RFArea REA Newsletter--February 2016

MEETING for February 11, 2016—11:00 a.m. at the West Wind 

Our next meeting will be held at the West Wind on February 11^th.  Program Director Ruth Wood will once again ask some of our members to share a little bit about themselves as a way of our getting to know each other a little better.  We will also discuss upcoming unit issues and events.

It has been wonderful to see so many people at our last few meetings.  The December holiday meeting—with outstanding entertainment provided by Ruth Wood, Jane Harred, Jean Laudon, Ruth Wood, new member Kathleen Drecktrah, Bernie Brohaugh, Gorden Hedahl, and Bill Montgomery—was very well attended.  January’s meeting, featuring historian Betty Bergland, also drew a good crowd.

Thanks to everyone for supporting our local unit.  Not only is it fun for us to come together for socializing, but being able to share our experiences and to be informed and entertained, but it is also important that we as a local organization and as unit of Wisconsin Retired Educators’ Association keep apprised to issues affecting us as retirees and public education in Wisconsin.

EDITORIAL:  BIG MONEY            

By Bernie Brohaugh, President

In the last issue I wrote about the hypocritical contention that our country is going to the dogs because of BIG GOVERNMENT.  Conservative candidates for federal offices harp on that allegation ad nauseam, yet it is clear that their objection is not to all restrictions imposed by the government but only to those that prevent their wealthy and powerful backers from running rampant over the rights of others in a frenzied obsession to pile up as much wealth for themselves as possible.  Conversely, however, these politicians clamorously demand that the government ride herd on immigrants, forbid same-sex marriages, deny a woman control of her own body, and prevent scientists from doing research involving human embryos.   And so forth. 

The real problem, of course, is not BIG GOVERNMENT but BIG MONEY.  That should be obvious to all but the most feeble of wit.   And this problem has now become so critical that even conservatives like Jeb Bush are acknowledging it.  One indication of the economic debacle we are victims of is found in information supplied by the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances: the top 10% of our population own 61% of the national wealth, with just the top 3% owning 54.4%  (this amounts to twice the wealth owned by the lowest 90%).   And from the U. S. Census Bureau comes this distressing news: there is a greater disparity of wealth between rich and poor in the U.S. than in any other developed nation.  It should be no surprise, then, that half the U.S. population are designated “low income” earners, a host of them falling below the official poverty line.  The Census Bureau also reports that were each family in the bottom 80% of the income scale to have the same share of the U. S. income that the bottom 80% had in 1980, it would take in $11,000 more per year.

The rich may not yet have the world by the tail, but they’ve got the U. S. economy by the throat.  A striking example is the recovery from the Great Recession of 2009.  While the top 1% of family incomes increased by 34.7%, the bottom 99% received a nearly unperceivable rise of less than 1%.

Why such disparity?  There are several reasons, the most potent of which is a tax system that favors the rich.  Besides a humongous reduction in rates of top earners over the past 60 years, various loopholes provide numerous opportunities for them to wriggle out of paying the official levy—or even, at times, a single penny.   Then there are the infamous trade agreements, which have wiped out myriads of jobs in manufacturing and enabled outsourcing of technical employment to countries where labor is cheap.  The ongoing demise of labor unions has weakened the bargaining power of hundreds of thousands of workers, resulting in the lowering of real wages (take home pay factored against inflation) and the loss of pension plans and health care insurance.   And so forth.

One more thing, a truly outrageous maneuver by captains of industry—something that few of us have thus far paid enough attention to—is the immense compensation of top executives in the form of salaries, golden parachutes, bonuses, and retirement packages. Sara Anderson, in “Retirees—Not CEO’s—Deserve a Raise”  (Washington Spectator, 1 January 2016), discloses that CEOs, whose salaries, on the average, dwarf the average salaries of other employees in their companies by a ratio greater than 200 to one, are siphoning profits away from stockholders, including pension funds like our own.  The average retirement fund of the CEO, by the way, is about $50 million.  Executives of lesser stature may not do so well, but, in general, they are well provided for, too—at our expense.

