Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Law is Working

[LibocalypseNow]

Teachers just whine too much. That's been my experience anyway. I blame the Unions & Democrats for this. They have created Entitlement Frankensteins with America's Teachers. Most are trained and indoctrinated to ***** about everything. The fact is,they don't have it nearly as bad as they claim. Take a closer look at all their fantastic perks and you'll see this. Teachers need to stop all the complaining and just get to work. The Children are depending on them.

 

[GHook93]

Teachers don't have it nearly as bad as they claim. They are by far the biggest whiners in this country. No other Profession bitches as much as they do. All Weekends off,Several Weeks of Holiday time off,and entire Summers off. Yea they have it so bad. No other Professions in this country enjoy the kind of perks Teachers enjoy. Yet Teachers do the most complaining. I and many other Americans are just sick of all their whining. You don't like being a Teacher? Then get the **** out and go find something else to do for a living. No one wants to hear more endless bitching.

And trust me,many other American Workers have it much worse than Teachers do. Many would kill for all Weekends off,Numerous Weeks of Holiday Time off,and entire Summers off. Unions and Democrats have encouraged this Entitlement attitude on the part of Teachers. But most other Americans are completely sick of listening to Teachers whining about everything. They actually have it pretty good. Now it's time for them to just shut up and do their jobs. Enough is enough for God's sake.

Heck not even the teachers in Wisconsin have it bad, in fact they have it much much better than CA teachers and their ultra powerful unions!

Benefits in General:
(1) Average WS teacher salary $55K (not bad at all)
(2) Luxurative Pension Plan - Less than 1% of private sector employees have a pension plan.
(3) Weekends, nights, holidays (a lot more than private sector workers), winter and spring vacation. They also get summers off, but still get paid and can easily find temp work in tutoring or summer school.
(4) Even with now contributing to their healthcare and pension plans, the amounts are far less than what private employees contribute to their healthcare and individual retirement plans (401K).
(5) Tenure - This communist policy makes it nearly impossible to fire teachers. Must be nice.

Benefits over CA Teachers:
(1) Lower income and sales tax in WS than CA. Meaning they keep more of their money.
(2) Lower property costs. $55K can provide for a family in WS, but not even close in CA!
(3) Lower cost of living. WS has a lower cost of living in general, CA one of the highest!
(4) Smaller class rooms and less children who can't speak English in WS.
(5) WS teachers now have the choice of not having their wages stolen by their union!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Correlation does not imply causation.

Well actually you could say it doesn't prove causation.

Like correlation doesn't prove that cutting taxes increases revenues, correct?

Why do you always change the subject when you've lost an argument?

If you want make the argument that there's no corrrelation between unionism and higher wages,

by all means, go ahead. Otherwise, **** off.

 

[Dr.House]

Well actually you could say it doesn't prove causation.

Like correlation doesn't prove that cutting taxes increases revenues, correct?

Why do you always change the subject when you've lost an argument?

If you want make the argument that there's no corrrelation between unionism and higher wages,

by all means, go ahead. Otherwise, **** off.

The argument is there is no causation in your pretty little chart...

Changing the subject won't help you, dumbfuck...

 

[elvis]

Well actually you could say it doesn't prove causation.

Like correlation doesn't prove that cutting taxes increases revenues, correct?

Why do you always change the subject when you've lost an argument?

If you want make the argument that there's no corrrelation between unionism and higher wages,

by all means, go ahead. Otherwise, **** off.

in other words, you just admitted defeat. thanks for clearing that up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not to mention they are a money machine for the Democrats. No fairness in that...
I'd bet most public union and private union members do not like the unions or the Democrats. They fair of them..

I believe what we are seeing is the beginning of the end of Unions as we have known them.
I also think the welfare system is going to change in a big way.

So when teachers make less money and have fewer benefits,

how is that going to cause kids to learn better?

WI teachers are not making less money... Nor are they having fewer benefits...

Stop lying...

Go read the thread about the Kaukauna WI school district and get back to us.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do you always change the subject when you've lost an argument?

If you want make the argument that there's no corrrelation between unionism and higher wages,

by all means, go ahead. Otherwise, **** off.

in other words, you just admitted defeat. thanks for clearing that up.

Are you retarded? Oh wait we've already established that.

daveman is the one saying there's no correlation between unionization and wages/benefits.

 

[Big Fitz]

So when teachers make less money and have fewer benefits,

how is that going to cause kids to learn better?

WI teachers are not making less money... Nor are they having fewer benefits...

Stop lying...

Go read the thread about the Kaukauna WI school district and get back to us.

Their money is turned into benefits that don't get reduced. That is not a paycut as much as a re-allocation.

I'm using your fuzzy definition method. How's it working?

 

[elvis]

If you want make the argument that there's no corrrelation between unionism and higher wages,

by all means, go ahead. Otherwise, **** off.

in other words, you just admitted defeat. thanks for clearing that up.

Are you retarded? Oh wait we've already established that.

daveman is the one saying there's no correlation between unionization and wages/benefits.

Listen, NYcuminhisrear, you're the one who changes the subject every time you lose. Are you going to get pissed off and start pissing on veterans again?

 

[Dr.House]

So when teachers make less money and have fewer benefits,

how is that going to cause kids to learn better?

WI teachers are not making less money... Nor are they having fewer benefits...

Stop lying...

Go read the thread about the Kaukauna WI school district and get back to us.

Dude, you're wasted kind of early aren't you?

