Yes, the teacher provides some value...but let's be real, where would we be without the business man?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Judge blocks contentious Wisconsin union law
- Thread starter steveox
- Start date
Yes, the teacher provides some value...but let's be real, where would we be without the business man?
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Both the teacher and the CEO provide value. the best way to determine the value of what they provide is what the market is willing to pay.
The teachers salary has been inflated by forces which are not normal market forces, i.e. laws granting unions collective bargaining rights while the CEO's value is inflated by corporate welfare. Lets eliminate both of the extra-market forces and let markets determine the best salaries.
In the case of teachers we can look at states without special bargaining rights and in the case of CEO's we can look at salaries at companies where they do not receive kickbacks etc. I am willing to bet that the CEO's at "honest" companies still make a whole lot more than teachers at "honest" school districts. Why? Because good CEO's bring more value to a company than a teacher brings to the district.
Well, teachers do merely pass on our culture to the next generation. CEOs, on the other hand, preside over everything from mining to the production of widgets.
Rick
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 1,844
CEO's and the corporations they run receive lots of money that is neither illegal nor market-based - they operate in an environment of profound government regulation, taxation, etc, which they try to affect by lobbying etc. Further, many companies receive government contracts which are highly influenced by the political, not market process. The confusion leftwingers have between the distinct concepts of "business" and capitalism is always amusing. Eg, I was speaking with a liberal the other day who pointed out a number of companies who supported a regulation I opposed. He couldn't grasp that the big players in an industry often support lots of regulation because it's another barrier that makes it more difficult for new competition to arise. Also the biggest corporations are lap kitties for practically the whole leftwing agenda regarding business, including extremist implementations of anti-sexual harassment regimes, gay "partner" benefits, contributions to foundations which fund the worst leftwing political groups, and of course anti-white discrimination.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Rick
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 1,844
It seems to me what really sits at the heart of this issue is the ability for unions to deduct their dues from paychecks. I think when unions agreed to pay more in costs, but fought over that issue it was pretty clear....especially since in states where they are not able to do so results in far fewer people joining the union.
In my view, I have no problem eliminating this practice, and putting state employees on the same playing field as federal ones....
As an aside, notice how no Democrats who support these "rights" wants to implement it at the federal level.
? I thought all unions deducted dues from the paychecks of their members. Do some union members have to write checks every month?
Rick
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 1,844
Where do you get that??
The issue is that unions of government employees ought not be able to bargain their compensation. The reason is that there is no effective opposition sitting across from the table to bargain with - only legislators who don't have to pay increases from their own pockets, and know they will have moved on to other things several years later when the state is bankrupted by greedy government workers.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Hmmm...... you're still mumbling incoherently to yourself.......
So again you will not respond...one can only guess it must becuse you know the response will show you to be a hypocrit...unless you wish to actuly prove otherwise.
it was a realy easy question...but keep ducking it...keep thinking it will just go away .
That is an issue yes....but Gov. Walker has commented directly on the ability for unions to take their dues out of state paychecks as being a critical issue in this debate as well.
I also believe there was a piece on it in the WSJ, but I would need to find it again to quote it directly. I will look for it in the morning.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
does being able to take union dues from a paycheck...really have anything to do with if WI can meet its budget? Sounds more like just a excuse to attack unions...as this whole thing has been.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I don't remember what he was supposes to respond to. What is the easy question?
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
There is no doubt that the unions needed to lose special collective rights for Wisconsin to better balance its budget.
Whether or not Walker also wanted to attack unions very well might be a separate issue. Though I would say that unions being allowed to have the state directly collect dues from employees is a great example of a law that needed to be changed too.
So did Walker use the budget as an excuse to also address the other things about unions that needed change? Probably. I am always in favor of clean bills. i.e. a bill should only be about what it is said to be about. Do you agree?
Similar threads
