Highly qualified and decent workers are being passed over for younger workers lacking business skills

The two articles were on the WSJ website and they are the symptoms of a larger problem that is being made worse by business leaders -

The first article was a well written piece on how difficult it has been for workers who are between 40 - 60 years old to find work after the recession.  Having been in that situation, I understand the issue fully.

Take a look at this link

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303506404577448751320412974.html

Here is a quote from that article -

" More than 3.5 million Americans between the ages of 45 and 64 were unemployed as of May, 39% of them for a year or more—a rate of long-term unemployment that is unprecedented in modern U.S. history, and far higher than among younger workers.

The struggles of the middle-aged unemployed point to a larger economic problem: The labor market can't fully heal until people like Ms. Adams and Messrs. Daniel and Schoolfield can get back to work. The longer it takes, the deeper and more permanent the scars of the recession become—not just for the workers themselves, but for the broader economy.
The net-net of this article - Highly qualified and decent workers are being passed over due to being unemployed.  They have a lifetime worth of skills and knowledge but have been rendered unusable by companies who treat them as disposable."


Then we get this info, also from the Wall Street Journal -

This Embarrasses You and I*

Grammar Gaffes Invade the Office in an Age of Informal Email, Texting and Twitter by Sue Shellenbarger

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303410404577466662919275448.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_LeadStoryNA

Here is a key part of that article -

" A majority of the younger workers hired by companies have a complete lack of grammar and understanding of how to properly handle business communications.

Managers are fighting an epidemic of grammar gaffes in the workplace. Many of them attribute slipping skills to the informality of email, texting and Twitter where slang and shortcuts are common. Such looseness with language can create bad impressions with clients, ruin marketing materials and cause communications errors, many managers say.

There's no easy fix. Some bosses and co-workers step in to correct mistakes, while others consult business-grammar guides for help. In a survey conducted earlier this year, about 45% of 430 employers said they were increasing employee-training programs to improve employees' grammar and other skills, according to the Society for Human Resource Management and AARP

Most participants in the Society for Human Resource Management-AARP survey blame younger workers for the skills gap. Tamara Erickson, an author and consultant on generational issues, says the problem isn't a lack of skill among 20- and 30-somethings. Accustomed to texting and social networking, "they've developed a new norm," Ms. Erickson says."


Colleges found this out when they had to start instituting courses to assist incoming freshmen with writing, English and math literacy.  The colleges needed to do this to ensure that the students could maintain the required standards.  This is a symptom of a failing education system that has been going downhill due to unions, ineffective teachers who are not rated on performance and a bloated system that demands more and more money while producing students unable to handle the basic skills needed to be a part of the workforce.

In Algebra, they taught us the basic equation " If A = B, and B = C then A must = C."
SO if we look at these issues I can draw the following conclusions -

A - Companies have purposely decided to take older workers off their books in an effort to save money on wages and benefits - thereby depriving themselves of highly qualified workers.  In their stead, they have and will hire cheaper, younger workers.

B - Based on the skill set of the younger workers hired, companies are getting less performance and having more difficulties with the cheaper, less experienced help they are bringing on to the job.  They will see the cost of this short sighted decision in spending more on training, lost business due to ineffective workers and lower profits.

And then we come to C - Due to the actions of Educators, Business Leaders, Teacher's Unions and the ineffective Politicians, we have created a multi-layer problem of wasted tax dollars spent in an under performing education system, ruined career opportunities for older workers and under-educated younger workers. It's a mess that will effect our country for decades until we change how we educate our students and how older workers are treated by businesses ignoring the best qualified applicants  simply because they are older than 45.

This issue is multifaceted and there's plenty of blame to go around - We have known for the past decade that teaching has mainly been about  teacher's tenure and not about excellence.  Unions thugs gamed the education system and POLS gave them the tax dollars to do so.....Businesses decided to take advantage of the recession to force out older workers and reduce overhead.

In the end, this tragedy means wasted tax dollars, lower wages, ruined careers for good workers and an education system that has failed for years while rewarding those who engineered the failure......Did I miss anything ???

GREED killed the American Unions

The Atlantic Magazine wrote a piece titled " Who Killed American Unions??"

The article was not very compelling....it focused on all aspects other than the key issue.

The one part of the liberal whining that goes on in this article is they didn't mention the key reason why Unions have cratered...

GREED.

Yes, GREED.  The Unions and their members got GREEDY.  That's what killed them.

Now, I understand and agree they are not the only ones who got greedy.  CEOs and other getting obscene pay packages, stock insiders pillaging the economy and causing chaos, etc. etc.  I see it and agree that they have caused as many issues for the American Economy as the Unions.

But, the question is " Who Killed American Unions??" - The main culprit is the Unions themselves.

The last three and half years have accelerated their demise but it started way before that.....
GREEDY UNION Members and their fat arse bosses used their muscle to bully and batter companies like GM, Ford & Chrysler into ridiculous labor agreements.

Public Employee Unions gamed the political system and conceived ridiculous laws and agreements that allow public employees to retire on sky high pensions inflated by overtime and into which many have never paid a cent.  They don't have any care that the agreements were  faulty and unsustainable.  it didn't matter that they got paid for standing down on the job or doing little.  They got the agreements put in place and even if it bankrupts the town, they want the money.

Union Leaders lined their pockets with dues paid by the members and did little other than make themselves rich on the backs of the workers.  They decided that they were entitled to the same type of compensation as those who ran the businesses.....GREED.  More and more was their only goal.

This is what killed the Unions and why today, they only represent a minor fraction of all workers.  Unions were needed when there were no laws to protect workers but in the last 40 years, the Unions became only about paying their workers and the Union Bosses as much as they could extort from the companies and government.

Now the companies have had enough.  The cost of a new car produced in Detroit had almost $10K cost tacked on to it to provide incredible huge pay & benefits to assembly line workers.  The added cost is borne by every person who bought a vehicle from the big three, while others like Toyota set up factories in Tennessee without Unions.  The new factories were able to produced excellent vehicles and cheaper.

That helped put the Big Three teetering on the edge....The market was cornered by cheaper, leaner, better.

Now, Towns and States are seeing the light.  They know that they have been had and the voters are pushing back.  Taxpayers have had enough. Voters have started fixing what has been known for many years.  It wasn't just enough to earn good money, these Union types needed to earn MORE.  And it doesn't bother them at all that it is costing others services or extra costs tacked on to things they want.

It is all about them and their need to satisfy their Greed.

That's what killed the Unions and for the author of the article in the Atlantic Magazine to miss that completely shows there still are people who don't want to acknowledge reality.

Reality is the Unions caused their own demise.  Their GREED and their need to be GREEDY to the detriment of all others.

And the Mass Media wonders why people aren't siding with the Unions....it is because they see the wanton GREED with their own eyes and recognize it for what it is - shameful.

President Obama preaches to friendly crowd of Union Supporters....both are clueless about what the rest of the country needs....

