The part where I wondered if you cared about any of the real consequences, or was “The Dems” losing out the only real concern you had.
Why does it matter if they can be changed on the fly? The vote was in accord with the existing rules.
Your question presupposes that there will be real negative consequences. As Virginia’s example shows, there won’t be.
I’m sure you mean “may not necessarily” rather than “won’t”.
Al things being equal, they ain’t. Did Virginia go about it the same way, using the same methods and for the same stated reasons? Was the political climate the same? I think we are going to see a backlash that wasn’t seen in Virginia.
Was it? I hadn’t seen that the current rules of the Wisconsin Senate allowed votes with no notice and fast-track committees. Do you have a cite for that? I honestly don’t know.
Of course I care about the real consequences. The whining about how “Republicans only care about winning” is just crap that libs trot out when they lose, so I don’t really care about that.
I’m glad for the opportunity to mock them for being sore losers, again, but as Maximum Leader says, elections have consequences.
Regards,
Shodan
No, I didn’t. But I should have, because this:
… is a good point. The policy itself will not cause deleterious results, but the rancor surrounding the way it was adopted may well cause problems. Very valid point, and I withdraw my blanket statement.
I don’t have far to look, either. I teach in a state without collective bargaining. I live in the state with the lowest teacher salary relative to cost of living. I live in a state in which there’s no limit to the number of uncompensated after-hours meetings that teachers can be forced to go to. I live in a state in which when there was a government furlough a couple of years ago, teachers were required to take their furlough day on a workday–but the amount of work to do wasn’t reduced, meaning that our “furlough” day really was a “work unpaid on a weekend to catch up” day. I live in a state with some of the lowest standardized test scores in the country. I live in a state where, of the three forms of merit pay existent, one has been eliminated and the other two are on the chopping block. I could go on.
Collective bargaining would go a really long way toward addressing unfair conditions for teachers. What’s more, if salaries were higher and merit pay was better, the profession would attract a better caliber across the board. Teaching isn’t some saintly profession: like every other profession, a large number of people are in it because it’s the best living they can make. When the pay starts at slightly more than $30,000 and takes 14 years to break $40,000, and the job requires a specialized bachelors degree, the people who go into it because it’s the best living they can make aren’t necessarily the people you want in charge of educating the next generation.
They do: rule 17(2) provides that on two-thirds of the members present that a bill may be placed for special order. Once placed, that bill has “…precedence over the regular orders of business, and whenever the rules shall be suspended to advance such bill, resolution or other matter to a subsequent stage, its precedence as a special order shall continue, and whenever any such special order is under consideration, it shall not be interrupted by the arrival of the time for the consideration of another special order.”
I do not recall you taking this stance after the Dems won in 2008 and were pushing health care reform (among other things).
Ok if I remind you of this in the future when the pendulum (inevitably) swings the other way? Just shut up cuz elections have consequences?
Unfortunately, collective bargaining won’t fix that when it only creates more opportunities for those people who “…aren’t necessarily the people you want in charge of educating the next generation…” to ensconce themselves in place and avoid termination.
You mention merit pay above. Correct me if I’m wrong, please, but it sure seems to me as though teachers’ unions have been the primary opponents of merit pay.
Here’s a comment from that bastion of right-wing reactionary thought, Huffington Post:
On salary, Mr. Moto, by comparison, a first-year teacher in Wise, VA, earns the equivalent (adjusted for cost of living) of $5,000 more than I do as a fourth-year teacher in North Carolina (I chose Wise because it’s a small area and probably has a lower cost-of-living, which would minimize the difference, and more importantly because their salary schedule came up first on Google). Sure, that’s not due entirely to the fact that we’ve never been unionized, but the fact that Virginia used to be unionized probably has something to do with it.
If you want to look at a larger district–say, Arlington–you’ll be looking at closer to a $15,000 discrepancy.
I believe the post was a response to Shodan.
It has political consequences.
When one (or a very few) states ban this they still need to compete with other states to attract teachers. Teachers unions are, overall, still large and can make themselves heard.
There are now (I think) 16 states considering laws to defang unions (teachers biggest among them but not only them).
As has been noted on this board before among the ten largest contributors to legislators only three lean democrat. Those three are unions.
As has also been noted before this is not about budgets. You just noted nothing much changed in Virginia.
This is not about money. It is not about budgets. It is not about salaries (at least in the short term). It is about hobbling your political opponents.
When teacher’s unions are but a glimmer in only a few states (if all this succeeds) do you think teachers will fare as well? Do you think democrats will have as good a chance to mount a campaign when the vast majority of the money is supporting your opponent? Do you think legislation will be even handed when all the money in Washington and state legislatures is all on one side?
If you think I am making much ado about nothing then when are 16 states working towards this now and why would Walker & Company go through weeks of protests over something that has no consequences?
I thought (I have not gone back and checked) that you supported a general notion that legislatures do not produce good results overall when only one side is in power. Assuming I remembered right are you ok with this?
Paraphrased into plain English, the legislature makes rules that apply to every governing body (school boards, town councils, etc.) including themselves, but since they make the rules, they can make a rule exempting themselves from the general rule.
Translated into historical language, “the king is above the law.”
And I believe this a public thread, in a forum which permits anyone reading any given post to answer that post.
Right?
Are you upset because I am able to show my even-handed application of principles to situations, regardless of the party that benefits, while you are unable to make a similar showing? If so, I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Most posters here will not hold that against you.
The two places I disagree most fundamentally with teacher’s unions are these: I think merit pay, properly handled, is an excellent idea; and I think that tenure is, in general, not a good idea.
That said, certain merit pay proposals are idiotic: proposals that reward teachers based on straight-up student scores on tests are about as silly as rewarding doctors for patients who stay healthy. It provides a major disincentive to working with a population who struggles academically and would do more than anything else to increase the achievement gap. Proposals that track individual student progress are smarter than other score-based pay schemes, but still have unintended consequences buried in them that can disincentivize good teaching.
When merit pay is given based on using best practices and on attaining additional certifications–similar to how you get a bonus in the private sector for getting a Microsoft Certification–it makes more sense.
Of course you can reply but my question was specifically (and I think clearly) addressed to Shodan.
For example, if I ask someone why (say) they oppose a gun law and you chime in you never opposed such a law that is swell but the question was not addressed to you. You are free to let everyone know your consistent position if you want. Just seemed odd to do it that way.