Thread: Collective Bargaining in Wisconsin

Originally Posted by Blood

I could not find one such article that compares Wisconsin's public teacher salaries to "median households."

That is because they don't tell you where they are getting the number from. They lead you to believe they are comparing apples to apples, but if you look up the government census information the number they are using is based on “median household income.” I find that to be very manipulative. I looked it up, and the numbers match, however, that is 'not' the average individual income.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

If that's the average then that's the average, I'll take your word for it, but just remember that all that really means is that many teachers are earning below that and some are earning above that.

I have no problem with public school teachers earning $60,000 a year. And as I've stated before... in my opinion and one teaching in college with a Ph.D. should make about $100,000 or more a year.

I don't know how true it is but someone (adult student) told me tenured professors at UW-Milwaukee with their doctorates earn around $40,000 a year.

I'm hoping that's incorrect information I've heard. I don't have the motivation to find out for myself how true it is.

But I think the U.S. is too anti-teacher. It will probably pay for this in the future. And I'm not particularly speaking about this Wisconsin issue. I'm talking about a certain frame of mind people on the political right tend to have about public school teachers.

I have no problem with public school teachers earning $60,000 a year either. The thing I have a problem with is a union unfairly determining the market value of a public school teacher who is compensated with taxpayer money. Let’s face it -- whenever there is a compensation issue between the union and the elected official, the elected official is branded as the bad guy. It is pushed to the public that they are anti education and the kids will suffer. In reality the elected official is trying to work within a budget, and is forced to rob one account to pay another. Therefore, like I said in my original post, if the public is willing to pay more taxes to better compensate the individuals working in the public sector, while leaving enough revenue to pay the remaining bills, so be it. Should the public say ‘no’ – we can’t afford to be taxed anymore then who is now the bad guy. The teachers are then forced to direct their anger toward the public therefore their agenda would be exposed for what it is.

Another thing: I am pretty sure that union dues are collected through payroll deduction by the employer, and then paid to the union. I don’t see how it is the responsibility of the taxpayer funded accounting department to provide that service to a union who then spends their cut on negative campaign ads to push their own political agenda.

Originally Posted by ClosetWriter

That is because they don't tell you where they are getting the number from. They lead you to believe they are comparing apples to apples, but if you look up the government census information the number they are using is based on “median household income.” I find that to be very manipulative. I looked it up, and the numbers match, however, that is 'not' the average individual income.

They? What about you? You looked what up? Nobody but you is comparing Wisconsin teacher's salaries, all of whom are required to have at least a bachelors, to "median households incomes," members of which are not even required to complete high school. You should also note that teachers salaries are factored into "median household incomes" as well. So you are essentially comparing apples to thin air.

Let's see here, if I could choose one actual example of the meaning "manipulative," it would probably look something like...

Originally Posted by ClosetWriter

I am not sure why this issue really gets my blood boiling. (But) the real issue with me is the fact that a union represents public sector employees (and) I have a huge problem with that.

Okay, maybe if you actually knew why...(fill in the rest. There are just too many options for me to pick).

Originally Posted by ClosetWriter

I have no problem with public school teachers earning $60,000 a year either. The thing I have a problem with is a union unfairly determining the market value of a public school teacher who is compensated with taxpayer money. Let’s face it -- whenever there is a compensation issue between the union and the elected official, the elected official is branded as the bad guy.

It does not sound to me like you're branding 'the elected official' as the bad guy here, and they did create this whole mess. All this is BS anyway, it's not even budget related. Some people are just impervious to the truth no matter how many times they're beat over the head with it. We call them conservative republicans.