No, they ask for 6%, and then "settle" for 3% and no increase in healthcare costs.

lol unions

Well, I guess I'd rather you just make something up to attack the other side with than point out how awful I am at adding.

Depending on what you mean by "a lot of," yes.

Cite needed. I'll see what I can do, hopefully you will try to post one too. My understanding is that employers covering less than 100% of health care premiums happens frequently and the frequency of this has increased over the years as health care costs have risen. Not only that copays and deductables come into play and those costs are on the rise. My take is that out of pocket expenses for private sector employees health care costs are most definitely on the rise.

Did the State of Wisconsin have the option of making the choice of health care provider for the teachers?

Candidates reach recount deal

Quote:

Backing off stronger stances, Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg found a courtroom compromise Thursday that called for a statewide recount, with a hand tally for ballots from the entire city of Milwaukee and other communities. The hand recount will apply to ballots from some communities in 31 counties, including another 14 municipalities in Milwaukee County and 34 municipalities in Waukesha County. Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess approved the deal Thursday, allowing the first state recount in more than two decades to proceed with a cast that could include troops of observers for both sides. "I think this is absolutely the right way to go," Niess said. The deal came after Prosser representatives said he would strongly oppose any statewide recount as frivolous and Kloppenburg signaled that she wanted a hand recount of ballots from across the state.

FYI

http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2010/8086.pdf
You're understanding of what's going on is correct but that's also true for public sector workers though probably not as fast.
Do you mean did the state have a choice of where to go for insurance? The very short answer is yes.

Lol, lefties stalking politicians, threatening businesses from school district phone

I have a theory that leonidas is Inso's gimmick account he uses to make himself seem like the moderate one.

From your linky:

Quote:

In 2010, covered workers contributed a greater share of the total premium, a notable change from the steady share workers have paid on average over the last decade. Covered workers on average contribute 19% of the total premium for single coverage (up from 17% in 2009) and 30% for family coverage (up from 27% in 2009).Do you mean did the state have a choice of where to go for insurance?

Ok Kaiser from what I know is a good source. So basically overall workers are paying for more of their coverage than in previous years from private employers. That trend is likely to continue I would think

My understanding is that the last collective bargaining agreement was such that the health insurance company that was agreed to was owned by the teachers union. I guess the choice was not to agree to the provider owned by the teachers union in collective bargaining and find some other provider acceptable to the teachers union that they didn't own.

You never do see us in the same place...

Edit: nm looks like he's banned. There goes that theory.

1. One phone call /= stalking
2. There was no threat\
3. She apologized, probably after her superiors ordered her to
4. Who said she's a lefty? You don't have to like unions to worry about your job.

Following someone* and calling businesses they go seems like stalking to me.


"Tell Dick he's not good for business" could certainly be an implied threat. Even the mafia had the tact to say "It'd be a shame if something were to happen..."

Ok?

Iron gonna Iron...


*Supposedly it was the senator's brother, not the senator, who the stalker saw go into the gas station. Double fail, I guess.

I don't agree with a lot of rjoe's positions, but there's almost no one here who has a better understanding of how real world bargaining occurs.

I have issues.

I would have an issue with the bolded except that businesses contribute even more to politicians and get a lot of bang for their buck. From most stories I've seen businesses are doing great, giving more and more money to the CEOS while cutting labor.

The issue isn't that public workers have to much influence... its that regular workers don't have enough. (or if you prefer, businesses have too much influence)

This did kind of make me laugh because I couldn't tell if it was serious. Just because you work for the public sector doesn't mean you do it to help.

It really isn't insane. Again - maybe the issue is that public sector workers are being fairly compensated but private workers are not? Just because private workers are pissed off that we've allowed companies to screw people over doesn't mean that we should vent our rate on public employees.

None of this follows.

lol

There are places that do that (pay public sector employees way below market rates). I think the normal result is corruption -- if you can't live off your salary, make the people pay you.