Were the public unions fighting to keep the classrooms overcrowded and limiting the access special needs students had for more one on one sessions with teachers?

Well if this example is any indication.. the answer is yes.



Kaukauna Area School District projects $1.5 million surplus after contract changes to health care, retirement savings.


KAUKAUNA — As changes to collective bargaining powers for public workers take effect today, the Kaukauna Area School District is poised to swing from a projected $400,000 budget shortfall next year to a $1.5 million surplus due to health care and retirement savings.

The Kaukauna School Board approved changes Monday to its employee handbook that require staff to cover 12.6 percent of their health insurance and to contribute 5.8 percent of their wages to the state’s pension system, in accordance with the new collective bargaining law, commonly known as Act 10.

“These impacts will allow the district to hire additional teachers (and) reduce projected class sizes,” School Board President Todd Arnoldussen wrote in a statement Monday. “In addition, time will be available for staff to identify and support students needing individual assistance through individual and small group experiences.”

The district anticipates that elementary class size projections for next year will shrink from 26 students to 23 students. Class sizes for River View Middle School are expected to fall from 28 students to 26 students.

Kaukauna High School classes could be reduced from 31 students to 25 students.

The new rules and updated operating budget also institute $300,000 in merit pay for staff next year, to be awarded at the school board’s discretion.

http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20110629/APC0101/110629072/Story-documents-Kaukauna-schools-project-1-5M-surplus-after-changes?odyssey=tab|topnews|img|FRONTPAGE

That's because they listened to what Gov Walker said was in the bill and waited for it it become law.

Unlike Milwaukee public schools ans several other school districts, who rushed through renegotiating their contracts to extend them before the bill became law. And now those school districts are going to have to lay off teachers and close schools down.

I read in a different article that the collective bargaining agreement stipulated that the school district could only negotiate cost of insurance coverage with 1 insurer. They just happened to have some affiliation with the union. They told the districts that the premiums were going up this year and when the law went into effect and they could negotiate price with other insurers the union insurance said they would match the lowest cost plans.

That to me exemplifies how ridiculously absurd this whole thing really was.

Its about the unions and their stranglehold on the public sector. They didn't give a rat's a@@ about educating kids. It was about fattening their own wallets.

I think the biggest part of the law is that the teachers are no longer have to be I. The union and pay dues no matter what. They now have a choice wether or not to join the union. I'm thinking a lot of them will get out of the union and that's why the national unions were up here protesting. But it's all for the children my butt.

And the Conservatives on this message board seem to believe that if teachers really love their jobs and the kids, then thy would be willing to do the job for $2.30 an hour. That's where America's working class is headed. These people don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that People take this job in order to have a better life and pay bills and stuff.

If Conservatives continue this pressure. they will get the education system they deserve. Then they will pay through the nose for what replaces it. They'll just be paying it to private religious corporations.

The average salary at this district is $80,000.

Asking them to pay a portion of their pension is hardly asking them to work for $2.30/ hr.

I thought the leftist circles were all about giving and sharing to help out their fellow man.

Now I see why you want more money thrown at the education system. Its not for the benefit of the students its for the benefit of the unions.

The scheme has been exposed and I am looking forward to you and your leftist circles taking that message to the streets..

Its a real winner..

Salaries in California should be high. California is a very expensive place to live, even for a professional.

$80,000 is about what a modestly successful entrepreneur could make selling bug spray online.

Thsi source is from May of this year.

http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

The 80,000 isn't in California. If you read the OP that around the average salary in WI.

Perhaps, bit my source says something a lot difference.

Kaukauna Area Sch Dist
Teacher


Low= $35,414 High= $96,465 Average= $61,363
Average Benifits= $27,780

So that to me would be $78,843

http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/lbstat/newasr.html

Which is far better than the median household income in WI Which was $49,994 in 2009

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55000.html

No, to me it says where it says "Average= $61,363" that the average is $61,363



No argument from me. Conservative policies have devastated the middle class. That's why people join Unions. To protect themselves from Conservatives.