The President goes to Detroit to speak to Union supporters...One of his core constituencies and those who have the most to win if the feckless fool stays in office. This is the political equivalent of " preaching to the choir." There is a reason why Union membership is down nationwide....because in the end, the average worker loses and only the Union Leaders gain.

The pics from this rally won't mean spit to those who know that the President squandered 2 1/2 years on his clueless social agenda and forcing programs on America that no one wants and no one needed. His request that the " GOP must put their country ahead of party..." is his way of saying, " You have to let me do what I want " for us to accomplish anything. That is a sign of his intolerant immaturity as being the President doesn't mean the other party stands aside no more than it did during the last administration where the DEMS were the party opposing everything President Bush wanted....The fact that he thinks he can stamp his feet and get his way is further evidence of his cluelessness.

The union fools were chanting " four more years " at this rally. NO ONE in America needs four more years of this hapless incompetent in the White House. We need LEADERSHIP, a word which is a total mystery to Barry from Chicago.


Obama says GOP must back US first, create jobs
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE - Associated Press AP – 38 mins ago......

DETROIT (AP) — President Barack Obama said Monday that congressional Republicans must put their country ahead of their party and vote to create new jobs as he used a boisterous Labor Day rally to aim a partisan barb at the GOP.

In a preview of the jobs speech he will deliver on Thursday to Congress, Obama said there are numerous roads and bridges that need rebuilding in the U.S., and over 1 million unemployed construction workers who are available to build them.

Citing massive federal budget deficits, Republicans have expressed opposition to spending vast new sums on jobs programs. But Obama said that with widespread suffering, "the time for Washington games is over" and lawmakers must move quickly to create jobs.

"But we're not going wait for them," he said at an annual event sponsored by the Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO. "We're going to see if we've got some straight shooters in Congress. We're going to see if congressional Republicans will put country before party."

Obama's remarks came as he has been under heavy criticism from the GOP for presiding over a persistently weak economy and high unemployment. Last Friday's dismal jobs report showed a net job change of zero in August, and the unemployment rate held steady at 9.1 percent.

Congress returns from its summer recess this week, with the faltering economy and job market promising to be a dominant theme of the session. The economy is all but certain to also be the top issue of the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

Throughout the speech, the union crowd kept chanting "four more years."

Obama also said lawmakers should extend the temporary reduction in the payroll tax that workers pay, a cut that will otherwise expire on Jan. 1. Many Republicans have opposed renewing the payroll tax cut, saying it would increase federal red ink and do little to create jobs.

"You say you're the party of tax cuts," Obama said of the GOP argument. "Well, then prove you'll fight just as hard for tax cuts for middle class families as you do oil companies and the most affluent Americans. Show us what you've got."

In the speech to Congress, Obama is expected to call for a mix of individual and business tax credits and public works spending. He will also press lawmakers for swift action on those proposals.

Underscoring the political dueling on the economy under way, Obama plans to visit Richmond, Va., the day after his address to Congress as the first of several trips he will make to encourage support for his job creation plan. Part of Richmond is represented by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., one of the president's fiercest critics.

The president's broader goal is to make a sweeping appeal for bipartisan action on the economy, speaking not only to the members of Congress who will assemble before him, but to the larger American public. In that sense, the speech will mark a pivot point from a fall and summer spent dealing with long-term deficit reduction to a fall campaign devoted to boosting a foot-dragging recovery.

Aides say Obama will mount a campaign throughout the fall centered on the economy, unveiling different elements of his agenda heading into 2012. If Republicans reject his ideas, the president and his aides want to enlist the public as an ally, essentially using the megaphone of his presidency to pressure Congress and make the case for his re-election.

"People will see a president who will be laying very significant proposals throughout the fall leading up this next State of the Union," Gene Sperling, director of Obama's National Economic Council, said in an interview with the Associated Press..

While Obama has said any short term spending proposal will be paid for over the long-term, aides say the speech will not offer details on what deficit reduction measures would be used to offset immediate spending measures. The speech also is not expected to include a detailed plan for resolving the nation's housing crisis, a central cause behind the weak economy that White House aides and administration officials have been struggling to resolve.

"A lot of what will be discussed in greater detail in this economic proposal that he will be making on Thursday night will focus on many things that will have a more immediate, positive effect on getting the recovery to take hold, getting stronger growth , spurring job creation, spurring the private sector to invest more," Sperling said.

Asked specifically about housing, he said: You will also see him throughout the fall talking about other issues that are also at very much the heart of this economic agenda."

Last week's disappointing jobs report sparked new fears of a second recession and injected fresh urgency into efforts by Obama to help get millions of unemployed people back into the labor market — and help improve his re-election chances.

Meanwhile, the Chamber of Commerce on Monday surfaced its own jobs plan. In an open letter to Congress and the White House, the Chamber called for measures designed to immediately increase employment, including stepped-up road and bridge construction, more oil drilling and temporary corporate tax breaks.

Polls show the economy and jobs are the public's top concerns. Public approval of Obama's handling of the economy hit a new low of 26 percent in a recent Gallup survey.

The unemployment report also gave Obama's Republican critics, including those who want to challenge him in next year's presidential election, fresh ammunition to pound him with.

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney called the report disappointing, unacceptable and "further proof that President Obama has failed." Romney is scheduled to outline his own job-creation plan in a speech Tuesday in the battleground state of Nevada.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said Monday that both political parties should get behind Obama's efforts to improve the hiring picture.

"We do need everyone to be on board," she said on NBC's "Today" show.

Solis said Obama "is very mindful of what the needs and concerns are of those individuals who have been out of work for so long." But she also said the jobless have a responsibility to seek training in new skills, if necessary, to better prepare themselves for the kinds of jobs available in today's economy.

Obama spent part of the holiday weekend at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland "putting the finishing touches" on the proposals and the speech, said spokesman Jay Carney.

Obama won Michigan in the 2008 presidential election and the economically challenged state is crucial to his re-election prospects. The state unemployment rate was 10.9 percent in July, above the national average for that month. The Detroit-area jobless rate was even higher, at 14.1 percent in July

NJ Lawmakers adjust to reality - a word that the Public Unions have no idea about.....

re·al·i·ty / rēˈalətē / Noun 1. The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality".

REALITY is something the Public Unions in this country refuse to recognize. Three cheers for Gov. Chris Christie and the NJ Lawmakers for recognizing reality.... They passed a sweeping rollback of benefits for 750,000 government workers and retirees.

" ...the state’s pension funds are among the most underfunded in the nation — estimated last year at $54 billion short of the amount needed to meet future obligations. Mr. Christie and others have warned that mounting pension and health care costs could eventually bankrupt the state and local governments."

That is REALITY...The Unions want to hold on to " Well I was promised this by some guy back when I started 30 years ago..." So were many others who worked just as hard and as diligently for the private companies...The difference is the private workers didn't have a rigged system to back them up like the public unions do.

