Particularly for people who bill themselves as "professionals," like teachers. Teachers' unions have done more to damage k-12 education (by imposing ridiculous work rules, preventing the removal of incompetent teachers, and fighting any educational initiative that does not line the "workers'" pockets) than any national enemy could ever hope to have accomplished.
It's the fact that education is usually first in line for cuts whenever there's not enough money that's caused all these problems. The government is to blame here, the teachers are trying to mitigate things as best they can. And the tools they had are slowly being stripped away.
It is true that there are pockets of public sector employees that are chronically underpaid (e.g. social workers, probation officers, and even teachers in some school districts), but the solution is not to impose the obvious and endemic burden of unionization, but to work for compensation standards that are more reasonable.
Yeah, too bad the Republicans aren't interested in compensation. They're interested in giving tax breaks to the rich while cutting social services wherever possible.
Are you serious? As in the Sun is "perceived to" rise in the East every day?
Explain why only certain unions were targeted then and not all of them.
The fact that certain unions were exempted makes any argument about balancing the budget complete hogwash. This bill was specifically designed to disrupt supporters of the Democratic party and nothing more.
All I know is I would be much better off being a teacher here on Long Island (your results may vary) than having become an electrical engineer in the private sector.
My S-I-L is a teacher in the local school district and comparing situations we found: Education: Me BSEE, Her MS whatever (which she obtained during her teaching career. Not a problem for me as I was summa cum laude at the BS level and could easily hove gone on to and completed a Masters program. Salary: similar (actually she makes about $2K more per year) Time off: Best I had was 5 weeks vacation and 5 sick days. Her; was/is 1/2 of June, July and August and whatever holidays the school deems. Mainly 180 of actual working days a year. Health Benefits: I contributed over 30% of my health plan, they had to contribute 15%.
Mine would end when I retire, hers continues for life. Pension: Me, none other than what I contributed to my 401K (plus the paultry % the company contributes) although I did get $80,000 from a pension fund that my old employer had way back when I first started there in 1983. It had been discontinued some time in the 1990's for new employees and frozen for existing employees (however the law allowed them).
Her: fully funded at 3/4 pay (last 3 year saverage, and it's not as bad as some other public service employees as teachers can't use overtime towards the calculation).
Teachers here on Long Island with 20-25 years in are in the + $100,000 salary range. Add in all the benefits and they are clearly doing much better than their public counterparts with similar education and similar employment histories.
hindight is 20/20.
However, as we chose our careers, O-n-W, it would have taken some forecasting to understand what was happening with public teacher compensation packages. At that time the belief of the underpaid teacher was based in fact since teachers were not paid very well through the first half of the 1900's and into the 60's and 70's. By the end of the 80's, though, the concept of the underpaid teacher as the norm was an outdated myth. Due in large part to the success of the public unions, teacher compensation increased dramatically in real terms from the time we were in high school through today. Teachers in metro areas in Oregon, make salaries of about $70,000 after about 15 years, with pensions that receive 20% of pay contributions (often resulting in 100% of final pay pensions), and full family medical coverage that is fully or nearly fully paid. (Based on news stories I've read, similar compensation is paid in California, Washington and other western states). If you gross-up their compensation to reflect the 180-90 days of work versus the typical worker of similar education at 225-240 days per year, and it is clear that most teachers in urban/suburban situations are no longer underpaid. In fact, they are well paid given that private school teachers are paid about 1/2 the public rate, and many better educated and more difficult professions are not paid as well. But we couldn't have known that in 1980.
Crackpot wrote:aactually the underpaid teacher "myth" depends entirely on the district you're in and how well funded it is.
From my research here on Long Island (as I live and pay taxes here, it is the only area that matters to me) the "underpaid teacher" is indeed a myth, even in the most depressed districts.