Despite its complaints about BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG MONEY has benefitted from it far better than anyone else.  To BIG MONEY, BIG GOVERNMENT is bad only because it is not NO GOVERNMENT, and that, I think, is what they are scheming to bring about.

GREATER NUMBERS, LOUDER VOICE

By Laura Zlogar

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case in which the plaintiff claims that all public-employee unions, by definition, are political groups and that “Every single thing a public-employee union does . . . is a matter of public concern; contract negotiations with teachers’ unions, for example, affect class size, teacher promotion policies, and overall state funding—every one of them a hotly contested political issue” (Garrett Epps, “Will the U.S. Supreme Court Gut Public-Employee Unions,” Atlantic 12 Jan. 2016).  The plaintiff’s attorney claims that even such matters fire drills are ideological.

Because pubic-employee unions are political, the plaintiff claims, individuals who disagree with union positions should not be required to pay a “fair-share” or agency fee.  That is, despite the union’s representation of all workers in negotiations for compensation and working conditions, those who disagree with the union’s politics should be allowed to be “free riders”—or freeloaders.  That is, they receive the same benefits as the dues-paying members thanks to the research, work, and negotiations of the union without contributing a penny for such services.

News headlines on January 29, 2016, state that union membership in Wisconsin “cratered” in 2015:  “The number of dues-paying workers has fallen steadily since GOP Gov. Scott Walker signed 2011’s Act 10, which repealed collective bargaining for most public workers.  In 2015, 8.3 percent of Wisconsin workers, or 223,000 in all, were members of unions.  That was down sharply from 306,000 people, or 11.7 percent of the workforce, in 2014” (“Union Membership Craters in 2015,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, 29 Jan. 2016, A7).

As we all known, unions allow individual workers to gather together and speak as one voice.  An individual worker has little control his or her working conditions or compensation in the face of overwhelming economic or institutional power.  But collectively, thousands of individuals can, through their representatives, be heard.

The consequences of the actions by state legislatures across the country—and initiated by Wisconsin’s governor in 2010—are more and more evident.  Public sector unions are completely disappearing.  Teachers and other public employees are subject to sometimes authoritarian and arbitrary measures without recourse.  Students and the public pay the price.

In much the same way that unions have lost their members and influence, voters are also feeling the same sense of impotence.  In October—well before the “serious money” started flowing—the New York Times reported that 158 families and their companies funded both Republican and Democratic candidates’ bids for the White House. The Koch Brothers alone will spend more on the 2016 presidential election than the Republican Party.  U.S. Representatives and Senators often spend as many as eight hours a day fundraising, not legislating.  So, how can we who might be able to afford to send $20 or $50 to our state or federal representatives hope to have any influence in such a system?

Members of RFArea REA and WREA have a voice in Madison representing retirees in the state retirement system and public education.   Our representative in Madison, WREA Director Dave Bennett, works the halls of the state legislature, the offices of the Department of Public Instruction and school district superintendents, and ETF for us.  However, there are lots of “free riders” who are part of the Wisconsin Retirement System and are not supporting WREA. 

Only 12,000 out of all the thousands and thousands of retired state educators, administrators, and support staff belong to WREA.  Those 12,000 are paying the freight for everyone else.  They are supporting the activities of WREA—monitoring all legislation and policy changes that may affect our retirement and public education in Wisconsin, speaking to state legislators, connecting with school superintendents across the state, and advocating for those things that will continue to benefit our lives and those of teachers, staff, and children in Wisconsin public education.

While 12,000 is a substantial number, it should be substantially larger.  And for politicians, larger is definitely better.  The greater the number, the louder the voice.  The louder the voice, the greater the likelihood that it will be heard.  As a reminder, WREA is political, not partisan.  WREA is not a conservative or liberal organization; it is not Republican or Democratic.  Political means “relating to government.”  WREA’s mandate is to represent the needs of its constituents to legislative bodies.  It represents ALL retirees whether they pay dues or not.  It advocates the issues that are important to us.