Sorry Public Union workers, the game is O-V-E-R. You will still collect much more than 99% of the other citizens in benefits but that alone is not enough....they aren't happy to have a piece of the pie, they aren't going to be happy until they have the whole damn thing.

Looks like NJ has put a whole bunch of them on a diet.....about time.


New Jersey Lawmakers Approve Benefits Rollback for Work Force
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: June 23, 2011 - NY TIMES

TRENTON — New Jersey lawmakers on Thursday approved a broad rollback of benefits for 750,000 government workers and retirees, the deepest cut in state and local costs in memory, in a major victory for Gov. Chris Christie and a once-unthinkable setback for the state’s powerful public employee unions.

The Assembly passed the bill 46 to 32, as Republicans and a few Democrats defied raucous protests by thousands of people whose chants, vowing electoral revenge, shook the State House. Leaders in the State Senate said their chamber, which had already passed a slightly different version of the bill, would approve the Assembly version on Monday, and Mr. Christie, a Republican, was expected to quickly sign the measure into law.

The legislation will sharply increase what state and local workers must contribute for their health insurance and pensions, suspend cost-of-living increases to retirees’ pension checks, raise retirement ages and curb the unions’ contract bargaining rights. It will save local and state governments $132 billion over the next 30 years, by the administration’s estimate, and give the troubled benefit systems a sounder financial footing, mostly by shifting costs onto workers.

While states around the country have moved to pare labor costs and limit the power of unions, the move is all the more striking here, in a Democratic-leaning state where Democrats control both houses of the Legislature and union membership is among the highest in the country. Most Democratic legislators opposed the benefits reductions, but their leaders voted in favor of the changes, exposing deep, longstanding rifts in the party that lawmakers say could weaken it in coming elections.

The fight over benefits reflected both Mr. Christie’s ability to exploit the divisions among Democrats, through his alliances with more conservative Democratic party bosses and legislators, and his success at using the public-sector unions as a foil in his drive to shrink government spending. It has also allowed a nationally known but highly polarizing governor to claim the mantle of bipartisan conciliation, telling audiences that New Jersey is setting an example that other states and the federal government should follow.

“These accomplishments have been the result of compromise with the other party, and have been done with Democratic votes and Republican votes,” he said at a town-hall-style meeting on Wednesday in Fair Lawn.

On Thursday, thousands of people wearing union T-shirts and buttons filled the Assembly visitors’ gallery, the State House corridors and, in a high-decibel protest, the sidewalks, lawns and streets around the building. A procession down State Street included a hearse draped with a banner saying “The Soul of the Democratic Party,” and organizers with bullhorns led the crowd in chants of “We’ll remember in November!” and “Kill the bill!”

Unions have been broadcasting advertisements attacking Democrats who support the bill — particularly Stephen M. Sweeney, the Senate president — and this week union leaders have spoken of the difference between “real Democrats and Christie Democrats,” pointedly including in the latter group Mr. Sweeney, who also is an official of the ironworkers’ union.

“This bill is not about savings; it is about breaking the backs of the hard-working men and women of this state,” Assemblyman Patrick J. Diegnan Jr., a Democrat from Middlesex County, said Thursday evening after the session began. “I challenge everyone in this chamber today: how many have even read the full 124 pages of union-busting activities?”

The legislation applies to all state employees and to a much larger number of county, town and school district workers, because most local governments participate in the state-run pension and health care systems. When it is fully phased in, after four years, the average government worker will pay several thousand dollars more into the benefit funds.

But union leaders say the bigger issue is what they call a stealth assault on collective bargaining. With just a week remaining in the contracts for the major state employee unions, the unions are now trying to negotiate new agreements with the state.

Most public employees in the state, other than teachers, police officers and firefighters, have had no guarantee of collective bargaining on any issue except for health benefits.

The legislation will supersede that right, allowing the state to impose health care terms unilaterally. For many workers, this means that if contract talks reach an impasse, the government will be able, at least in theory, to dictate all terms, like wages, time off and work rules.

“This bill cuts away the one issue, health care, that the unions could use to trade off against other things,” said Jeffrey H. Keefe, associate professor at the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers University.

Hetty Rosenstein, state director of the Communications Workers of America, said, “This bill is nothing less than Chris Christie’s frontal assault on organized labor.”

Union leaders said they were exploring the possibility that some provisions of the bill, like the suspension of cost-of-living increases for retirees, could be challenged in court.

Assemblyman Angel Fuentes, a Democrat from Camden, said, “These reforms are unquestionably bitter pills for us to swallow, but they are reasonable and they are necessary.” He added: “We now have towns across this state that are struggling to afford health benefits for their employees. This has resulted in cities laying off workers.”

In his campaign to rein in the unions and shrink government, Mr. Christie has often been helped by New Jersey’s unique political culture, where local political machines still dominate some areas, and many state legislators also hold local government jobs. That gives striking influence in Trenton to mayors, county executives and local party bosses who struggle with rising labor costs and have repeatedly sided with the governor’s push to cut benefits and wages.

Until recently, the public employee unions were among the most feared forces in state politics. They were a major source of votes, campaign cash and foot soldiers for Democrats, but officials in both parties were eager to please them. For years, governors and legislators from both parties sweetened their pension benefits but did not put any money into the system to pay for them.

As a result, the state’s pension funds are among the most underfunded in the nation — estimated last year at $54 billion short of the amount needed to meet future obligations. Mr. Christie and others have warned that mounting pension and health care costs could eventually bankrupt the state and local governments.

The pendulum has swung back over the last four years, first under Gov. Jon S. Corzine, a Democrat, and then under Mr. Christie, as the state took steps like increasing what workers paid for benefits, raising retirement ages and limiting contract arbitration awards. But the bill now awaiting the Senate’s approval and Mr. Christie’s signature is easily the most far-reaching one yet

In the real world, unlike for Wisconsin Teachers & Legislators, people who lie about missing work get a pink slip....

Thoughtful analysis on the Wisconsin issue....

It comes down to this - Agree or disagree, teachers skipping school and legislators leaving the state to avoid doing their jobs is ethically wrong. If you want to debate an issue, do so in the legislature. If you want to protest, do so on your own time, not when you should be teaching in the schools or doing your state job. Any private employee who acted this way would likely be fired and/or replaced. But because they work for the state/municipal system, they are allowed to acted insubordinate to the taxpayers.

Teachers & Legislators, get back to the work you are being paid for and stop the acting out. It is embarrassing that these "public employees" are not taking care of their customers, only themselves....and it has been going on for far too long.

An “Assault on Unions?” It’s About Time
By Susan Brown February 22nd, 2011

Thuggish, “community organizing” politics showed up in Wisconsin after Commander-in-Chief, President Obama, deployed his Organizing for America (OFA) troops to inject protestors into the Wisconsin budget debate Obama describes as an “assault on unions.” Obama is a smart man, so why would he choose to federalize a state issue and define Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to reduce the state’s deficit, preserve jobs and prevent dramatic pay cuts as an “assault?”