Long Run wrote:However, as we chose our careers, O-n-W, it would have taken some forecasting to understand what was happening with public teacher compensation packages. At that time the belief of the underpaid teacher was based in fact since teachers were not paid very well through the first half of the 1900's and into the 60's and 70's. By the end of the 80's, though, the concept of the underpaid teacher as the norm was an outdated myth. Due in large part to the success of the public unions, teacher compensation increased dramatically in real terms from the time we were in high school through today. Teachers in metro areas in Oregon, make salaries of about $70,000 after about 15 years, with pensions that receive 20% of pay contributions (often resulting in 100% of final pay pensions), and full family medical coverage that is fully or nearly fully paid. (Based on news stories I've read, similar compensation is paid in California, Washington and other western states). If you gross-up their compensation to reflect the 180-90 days of work versus the typical worker of similar education at 225-240 days per year, and it is clear that most teachers in urban/suburban situations are no longer underpaid. In fact, they are well paid given that private school teachers are paid about 1/2 the public rate, and many better educated and more difficult professions are not paid as well. But we couldn't have known that in 1980.
Oregon teachers average $50,000/yr not $70,000 and have no tenure. California teachers average $59,000.
A brand new hard science degree from MIT, or another good science school, earns more.
You wonder why public schools suck at teaching science? You pay crap, that's why. And you treat teachers like shit.
Interesting point, look at the "salary comfort index", which measures how "good" salaries are compared with the cost of living, and you'll see NY ranks in the lower third, no. 38. sure salaries appear high, but are not so when the cost of living there is taken into account.
The anti-working-people Republicans who run the Republican party and routinely take advantage of their teeming hordes of dupes have done it again. One of these days, ordinary Americans will have had enough.
The "where is the corporate anus that I may crawl to it and lick it clean?" leadership of the Republican party has managed -- through the media which it controls -- to make the question for private-sector workers "Why should I, as a taxpayer, fund benefits that are better than mine?"
The real question, of course, is
"Why do I not have a union that works for me to get at least a fraction of what I should be getting?"
The problem is not unionized labor in the public sector. The problem is the decline -- brought about by the unhappy combination of the "my tongue is your toilet paper, Master" Republican leadership with the "Duh, I don't get it, but if you say so" Republican core base and facilitated by the right-wing domination of the media (anyone who claims that the media are dominated by the left is, most charitably put, deluded) -- of organized labor in the private sector.
Let's review. The efforts of organized labor brought about child-labor laws. And the five-day work week. And the eight-hour work day. And compensation for people injured on the job by their employers' cavalier disregard for their safety. And, and, and, and, and ....
In other words, all the things that those with money and power have indoctrinated many of those without money and power to believe.
We live in a society in which if you are Donald Trump, you can take one company after another after another into bankruptcy and still end up rich. But if you are an ordinary working person, one bankruptcy can ruin your life.
Why?
Well, shit, we all know why.
One of these days, ordinary Americans who vote Republican are going to wake up. They are going to realize that whatever they think about same-sex marriage or the legalization of marijuana or the positive portrayal of some fictional witches in The Wizard of Oz or the theory of evolution or the theory of heliocentrism, the leaders of their favorite party have betrayed them. And on that day, duck and cover.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
There's a joke I've been seeing over the past couple weeks:
A CEO, a union worker, and a non-union worker are all sitting at a table. On the table are a dozen cookies. The CEO takes 11 cookies, then looks at the non-union worker and says "Look out, that union guy is trying to steal your cookie!"
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Crackpot wrote:aactually the underpaid teacher "myth" depends entirely on the district you're in and how well funded it is.
Exactly so. And it is not beyond those wanting higher salaries in well funded districts to perpetuate the myth of the poorly paid teacher by using rural and other low-funded districts as an example. And those low-funded districts bring down the state average salaries, as do the new hires. And when judging the merits of the "average" wage, all teachers are lumped together whether they have a degree that is marketable outside of education (e.g., math, science) or one that is well-paid in education such as humanities or phys ed..
Oh, my. Andrew seems to have gone off the metaphorical deep end.
Are any of you pinkos prepared to even countenance the obvious and manifest evils of collective bargaining? Particularly when one is speaking about employment that is commonly referred to as "professional"?
