Sheilbh's Scott Walker Lovefest and Union Bashing Megathread

[Berkut]

No they don't.  Everything you've mentioned has economic consequences that to an impartial observer could be net positives. 

Raising an existing teacher's pension provides no comparable public benefit.

Teacher with pension will be able to afford a nicer house, pay more property taxes, buy stuff, pay more sales tax.

Not to mention a better pay for a teacher would lead to better people wanting to do teaching. The "lowest possible cost" approach to human-based economy is rarely a public benefit. :|

Here you go Marty - you brought up teacher wages, not I.

I have no particular opinion about what teachers ought to be paid, other than that they should be paid as much as we can afford to pay them, and that should be determined without public sector unions having outsized influence in the negotiations based on their political power to influence the election of the very people who are the ones who determine what they should be paid.

I live in a state where teachers make well above the national average. I also live in a state where public education is consistently *much* better than the national average. So to that extent, I don't mind that teachers are relatively very well paid. Indeed, overall I think the state of New York does a pretty decent job of driving quality education in those areas where it is possible.

There are things I very much do NOT like about how things work though. The fact that in some areas it is basically *impossible* to fire bad teachers because they have tenure is ridiculous. People like Marty counter any effort to hold teachers accountable for their performance by arguing that you cannot objectively measure teacher performance?

What kind of bullshit response is that? We measure people performance in every job everywhere all the time. We don't demand that there be some perfectly objective means of doing so either. I am confident that teachers by an large know how to teach, and I am also confident that administrators, by and large, know how to evaluate teachers. I am *also* confident that teachers are not special creatures such that they are somehow immune to getting bad ones in place that need to be weeded out.

What bugs the shit out of me is the union lines of

1. Teachers are not paid enough! Pay them more to get better teachers! Don't you care about your children!?!?!?!!
2. What? Performance based compensation? Absolutely not! There is no way you can evaluate teachers and link their pay to performance! No sir! You must pay them buckets, and do so based solely on longevity in the job! BTW, we need to make tenure mandatory after X years.

Now, I can't blame unions for arguing this - it is the ultimate sweetheart deal for teachers. We want to be able to guarantee that we cannot be fired, we want great pay based not on performance but rather on longevity in the job, AND lets throw in a deal where we cannot be fired. Who wouldn't want that deal?

But this is an arrangement so obviously NOT in the interests of anyone but teachers that it cannot possibly come to pass, IMO, except by negotiation where both parties are negotiating on behalf of the teachers, rather than anyone representing the other interests in the school system, which are clearly NOT served by such a one sided arrangement.

Now, my objections to public sector unions extend well beyond teachers, of course. I don't even know how it became all about teachers. If nothing else, I am fortuante to live in a part of the country where the overall outcome in regards to education is largely positive, at least in "narrow" sense of the overall, meaning I get pretty excellent public schools in the area where my kids go to school. It costs a lot though, but frankly, I am happy to pay it if the alternative is shitty schools. But I wonder how much the union setup with tenure and such makes it incredibly difficult to allow urban and rural areas in upstate New York match the quality of education we take for granted in the suburban school districts.

[MadImmortalMan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/23/really-jim-webb-for-president/

Four reasons why Jim Webb for president makes no sense

It's a real testament to the fact that we're grasping desperately for non-Hillary Clinton Democratic presidential candidates when Washington starts getting a little buzzy about Jim Webb running for president.

No, that's not to take anything away from Webb's service — including as a war hero, Navy secretary under Ronald Reagan and one-term senator from Virginia. It's just that there wouldn't seem to be a more unlikely presidential hopeful than Jim Webb.

To wit:

1) He retired after one term in the Senate and didn't seem to particularly enjoy being in public life. Larry Sabato said it particularly well after Webb's retirement announcement a few years back: "He has been an excellent United States senator, but he is a terrible politician. He doesn't suffer fools gladly, he doesn't enjoy glad-handing — my sense of Webb is that he's had enough of public life for a while."

Think again, Larry!

