Wisconsin, The Slave State

Follow this chain of logic carefully:

 

If you want to be a public school teacher in Wisconsin, you must join the union and financially support it through dues the school collects from you automatically.

 

If you are a member of the union, you are also expected to support it wholeheartedly and without reservation and never, ever, ever cross it publicly.

 

The union is completely and totally in the tank for the Democratic Party in Wisconsin.

 

Which means that no public teacher in Wisconsin can ever show support for a Republican.

 

That’s the lesson being taught to one Ms. Kristi LaCroix, who dared to speak out in favor of Wisconsin’s Republican governor, Scott Walker.

 

And it seems she’s learning the lesson — she’s reportedly considering quitting the union. Which means quitting her job, and ending her career as a public school teacher in Wisconsin.

 

This is precisely why we need to abolish — or, at least, tightly rein in — public sector unions. They end up forming a self-perpetuating political-financial machine: the unions take dues from the members, pump that money into electing amenable public officials, who would increase the pay and benefits to the union members. Then, the union members give more money to the union, and the cycle perpetuates.

 

Most negotiations are based on two parties, of roughly equivalent power, each trying to maximize their own benefits. In the case of public sector unions, the unions actually exert a great deal of influence on who is negotiating with them from the public’s side. Imagine a baseball game where the home team picks the referees from its own roster of players. Or a pick-up basketball game where one captain picks both teams.

 

Sorry, Ms. LaCroix. When you decided to become a public school teacher in Wisconsin, you forfeited any right you might have to ever express a dissenting opinion from your union. Too bad you had to learn that lesson, but them’s the rules.

Shortlink:

Posted by on December 15, 2011.
Filed under Education, Thuggery, Unions.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • http://2012.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    This is precisely why we need to abolish — or, at least, tightly rein in — public sector unions.

    Not just yes but hell yes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

      Just need to remove their antitrust exemption.  

    • Jim Beach

      [sarcasm]OH yes. Let’s stop union members from being horribly oppressed – by crushing the unions that represent them and are responsible for all the advances they have. Or, just make it impossible for unions to collectively bargain or strike.

      You know, for the good of the workers.

      That’ll show them. I mean, that’ll help them. [/sarcasm]

      • jim_m

        If you are incapable of seeing the inherent conflict of interest in having a union of public employees negotiating with elected officials, who are given millions of dollars in campaign money by that very same union, then there really isn’t much we can do to help you.

        The elected officials have given the unions benefits that far outstrip what they would receive in the private sector and benefits and pensions that are completely unsustainable.  As I said before:  If you cannot see that there is a need to roll back these benefits then there is no help for you.

        Collective bargaining rights are not constitutionally guaranteed.  They are a recent political invention and there is a legitimate argument that they are totally unnecessary for employees where there are not serious workplace safety concerns.

        But I know, logic is something that will not permeate the leftist mind.  You believe that there is enough money if we just tax people enough.  Never mind that it has already been shown that you cannot tax people enough to cover our current spending habits.  Reality be damned, just tax them more!

        • Jim Beach

          If you are incapable of seeing the inherent conflict of interest in having private CORPORATIONS negotiate contracts with the same elected officials who they donate millions of dollars to, then there really isn’t much I can do to help you.

          However, I will ask you this:

          Why is it okay with you for corporations to negotiate contracts with elected officials who they donate to – but it is NOT okay for Unions to negotiate with elected officials they donate to?

          And by the way – by your current yardstick, corporate bargaining rights aren’t guaranteed either.

          Oh, and the only reason the pensions are “unsustainable” is because the stock market took a hit. Which is due to the corporations and their managers on Wall Street gaming the system. In a just world these corporations who caused the meltdown would pay for the cleanup. Do you think they should? Or do you think it’s more fair that public employees who trusted Wall Street with their pensions take the hit?

          So, please answer the above, with some of the logic you’re alleging permeates your rightist mind.

          I await your answer.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

    She appeared in anti-union ads.

    She started it, and now she’s crying when the union fights her back?

    Sounds like whiner – must be die-hard republican…

    • Anonymous

      STFU you low life loser..

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

        Looks like I got one of the shop stewards of whiners upset. How sad.

    • Anonymous

      You’re right, Stephen. She should just quit the union.

      Oh, that’s right, she can’t. Not without giving up her entire career.

      So much for her right to “choose” her political beliefs, and her right to freely express them.

      J.

      • Anonymous

        Stephen isn’t concerned about one’s personal political beliefs.  When you join the lemmings you’re not allowed to think for yourself. 

        Right Stevie-poo?

      • Anonymous

        It’s not like the right to chose killing a child in the womb…

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

        She “chose” to vocally and publicly oppose the union.

        Why is she whining like a stuck pig now that here “choice” has ramifications” – when she knew all along that it would?