After all, Gov. Walker simply asked union members to chip in a moderate percentage of their above average salary to contribute to their very generous and above the average pension and healthcare plans. The proposed increase could be partially recouped by another part of the proposal to make union participation and dues – optional – saving teachers upwards of $1100 annually.

Rather than intelligently considering the facts and having an intelligent debate, those charged with the honor of teaching our children responded like high school freshmen by calling in “sick” and closing down the Madison school system to join in a protest instigated by political arm of the Grande Community Organizer himself – President Obama. In the real world, where the parents of the Wisconsin public school system children live, people who lie about missing work only to show up on their bosses doorstep to protest get a pink slip, not a pat on the back.

In the meantime, Wisconsin Democrat legislators revealed their lack of intestinal fortitude when they left the state. They bailed to prevent the three-fifths quorum requirement necessary for continuance of Walker’s proposed legislation.

The sad part about all this is the “to hell with the children” attitude displayed by the Wisconsin educators, union members and the Obama administration. The children are the ones who pay the price for this ridiculously mindless political power stunt.

It really boils down to money and power. Former American Federation of Teachers president, the late Albert Shanker, said it best when he said, “When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.”

Recently, Wisconsin Education Association Council President Mary Bell reiterated the same self-serving attitude when she said, “This is not about protecting our pay and our benefits. It is about protecting our right to collectively bargain.”

Walker’s proposal would effectively make union membership optional, and as such, would slowly act as a way to dissolve some of the power teachers unions have collected for themselves over the years. No longer would taxpayer money be funneled directly into union boss pockets – leading to less political clout and less manipulation of the American electoral process.

America needs to be about the business of creating jobs. The traditional need for unions has long since passed and the longer they linger the more unions will be like a cancer on the workers in this country and the businesses they support.

The Bush administration understood that danger and demanded accountability by forcing unions to be more transparent by itemizing expenditures on an LM-2 report form. This accountability led to the indictment of 1004 union officials and the conviction of a little over 900 – for crimes including fraud, embezzlement of members’ dues and $93 million in court-ordered restitutions leading to the resignation of some of Service Employees International Union top employees.

Any level of transparency the Bush administration achieved was reversed when, in 2009, the Purveyor of Transparency himself rescinded the Bush LM-2 form rules and ostensibly padded union fat cat wallets.

This move away from transparency served to peel back layers of hope and change to reveal a very union-friendly core. And federalizing the Wisconsin budget debate made Obama look like a national union boss rather than an American president.

You say Governor Walker’s proposed legislation is an “assault on unions,” Mr. President? Many Americans say, “It’s about time.”

—–

©2011 Susan Stamper Brown. Susan is a motivational speaker and military advocate and can be reached at susan@susanstamperbrown.com her website www.susanstamperbrown.com

Wisconsin Gov. Walker to Greedy Unions, " We don’t have anything to give. Like every other state in the country, we’re broke...it’s time to pay up."

LOOKS LIKE WE ARE REACHING ANOTHER "TIPPING POINT...and none too soon.

To wit: The "Tipping Point" is an idea outlined by that name by Malcolm Gladwell. According to Gladwell, ideas change society by behaving like viruses....the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point; the point when everyday things reach epidemic proportions.

It looks like we have started to reach that point in our States.

After the impressive progress of Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey, the Gov. of Wisconsin is my newest hero.....taking a stand against the greedy state hacks who don't care that the economy is in the crapper, they just want their $$$ and life-long entitlements....regardless of who it hurts or what it does to the rest of the state. The biggest issue is that these greedy hacks usually pull up stakes and move somewhere else once they retire on their benefits for life.....

Look, I don't want to see anyone do without BUT there is no way that we can honor golden ticket promises made by "pie-in-the sky" pension managers from 30 years ago. The market has turned south and no one should expect to be immune from change. To do so shows a level of selfishness that is the Hallmark of unions and their leaders.

I salute the honorable Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin !!! He is taking on the problem head on.....Go get'em Sir !! Do what is best for your citizens, not just the well connected state hacks!!



Wisconsin May Take an Ax to State Workers’ Benefits and Their Unions
By MONICA DAVEY and STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: February 11, 2011

Citing Wisconsin’s gaping budget shortfall for this year and even larger ones expected in the years ahead, Gov. Scott Walker proposed a sweeping plan on Friday to cut benefits for public employees in the state and to take away most of their unions’ ability to bargain.

The proposal by Mr. Walker, a Republican who was elected in November after pledging that he would get public workers’ compensation “into line” with everyone else’s, is expected to receive support next week in the State Legislature, where Republicans also won control of both chambers in the fall.

The prospect left union leaders, state and local employees and some Democrats stunned over the plan’s scope and what it might signal for public-sector unions in the state. Union leaders began planning rallies in Madison and contacting lawmakers, pressing them to reject the idea.

Mr. Walker said Wisconsin was prepared for any fallout, noting in an interview that the National Guard was ready to step in to handle state duties, if need be.

“I’m just trying to balance my budget,” Mr. Walker said. “To those who say why didn’t I negotiate on this? I don’t have anything to negotiate with. We don’t have anything to give. Like practically every other state in the country, we’re broke. And it’s time to pay up.”

State leaders across the country have talked about solving budget woes with actions that in other climates might have been politically impossible: cutting the salaries and pensions of government workers and limiting the power of labor unions.

But the plan in Wisconsin, which faces a $137 million shortfall in the current budget and a gap in the billions for the coming cycle, is among the most far-reaching of such proposals to be delivered to lawmakers. Mr. Walker expects swift approval.

Among key provisions of Mr. Walker’s plan: limiting collective bargaining for most state and local government employees to the issue of wages (instead of an array of issues, like health coverage or vacations); requiring government workers to contribute 5.8 percent of their pay to their pensions, much more than now; and requiring state employees to pay at least 12.6 percent of health care premiums (most pay about 6 percent now).

Mike Imbrogno, a cook at the University of Wisconsin in Madison who belongs to a union and said he earns $28,000 a year, described the move as an “attack” on working people.

“He’s basically trying to smash the last remaining organized upward pressure on wages and benefits in Wisconsin,” Mr. Imbrogno said. Governor Walker’s proposal would specifically remove the right of the university’s faculty and staff to bargain collectively.

Mr. Walker made several proposals that will weaken not just unions’ ability to bargain contracts, but also their finances and political clout.

His proposal would make it harder for unions to collect dues because the state would stop collecting the money from employee paychecks.

He would further weaken union treasuries by giving members of public-sector unions the right not to pay dues. In an unusual move, he would require secret-ballot votes each year at every public-sector union to determine whether a majority of workers still want to be unionized.