2) Webb's niche in the race would apparently be as a more populist, dovish alternative to Hillary Clinton. That's fine, except that he was Reagan's Navy secretary and also something of a Blue Dog Democrat during his service in the Senate. Even on foreign policy, he was often toward the middle of the Senate.

Much like ex-Montana governor Brian Schweitzer (D), that's an odd profile for a guy who is supposed to be winning votes from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

3) He has negative charisma. The Fix believes that presidential races have a charisma threshold, by which we mean that candidates need to be at least somewhat compelling to a national audience to achieve viability. Tim Pawlenty (R), for instance, struggled with this. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has a similar problem.

Webb would probably make Pawlenty look like Herman Cain. He's just very dour. We wonder who would get excited about him, in the absence of some galvanizing force that suddenly makes him the perfect candidate for that political moment in time.

4) He has baggage. Yes, Webb won his 2006 bout with Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), but it wasn't pretty. And some liberals balked pretty loudly when Webb's name surfaced as a potential vice presidential pick for President Obama in 2008.

Among the hits that would resurface in a presidential campaign:

Webb has spoken fondly of his Confederate roots and defended the Southern states' decision to secede, even citing the "Nazification of the Confederacy."

He said in 2004 that John Kerry deserved to be condemned for his actions in opposition to the Vietnam War.

Webb's writings and comments have been criticized by the left for being insensitive to women.

Does this sound to anyone like the profile of the guy who might defeat Hillary Clinton — or even compete with her — in 2016?

It's an advantage. Politics is a job like the police. If the person actually wants to do it, he'd probably be terrible at it. The best people for the job are the ones who don't want it.

[mongers]

If the world ever runs short of grindstones, this thread will still keep axes sharp.

[Berkut]

On the off chance that someone thought otherwise, I am *not* even remotely a fan of Walker.

[Razgovory]

Freedom is a bitch ain't it?

So is corruption.

Except freedom to organize is not a form of corruption.

[Razgovory]

Just imagine the howling from Seedy if a GOP senator had said that to and about Obama  OMG TYPICAL RACIST TEABAGGER WANTS TO BEAT A BLACK MAN

I am imaging it.  Then I remember I don't have to.  Pete Sessions told Obama that he couldn't even stand to look at him.

[mongers]

Freedom is a bitch ain't it?

So is corruption.

Except freedom to organize is not a form of corruption.

People shouldn't be allow to organise as they're not as human as corporations are.

[grumbler]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/23/really-jim-webb-for-president/

Four reasons why Jim Webb for president makes no sense

It's a real testament to the fact that we're grasping desperately for non-Hillary Clinton Democratic presidential candidates when Washington starts getting a little buzzy about Jim Webb running for president.

No, that's not to take anything away from Webb's service — including as a war hero, Navy secretary under Ronald Reagan and one-term senator from Virginia. It's just that there wouldn't seem to be a more unlikely presidential hopeful than Jim Webb.

To wit:

1) He retired after one term in the Senate and didn't seem to particularly enjoy being in public life. Larry Sabato said it particularly well after Webb's retirement announcement a few years back: "He has been an excellent United States senator, but he is a terrible politician. He doesn't suffer fools gladly, he doesn't enjoy glad-handing — my sense of Webb is that he's had enough of public life for a while."

Think again, Larry!

2) Webb's niche in the race would apparently be as a more populist, dovish alternative to Hillary Clinton. That's fine, except that he was Reagan's Navy secretary and also something of a Blue Dog Democrat during his service in the Senate. Even on foreign policy, he was often toward the middle of the Senate.

Much like ex-Montana governor Brian Schweitzer (D), that's an odd profile for a guy who is supposed to be winning votes from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

3) He has negative charisma. The Fix believes that presidential races have a charisma threshold, by which we mean that candidates need to be at least somewhat compelling to a national audience to achieve viability. Tim Pawlenty (R), for instance, struggled with this. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has a similar problem.

Webb would probably make Pawlenty look like Herman Cain. He's just very dour. We wonder who would get excited about him, in the absence of some galvanizing force that suddenly makes him the perfect candidate for that political moment in time.