        Oh yeah, another cry baby conservative.

        • Anonymous

          Stephen, you’re “choosing” to insult your host on this site, scorning and deriding the person who can terminate your welcome and banish you from this forum. You’re pissing on the leg of the man whose goodwill is what keeps you from being banned. And you knew that before you typed a single comment.

          Pray tell, Stephen, what would be an appropriate response from me? After all, you have no “right” to comment here — it’s a privilege.

          J.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            I didn’t insult you – I insulted her.

          • Anonymous

            I choose to take offense. And in our society, that’s all that matters.

            J.

          • Anonymous

            I choose to take offense. And in our society, that’s all that matters.

            J.

          • Anonymous

            You also insulted everyone who was born with the name Stephen.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            I didn’t insult you – I insulted her.

          • Evil Otto

            Hey, if you ban Stephen, it means you want children to starve. Or something.

        • Anonymous

          Actually, Stephen, I think I like a part of your premise here. Public sector employees perhaps OUGHT to forfeit certain rights when they enter public employ. However, I think that it shouldn’t be a union that enforces that; it should be the employer.

          J.

          • Anonymous

            Exactly she doesn’t work for the union it’s none of their business if she appears in an anti union ad. 

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            It’s all spelled out in the contract signed by her employer and the union – agreed to by her employer. I’m sure she was aware that she’d have to join the union when she took the job.

            So let’s add it up here.

            She “Chose” to accept a job at this school district, knowing she’d be in the union.

            She “Chose” to oppose the union vocally and publicly, knowing there might be pushback.

            Why can’t she live with her choices? Oh yeah, she’s a crybaby conservative.

          • Anonymous

            Show me in that contract, Stephen, where she agreed to never express an opinion contrary to that of the union.

            You can’t, because it’s an unwritten rule.

            The unwritten rule says the unions own the teachers, body and soul, and the state has granted them that ownership by giving the union a monopoly on all public school teachers.

            I think that’s a form of indentured servitude and a violation of the freedom of association. The unions think otherwise, and will get positively medieval on anyone who dares cross them.

            You’re totally cool with that. I find it grossly offensive.

            J.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            She appeared in an anti-union ad. This isn’t a question of her just expressing an opinion “contrary to that of the union” – she chose to vocally and publicly oppose her union.

            All of those “made bed, lay in it” things apply here.

            And of course this is after she chose to take a union job.

            She hates unions but took a union job… I dunno, seems like she’s upset about choices that she herself made.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            She appeared in an anti-union ad. This isn’t a question of her just expressing an opinion “contrary to that of the union” – she chose to vocally and publicly oppose her union.

            All of those “made bed, lay in it” things apply here.

            And of course this is after she chose to take a union job.

            She hates unions but took a union job… I dunno, seems like she’s upset about choices that she herself made.

          • Anonymous

            Since L’il Stevie doesn’t seem to believe in freedom of speech, maybe someone should take his away…

          • Oysteria

            Stephen, If it was at all possible to display even more stupidity than previously, you’ve gone and done it again.

            Expressing an opinion contrary to anything is by definition opposing that thing.

            However, this was not an an “anti-union ad”.  This was a pro-Walker ad.  She never mentioned the union, she never said she was anti-union.

            But you’re just fine with the threats and vitriol, Stephen, because that’s what you’re all about.  You’re a no-nothing, vitriolic hate spewer.  It’s all you know.  It’s all you do here.

          • Stephen

            It was an anti-union ad.

            Fox News says so.

            Scroll down and read the graphic on the video.

            Says “LaCroix appeared in anti-union TV ads”

            “Stephen,
            If it was at all possible to display even more stupidity than
            previously, you’ve gone and done it again.”

            And what you end up proving is proving me right and you’re — well, that speaks for itself.

            Fox News graphic http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/15/unions-harass-teacher-who-dared-to-speak-up-in-support-of-scott-walker/

          • Anonymous

            She was wearing a tight skirt.  She was asking for it.

          • Anonymous

            Show me in that contract, Stephen, where she agreed to never express an opinion contrary to that of the union.

            You can’t, because it’s an unwritten rule.

            The unwritten rule says the unions own the teachers, body and soul, and the state has granted them that ownership by giving the union a monopoly on all public school teachers.

            I think that’s a form of indentured servitude and a violation of the freedom of association. The unions think otherwise, and will get positively medieval on anyone who dares cross them.

            You’re totally cool with that. I find it grossly offensive.

            J.

          • herddog505

            You have a point, one that I hope many people will take away from this:

            Never, ever have anything to do with a union, because their attitude is that YOU pay THEM for the priviledge of being allowed to work, that their word is LAW, and that they will f*ck you up if you cross them.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            It’s all spelled out in the contract signed by her employer and the union – agreed to by her employer. I’m sure she was aware that she’d have to join the union when she took the job.

