Wisconsin Teachers, and their Salaries

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Let's set something straight right now. What is going on in Wisconsin with Governor Scott Walker, the legislature, Democrats running away to avoid a vote, the unions, and collective bargaining, at its roots, has nothing to do with busting government sector unions, or dropping the salary of teachers. In fact, salary is not even a part of the argument if you were to look at the proposed budget. What is going on is simply the state government officials attempting to balance the budget, and a part of that proposal is to limit collective bargaining allowances for public sector employees on everything except salary. The ability to negotiate salary would be unaffected. In addition to the limitations, the public employees would be asked to contribute more of their own money to their pension and health care benefits, an amount that would still be far less than what their private counterparts have to contribute, on average.

Okay, now understanding all of that, let's read liberal neurotic Tom's comment on the post "Wisconsin Acting Like Third Graders."

Tom said...

Do you think public sector workers are paid more than private sector?

I'm guessing you have absolutely no idea.

12:01 AM

And Here Is My Response To His Question:

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

Like usual it is you that proves that you know absolutely nothing about what you say. You love to assume. My wife was a private school teacher for many years. Her sister works in the public sector as a teacher. My cousin in Texas teaches at the public schools, and I have a good friend here in California who is the administrator of one of the larger private high schools in Orange County. By in large the public school teachers make more money, but that is not always the case. For the most part the public school teachers have better health insurance packages, and in every case I know of have a better pension plan. Yet, the private schools put out students that are more advanced than public school students, and they do it on a third of the budget. But the premise of your question is not really the point. It does not matter who makes more, or less, or whatever. The fact is the teachers in the public sector, such as in Wisconsin, are making more and have better benefits packages than the average taxpayer as the taxpayers reach a point of not being able to afford it anymore. In short, there is no money. So the real issue here is, do the teachers accept limitations on collective bargaining (on all aspects of their contracts except salary - that's your other show of idiocy, pay is not affected in what's going on in Wisconsin), or do teachers end up getting laid off? The teachers believe they can stave off both. With what money? Liberalism has broken these states. Entitlement programs and millionaire pensions for state employees have busted the treasury. There is no more money. They have run out of everybody else's money and now these people are crying - just like the idiot protesters in Greece.

6:28 AM

-------

This upheaval in Wisconsin is not about the children, it is about power, money, and the relationship between the Democrats and the Unions that basically amounts to the public sector labor unions being a money laundering scheme for the Democrats. Could this result in busting the unions, and seriously wounding the Democrat Party? Absolutely. And stopping that madness is a good thing, since the liberal agenda is largely propagated through the school system, union rhetoric, and the incredible propaganda machine the Democrats fuel largely with funding from the unions. But in the end, it is really just all about trying to balance the budget in Wisconsin, and a part of that attempt is to draw back spending to a reasonable level.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Barone: Public Unions Force Taxpayers to Fund Dems - GOP USA

Why I Don't Like the NEA - Tea Party Nation

Salvato: Oh, There’s Something Going On, But It’s Not ‘Union Busting’ - GOP USA