Maggie's Farm

I thought long and hard about commenting on this, but that's the way it goes - gotta say what I gotta say.

The inane and frankly sophmoric logic train he uses here is stunning not to mention the use of Obama's pandering technique.

Six lobbyists sitting and staring at the legislators imposing their will on same. Wow- that's one hell of an indictment of...who again? Oh - the teacher's union because they hired lobbyists. Really. Who is sitting on the other side of the table - monkeys? No - indeed they are legislators elected by the people of New Jersey - who fold like a house of cards because contributions to election campaigns are more important than actually doing their fiscal jobs for the people of the state.

The teacher's are the only union that has lobbyists? No lobbyists for the State Police union? Transportation workers union? State administrators union? None of these have lobbyists? How about lawyers and doctors associations - no lobbyists working for them? The legislators have or share no blame for writing egregious contracts?

Governor Christie seems to be implying that monies paid to the teachers for their work actually belongs to the taxpayers and the state and not to the teachers. In my universe, which apparently Governor Christie does not share, if you are paid to do a job, then that money is yours to do what you wish. If you choose to use that money to join a professional organization, that is your choice - its not the Governor's choice as to where and what that money can be used for because it belongs to somebody else - the people you hired to teach your children. To carry that logic train to the extreme, it seems that Governor Christie's opinion is that if I pay you to do work for me, then you can only spend it on what I say you can spend it on because that money really belongs to me....that argument is mind numbingly stupid.

With respect to non-union teachers being required to pay a portion of normal member dues, how exactly is this a bad thing? If you are going to benefit from the labor of the group under which you operate, enjoy the benefits bargained for by the group, then it only fair that you pay some of the cost for those gains. That has been a feature of Union contracts since the days of John L. Lewis. It is a feature of American fairness and doing what is right. Not understaning that is either a sign of historical ignorance or of saying what feels good without have any sort of logical construct to support it.

Don't pin the Republican hopes on this conservative Republican because it is very clear that he is a panderer. We just elected one of those - how's that working out for us.

Oh goodie - somebody proved my point for me. First we had Paulbots. Then O-bots. Now we have Christiebots.

WHOO HOO!! Welcome to the brave new world!!!!

I'm not arguing the effectiveness of teaching or the relative worth of New Jersey's education or if all this benefits the children. My argument is that this is pandering of the highest order at the easiest target there is - teachers and their union.

With respect to choice in joining the Union, that's probably the most incredible bit of pandering in the whole clip. American history is full of examples of people banding together to gain some sort of advantage of numbers. One example is our own Federal and State legislative bodies. Even if you are an Independant, you have to caucus with either one of the two parties to gain a committee assignment or have some sort of political bargaining power.

Back in the day, ranchers formed the Grange, farmer's formed cooperatives - etc. You can't obtain the benefits of the group without at least participating in the group in some fashion. It is a stupid argument that one should be free to join or not join but still be able to gain benefits from the group's efforts.

To argue otherwise is ignorance of basic human nature.

There is absoutely nothing wrong with a pay freeze - I agree - can't even argue that.

Again, my argument isn't that something must be done to benefit the Commonwealth that is New Jersey. What the union did, admittedly, does not benefit them or the state - I agree. It is simply that pandering to a general audience at an easily identifiable target that grates on my sense of fairness. There is more than one union representing the 80,000 some odd state employees that, on average, make more the average teacher.

If Governor Christie's remarks had included all state employees and all the unions, I wouldn't have a problem with it although I would still argue that it's pandering.

The basic problem isn't the unions - it is the elected representatives who gladly hand out the financial life blood of the state without thought of consequences on down the road. The people who elected the representatives are responsible for allowing it to happen.

Gringo my friend, thank you. I agree.

A little story if you will. The year was 1989 and our town's contract with the teachers was up for negotiation. My wife was the leader of the union band at the time which made for some awkward moments around the old homestead as I was on the Finance Committee as Vice-Chair. Projections had given the FC pause as the Grand List tax base could not sustain a major increase in either wages or benefits.

To make a long story short, after many nights of dancing around the point discussion at the dinner table and carefull hints to third parties, a deal of sorts was struck - the local would accept a token "raise" in which only the lower tier teachers would get actual raises, the upper tier teachers would get a zero increase, some minor changes in contract language and the health care package would have a minor increase in cost to the teachers. Win win as the mill rate would stay the same.

Side note: Before I go any further, this is not uncommon in most small towns - deals get struck ahead of time and it usually benefits everybody. In this case, it was a bit unusual as the people most involved happened to be married to each other. :>)

Unfortunately, the Board of Ed was not onboard with this. There were some hot heads, newbies into town in fact, who were determined to stick to the teacher's union. They were determined that, in fact, they were going to get huge give backs from the union and....well, you get where I'm going here.

The BOE hired a hot-shot attorney to do their negotiating for them. He insisted on having a "free hand" which they gave him. At the very first meeting of the two sides, Mr. Hot Shot labor attorney took the previous three year contract, laid it on the table in front of the teacher's negotiating team and said "Here's our offer - take it or leave it".

The previous contract had hard raises across the board of at least 3%/yr, benefits language that needed to be changed, no increase in co-pays and very restrictive contract language with respect to working conditions.

After a short caucus with her team, the Mrs. came back and accepted the offer.

Now tell me - who was at fault in that scenario? :>)

Look, I'll two more points and then I'm out - my head hurts.

1 - I'm looking for leadership in the Republican party. I'm looking for real ideas, concepts and policies, not the same old pandering crap that Governor Christie is handing out. We need new leadership, not the same leadership with a different name. Attacking strawmen, while a time honored tradition in politics, isn't going to solve the problem. We need a Reagan, not a Christie.

2 - Not to start a huge argument, but I suspect there is a little bit of misogyny in all this as 80% of all elementary and middle school teachers are women.

One more try and then I'm out. :>)

Back in the day when I was still active in the fishing business, I belonged to a co-op. There was a basic buy in cost which allowed us to buy gas/diesel, ice, bait, etc., at wholesale cost. A part-time business manager handled the wholesale negotiations for the group as a whole. We benefited from this co-operative association by lowering costs allowing us to maintain a stable price structure for our individual charter operations.

Do other charter operations have the right to benefit from our purchasing power without having to pay a cost?

I suspect you would say no. If you agree that other operators do not have that right, then your argument with respect to non-union members collapses.

There more wrong with our educational system than just teacher unions and pay. Issues like inadequate books and classrooms, mainstreaming of special ed kids, activities that used to be part of after school programs that are now part of the normal school day, teachers having to act as social workers - do you have any idea how much paperwork a teacher has to do on a normal day?....I could go on. I've lived with this subject for 40 years and it has been the subject of many a late night discussion on the back deck with somebody who has been in the middle of the wars with both her professional organization and just plain old teaching. I don't agree 50% of the time by the way so defending the Union is fairly unigue for me.

I understand the frustration, the anger and the need to do something - ANYTHING to correct the problem. Targeting one single union and the associative membership as the Evil Empire, which is what Governor Christie did, is simplistic, boorish and - I'll say it again, pandering worthy of any Democrat. It is politics as usual instead of politics worthy of support.

And now, I'm grabbing my fly rod, some poppers and heading out to capture and filet some panfish.

Peace. Out.