He would require public-employee unions to negotiate new contracts every year, an often lengthy process. And he would limit the raises of state employees and teachers to the consumer price index, unless the public approves higher raises through a referendum. Exempted from those changes would be firefighters and law enforcement personnel.

“We think that the proposal that’s put forward, it just goes too far,” said Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin A.F.L.-C.I.O. “The right to negotiate wages and benefits for a union is a fundamental underpinning of the American middle class.”

But Mr. Walker and Republican leaders said disassembling unions was not the point at all. The intent, Mr. Walker said, was to avoid balancing the budget some other way: by laying off some 6,000 state workers, and taking away Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands of children.

Wisconsin officials say Mr. Walker’s plan would save the state $30 million in the current budget, and $300 million in the next budget. “In these tough times, I think people are going to feel that this is not that much to ask,” said Jeff Fitzgerald, the Republican speaker of the State Assembly. “Everyone is going to have to pitch in.”

Why Teacher Pensions Don't Work - " we simply kick the can down the road by underfunding pension obligations..."

Pension promises made to Teachers were built on a foundation of Hope - Hope that there would be enough money in the future to pay off on the promises.....Now, we are dealing with promises that can't be paid out by those stuck with the bill in the present.

The promises made by those in charge back-in-the-day were done with "good intentions" and we all know that the "Road to Hell" is paid with those same good intentions....I am sorry about what will have to happen but there are just as many private sector workers who lost their pensions when Big Business ran into the same issue....

As much as Teachers do great work, they are no more valuable than all the other workers who lost pensions they counted on and do not hold any kind of privileged standing that should protect them from what all the rest of us will have to deal with in the new economy. Life sux and SHITE happens...Teachers will be learning a lesson that private sector employees learned about 10-15 years ago.


Why Teacher Pensions Don't Work
Defined-benefit systems aren't merely Ponzi schemes. They discourage talented teachers who would prefer front-loaded compensation..

Text By JOEL KLEIN - Wall Street Journal


We live in a funny world. Bernie Madoff pretended he was getting 8% returns on his clients' investments—and he's in jail for running a Ponzi scheme. But in the public sector that kind of make-believe is common. As former chancellor of the New York City public schools, I learned that one of the options the city pension plan offered teachers and administrators guaranteed an 8.25% return, regardless of what the investments actually earned in the market. In fact, throughout the country public-employee pension plans have been massively underfunded, often pretending, like Madoff, that they'd get 8% returns forever, even if they didn't get them in reality.

Whether the investment returns are there or not, defined-benefit pensions require the government to pay retirees a predetermined amount for life. For example, today a teacher in New York City can retire with an annual pension of $60,000 (or more) that is exempt from state and municipal taxes. In short, lots of obligation; little set aside to meet it.

While irresponsible, this kind of behavior makes good political sense. After all, people run for office in the short run, and money spent now—rather than put aside in a pension reserve—is more likely to garner votes. As one legislator recently told me, "When budgets are tight, as they often are, we simply kick the can down the road by underfunding pension obligations." But as with Madoff, inevitably a day of reckoning arrives. For many states and municipalities, that day is now.

But this time it won't be private investors who get hurt. Instead, children currently in our schools, as well as future students, will be high among those paying the price. To cover the underfunded pension obligations to teachers and other public employees, cities and states have little choice but to divert money from what would otherwise be their operating budgets. And since schools make up a big part of those operating budgets, education will get significantly shortchanged as we make up for past underfunding.

This problem won't go away soon. There are lots of current retirees who must be paid, lots of people now working who have earned some part of their pensions, and, in many states, it is legally dubious whether current workers can have their pensions adjusted even prospectively. Consequently, no matter how you slice it, today's and tomorrow's students will long be subsidizing retired teachers who never taught them.

You would think that such a costly program, even if underfunded, would at least make sense. But while defined-benefit pensions sound good in theory—retirees should have security for their later years—they actually create incentives that impede hiring and keeping the best teachers.

To begin with, these pension systems make the total compensation package much too back-loaded: Pay in the early years is needlessly low, so we lose good people who don't find the generous benefits at the end worth the lifetime commitment.

Today in New York City, for example, the average annual per-teacher compensation is more than $110,000. The salary portion is $71,000, and the pension portion is $23,000. (The rest is for health insurance, FICA and other benefits.) A mix that was more typical of what exists in the private sector would help us attract more qualified people into teaching—and keep them there during the first five years, when we traditionally lose a third or more.

Here is an example of what that means. New York City's starting salary for teachers is $45,000, and the increases in the early years are low. If instead we started teachers at $52,000 or $55,000, gave them bigger increases in the early years, and paid for it by reducing their pensions, we would attract and keep better teachers.

At one point when I was chancellor, based on discussions with many new and prospective teachers, I proposed that we offer each new hire a choice between the current salary and benefit package and an alternative based on a higher entry salary and lower pension benefits. No one would lose anything: new hires that wanted the lifetime pension benefit could still have it, while those who preferred the proposed alternative obviously would be better off.

Nevertheless, the teachers union rejected the offer, calling it "anti-union."

On the other hand, because employees typically get a significant lifetime pension only after working 25 or 30 years, there comes a point at which almost no one leaves the system. In New York, few teachers leave after 10 years. Quite a few of these senior teachers admit they're burned out, or would want to try something else, but they stay simply because they cannot afford to forego the pension. Given that these teachers are already tenured, moreover, it's virtually impossible to remove them. This is not a good way to get the teachers that children need in our classrooms.

Defined-benefit pensions helped bring the once-vibrant U.S. auto industry to its knees. The promised benefits just proved too costly. In that industry, such pensions are mostly a thing of the past. Global competition eventually demanded as much.

Alas, the same kind of pensions are now hollowing out public education. Because there's essentially no competition in education, however, the effect has until very recently been hidden from public view. Today incoming governors—Democrats and Republicans—faced with this dismal equation are looking for a way to undo the damage and get out from under these unsustainable promises.

It won't be easy.

Mr. Klein, former chancellor of New York City's public schools, is the CEO of News Corporation's educational division

Walking the walk: NJ Gov. Chris Christie to cut 1,200 public sector jobs

Governor Chris Christie is the kind of new Politician who we need more of in our Capitals...He is a no nonsense guy who calls out those who have been gouging the Taxpayers for years...Of course that makes him a target for Unions and their Public Employee membership....

As far as I'm concerned, all I can say is, YOU GO GOVERNOR ! I don't live in New Jersey but you are my kind of Politician and maybe, just maybe, you can be an example how others can change the landscape so the rest of us can stop getting gouged by state & local employees who have set themselves up as a privileged class.

Now some of them can get an idea what the rest of us have been dealing with for the past few years...a little perspective is a good thing.

He will also be on Meet the Press this Sunday 11/07/10...