When I had been teaching at UW-River Falls for a few years, a colleague of mine and I discovered that our salaries were substantially lower than that of others who had been hired the same year we were, including those fewer academic credentials and much less responsibility than we did.  Of course, we had no union to represent us (ironically, the legislature voted to allow university faculty to organize only a couple of years before Act 10).  No chair or dean were willing to be our advocates.

Another person is our department shared our low salary and circumstances.  But when we asked him to join us in taking our case to the provost, he refused.  So, the two of us met with the provost, made our case, and were awarded a very modest raise.  However, our reluctant colleague—the free rider—was also given a raise despite his refusal to lend his voice to our cause.  He benefitted from our efforts without paying his dues.

We need a voice in Madison to represent us, to protect our pensions and benefits, to represent our values, and to advocate for public education in this state.  If you are only a local RFArea REA member, please join WREA at the state level to support efforts at the state level.  If you have not renewed your membership for 2016, please make sure to do so.  If you are not yet a member of either the local or the state, please join.  And this is very important:  If you know people who have retired and are part of WRS—teachers, administrators, or support staff—but have not joined WREA, please invite them to a meeting.  Tell them about RFArea REA and WREA.  See the information below on membership news about things we can do to grow our unit and to increase membership in WREA.

EDUCATION AND LEGISLATIVE UPDATES

By Laura Zlogar

Higher Education in Wisconsin

In his January State of the State address, Governor Scott Walker insisted that the young people of Wisconsin must “have as many excellent higher education options as possible.”  However, a recent study shows that Wisconsin is 47^th of 48 states (Illinois and Pennsylvania had yet finalized their budgets) in its support of higher education.  While 39 states have increased their contributions to institutions of higher education, Wisconsin continues to cut its support of technical colleges, colleges, and universities.

At the height of the country’s economic crisis, state after state reduced contributions to higher education.  Over the past five years, however, most states have begun reinvesting in their university systems.  Wisconsin continues to cut the UW-System budgets, reducing funding by 8.1 percent while the national average was a 4.1 percent increase.  Wisconsin is one of only nine states that cut higher education between 2015 and 2016.

The Legislative Fiscal Bureau reports that over the past five years, the UW System and Technical Colleges have suffered nearly a one billion dollar decrease in funding since 2010-11 when Scott Walker and Republicans took control of state government.

Recent legislation that would have allowed students to refinance their student loans—just like homeowners refinance mortgages when interest rates decrease—has been blocked by the majority in the Wisconsin legislature.

Guns in Schools

Senate President Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) is supporting a bill currently being considered that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to bring guns on school property.  Lawmakers claim that such legislation is needed to protect gun owners carrying weapons as they drop off or pick up their children on school property.

Many of the state’s school superintendents oppose the legislation.  Fond du Lac Superintendent James Sebert stated, “We have highly trained school resource officers and great relationships with local law enforcement who help protect and keep us safe.  They are the experts in that realm, and we would prefer that it remain that way” (FDReporter.com, 25 January 2016).

If the legislature passes this law, school districts still have the option to prohibit weapons on school property.  Texas has recently passed similar legislation.  Several other states are also considering such laws.

Decrease in Wisconsin ACT Scores

Headlines announced recently that the average composite score of students taking the ACT exam decreased by 2.2 points—from 22.2 in 2014 to 20.0 in 2015.  These scores moved the state from second best in the country to 18^th, right behind Iowa and four places behind Minnesota.  (Slightly more than half the states have a 50 percent participation rate.)  Of the 13 states with 100 percent participation, scores ranged from 19.0 to 20.7.

Yes, many experienced teachers have retired since Act 10; yes, curricula have changed; and yes, state support for public education has decreased substantially.  However, the most important contributing factor explaining this phenomenon is the fact that nearly 100 percent of Wisconsin students are now taking the ACT exam compared to 73 percent in 2014.

Dismantling Civil Service in Wisconsin

After 100 years, the state legislature has voted to dismantle Wisconsin’s civil service system.  Many WREA members—program assistants, custodians, food service workers, and others—were hired through the civil service.  As of January 30^th, the bill awaits the governor’s signature.

