Why Scott Walker is Good for Teachers
The Governor's Battle with Public Employees Unions
While these facts support the governor's decision from a fiscal standpoint, the real sticking point with the Public Employees Union is that the governor also proposed, and passed through the state legislature, a removal of the collective bargaining rights of public employees in regard to salary and benefits. The media has painted this as if Walker is taking away all bargaining rights, but that is simply mis-information, designed to prejudice the consumer of the news resource. The need to remove collective bargaining rights (a right that is not shared by federal employees) is evident, considering the fact that if those rights were to remain intact, the union would simply bring the same demands to the bargaining table at the next opportunity. The budget problem would not be solved, merely delayed briefly at best.
In reality, doing away with the power of the union in collective bargaining is only the first step to improve the job market for good teachers. The Teacher's Union is notorious for defending the "rights" of the worst teachers, demanding layoffs be controlled by seniority only, and making sure that merit is found nowhere in the equation. Good teachers are being held back by the unions, and here are just a few of the reasons why:
Good teachers have no advantage over bad teachers. Once a teacher is hired, their ability to teach has nothing to do with their retention. The worst teacher in the world could be retained by a school district while the best is laid off, if the bad teacher happened to be hired first. In Wisconsin, a teacher by the name of Megan Sampson won Outstanding First Year Teacher Award in 2010, only to be laid off one week later because of the ridiculous demands of the Public Employees Union bargaining for teachers. Surely there was a teacher who had not shown such promise, or who was simply not a good teacher, who could have met the unemployment line before Ms. Sampson! But, the union was more concerned with seniority than it was with quality of teachers. The next time you hear the union say, "it's for the children," remember that it really isn't. It's for the union! Removing some power from the unions could open the door for the truly good teachers to rise to the top and be rewarded for the great job that they do.
Quality of production has nothing to do with pay. Under the current system, teachers are paid by seniority, not by quality of instruction. Under this system, there is no incentive for improvement or even trying to provide a quality education if a teacher does not have an innate desire to teach. If the system were removed from the power of the unions, good teachers could be compensated based on the job they do, their merit, rather than their seniority. Of course, good teachers will gain seniority as well because they will be doing the kind of job that makes them desirable. If school boards did not have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to get rid of a poor teacher, there would be many more opportunities for the good teachers. Bad teachers would be weeded out, leaving valuable openings for the good teachers to fill. Good teachers are a valuable resource and should be compensated fairly! Most people would not complain about a fair pay rate for teachers that they view as doing a good job.
Small, permanent concessions makes room for more teachers. By making the small concessions proposed by Governor Walker permanent (that is, making it so they cannot be negotiated in collective bargaining, but rather set by voters) the state's budget woes can be helped, and all of the teachers can keep their jobs. Without the concessions, there would be a need to lay off at least several hundred teachers in the state. By their actions, the union has expressed that they are more concerned about the benefits package than they are about the workers themselves. Workers without jobs don't get benefits! These changes would open the door for the individual school systems to hire and fire teachers based on merit, and allow the state to keep a substantial amount of its teachers.
Good teachers have nothing to fear. With all the uproar surrounding the budget cuts in Wisconsin, and all the protests that have taken place, what has been missed is that the good teachers wouldn't have to worry about their jobs under Governor Walker's plan. While the detractors, and often the media, have portrayed the governor's plan as "anti teacher," the fact remains that the governor's plan is designed to help and protect the good teachers better than the union has done! Good teachers won't worry about losing their jobs because they will be judged on merit rather than seniority. Nothing in the governor's plan will cut wages of these workers. They will be asked, like every other working American, to contribute to their own health care funds and pension plans. While that may seem like too much to ask for the unions, for the rest of the American people it seems to be a rational request.
Scott Walker is good for teachers, and other public employees. His plan will drive people to produce at their very best, and reward them for good service. It will also improve the school systems in the state of Wisconsin, for if better teachers are rewarded and kept, they will do a better job of educating the children. And Scott Walker is good for America. There are many states following suit with Walker's plan, which will improve school systems across the country, and ensure that America's youth are educated by the best teachers possible!
Published by Kris B
Kris has been working as a webmaster for several websites, including: www.nanettes.com, www.kcjmarketing.com, and www.skylarstoys.com View profile
- Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Reveals Specifics of Budget PlanRepublican Governor Scott Walker revealed his full budget plan for the state the afternoon of Tuesday, March 1. Walker's plan proposes a $900 million cut from the education department, among many other drastic measures.
- The Problem with Public Employee UnionsAn analysis of what is wrong with allowing public employees to belong to unions.
- Residents Speak Out on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's Budget PlanTens of thousands of people have gathered at the state capitol in protest of Governor Scott Walker's budget-repair plan. Two Wisconsin residents, one for and one against the plan voice their views about the plan.
- Why Would Anyone Work in Public Service?The main motivation for people choosing to make careers in public service is geographical location, followed by education/training level.
- Problems in Politics and the Public TrustProblems with Politicians and the concept of Public Trust.