Walking the walk: NJ Gov. Chris Christie to cut 1,200 public sector jobs
By: Mark Hemingway
Washington Examiner Commentary Staff Writer
11/04/10

Since assuming office, Chris Christie has been relentlessly hammering home the message that New Jersey’s state government, which is badly in the red, must live within its means. But he’s also not afraid to make the tough decisions either. Whereas the previous governor, Jon Corzine, struck a deal to prevent layoffs in the public sector at a time when private sector workers were unemployed in record numbers, here comes Christie taking on the public sector unions:

State government is on track to shed at least 1,200 jobs in January, Gov. Chris Christie said today.
“Whether it will grow beyond that, I don’t know,” he said at a Statehouse press conference. “That’s very much going to be dependent on what the revenue outlook looks like for the state.”

The job cuts include layoffs and attrition, spokesman Michael Drewniak said.

How much do you think unions are going to spend to take Christie out when he runs for reelection? Sky’s the limit, I bet.

THE DIFFERENCE......JFK made a difference

This is the difference. READ the enclosed words from THE PRESIDENT, circa April 1962. SEE the difference in what a PRESIDENT should do compared with the light-weight we have now. John F. Kennedy took the message right to the people in a way that laid it out for all to see.

I am not pro-union, and I am not anti-business but the way the Steel Crisis played out, a small group of Steel Executives made decisions that would hurt the rest of America and JFK called them out on it. Today, we have groups of executives doing the same thing in multiple fields and no one is taking them on. They have the government in their pocket.

I support those who look out for the best interest of the country and see that any group, union or executives who believe they can do whatever they want without care for how it effects the citizens of this country needs to be called out.

Too bad we can only look to history to see the example for what a PRESIDENT should do, instead of being able to see one in the White House who can do so today.


Transcript
Official White House Transcript

Presidential News Conference #30, April 11, 1962
State Department Auditorium, Washington, D.C.
Date: April 11, 1962

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. I have several announcements to make.

Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations, increasing steel prices by some 6 dollars a ton, constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest.

In this serious hour in our nation's history, when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking Reservists to leave their homes and families for months on end, and servicemen to risk their lives -- and four were killed in the last two days in Viet Nam -- and asking union members to hold down their wage requests, at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.

If this rise in the cost of steel is imitated by the rest of the industry, instead of rescinded, it would increase the cost of homes, autos, appliances, and most other items for every American family. It would increase the cost of machinery and tools to every American businessman and farmer. It would seriously handicap our efforts to prevent an inflationary spiral from eating up the pensions of our older citizens, and our new gains in purchasing power.

It would add, Secretary McNamara informed me this morning, an estimated one billion dollars to the cost of our defenses, at a time when every dollar is needed for national security and other purposes. It would make it more difficult for American goods to compete in foreign markets, more difficult to withstand competition from foreign imports, and thus more difficult to improve our balance of payments position, and stem the flow of gold. And it is necessary to stem it for our national security, if we are going to pay for our security commitments abroad. And it would surely handicap our efforts to induce other industries and unions to adopt responsible price and wage policies.

The facts of the matter are that there is no justification for an increase in the steel prices. The recent settlement between the industry and the union, which does not even take place until July 1st, was widely acknowledged to be non-inflationary, and the whole purpose and effect of this Administration's role, which both parties understood, was to achieve an agreement which would make unnecessary any increase in prices.

Steel output per man is rising so fast that labor costs per ton of steel can actually be expected to decline in the next twelve months. And in fact, the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics informed me this morning that, and I quote: "Employment costs per unit of steel output in 1961 were essentially the same as they were in 1958. "

The cost of major raw materials, steel scrap and coal, has also been declining, and for an industry which has been generally operating at less than two-thirds of capacity, its profit rate has been normal and can be expected to rise sharply this year in view of the reduction in idle capacity. Their lot has been easier than that of a hundred thousand steel workers thrown out of work in the last three years. The industry's cash dividends have exceeded 600 million dollars in each of the last five years, and earnings in the first quarter of this year were estimated in the February 28th Wall Street Journal to be among the highest in history.

In short, at a time when they could be exploring how more efficiency and better prices could be obtained, reducing prices in this industry in recognition of lower costs, their unusually good labor contract, their foreign competition and their increase in production and profits which are coming this year, a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities....

The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competitive economy.

The Department of Defense and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement, and I am informed that steps are underway by those Members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made, and reached, and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest.

Price and wage decisions in this country, except for very limited restrictions in the case of monopolies and national emergency strikes, are and ought to be freely and privately made, but the American people have a right to expect in return for that freedom, a higher sense of business responsibility for the welfare of their country than has been shown in the last two days.

Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer."

"The Teachers Union have set up 2 classes of citizens in NJ: those who enjoy rich public benefits and those who pay for them....

I really don't understand how Public Employee Unions can say the things they do with a straight face.

They KNOW they are taking the taxpayers for a ride - They KNOW they are using the contractual obligations to make sure they get a lifetime ride on the taxpayers - They KNOW that they are acting like they have some "Divine Right" to be insulated from the downturn in our economy even though every other citizen has had to take a serious hit to their lifestyle...

IT IS GALLING to think just because you decided to be a Teacher, or a Fireman, or a Police Officer, you are somehow have an "entitlement" to a lifetime ride from the taxes of others who work hard, contribute to society and do work that is just as worthy of tribute....The obnoxious attitude of Teachers and their Unions are the issue here....I support having good Teachers but NOT handing them a "Blank Check" for their greedy unions.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is the voice of reason that is needed....He has taken on the NJ Teacher's Union and I hope he is successful because we need to wrest control of the Schools away from the Unions who don't want accountability or excellence in education, only MORE of your $$$$$.

YOU GO Governor Christie - Our Futures will be determined by your success in breaking the stranglehold on our tax dollars that the Unions have enjoyed for far too long.

Governor Christie's Ultimate Test
By MONICA LANGLEY

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, shown holding a town hall meeting in Scotch Plains, N.J., on Thursday, has seen his star rise nationally.

TRENTON, N.J.—He says she's a "greedy thug" who uses children as "drug mules." She says he's a "bully" and a "liar" who's "obsessed with a vendetta."

Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, and Barbara Keshishian, president of the state's teachers union, say they want to improve public schools. That's where agreement ends. In speeches, mailings and multi-million dollar TV ads, they've battled over teacher salaries, property taxes and federal education grants. They have met once, an encounter that ended when Mr. Christie threw Ms. Keshishian out of his office.

For Mr. Christie, 48 years old, the fight is part policy, part personality. He quickly has positioned himself as a politician in tune with an angry and impatient electorate, and he's already mentioned as a 2012 presidential candidate. He's well aware that the fate of his fight with the teachers union could determine his own. "If I wanted to be sure I'd be re-elected, I'd cozy up with the teachers union," he says in his ornate state office, decorated with Mets memorabilia and a signed guitar from Bruce Springsteen. "But I want far-reaching, not incremental, change."