You have to add the benifits because that is part of their total compensation for their position. That is what they were being asked to pay a small percetage of in the bill. 5% towards their pension which as of before the bill they payed nothing. (they will get that back plus more upon retiring). 12% of of their healthcare(not their pay, which the unions lied to them and told them it was their pay).



The unions for the Milwaukee school teacher went ahead and pushed through contract extensions as a way to get around the law before it went into effect. Because of that MPS is going to lay off over 500 teachers. Yep the unions were really looking out for them!

Oh I forgot teachers only work 9 months out of the year. 175 days out of 365 a year. A few more if the miss days because of weather.

Who pushed for and signed NAFTA..

Yes I realize that you have stated you are for repeal of NAFTA, but your insistence on blaming conservatives for all the ills of the middle class must be met with a firm rebuke.

This is from one of your leftist circle sites.

PART 1: UNITED STATES

NAFTA's Legacy

Rising trade deficits lead to significant job displacement and declining job quality for the United States

by Robert E. Scott, Economic Policy Institute

Public officials and economists frequently claim that trade agreements "create more high-paying jobs for American workers."1 Trade is supposed to move workers from low-productivity, low-wage import-competing industries into high-productivity export jobs with better wages. Yet the reverse has been true for U.S. trade with Mexico since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect in 1994. In the United States workforce, NAFTA has contributed to the reduction of employment in high-wage, traded-goods industries, the growing inequality in wages, and the steadily declining demand for workers without a college education.

These effects of NAFTA have occurred for two reasons. First, growing trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have displaced production that supported roughly 660,000 (manufacturing only) and 1.0 million (total) U.S. jobs since the agreement took effect in 1994. Export growth since 1994 supported an additional 1 million U.S. jobs, while imports displaced domestic production that would support 2 million jobs.

Second, average wages in U.S. jobs that compete with U.S. imports from Mexico pay 1% to 5% more than jobs in industries that export to Mexico. Therefore, even if U.S. exports to and imports from Mexico had grown equally, the United States would have experienced downward pressure on wages. U.S. imports from Mexico rose faster than exports after NAFTA, which only served to heighten the adverse wage effects. In addition, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico increased, pushing workers out of traded goods industries into lower-paying, non-traded goods industries. The finding that increased integration has not supported the growth of higher-paying jobs negates a major justification for NAFTA and other proposed regional trade and investment agreements: that NAFTA would generate a gain in high-wage jobs in the United States.

Both import and export jobs have relatively high average wages. The 1 million jobs displaced by NAFTA trade, primarily in manufacturing, would have paid $800 per week or more in 2004. The average job in the rest of the economy paid only $683 per week, 16% to 19% less than trade-related jobs. Growing trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have pushed more than 1 million workers out of higher-wage jobs and into lower-wage positions in non-trade related industries. Thus, the displacement of 1 million jobs from traded to non-traded goods industries reduced wage payments to U.S. workers by $7.6 billion in 2004 alone.

The loss of good jobs in manufacturing and other traded goods industries due to rising trade deficits has surely suppressed average U.S. wages for workers with skills similar to those displaced by trade.2 Before adopting agreements such as the proposed Western Hemisphere free trade agreement—the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)—and free trade agreements with Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia, it is important to understand the following about what has happened to the jobs and wages after NAFTA took effect.