            So let’s add it up here.

            She “Chose” to accept a job at this school district, knowing she’d be in the union.

            She “Chose” to oppose the union vocally and publicly, knowing there might be pushback.

            Why can’t she live with her choices? Oh yeah, she’s a crybaby conservative.

          • Jim Beach

            So you think that workers shouldn’t have certain rights they now have. What rights are those? I’m curious.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

      Freedom of speech is only for leftist thugs like you?

    • Anonymous

      Up front I apologize for this long comment. 

      Stephen, okay so she put herself out there and should expect some push back from the Union.  Out of curiosity, in your opinion, how hard should the union be allowed to fight back?  Is there a line that the Union and its members should not cross in responding to her?  If so what is and what is not an appropriate response by the Union and its members? 

      Please answer the following, in your opinion:
      Is it ok for the Union to ignore her?

      Is it ok for the Union to create an ad that presents an opposing viewpoint from her?

      Is it ok for Union members to send her angry e-mails, letters and phone calls?

      Is it ok for Union members to send her threatening e-mails, letters or phone calls?

      Is it ok for Union member to publish her personal information on the Internet?

      Is it ok for the Union to threaten her job?

      Is it ok for Union members to make up false allegations about her?

      Is it ok for Union members to physically intimidate her?

      Is it ok for Union members to vandalize her property?

      Is it ok for Union members to physically harm her or her family?

      Is it ok for Union members to kill her?

      If I left something out, please enlighten us as to what in your opinion is permissible behavior by the Union and its members in response to a person expressing their Right of Free Speech.

      For me, I would draw the line at sending threatening message etc.  I don’t think that is appropriate behavior in any situation like this.  But you might disagree, if so, where do you think the line should be?

      • jim_m

        The left’s answer to all your questions is YES.

        She is threatening the collective and the greater good demands that she be punished and if necessary eliminated to ensure the survival of the group.  Individuals do not have rights.  Groups do.  The lefts believes that you have access to rights by being part of a group.  That’s why they are so bent on defining different grievance groups.

    • Anonymous

      Heaven Forbid Freedom of Speech.  If you are employed, Stephen, how would you feel if you got fired solely for posting anything on Wizbang?  Would you be crying?

  • herddog505

    Silly me!  I thought that unions were voluntary associations of workers, intended to use collective bargaining to secure better wages and working conditions.  I had no idea that they were actually something akin to a protection racket:

    “Look, so long as you pay your protection money on time and keep your mouth shut, you won’t have a problem and the Don will take good care of you, capice?  I mean, you’ve got a nice career here.  Be a shame if something… happened to it.”

    My father had to work in a union shop.  This is one of the reasons that he HATED it.

  • Anonymous

    It would be different if they actually supported the members. They do not. As herddog505 says, it is a protection racket, with the bosses gouging the till and going on golf junkets. Just like this White House.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, it’s amazing how many unions have FULLY FUNDED retirement benefit packages for the bosses while the member’s retirement falls into the category of “unfunded liabilities”.  Makes you wonder who is looking out for who.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

        Name 5.

        If “you’re amazed how many there are” it should be easy to name 5.

        Why can’t you? (saving time making my next reply now… since we all know you’re bullshitting)

        • Anonymous

          Me do your work for you?  And here I thought you were….scrub that.  And here YOU thought you were so smart.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            You’re so amazed at how many there are but can’t name 5, or 4 or even 1.

            Like i said, sure looks like you’re bullshitting. I find that a lot on conservative blogs. People make broad sweeping statements and when called on it to back up what they say  they spew poo  and run away like a child.

          • Anonymous

            So you are not as smart as you think you are.  Okay.

            http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Vincent%20Vernuccio%20-%20Union%20Pensions%20in%20Crisis.pdf

            Now go spread some more poo.

          • Anonymous

            How dare you!

            Actually using a real article (with real facts) to blow little Stevie away!

            /sarc

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, but I’m getting soft.  There are a couple more articles, but let him do the leg work.

          • Anonymous

            So you are not as smart as you think you are.  Okay.

            http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Vincent%20Vernuccio%20-%20Union%20Pensions%20in%20Crisis.pdf

            Now go spread some more poo.

          • Anonymous

            Scroll down, Herddog can help you out he found several …. dozen. Now who’s bullshitting who?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            You’re so amazed at how many there are but can’t name 5, or 4 or even 1.

            Like i said, sure looks like you’re bullshitting. I find that a lot on conservative blogs. People make broad sweeping statements and when called on it to back up what they say  they spew poo  and run away like a child.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

        I could include what the unions did for my father in law – but why bother?  Stephen won’t believe the union reps would (and did) ride the steel mill he worked at into the ground getting good benefits for the rank and file – and when the crunch came wouldn’t allow any adjustments on the pay and bennies.  The mill closed, the union reps moved on – the rank and file were screwed.