4) He has baggage. Yes, Webb won his 2006 bout with Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), but it wasn't pretty. And some liberals balked pretty loudly when Webb's name surfaced as a potential vice presidential pick for President Obama in 2008.

Among the hits that would resurface in a presidential campaign:

Webb has spoken fondly of his Confederate roots and defended the Southern states' decision to secede, even citing the "Nazification of the Confederacy."

He said in 2004 that John Kerry deserved to be condemned for his actions in opposition to the Vietnam War.

Webb's writings and comments have been criticized by the left for being insensitive to women.

Does this sound to anyone like the profile of the guy who might defeat Hillary Clinton — or even compete with her — in 2016?

This is about as stupid a blog piece as I have seen in a while. The whole attraction of Webb is that he isn't into politics because he needs the ego-stroking or dick-sucking.  He wants to get things done, and thought he did get them done as a senator (IIRC, it had been more than 30 years since a freshman Senator got as much sponsored legislation passed as Webb did).  Why is it "senseless" to want to elect a politician that gets things done?  Why is it "senseless" that Webb run for president because some guy on the internet has tried to niche him where it makes zero sense. The whole "Webb's niche in the race would apparently be as a more populist, dovish alternative to Hillary Clinton" followed by "that's an odd profile for a guy who is supposed to be winning votes from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party" just makes me conclude that this anonymous Post blogger is a moron, because he is the guy who invented this "odd profile" that drives the conclusion that Webb's candidacy "makes no sense"! 

Webb isn't a pretty-boy ass-kisser.  He says what he thinks even when it isn't popular.  He can take politics and fund-raising or leave it.  He doesn't hew an ideological line, preferring the centrist approach of voting for policies based on their inherent value rather than based on what the Party says.  He isn't willing to do anything to get elected. Those are what make him different and attractive as a candidate.  Add in the bonus fact that moronic WaPo bloggers think that his candidacy "makes no sense" and you have the hat trick.

[garbon]

Webb isn't a pretty-boy ass-kisser.  He says what he thinks even when it isn't popular.  He can take politics and fund-raising or leave it.  He doesn't hew an ideological line, preferring the centrist approach of voting for policies based on their inherent value rather than based on what the Party says.  He isn't willing to do anything to get elected. Those are what make him different and attractive as a candidate. 

Well thank you for explaining what Seedy wouldn't (or perhaps couldn't). For myself, that doesn't make him sound like an attractive candidate as it sounds like he'd be another President without juice.

[OttoVonBismarck]

No, actually it would not, since presumably they are actually doing valuable work, and people who work for free rarely work very hard or competently.

I work for the government pal, and I damn sure won't have someone saying I do valuable work. I'm a tax leach, sucking away yours and your family's wealth to laze about all day. Deal with it.

[garbon]

It's an advantage. Politics is a job like the police. If the person actually wants to do it, he'd probably be terrible at it. The best people for the job are the ones who don't want it.

I would think those would also be people that would have a hard time getting other politicians to agree with their plans as they don't play at politics.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The problem is that "legalized bribery" is a problem that fundamentally can never really be solved.

Of course it can be solved.  It almost was solved.  Then a few people appointed to judicial office un-solved it.

The idea that the legal regime we were under before Citizens United in anyway limited the influence of money in politics is probably the dumbest thing you've ever posted.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Define "teacher performance" in a way that is easily measurable.

Most principals are experienced teachers. In a normal company you might be given an evaluation form as a manager, but that's just a template. Your performance review of your employees is based on your direct experience with their work and your expertise as their direct supervisor. Hell, here in the Federal government when I give employees a performance review there is a "grading system", but it's based 100% solely on the concept that as their manager I know how best to evaluate their work. The form is just to make sure I cover certain areas in my evaluation. [Of course it being government, an employee can formally "contest" a poor performance evaluation through an internal judicial process, which I doubt exists in most corporations.]

The idea that we have to create some mathematical metric using test scores as input to evaluate teachers is questionable. We don't evaluate people that way in most of the private sector. Some top executives are largely judged based on by-the-book numbers performance, but front line workers almost never are. Instead it's trusted that their managers know a good employee and know how to evaluate them as a good employee, and the converse. So yeah, principals (and vice principals in larger schools) should just evaluate teachers like any other employee (even government ones) gets evaluated by their direct manager.

