Work Responsibilities vs. Worker Rights

Within the last week, the news that has been on all of the teachers that I have been listening to has been the "Union busting" maneuvers of Governor Scott Walker and the Republican majority of the Wisconsin State Senate.   I got into teaching after working in many other fields before obtaining certification.  The reason I gained certification to teach is that I have a passion to help kids in Milwaukee who might not find many people in their life who are willing to take the time to attempt to know and help them.  This is not only just teaching them the required curriculum.  This is to also push the students we have in our classes to their utmost.  If this makes me a person that is hated in the present, I hope that the students will respect the fact that I only pushed them as hard and far and fast as I believed they could handle.  When being challenged, people find out more about themselves.  With encouragement and being taught how to persevere until they succeed, failure can be a better learning experience than any success that a student has.
  
I have been hearing reactions from "I'm proud that the Democrats are taking a stand" to "We knew this was going to be coming, why are they protesting now?"  The main quandary that I find myself in is that for the most part, I do believe that all levels of government (as well as individuals) should practice balancing their budgets and not engage in deficit spending.  However, I do not believe that union members should have to give up the ability to bargain pension and health care as well as their wage rates.  The problem with part of the current fiscal "crisis" that Governor Walker is having to deal with now is also seen as a way to be able to strip most unions of their most central powers.  If the reports that I have been hearing are correct, the amended budget would  require all members of unions that deal with public entities pay higher percentages of both health care and pension.  This was accepted by most as a given when Governor Walker was elected in November.  The reason that I feel that many of the people who are protesting in Madison are there is that the language regarding unions effectively negates the reason to have unions in the first place.  Some talk show hosts are asking, "Why are people worrying about this?  Public employees are protected from working in an "At Will" state and do not need to worry about being fired as people who work in private industry."  While this is true in the general sense, the wording of the language regarding public unions removes all of the bargaining power of unions except for negotiating pay rate.  At least according to the union representatives that I had talked to, this means that a district would be able to institute longer work days, year round school, larger class sizes and a multitude of other changes.  This means that even though the union would be able to go to the district and claim that wages would need to be raised to compensate teachers for longer hours and more work, the districts would be able to refer the union request to an arbitrator.  The problem is that because of the "Qualified Economic Offer" law that has been in effect for quite a while, the school district would always have the decisions come down in their favor and be able to institute whatever they want.  This is due to the fact that the QEO had been interpreted in a way that the arbitrator needs to only consider the fiscal needs of the district when making their decision between the two sides.  So, even though Governor Walker states that this is only an attempt to reign in out of control spending, it is effectively a way to totally gut the teachers unions of any bargaining power in the state of Wisconsin.
 
My usual feeling about the union that I belong to, the Milwaukee Teacher's Education Association, is mainly existing for the political motives of the hierarchy of the union.  There have been numerous occasions that the majority of the membership have asked for  the elimination of the residency requirement for MPS teachers in the contract discussions.  Every time that this is brought up, it seems as if the union poses the questions, gets told "no" and then accepts that answer.  For those of us who are cynical, this is also seen as a way for the union to keep its political power.  Because if its members have to live in the city of Milwaukee, then they also all would vote in the elections of politicians in Milwaukee.  These politicians would owe some of their political capital to the MTEA and then on the whole, vote favoring the MTEA .
 
This is why I am torn.  I see the origination and original reason for unions as a good thing.  But the current union structure is somewhat a parody of the original good idea.  Reform is necessary for the unions, but the elimination of the unions as a functioning body is going too far.