The teacher's salaries are not being cut and their benefits will stay the same... In fact, 2500 teachers will remain employed thanks to the WI legislature...

They are NOT making less money NOR are they receiving fewer benefits, no matter how you want to spin it...

It's working well for at least one school district... I'm sure there'll be more...

Now, **** off...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do you always change the subject when you've lost an argument?

If you want make the argument that there's no corrrelation between unionism and higher wages,

by all means, go ahead. Otherwise, **** off.

The argument is there is no causation in your pretty little chart...

Changing the subject won't help you, dumbfuck...

That's hee-larious. All you 'nuts NOW want to claim there's no cause and effect relationship between unionization and compensation?

So why are you bitching about unions? Why are you claiming unionized public sector workers (or any workers for that matter) have too much power through their unions to get too much in wages and benefits?

I mean, if there's no causation there, then your entire argument would be ******* retarded?

Is that what you want to admit? That unionization isn't the cause of better wages and benefits?

That's priceless.

 

[Dr.House]

Why do you always change the subject when you've lost an argument?

If you want make the argument that there's no corrrelation between unionism and higher wages,

by all means, go ahead. Otherwise, **** off.

in other words, you just admitted defeat. thanks for clearing that up.

Wait... Now he'll start rambling about the Tea Party or something equally unrelated...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Government Unions cost a whole lot of cash in the end. So who stands up for the Taxpayer? I'm actually proud of Mr. Walker in Wisconsin. Someone finally standing up for the Taxpayer is a good thing. I understand why Democrats and Unions are vilifying him though. He's getting in the way of their own greedy self-interests. That's what Government Unions and Democrats are all about in the end. They don't care about Budget problems and helping out Taxpayers. They only care about themselves. If i was in charge,i would abolish all Government Unions immediately. They really are a menace to society.

 

[Dr.House]

in other words, you just admitted defeat. thanks for clearing that up.

Are you retarded? Oh wait we've already established that.

daveman is the one saying there's no correlation between unionization and wages/benefits.

Listen, NYcuminhisrear, you're the one who changes the subject every time you lose. Are you going to get pissed off and start pissing on veterans again?

Life is simple for him... His mom's basement gets lonely and he's tired of ******* the old bean bag chair...

 

[Big Fitz]

If you want make the argument that there's no corrrelation between unionism and higher wages,

by all means, go ahead. Otherwise, **** off.

The argument is there is no causation in your pretty little chart...

Changing the subject won't help you, dumbfuck...

That's hee-larious. All you 'nuts NOW want to claim there's no cause and effect relationship between unionization and compensation?

So why are you bitching about unions? Why are you claiming unionized public sector workers (or any workers for that matter) have too much power through their unions to get too much in wages and benefits?

I mean, if there's no causation there, then your entire argument would be ******* retarded?

Is that what you want to admit? That unionization isn't the cause of better wages and benefits?

That's priceless.

Not sure you even know what a corollary is anymore. But I did see you moving the goalposts. Your chart does not prove what you claim as you show no direct association between the two outside of time.

Why do I feel like I've been drinking after reading your posts over an extended period?

Here, I'll even throw in one guaranteed to work "Tiger Repellent Rock". Normally retails at 25k.

 

[Dr.House]

Well actually you could say it doesn't prove causation.

I know - thats what we said...

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK, so now that we've established that daveman, Big Fitz, Dr. House, and Elvis (and whoever else is in this clown car)

do NOT believe that unionization causes higher wages or better benefits,

my question to the bunch is:

Why then do you think the government of Wisconsin can save money by weakening the unions, or getting rid of them?

Why do you support that position in general, for any unionization?

 

[Dr.House]

OK, so now that we've established that daveman, Big Fitz, Dr. House, and Elvis (and whoever else is in this clown car)

do NOT believe that unionization causes higher wages or better benefits,

my question to the bunch is:

Why then do you think the government of Wisconsin can save money by weakening the unions, or getting rid of them?

Why do you support that position in general, for any unionization?

I have never made that caim...

Your penchant for moving goalposts when you are failing is astounding.... I'm pretty sure you'll hit on all the logical falacies today - probably even in this thread alone....

Keep it coming - quite amusing...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well actually you could say it doesn't prove causation.

I know - thats what we said...

I was wrong. After further review, I believe it does,

but if you want to deny it and take the position that unionization doesn't cause higher wages and benefits,

let's hear it.

 

[Big Fitz]

OK, so now that we've established that daveman, Big Fitz, Dr. House, and Elvis (and whoever else is in this clown car)

do NOT believe that unionization causes higher wages or better benefits,

my question to the bunch is:

Why then do you think the government of Wisconsin can save money by weakening the unions, or getting rid of them?

Why do you support that position in general, for any unionization?

Ahhhh, he's trying to negotiate for peace and compromise.

Nice try for a logic trap though. "If cutting unions causes savings, then people are being paid less. Therefore my graph is right."

The fact that unionization has increased in the public sector while plummeting to a greater extent in all other sectors is not taken into account. All wages are lumped together, and nothing is separated out giving appropriate weight or analysis to the causes of why unionization is lost, and what is replacing it. With the creation of the TSA, and DoHS we should have seen a massive spike in earnings around 2003, but we don't. All those union jobs, and they have been some of the largest areas of union growth in the last 25 years, should have had an impact.

Therefore you need to account for this.

Still have this Tiger Repellent Rock available. I'll give you a 1000 dollar coupon if you purchase in the next 10 posts. A tiger has never come within miles of it in 10,000+ years according to experts. How can you go wrong with such reliability?