Do individual evaluations expose perhaps some unfair treatment? Yes. But the effects of that are pretty manageable and a lot better than stupid metrics which don't work at all.

[OttoVonBismarck]

So you think the problem is some teachers are getting paid too much?

My prior post mentioned that part of the trade off in government employ was lucrative benefits but lower wage (this was based on 1930s actuarial beliefs that most people wouldn't live so long, and thus the cost of benefits was more manageable--admittedly we need to rethink all of that today.) But it should be noted that in most States at present, government employs earn at State average wage and sometimes higher. During the first few years of the Great Recession, State employees often continued to get raises while some States suffered their worst unemployment rates since the Great Depression. Right now State employees are essentially getting better pay and better benefits than what the market provides.

We also have the example of private schools and charter schools, both of which are largely free market in their labor practices. Teacher pay at those is almost universally lower than public schools. So I do question that the market rate for a teacher is higher than what it is currently, with a nod to the fact that some States do have extremely poor pay for teachers but most do not.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The results speak for themselves.

Trying to throw in other problems seems dishonest to me - like we cannot try to solve problem A, because problem B exists. And we can't solve B because of C, etc., etc., etc.

So let's just not do anything about anything.

Well... yeah, the results do speak for themselves. The thing is, there are places where there are public sector unions with little corruption and those results speak for themselves as well.

In my personal view, the private and corporate influence on politics in the US appears to foster plenty of corruption as well.

Thus I conclude that the problem in the US is campaign finance rather than public sector unions per se. Public sector unions are, I'm sure, part of a messed up system, but the messed up thing is that giving money to politicians with the expectation of political quid pro quo is an overt and expected part of the process in the US.

The issue of public sector unions influencing politicians through campaign donations and voting en bloc is frankly a stupid one, and I'm sad to see Languish (Berkut gets the blame for framing it this way) go down such a stupid line of discussion.

Public sector unions are pernicious because they provide essential government services. When they threaten to not work, laws no longer get enforced, rail lines shut down, street light stop getting repaired, benefit checks stop getting processed, dangerous icy and snow covered roads stop getting plowed and children stop getting educated. These people are entrusted as civil servants to work for the public good, back in the 1930s we established that this means they will receive lucrative benefits but will probably not receive top level wages, because it was felt that lucrative benefits were more affordable for a State than paying high dollar for every clerk and road worker. Also very importantly, the first string of strong pro-labor Democrat Presidents were all vehemently against public sector unions, and they were in fact illegal for the very fact that they recognized that these employees by and large are government. Legislators and chief executives promote policies and pass laws and send down orders, but it's the bureaucracy that actually does the work of government. The bureaucracy is not elected, and if it also unaccountable to elected officials (which they would be, guys like FDR realized, if they were allowed to unionize) then they represent a "fourth branch" of government that can usurp the democratic power of the people into their own hands.

Once public sector unions became legal and popular they've largely destroyed any State in which they hold significant power. In Illinois they have made it largely impossible for any Governor to do anything to address what will frankly be a State-bankruptcy eventually. They won't allow benefits to be cut and they won't accept paying a higher share of costs for them, all they will accept is more, more, more. This means an elected official cannot control tax policy--a union does, and because States are easily abandoned, you've seen tax flight from Illinois resulting in a "death spiral" for the State's economy in which ever higher taxes are needed to service soaring benefit costs, but the higher the taxes are the more the wealthy who pay most of the taxes simply re-domicile to a different State. It's exactly what happened with Detroit, except it's happening to one of America's largest States and it is 100% because of public sector unions.

When it comes to paying for government workers, that must be an issue of policy. Benefits should not be viewed as a U.S. Treasury Bond, that you have an inalienable right to receive without alteration. That isn't sound policy. When you allow public sector unions to become entrenched, you can no longer make regular policy decisions in relation to the compensation of your work force. Instead you're left with very hard choices: shut down parts of government, or raise taxes to levels that cause tax flight and economic stagnation.