People will now be hired on the basis of resumes rather than civil service exams.  The new law will no longer require seniority be taken into account in layoff decisions.  It will extend probationary periods for new hires, and centralize the hiring process within the Department of Administration, run directly by the governor’s office.  The bill was a priority of Scott Walker and the Republican majority in the legislature.

Critics fear that this new law will bring back political patronage as the basis on which state employees are hired rather than competence.  They also see this as another extension of Act 10 that stripped public employees of collective bargaining rights.  As State Representative Fred Kessler writes, “The voters of Wisconsin want the best people to be hired, based on merit, not those whose selection depended on their work on behalf of a party” (“Gov. Scott Walker, Civil Service, and the ‘Spoils System,’” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 28 Jan. 2016).

Privatizing Wisconsin’s Water Supply

Bill AB/554/SB432 introduced in the Wisconsin legislature allows communities to transfer water utility management from the public to the private sector.  The bill would make a public referencum on the sale of water and sewage system optional rather than mandatory.  According to Milwaukee Riverkeeper, this could lead to “out-of-state and potentially multi-national companies [assuming] control of our public water supplies with less oversight.  Water privatization most often leads to declining quality of service, higher water rates, less accountability and oversight (private companies do not face elections or have to share information), and a loss of public sector jobs.”

The legislation was introduced at the request of a Pennsylvania-based private water and sewer company, according to Rep. Tyler August, Republican of Lake Geneva (Steven Verberg, “Bill to Ease Sales of Water Supplies Intro Private Hands Sparks Clash,” LaCrosse Tribune.com, 29 Jan. 2016).  The company already controls 200 systems in 8 states.

The Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters and Clean Wisconsin (whose stated mission is “to protect and preserve Wisconsin air and water and to create a cleaner environment by being the leading voice for environmental protection,” www.cleanwisconsin.org), and other environmental groups strongly oppose such a move.

HISTORIAN BETTY BERGLAND AT JANUARY’S MEETING

River Falls Area REA hosted UW-River Falls History Professor Emerita Dr. Betty Bergland at its January 14, 2016, meeting.  Betty taught 20th century U.S. history--including women's and immigration history--and has devoted her research and scholarship to migration studies, especially its gendered and racial dimensions.  She is co-editor of a book entitled Norwegian American Women:  Migration, Communities, and Identities published by the Minnesota Historical Society in 2011.  She has also presented papers both in the U.S. and in Norway on this subject.

Her presentation, entitled “Migration from Europe to the Upper Midwest:  Motives, Adaptations, and Impacts,” provided a good overview of how most of our ancestors—whether from Ireland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, or Eastern Europe—ended up in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

MOTIVES.  Most immigrants, Dr. Bergland pointed out, were motivated by “push/pull factors”:  The conditions in their native lands pushed them away while the perceived opportunities pulled them to the New World.  Industrialization, famine, population growth, and the slave trade resulting in the mechanization of labor all created intolerable hardships leading to emigration.  Ireland, following the 19^th-century potato famine, had the largest percentage of its population leave for the New World.  Norway, in the 19^th century, had only 5% arable land.  The pogroms, the “Russification” of Eastern Europe, and the rise of Alexander III forced Jews out of Eastern Europe.  And by 1900, Germans were the largest immigrant group in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Departures to the New World were often inspired by immigrant letters, the largest source of information from recent emigrants to America to their families back home.  These were often published in local newspapers.  The result was “chained migration,” groups of people from the same villages settling in the same areas in America as they followed each other.  

From 1855 to 1890, all new immigrants passed through Castle Garden where they were checked primarily for disease.  Dr. Bergland reminded us that in the 19^th century, there were no restrictions on who could enter this country.  It was open migration with no regulations and no federal responsibility for those who came here.  Before 1891, states had to accommodate their new residents.

From 1892 to 1955, poor immigrants were processed through Ellis Island.  First- and second-class passengers were given a free pass.

Despite claims that America was a great “melting pot” able to accept and accommodate all new arrivals, some people were deemed “unmeltable.”  Early American history, during the Revolutionary period, found the Germans to be unlike “true” Americans.  Later in the 19^th century, as the film Gangs of New York shows, the Irish were the outcasts.  Next came the Italians and Jews.  While these groups of people were marginalized in America, some were refused entry altogether.  From 1882 to 1942, the Chinese Exclusion Act excluded people from China into this country.

