The Real Facts On Why Wisconsin And Other States Are Beginning To Balk On The Unions
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2011
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
The big unions have always boasted of being labor’s best friend, and it is true that they have made some comfortable, even to the point of being lazy and uncaring. But most of all, their easier life has usually been at the expense of others. Now that Wisconsin’s new budget law is in effect, some of the benefits are beginning to reveal themselves.
The unions unceasing demands of the employers, the strikes and lost production, included in this was harassment, property damage and other violence against those who were non-union. This is the primary reason for the many years of damaging inflation, the pricing of our products out of the competitive range, allowing foreign products to cut deeply into our domestic markets, and businesses decision to move overseas to escape the excessive costs.
This extreme damage to our nations viability in trading has been much of the cause of our present predicament.
Now, many states who are facing staggering deficits in their own budgets are striving to do something about it. Some states have provisions in their constitution that prohibits borrowing and they must stay within the level of their receipts. Which is a wise thing for any entity.
Wisconsin was facing a shortfall and something had to be done. In a case where cuts have to be made, there is always opposition and sometimes, the choices are few. If one will read, without prejudice, the factors involved in the bill which was passed and signed into law, it becomes very obvious, that the choices made, were quite fair. The law became effective at 12:01 a.m. June 29. Following is a blurb from the Washington Examiner which explains a remarkable difference in just one school district:
The Kaukauna School District, in the Fox River Valley of Wisconsin near Appleton, has about 4,200 students and about 400 employees. It has struggled in recent times and this year faced a deficit of $400,000. But after the law went into effect, at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, school officials put in place new policies they estimate will turn that $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus. And it's all because of the very provisions that union leaders predicted would be disastrous.
In the past, teachers and other staff at Kaukauna were required to pay 10 percent of the cost of their health insurance coverage and none of their pension costs. Now, they'll pay 12.6 percent of the cost of their coverage (still well below rates in much of the private sector) and also contribute 5.8 percent of salary to their pensions. The changes will save the school board an estimated $1.2 million this year, according to board President Todd Arnoldussen. (Union curbs rescue a Wisconsin school district: Byron York-Washington Examiner-July 12, 2011)
In another school district, the Hartland-Lakeside School District, in the small town of Hartland, about 30 miles west of Milwaukee was having difficulties in their collective bargaining contract with the union. The contract specified that the health insurance for the teachers was to be through the Wisconsin Education Association Trust (WEA). The premiums for this insurance had risen considerably and when the school protested, they were told it was because of the rise in health care costs. However, the school new better since they had similar coverage with another insurance provider for their non-union employees.
The District Superintendent, Glenn Schilling, stated that in that one area, they would show a considerable savings, from what was to be around $2.5 million per year was now about $1.8 million. Approximately $700,000 per year in health insurance alone!
This new budget law encompasses much more than the part concerned with the bargaining rights of the public employees unions. It will bring the state back into non-deficit spending and so far, nothing drastically damaging to anyone has been shown. To examine the law in detail, Click Here.
This Article has been viewed 424 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)You don't know how heartening your article is. Whenever it comes to thinking about the stranglehold the unions get, it fills me with a helpless despair. If a turnaround is starting to be affected, then I rejoice. Thanks for the article.Thank you Christopher. Yes, I agree. Neither I, or any of my family ever belonged to a union. I worked with a company once which was organized, however, I held a supervisory job and was not required to belong to the union, nor could I have even if I had wanted to. But evenso, it was the most aggravating job I had ever held. I was called into their meeting twice, inquiring why I had done this or so with an employee. I had an employee, newly hired, to sweep the floor. (there were no janitors) and had another emplyee (8 years on the job) carry on the other boys work while he swept. And they called me on the carpet for that. The new-hire had not even been there long enough to belong to the union yet. I found another job and left the place 6 months later. If a machine was unplugged, the user of it had to call an electricion to plug it in for him. I plugged it in and told him to go to work. I was called in on that also.
When I took a job with any company, I took it to work...not to take every advantage of the company that I could to keep from working.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.