The governor already has persuaded many voters on a fundamental point: New Jersey pays way too much for education. Mr. Christie's poll numbers dipped earlier after the teachers union began running TV commercials critical of him. But his numbers have rebounded in recent polls. Frederick Hess, education-policy director at the American Enterprise Institute, a think thank that pushes for market-oriented solutions, says a likely new crop of Republican governors who have promised to slash budgets and reform schools will be watching to see how Mr. Christie fares. "New Jersey is the canary in the coal mine," he says.

Ms. Keshishian, the New Jersey Education Association boss, 60, says "change for the sake of change" isn't necessary because, she argues, the state's public-school system is among the best in the nation. "Every single day the governor gives new meaning to the term bully pulpit by attacking me or NJEA—all to raise his political profile," she said.

She's the one "playing personal political assassination by using the dues money of teachers to attack me," said Mr. Christie.

The governor called the state legislature into an emergency session and pushed through a 2% cap in annual increases of property-taxes, which have risen 70% in the past decade in New Jersey. He halted popular projects, including a multibillion-dollar train tunnel to Manhattan.

"Chris will either be the most stunningly effective governor ever in New Jersey, or he will alienate so many constituencies that he can't build the consensus to tackle these grave problems," said Cory Booker, Newark's mayor. The Republican governor recently gave the Democratic mayor a big role in running the Newark public schools, which the state took over in 1995 after declaring them a failure.

Various factors drive education costs especially high in New Jersey. A state supreme court decision years ago found that children in poor communities got inadequate educations and mandated increased funding for their schools. New Jersey is heavily unionized with relatively high salaries for public workers of all stripes, teachers included.

For years, the teachers union has argued that New Jersey pays more but gets more. The state's high-school graduation rate is 82%, the highest in the nation, and New Jersey ranks among the top five states in key subject areas, according to the Education Law Center in Newark, which pushes for better funding for public schools. Its graduation rate for black males is 69%, the highest for a state with a large African-American population, according to a recent report from the Schott Foundation, which advocates "fully resourced, high-quality" public education.

The state is home to elite suburban school districts, including some with racially diverse student bodies. But students in urban school districts fare far worse, prompting Mr. Christie to hammer away at the "achievement gap" between low- and high-income students. Camden's graduation rate is 41% and Trenton's is 43%, according to the Education Law Center.

"Chris Christie isn't the most convenient messenger for the education-reform movement, because of his take-no-prisoners style," says Andrew Rotherham, a co-founder of Bellwether Education Partners, which seeks to accelerate achievement of low-income students. "But he's on to something big—that the huge cost for public schools is no longer sustainable."

New Jersey spends $17,794 a year per pupil, highest in the nation after Washington, D.C. New York isn't far behind at $16,981. California, Florida and Illinois all spend about $11,000; Mississippi, Utah, Tennessee and Idaho spend only about $8,000.

The average New Jersey teacher makes $61,277 a year, well above the U.S. average of $52,800, according to the National Education Association. New Jersey teachers get medical and other benefits costing $19,140 a year, according to the teachers union. The New Jersey Treasurer estimates its unfunded liabilities relating to lifetime health benefits for current and retired teachers is $36.32 billion.

To foot that and other bills, New Jersey residents pay an average of 11.8% of their income in state and local taxes, the highest in the nation, according to the Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think tank. The average property tax bill for owner-occupied residences in New Jersey is $6,579, also a U.S. high.

Ms. Keshishian began organizing in college, where she led a sit-in for her women's basketball team, which wanted uniforms and practice time comparable to the men's team. Last year, the former high-school math teacher took the helm of the state's most powerful union.

Mr. Christie was appointed New Jersey's U.S. Attorney in 2002 and successfully prosecuted a number of corruption cases. He quit for what seemed a long-shot bid for governor.

Mr. Christie and Ms. Keshishian first crossed each other in June 2009, when the NJEA invited gubernatorial candidates to audition for its endorsement. Mr. Christie refused to attend. In a letter, he said he wasn't seeking the endorsement because it would "require promises…that will not be kept." The NJEA endorsed then-Gov. Jon Corzine, ran ads against Mr. Christie and worked phone banks on Election Day for the Democrat.


.After the Republican's victory, Ms. Keshishian sent a letter congratulating Mr. Christie and requested a meeting to "work together on our commonly shared goals." He didn't respond.

At his January inauguration, Mr. Christie called New Jersey schools "broken" and said they "have failed despite massive spending." The next month, he called for pension and benefits changes.

In his budget address March 16, Gov. Christie proposed $820 million in education budget cuts after $1 billion in federal stimulus money dried up. He then took direct aim at NJEA.

"The leaders of the union who represent teachers have used their political muscle to set up two classes of citizens in New Jersey: those who enjoy rich public benefits and those who pay for them." He said it was "unfair" for teachers to receive "4% to 5% salary increases every year, even when inflation is zero, paid for by citizens struggling to survive."

The union website disagrees, saying "the average salary increase over the past year has been approximately 2%."

Ms. Keshishian ordered up a series of counter-punches to the governor's charges. The NJEA shifted money from "Pride in Public Education" spots to 30-second ads critical of Mr. Christie. New Jersey's teacher of the year appeared in one. "Stop attacking teachers and education, and start funding our schools," she said.

On March 23, Gov. Christie, under pressure to make up an $11 billion budget shortfall, called on teachers to accept a pay freeze, and urged taxpayers to "vote down" school budgets that didn't include one. More than half did. He proposed teachers help pay for their lifetime health benefits by contributing 1.5% of their salary in premiums, and pushed through a law mandating that for all new teachers.

NJEA led its members and other community and labor groups in a rally, dubbed "Standing Up, Standing Together." About 35,000 members gathered at the state capitol in Trenton.

Gov. Christie spent the day at the Monmouth Park racetrack for a bill-signing. When asked about the gathering, he told reporters: "I'm here. They're there. Have a nice day."

New Jersey Senate president Stephen Sweeney, a Democrat who heads the state ironworkers' unions, said the rally backfired for the teachers union. "It may have made them feel better about themselves, but many of my constituents saw it as a message that the NJEA isn't going to change even if taxpayers have to suffer."

In April, Joe Coppola, president of the Bergen County Education Association, a county union chapter, emailed a memo to members with a closing prayer: "Dear Lord, this year you have taken away my favorite actor Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer Michael Jackson and my favorite salesman Billy Mays." He concluded: "I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor." The private memo became public.


Mr. Coppola didn't return a call for comment for this story.

Ms. Keshishian went to the Governor's office across the street April 13 to apologize in their first face-to-face meeting, she and the governor recall.

He demanded she fire Mr. Coppola. Ms. Keshishian said she couldn't, because he was elected locally, adding, "It's just a joke, albeit in poor taste, but not meant seriously."

Gov. Christie threw her out of the office. "But we have important issues to discuss," she countered.

"Not with you, I don't," he replied.