ADAPTATIONS.  We often assume that once immigrants came to America, they assimilated and became “American.”  A surprising 30% of all immigrants returned to their homelands, though conditions for returnees were more difficult than they might have been had they never left.   Moreover, many transported their language, traditions, and culture to the New World.

Many of the institutions that are an integral part of American life, especially in the Midwest, can be attributed to immigrants:  schools, colleges, seminaries, churches, and insurance companies.

Gender roles changes when immigrants came to this country.  Cows became men’s rather than women’s work.  Women fought for and gained suffrage in this country.  And they shared their skills and abilities through a collective sense of community.

IMPACTS.  Immigrants are responsible for cultural legacies, value systems, and America’s diversity, according to Dr. Bergland.  They have contributed to the strength of America’s democracy.  Immigration has also impacted the lives of indigenous populations in ways that we are still having to face.  And racism—that directed at the newest arrivals by those who trace their roots back several generations and at those who were here before Europeans arrived—persists.  As Dr. Bergland pointed out, our current discussions of immigration—of Syrian refugees, of Somalis, and others—must be informed by the past.

We want to thank Dr. Bergland for a wonderful presentation.

SCHOLARSHIPS 

In the spring of 2015, two seniors were named as recipients of the $500 River Falls Area REA scholarship.  A requirement of the scholarship is that it is not awarded until January of the following year—after we have received a transcript of the student’s first-semester grades and evidence that he or she is enrolled in classes for the second semester.  Our 2015 scholarship winners have met those requirements.

Brittany Haas of River Falls has completed her first semester at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul in an exemplary fashion.  She reports that she has had wonderful professors and challenging classes.  She also states that she is also an admissions tour guide, involved in the Pre-Law Society, Chemistry Club, and helps with large Admissions Office events.

Kali Kurrelmeyer of Ellsworth has completed her first semester at the University of Wisconsin-Stout.  She took four courses fall semester—Composition I, Psychology, Sociology, and Speech.  During the second semester, Kali will be taking Composition II, Introduction to Applied Social Science, Healthy Couple Relationships, and Math I.

FUNDRAISING IDEAS  

While our scholarship fund is healthy at the moment, it is due in part to the relationship we have had over the past five with the Royal Neighbors organization, which has matched the money our spring bake sale has raised.  That relationship, however, has concluded.  Royal Neighbors has decided to lend its aid to other community organizations.  We are thankful for their generosity of the past several years.

We now need to consider new ways to generate funds to support our annual scholarships and other initiatives.  The Board discussed some possibilities that it wants to share with membership for feedback.

• Craft Sale:  We know that we have lots of “crafty” people in our group.  We could organize a craft sale similar to our bake sale.
• Art Sale:  Have local artists, along with some of our own, to donate some of their works, which will be displayed and then sold to benefit scholarships and other civic causes.
• Pickleball Clinic:  Ask one of the pickleball experts in town to donate instruction time and then have interested individuals pay for the lessons, proceeds going to our fund.
• Duck Race:  Sell numbered plastic ducks.  Set all the ducks afloat in a race on the Kinni.  The person who bought the winning duck gets a prize.  The rest of the proceeds go to the RFArea fund.  Perhaps this could be coordinated with River Falls Days.
• Bowling:  Organize a bowling night or a competition.  Charge participants a small fee to enter.
• Plant and Harvest Sharing:  Thin out your garden and share them with members for a donation.  At fall harvest, bring in your extra tomatoes, squash, peppers, and other vegetables in exchange for donations.  
• Croquet Tournament:  Charge participants an entry fee for some competitive croquet!
• Game Show Night:  Like the British game show, QI (for Quite Interesting), we could devise lots of interesting questions.  Participants would be awarded points on the correctness of their answers and the creativity of their wrong answers.  Points will be deducted for uninteresting and just plain bad answers!
• Other ideas?  What else might we be able to devise to build our coffers?