would find three months of unpaid leave desirable.

 

[Bern80]

It's true for all businesses.

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true. I have worked and currently work for a business that does treat it's employees quite well. Most businesses that require higher skilled labor do that in fact. As one increases their marketable skills they have more bargaining power and get treated better. Simple as that.

 

[Bern80]

I doubt most workers would find three months of unpaid leave desirable.

And yet you find so few teachers or teacher's union advocating for year round school. Obviously you find the time off desirable enough to forgoe the money.

 

[asterism]

It's true for all businesses.

Not true. Apple didn't innovate by paying the lowest wages, it innovated by paying the wages demanded by those who were going to grow the company with bold ideas that disrupted the market. State Farm does not keep talent by paying the lowest the market will bear, it keeps talent by providing a very generous compensation package with many separate and overlapping career tracks. It's quite hard to get a job with that firm and that's the way they want it.

In my company we pay well above market for the skills because we are good at turning functions performed by our people into money for us. We're quick to dismiss those not providing value (with generous severance), but slow to lay people off if a certain area isn't profitable.

 

[asterism]

I doubt most workers would find three months of unpaid leave desirable.

Teachers get paychecks year-round.

 

[Polk]

I doubt most workers would find three months of unpaid leave desirable.

And yet you find so few teachers or teacher's union advocating for year round school. Obviously you find the time off desirable enough to forgoe the money.

Year round school doesn't have political support. It's an idea I am strongly in favor of.

Also, what time off do I find desirable? I'm not a teacher.

 

[Polk]

I doubt most workers would find three months of unpaid leave desirable.

Teachers get paychecks year-round.

Yes, because their total compensation is split out over the calendar year. They're not being paid for the time they're not working.

 

[Polk]

It's true for all businesses.

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true. I have worked and currently work for a business that does treat it's employees quite well. Most businesses that require higher skilled labor do that in fact. As one increases their marketable skills they have more bargaining power and get treated better. Simple as that.

I never said "employers treat their employees poorly", so you're arguing against a strawman. Businesses hire the cheapest labor they can get that meets their needs. It would be crazy to expect them to do otherwise.

 

[Polk]

It's true for all businesses.

Not true. Apple didn't innovate by paying the lowest wages, it innovated by paying the wages demanded by those who were going to grow the company with bold ideas that disrupted the market. State Farm does not keep talent by paying the lowest the market will bear, it keeps talent by providing a very generous compensation package with many separate and overlapping career tracks. It's quite hard to get a job with that firm and that's the way they want it.

In my company we pay well above market for the skills because we are good at turning functions performed by our people into money for us. We're quick to dismiss those not providing value (with generous severance), but slow to lay people off if a certain area isn't profitable.

You pay people more because you have a way for them to generate additional revenue. You're not paying them more out of the goodness of your heart. You could hire a lot more people right now if your concern was generosity, but that wouldn't make any sense.

 

[Jackson]

If teachers give up their unions in Wisconsin will the school districts offer better working conditions to keep the teachers from reforming unions? Seems like teachers will now be able to play one threat against the other. Unions were formed to create better conditions, but if the state now in their attempt to keep unions out create better working conditions who was the winner?

Better working conditions is not synonymous with what's good for educating the students. Having more and more days off is not conducive to the learning process. Not expecting excellence from the teachers and meeting high standards may not be in the teachers best interest but it would be in the student's best interest. Unions were not meant to be in the best interest of education...period.

 

[Jackson]

It's true for all businesses.

Not true. Apple didn't innovate by paying the lowest wages, it innovated by paying the wages demanded by those who were going to grow the company with bold ideas that disrupted the market. State Farm does not keep talent by paying the lowest the market will bear, it keeps talent by providing a very generous compensation package with many separate and overlapping career tracks. It's quite hard to get a job with that firm and that's the way they want it.

In my company we pay well above market for the skills because we are good at turning functions performed by our people into money for us. We're quick to dismiss those not providing value (with generous severance), but slow to lay people off if a certain area isn't profitable.