This summer, New Jersey prepared to apply for "Race to the Top" funds, a series of grants from the U.S. Department of Education made available through a competition between states. The NJEA worked with the governor's education commissioner Bret Schundler. When Mr. Christie found out that the application changed his priorities, he pulled the draft application and his education staff re-wrote several provisions without NJEA's endorsement. Because of an error in the revised form, New Jersey lost its bid for the funds, a $400 million mistake.

In recent legislative testimony, Mr. Schundler, whom the governor had fired, blamed Mr. Christie for forcing a last-minute change. "It was intolerable for him to be perceived as giving in to NJEA," Mr. Schundler said.

The teachers union rushed out close to $1 million in TV commercials to highlight the debacle. "Stop putting politics ahead of the children," the ads pronounced.

Mr. Christie in an interview said that Mr. Schundler is "simply making things up," but added, "I hired him so ultimately I'm responsible."

Mr. Christie moved on, snagging an appearance on Oprah Winfrey's television show to unveil a bipartisan plan to improve public schools in Newark. Along with Newark Mayor Mr. Booker and Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, who donated $100 million to the effort, Mr. Christie got a glowing report from the talk-show diva.

His administration recently sounded out outgoing Washington, D.C., schools chief Michelle Rhee, who has shaken up the school system there, about becoming New Jersey education commissioner, according to knowledgeable people. She signalled she had other plans.

On Sept. 28, nine months after taking office, Mr. Christie unveiled his plan to revamp schools. He pushed for linking teachers' raises and job security to "teacher effectiveness and student performance," instead of the current system of rewarding seniority and advanced training. He called for an end to New Jersey's practice of awarding tenure after only three years.

Afterward, Ms. Keshishian, who slipped into a back row to watch, appeared on nine television newscasts, two radio shows and in several newspapers, to pan the governor's plan. She said he continues "defunding public schools and demonizing the people who work in them."

Ms. Keshishian noted Mr. Christie's appearances around the nation for GOP candidates and the buzz about him as a possible presidential candidate. "He wants to be the poster boy for the Republican agenda," she said.

Mr. Christie said he's not running for president in 2012, but didn't rule out a bid in 2016. "I may not get re-elected governor."

Write to Monica Langley at monica.langley@wsj.com

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

UNIONS representing State & Municipal HACKS will spend $1.3 Million to defeat repeal of the Sales Tax in Massachusetts from 6.25 % to 3 %

In Massachusetts, there are Union employees:

476,000 workers - 16.6 % of the Workforce -

That means 2.9 MILLION non-union employees ( 83.4%) do not have the same pull on the Politicians and/or have the influence that the Unions do over the Govenor and the Legislature.

Figures were taken from the AFL/CIO weblink (http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff16.cfm)

While I feel that Unions were an important force in bringing improvements to workplaces over the last 100 years, they are presently more of an impediment to progress as the sole reason they exist today is to perpetuate the UNION.....they do very little for anyone BUT their own members. At the same time, Public Employee Unions have no issue with how their demands effect the citizens of the towns or State of Massachusetts, as all they care about is getting $$$ and benefits for their members. Their only concern is keep membership high and their coffers full.

While I agree we should have decent wages & benefits, the fact that the Massachusetts Public Employee Unions will spend $ 1.3 Million dollars to attempt to defeat a repeal of the sales tax shows they only care about making sure $$$ rolls into the State to preserve their membership, not services and not jobs for regular non-union employees.

“If this referendum passes, there is no doubt it will have a devastating impact on local services that have already been cut to the bone,’’ said Stephen G. Crawford, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Coalition for Our Communities, which includes the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the Massachusetts Nurses Association, and the Service Employees International Union. " -

Let me translate that for you - If it passes, it means we'll have to see Public Union Employees lose their cushy life-time jobs where they have been insulated from the effects of the economy, effects that the tax-payers have been dealing with for the past 3-4 years......

GEE, I really don't have much sympathy for keeping the HACKS well off when the majority of the citizens have had to make major cut backs on how we live - I think it is HIGH TIME the HACKS feel a little pain too.

Seeing as the Legislature doesn't have the will or intestinal-fortitude to do what's right by the taxpayer, I'm all for taking out the long piece of lumber and whacking the democratic donkey in the Arse to get the State back to a reality based view of what we should be doing with the money we provide them. I hope & pray the Voters see it that way too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Unions raise $1.3m to fight ballot drive to cut sales tax
Warn of deep drop in local services
By Alan Wirzbicki, Boston Globe Staff September 21, 2010

Determined not to be caught off-guard in a volatile election year, labor unions are pouring money into an effort to fight a deep cut in the state sales tax, campaign finance reports show.

A group of unions — fearing mass layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and other state and municipal workers — has raised $1.3 million so far this year to defeat Question 3, one of two antitax measures on the November ballot. Supporters have raised $76,000.

Similar ballot measures failed in 2002 and 2008, but the money flowing into the campaign to defeat the measure shows that opponents of the ballot question are taking nothing for granted in a year that has already produced political surprises across the country.

Opponents say passage of the question, which would cut the sales tax rate from 6.25 percent to 3 percent, would open up a hole in the fragile state budget of more than $2 billion and lead to Draconian cuts at the state and local levels.

Draconian enough that all three major gubernatorial candidates — Governor Deval Patrick, a Democrat; Charles D. Baker, a Republican; and independent Timothy P. Cahill — oppose Question 3.

“If this referendum passes, there is no doubt it will have a devastating impact on local services that have already been cut to the bone,’’ said Stephen G. Crawford, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Coalition for Our Communities, which includes the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the Massachusetts Nurses Association, and the Service Employees International Union. “Teachers, firefighters, local health care service, police officers — those services will bear the brunt of this referendum question.’’

Supporters of the tax rollback, led by longtime libertarian activist Carla Howell, gathered about 19,000 signatures this year to put the question on the ballot and are hoping to capitalize on the restive mood of the electorate.

“They will have big money; we have a grass-roots campaign,’’ Howell said.

Over a quarter of the money the antitax camp has raised this year, $22,000 in all, came from Chris and Melodie Rufer of Sacramento, who have given to other libertarian causes around the country. Chris Rufer said in a statement last night, “We believe in an open and voluntary market for all people.’’

Howell’s camp, according to campaign finance reports filed yesterday, had just $17,422 on hand on Sept. 15. Opponents of the ballot measure, who have spent money on public relations and polling firms, had $861,576. Crawford declined to share more details about the coalition’s strategy.

Another tax question on the ballot, Question 1, would restore a sales tax exemption for alcoholic beverages. Backers reported raising $396,236, mostly from package stores and alcohol distributors who say they have been hurt by the new tax, which took effect last year. They had $234,283 by last week.

Restoring the exemption, which Baker and Cahill support but Patrick opposes, would cost the state about $100 million in annual revenue, which now goes to support addiction treatment programs....

Alan Wirzbicki can be reached at awirzbicki@globe.com.