Ninety-couple percent of the people working in the private sector in the U.S. are not covered by a CBA. Therefore, when they seek out employment their compensation is, at least theoretically determined by the market value of what they bring to the table. If employer A offers her $30/hr with no paid health benefits and employer B offers her $25/hr with a good package of benefits, she is free to go wherever she thinks the grass is greener. Later, if she believes that some other employer will pay her more, she can go to that employer - or strike out on her own as a consultant/entrepreneur. And with the general portability of 401k's, all is not lost, as it once might have been.
Once employed, the person can rise or fall on her own merits. If she is fantastic, or if she happens to fit well into that business, she can succeed. Conversely, if she doesn't work out well, she may never be promoted or given a raise, or she might even be asked to leave. It happens. The employer can assign her any duties the employer thinks can utilize her talents to the best benefit of the employer. If she doesn't like it she can move on.
There is no doubt that in some private-sector circumstances, collective bargaining can be beneficial. Its record, however, is loaded with examples of employee compensation going higher and higher, thus promoting automation, off-shore outsourcing (fewer and fewer jobs), and the eventual ruination of the employer, who is not seriously competitive with its non-union counterparts both domestically or overseas.
Be that as it may, consider the following true example of the impacts of Collective Bargaining in the public sector. The employee is a 30-year-old French teacher in a public school. She has lived both in France and in Quebec, she loves her subject and the cultures of those two places. She has intelligence, enthusiasm, creativity, and knowledge of the subject language that is close to that of an educated Frenchwoman. She is troubled by the slow progress of some of her students (which are admittedly not a cross-section of the students in the school), but knows that there is an active "French Club" that meets a couple days a week at the high school, and she wants to encourage her students to participate. They tell her "it is a drag" (or whatever expression kids are using these days). A total of four (4) kids regularly attend the French Club sessions. She checks into it and finds that there is a long-tenured French teacher who runs the after-school program, and has been running it for years. This woman hasn't set foot in a French-speaking country in 25 years, and hasn't had a fresh idea for longer than that. But the French Club represents an additional $1,500 in compensation, and the senior employee gets it as long as she wants it. It's awarded - like everything else - on the basis of SENIORITY. And the senior teacher ain't goin' nowhere. She strongly discourages the younger teacher from even coming to the French Club, because she might rock the boat.
The high school principal wants to investigate some innovative educational programs that would involve on-line instruction and multiple websites and software. She wants to appoint a committee of her most computer-savvy teachers to develop a course outline. Can't do it. It would involve additional work hours for the affected teachers, and could eventually result in special assignments or extra compensation, therefore implementation has to be negotiated with the union - which wants to decide which teachers will participate.
The school district would like to investigate extended school days with time for mentored sessions during which selected students could do what would normally be considered "homework," to ensure that it gets done, and it gets done properly. Union issues; never happens. Note that there would be no problem whatever getting teachers to volunteer for this service, but the union prevents it from ever being brought up.
The existence of the Teachers' Union stifles innovation, prevents management from creatively utilizing the talents of individual teachers, forces retention of incompetent and "burned out" teachers, and prevents any meaningful recognition of outstanding performance. (It does the same thing in every working enviroment where CBA's exist).
Don't the taxpayers and students deserve better than this? Is this the system that "the People of Wisconsin" want to retain?
Believe what you like. If there is a public debate on this issue, the teachers' unions will lose, big time.
Are any of you pinkos prepared to even countenance the obvious and manifest evils of collective bargaining? Particularly when one is speaking about employment that is commonly referred to as "professional"?
Are you prepared to engage in a discussion or just continue insulting people who disagree with you by calling them childish names?
There is no doubt that in some private-sector circumstances, collective bargaining can be beneficial. Its record, however, is loaded with examples of employee compensation going higher and higher, thus promoting automation, off-shore outsourcing (fewer and fewer jobs), and the eventual ruination of the employer, who is not seriously competitive with its non-union counterparts both domestically or overseas.
Off-shore outsourcing was promoted by our own government giving tax breaks to companies.
Be that as it may, consider the following true example of the impacts of Collective Bargaining in the public sector.
Yes, true examples without any sources to back them up.
The existence of the Teachers' Union stifles innovation, prevents management from creatively utilizing the talents of individual teachers, forces retention of incompetent and "burned out" teachers, and prevents any meaningful recognition of outstanding performance. (It does the same thing in every working enviroment where CBA's exist).