- Why Public Employees Unions Cannot Be Allowed to Exist
- Public Employee Protests Only the Beginning
- First Person: Why I'm Pro-Union and Cheering on Wisconsin's Public Employees
- In Wisconsin They Should Fire All the Striking Public Employees
- Insight into Public Employee Collective Bargaining
- My Answer to Eric Brehm's Questions to Scott Walker
- Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill Stalled by Democrats Exodus
16 Comments
Post a CommentI think it unfair, and illogical to try and compare teacher salaries to other industries that also require a similar degree because the market influences different industries differently. The market should define what each industry pays for its skilled labor force, not an artificial inflation caused by labor unions. This is one reason that many industries are losing ground both here and in the world economy...things are artificially inflated here due to the labor costs. As for Gov. Walkers figures, the one thing I haven't seen in all the contestation of his policy is a questioning of his figures (I do concede I may have missed it along the way) by major media sources. It is certainly not a stretch to think that $100,000 is what it costs the state when the salary and benefits are confirmed at around $80,000. The state still has to pay SS (7.5%) and unemployment insurance for all of these employees...I am sure there are other "behind the scenes" expenses that are borne by
For the record, I wasn't comparing public school teacher salaries to private school teacher salaries. In my experience (in small towns with church schools), teachers in private schools make less than the public school teachers. The information I saw compared public school teacher salaries to other jobs in private industries which require bachelors and masters degrees.
I still wonder about Gov. Walker's salary figures as I haven't see any independent information which verifies his $100,000 figure. I have to wonder if he wasn't trying to sway public opinion in a less than honest manner.
P.S. I also appreciate the chance to have a respectful debate.
Thirdly, you suggest that teachers are somehow invaluable to society. Let me remind you, first of all, that my wife was a teacher in the public schools, and I am in no trying to disparage teachers. They certainly do serve a valuable role in our system of society. However, my ability (and I am sure Gov. Walker's ability) to read this page is not necessarily tied to unionized teachers! While the bumper sticker is catchy, the plain truth is that most people learn to read before they ever go to school, and therefore learn it from their parents. Again, don't take that wrong...I appreciate what teachers do. But, to suggest that education is completely tied to the public school system, is fallacious at best!
In the case of public employees, it is the general populace that has the money, and they pay for the services of the public employees. Unfortunately, the control over that employee that we pay for is lost to a union who is negotiating with itself (essentially) for higher wages and better benefits. That is how the public employees union has gotten so far "out of whack" in the first place...it simply cannot be sustained at its current levels. It has acted like many of the employee owned, unionized corporations that continue to vote for raises, even when they know that the company cannot afford it. It is a self destructive downward spiral that cannot be stopped without putting limitations on the union itself, which is exactly what Governor Walker is doing.
Debra, your comment reflects at least 3 major flaws in thinking, and suggests that perhaps you should "get a clue." First, you suggest that without unions, everyone would be making $5 per hour. That simply is not true, and is easily proven! If that were true, all non-union employment would be at that rate. But, it is not. In fact, as one commenter has already pointed out, private school teachers (typically non-union) make more money than their Unionized public school counterparts.
Secondly, you suggest that the problem is really a need for redistribution of wealth, clamoring against the "big business and the fat cats with the billion dollars of worth." This is a typical approach, but one that shows a complete ignorance of the way things work in economics. Quite simply, someone has to have money in order to pay someone else. While their motives may be questioned, those with money have learned that they must pay a reasonable salary in order to be productive.
I am thankful for unions, if there were not unions everyone would be making $5.00 an hour. Get a clue, do you think big business and the fat cats with the billion dollars of worth care about you and your family, hello Scott Walker if you can read this thank a teacher blah, blah, blah.
we've gotten a bit off track from the original article, but I do appreciate the opportunity for civil discussion on these topics, rather than the vitriol I usually face for confronting the "need" for the unions! Thanks!
as to the last point you made, concerning the achievement of children in low income vs middle/high income families, I would like to add my 2 cents (and you may think that's all its worth ;) ) As I mentioned before, my wife worked in public school, and for at least part of that time it was in a very low income school in the district. It is true that productivity is down in those schools, but I contend it is not for the reason that you mention (more money=better). None of the things you mention need money! low income families (who take advantage of it) can have all of those things provided for them, usually at no cost to them (another story for the taxpayers who support the programs for them!). The problem that we witnessed first hand was two fold. First, parents were not involved with the students. They simply didn't care about the education of their kids, and therefore their interaction was limited or non existent. When parents are disconnected from the child's educati
another point that I think is quite pertinent to the discussion is that teachers go to school, get the degrees necessary, and then take a job teaching, all the while knowing the pay scale. I am constantly amazed to hear people complain about what they get paid as a teacher, when they knew going in exactly what they were going to make! I don't say that to sound harsh, but to point out the reality that the people who teach are doing so because they are either (1) uniquely qualified to do that, and are good at it (they like the job, and are content to do the job for the amount that the market pays). Or (2) unable to do another job that pays more money (the kind of money they want to make). My wife worked as a Speech Pathologist in a public school system (Master's degree, and on the same pay scale as teachers) because of the "perks" of working in the public school (set hours, long summer, working only with kids, etc...) instead of working where she could make more money
Cindy, My source was the Governor's Op Ed, and I may have misinterpreted the figure...instead of saying that the teacher gets 101,000, I should have said that each teacher's package costs the taxpayers 101,000....i don't know where the "leakage" is between what it costs and what they get, but I suspect its tied to the union....
Your second point somewhat proves one of my major points in this article: if private teachers get more, then the unions aren't doing a very good job anyway, so get rid of them! You misrepresented Gov. Walker's plan a bit in your comments as well...He wants to give them collective bargaining rights up to the point of inflation (which proves in and of itself that he is not trying to get rid of all collective bargaining rights, as so many people are accusing him of!). Any increase over that must be approved by the tax payers, the people who pay the salaries in the first place!