  • herddog505

    With regard to union pensions, may I offer this:
     
    Thirteen of the bigger plans operated for the Teamsters have, together, a mere 59.3% of reserves necessary to cover obligations. Or consider that 26 pension funds at the food workers union, the UFCW, are at 58.7%. Seven locals at the United Brotherhood of Carpenters fare better at 67%. As a rule of thumb the government considers a fund to be “endangered” at below 80%, and in “critical” status at below 65%, and requires them to come up with a plan to get off probation within a decade.
     
    You don’t hear labor leaders touting this kind of performance in their organizing riffs, and not many workers are patient enough to review the Form 5500 filings submitted to the IRS and Department of Labor that track these retirement savings. But the data show a steady decline in recent years that can’t be explained merely by the stock market.
     
    For example, Unite HERE’s National Retirement Fund stood at 115% in 1998 and dropped to 83.4% by 2007, well before the crash. The SEIU fund that was put into a “red zone” in April was at 103.4% as recently as 1998. On average, the asset to liability ration at so-called multi-employer plans, which union funds make up the bulk of, stood at 66% in 2006, according to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. By contrast, single employer plans, basically most company-provided pensions, were funded at 96%.
     
    Poor management probably deserves a lot of the blame for the union decline, but the exact causes are a mystery. An even bigger mystery is that the unions do a far better job with funds created for their officers and employees than for mere workers. The SEIU Affiliates, Officers and Employees Pension Plan—which covers the staff and bosses at its locals—was funded as of 2007 at 102.2%. The plan for the folks at SEIU international headquarters was funded at 84.8%.
     
    Union officer benefits are also far more generous than anything dues-paying workers enjoy. Consider again the SEIU, probably the country’s most powerful union. Their officers and employees get a yearly 3% cost of living increase, but SEIU members get none; officers qualify for an early pension at 50 or after more than 30 years of service, but workers can’t retire early with a pension; officers qualify for disability retirement after a year’s service, but workers need 10 years. In the land of union retirement, some workers are more equal than others.
    [emphasis mine - hd505]
     
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574300113800780786.html

    A couple of years ago, Moodys found 108 “underfunded” union pension plans; given the sorry state of the economy recently, I think it reasonable to assume that things have not gotten markedly better.  These are the worst ones (note that “Federal law required pension funds to be at least 80 percent funded in order to be classified as healthy”):

    40 percent or better:

    HERE Local 25 and Hotel Association of Washington, DC Pension 49.30%.
    Central States SE&SW 48.50%.
    Teamsters Pension Trust of Philadelphia and Vicinity 48.50%.
    Operating Engineers Local 324 Pension Fund 47.30%.
    Laborers District Council of W. PA Pension Fund 46.80%.
    Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Trust Fund 46.40%.
    Local 705 IB of T Pension Trust Fund 46.30%.
    Building Service 32B-J Pension Fund 42.30%.
    Carpenters Pension Trust Fund Detroit & Vicinity 41.40%.
    New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension 40.50%.

    30 percent or better:

    FELRA and UFCW Pension Fund 39.80%.
    Local 804 I.B.T. and Local 447 IAM UPS Multi-employer Retirement Plan 39.70%.
    Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund 38.00%

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/are-you-depending-one-these-108-worst-funded-union-pension-plans-updated-a#ixzz1geO4yjb4

    By the way: anybody care to guess how much Little Dick Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, knocks down each year?

    • Anonymous

      He earns 2000, he steals 2,000,000 In other words, ‘Obama light!’

    • Anonymous

      Isn’t it amazing that while sending millions to democrats the union  pension funds are under funded, sorta makes you wonder who these unions really represent doesn’t it? Union brothers and sisters you’re screwed but at least your favorite democrat politican is doing ok….

      • herddog505

        Sort of makes me wonder where the hell the money went!

        • Anonymous

          You know where the money went, it went to their favorite democrat candidates and into the pockets of the very well healed union leadership.

    • Oysteria

      I wonder where Stephen went.

      • herddog505

        Possibly he’s a union employee and went to have a chat with his shop steward about their pension plan!

  • Anonymous

    The thing is, she will be fired by her EMPLOYER (the school district) for something done on her own time that her ASSOCIATION (the union) disapproved of vehemently. 

    Something is really out of whack here.

    She is not employed by the union, and thus should not have any say in her firing.  If the union bosses want to toss her from the union for speaking her mind, that is entirely their right, but they should have no say over her employment, as she is not employed by them.

    • herddog505

      Absolutely.  What’s even worse is that SHE pays THEM.

  • Stephen

    crosspost corrected

  • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

    No too different from Michigan