You pay people more because you have a way for them to generate additional revenue. You're not paying them more out of the goodness of your heart. You could hire a lot more people right now if your concern was generosity, but that wouldn't make any sense.

In education you pay the teachers who are best at producing a valuable product, i.e., a more educated student. One who made more progress than expected in 9 months of school.
That means you pay the teachers who have the students who are scoring the best on the standardized tests. That, however comes with intrinsic problems.

 

[paulitician]

Seriously though, who really wants to send their child into today's Public School mess? Other alternatives are looking more & more appealing by the day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Seriously though, who really wants to send their child into today's Public School mess? Other alternatives are looking more & more appealing by the day.

Only if one has the money for super private schools or to move in to outstanding public school districts.

Home schooling can be a shield for predators.

 

[paulitician]

Seriously though, who really wants to send their child into today's Public School mess? Other alternatives are looking more & more appealing by the day.

Only if one has the money for super private schools or to move in to outstanding public school districts.

Home schooling can be a shield for predators.

Actually, Public Schools are much more effective shields for predators. In fact, it's a disturbing epidemic in our Public Schools today. And Teacher Unions have been despicable in consistently defending these predators. More & more parents are deciding not to chance it. They're seeking alternatives. Good for them.

 

[Gadawg73]

Unless you have a highly unique skill set (and really, not even then), your employer has all of the bargaining power in the "negotiation".

Yes, the one that takes 100% of the risk should have 100% of the power.
But the worker has the power of his skills and education and that is in demand.
NO employer in a business that requires something higher than "do you want fries with that" wants to treat employees unfairly.
He makes less $$$ that way.
No one cares or gives a rat's ass how much you know.
They want to know how much you CARE.
And I care about employees and their families and they make more than union wage of the same worker in a union up north here in Georgia with me.
Half of them are former union workers moved south for the freedom of no union, freedom of not being restricted to a certain union job description and not being robbed to pay for political candidates they do not support yet have to contribute to their campaigns through union dues.

No business cares about "fairness". It cares about maximizing profits. That comes, in part, of paying employees the lowest wage the market will bear.

What exactly, specifically is "fairness"?
And who decides what is fair?
You, the tooth fairy or GOVERNMENT?
"No business" would include all 3 of my businesses.
You believe I do not care about being "fair" to any of my employees.
When did you develop your psychic abilities?
I am headed to Calder race track in south Florida in a few weeks. Go Bananas is running there. Should I place a bet on him to place, show or win?

 

[Gadawg73]

It's true for all businesses.

Not true. Apple didn't innovate by paying the lowest wages, it innovated by paying the wages demanded by those who were going to grow the company with bold ideas that disrupted the market. State Farm does not keep talent by paying the lowest the market will bear, it keeps talent by providing a very generous compensation package with many separate and overlapping career tracks. It's quite hard to get a job with that firm and that's the way they want it.

In my company we pay well above market for the skills because we are good at turning functions performed by our people into money for us. We're quick to dismiss those not providing value (with generous severance), but slow to lay people off if a certain area isn't profitable.

You pay people more because you have a way for them to generate additional revenue. You're not paying them more out of the goodness of your heart. You could hire a lot more people right now if your concern was generosity, but that wouldn't make any sense.

Why don't you start a business and hire a lot of people and lose your ass being "fair"?
You are an unfair asshole for being so stingy with your money.

 

[Gadawg73]

It's true for all businesses.

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true. I have worked and currently work for a business that does treat it's employees quite well. Most businesses that require higher skilled labor do that in fact. As one increases their marketable skills they have more bargaining power and get treated better. Simple as that.

I never said "employers treat their employees poorly", so you're arguing against a strawman. Businesses hire the cheapest labor they can get that meets their needs. It would be crazy to expect them to do otherwise.

Do you realize how ignorant you are? How many businesses do you run or own?
In one of my businesses we are the top tier in this industry in Georgia.
I pay my employees TOP wages in this field as that is what THE MARKET DEMANDS.
THE MARKET, not what an employer wants to pay, DETERMINES THE WAGES.
And the market is very thin at the top of my field for the best of the best employees.
Stick to something you know something about. You do not know shit about running a business of any kind.