Growing trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have displaced production that supported 1,015,291 U.S. jobs since NAFTA took effect in 1994 (see Table 1-1b).
Contrary to the rhetoric of most government officials and economists, industries that compete with imports from Mexico pay 1% to 5% more than export jobs (see Table 1-4 and Appendix Table 1-A1). This result is quite robust, and is confirmed with six different methods for computing average, trade-weighted wages.
Workers with at most a high school education were particularly hard hit by growing trade deficits—they held 52% of jobs displaced; these workers make up 43% of the workforce.
Most of the jobs displaced by NAFTA trade deficits are in the manufacturing sector, which employs a higher share of such workers than any other major industry (see Table 1-5).
NAFTA displaced into lower-paying jobs 523,305 workers with a high school degree or less.
Men, who make up 55.2% of the labor force, lost 649,048 job opportunities, or 63.9% of total jobs displaced due to NAFTA deficits.
Women, who make up 47.8% of the labor force, were especially hard hit by rising imports in apparel: they lost 34,855 job opportunities, 67% of all positions displaced in the apparel sector.
The 1 million job opportunities lost nationwide are distributed among all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with the biggest losers, in numeric terms: California (-123,995), Texas (-72,257), Michigan (-63,148), New York (-51,582), Ohio (-49,886), Illinois (-47,701), Pennsylvania (-44,173), Florida (-39,987), Indiana (-35,157), North Carolina (-34,150), and Georgia (-30,464) (see Table 1-2).
The 10 hardest-hit states, as a share of total state employment, are: Michigan (-63,148, or -1.4%), Indiana (-35,157, -1.2%), Mississippi (-11,630, -1.0%), Tennessee (-25,588, -0.9%), Ohio (-49,886, -0.9%), Rhode Island (-4,482, -0.9%), Wisconsin (-25,403, -0.9%), Arkansas (-10,321, -0.9%), North Carolina (-34,150, -0.9%), and New Hampshire (-5,502, -0.9%) (Scott 2005, Table 1-3).

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp173/#pt1

Yes, and that's what the teachers agreed to before the huge Wisconsin kerfuffle even happened. That was in the news.



And how many days out of the year do Doctors work, for about 12 times the pay? For that matter, How many days out of the year do Congressmen and Senators do the people's business for their right to do insider trading and other perky stuff? How much do people want their teachers to be available to be highly-trained baby sitters for their brats while they are on their Caribbean vacations?

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with this. NAFTA was a cause celebre' for the US Chamber of Commerce, Thomas Friedman and the Republican party in general. It was one of the two or three stupidest things Clinton did as a President.

huh... and how many doctors are getting paid by the state? quit using your lefty logic, and try to say something real and relevant... and everyone already that the congress is overpaid and underworked...

Do you recall the Al Gore/ Ross Perot debate on Larry King?

What position did Gore take? Did he say NAFTA was a sellout of the american manufacturing sector? Did he say we would lose a million middle class jobs? Did he say that NAFTA was a conservative atrocity that needed to be stopped?

No.

Your premise that the conservatives are to blame for all that ails the middle class is BS and I am proving it.

Nothing in the last 20 years has helped erode the middle class and those without a college degree more than NAFTA.

Clinton wanted it. Gore sold his soul on national TV for it. I guess we should just all pretend that it was a conservative idea and Clinton was forced to sign it.

Maybe you can claim it was an amendment to CRA like you so inaccurately portrayed the GLB act that Clinton also signed.

You aren't proving anything. I said quite clearly, "It was one of the two or three stupidest things Clinton did as a President." ( That would include Gore.)

ARTLO: "No argument from me. Conservative policies have devastated the middle class. That's why people join Unions. To protect themselves from Conservatives."

Ignoring the ramifications of their "stupid" decision hardly limits or erases it's impact on the plight of the middle class.

Clinton and Gore sold out the middle class. He opened the door for corporations to move their operations outside of the country so they could maximize their profits and cost low and middle income people jobs and future job opportunities.

The information I posted clearly points that out.

If you want to argue the merits of the data or maybe you feel that NAFTA hasn't had a substantial impact on the lower and middle class, I would be more than happy to read an evidence based rebuttal.

I think you"re trying to pick a fight where there is none. From the very beginning, I have yelled and screamed that the two most devasting influences on America are those free-trade agreements and the tax cuts on the wealthy. The prime motivators of these factors have always been the Conservative and corporate factions, but the corporate Democrats have facilitated their enactment. It is a result of the DLC triangulation strategy that sought to make Democrats look more like Republicans. these things, along with the telecommunications act are destroying the country. In addition, I will never forgive the DLCers for helping to scuttle Howard Dean.