Here's a thought for you. Maybe if we paid our teachers what they should be earning in the first place, we wouldn't have to deal with unions. But then we have countries like Finland who still have teachers unions but also have much better education rates than the US. It's almost like the existence of unions is not the real problem.
Don't the taxpayers and students deserve better than this? Is this the system that "the People of Wisconsin" want to retain?
A starting salary anywhere else with a degree in a hard science gets $64,500.
And you blame TEACHERS! for the fact that you won't pay enough to get decent science teachers?
Jackasses.
yrs,
rubato
Don't recall where teachers take "hard science" aka biomed, Phd in chem/engineering/etc. Sure there are a few, but mast have MAsters (as the law mandates) Last I heard a BS will get you in the door with only a masters needed to get tenure. Hard science? please. You, as a chemist, are going to tell me that the local high school chemistry teacher is as qualified for your job? I'm an EE and I know I took more physics courses than the local science/physics teacher.
And there is a big difference in a teachers salary (plus benefits) in upstate NY versus one on Long Island. Heck, there is a sizable difference between a NY city teachers salary versus one on Long Island so the averages are skewed. Sure, the cost of living on Long Island is higher (but not higher htan NY City) but when the average salary on LI is over $70,000 (without including pensions and the lifetime health benefits) and the average property tax bill is in the $8000 range, something has to give.
A starting salary anywhere else with a degree in a hard science gets $64,500.
Maybe for the tops in the class, but notfor an overall average. If so, show your work.
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't do either, manage.
"Underpaid teachers" has become nothing more than a catch-phrase, having nothing to do with reality.
Teacher salaries are all over the lot, even within a state. Teachers in my district start at about $45k, and 20 miles west of here there are school districts that start them in the low $20's.
It is interesting in the extreme that we hear nothing of states wanting to "normalize" teacher compensation with the states to even out these disparities. I suspect that is because it would have the result of freezing pay in the highest-paid school districts, and spending a lot more to bring up the compensation of teachers in rural districts, with the end result being a significant increase in overall teacher compensation, state wide. But there is no rational reason why a teacher in Potter County, PA makes less than half of what a teacher makes in Harrisburg.
If teachers are "underpaid," how do you explain the fact that the Education Establishment has been warning us for at least 50 years about the "coming teacher shortage," and it never materializes. In fact, most school districts get mountains of resumes from fully-qualified applicants every year. And if they are so underpaid, WHY DO THEY NEVER LEAVE? Public school teachers have non-existent turnover. Security guards are underpaid, and private security firms experience close to 100% turnover every year. Yet teachers stick around like boogers.
BTW, GR, my examples are current situations involving people I know in my own school district. A district, it so happens, where 40% of the teachers are making over $100k (for 9 months work).
It is interesting in the extreme that we hear nothing of states wanting to "normalize" teacher compensation with the states to even out these disparities.
That's because there's this concept called "cost of living".
If teachers are "underpaid," how do you explain the fact that the Education Establishment has been warning us for at least 50 years about the "coming teacher shortage," and it never materializes.
It has materialized. Classes get bigger and bigger each year as the number of teachers grows more slowly than the number of students.
And if they are so underpaid, WHY DO THEY NEVER LEAVE?
Because some people like teaching. That doesn't mean they should be publicly whipped for wanting to be paid a bit more for doing so.
And a security guard is as likely to have a sense of pride in his job as a guy in a fast food restaurant.
A district, it so happens, where 40% of the teachers are making over $100k (for 9 months work).
What makes you think teachers drop everything and do nothing when school is out?
I play World of Warcraft, and a guy in my guild is a teacher in California. He spends a great deal of time in various schools, in addition to teaching. People don't just become teachers and then turn off their brains.
Also, for your first example involving the French Cub teacher, if teachers weren't so desperate to get what money they could, they wouldn't be holding on to positions like that so fiercely.
Same deal with the other examples. If teachers were paid more to start with, unions wouldn't be that big of a problem. Other countries can handle teachers being in unions, but not the US. Perhaps we should start looking at the real problems instead of tilting at windmills.
