ernest_t_bass;766114 wrote:I'm collectively bargaining today.

CenterBHSFan;766057 wrote:Was it radical to the point of immediate threat of collapse when teachers unionized in Ohio?
Were the stakes too high to unionize to start?
How can it be so dangerous to limit collective bargaining when it wasn't dangerous to implement it to begin with?

Al Bundy;766111 wrote:How do you measure value when we are talking about an industry which does not measure its productivity with a dollar amount? ...I really don't think many of you understand how much easier the work is and how much better the pay is in the private system compared to teaching the public system....

Con_Alma;766154 wrote:...versus peers and their talent level. Look at who is willing to come in and work for certain levels of compensation.

I really don't care which is easier...public vs private. The opportunity will attract over an extended period of time the people that are willing to perform at the compensation level. Right now people are willing to come in and teach for what's being offered.

Al Bundy;766191 wrote:Are you going to look at peers with the same talent level or are you going to look at who is willing to work for a certain level of compensation?
.....

Con_Alma;766213 wrote:Yes.

If $24,000 attracts a first year match teacher why would a district offer more? If a district has to offer a better package to get a math teacher so be it. Why a teacher chooses to teach doesn't have anything to do with the money part of compensation. If they are choosing to teach for reasons other than money I would be happy to let them do so.

Talent and effectiveness will separate the compensation amongst peers as time goes on.

Al Bundy;766219 wrote:If you hire the cheapest applicant for a position, you usually don't get the best applicant.

Con_Alma;766233 wrote:That's correct. I don't dispute that. The level of skill set will be determined by communities locally through their board. Those that want a higher level of applicant will try and attract them with a more aggressive compensation package.

Al Bundy;766191 wrote:Are you going to look at peers with the same talent level or are you going to look at who is willing to work for a certain level of compensation? They are usually two different things.

If I use the field that I taught, math, they aren't even close. As a first year teacher in 1996, I made $24,000. I did that for eight years and was making about $35,000. I go into the private industry and almost double my income. My skill set didn't suddenly change. In order for math teachers to be paid the same as others with similiar skill sets, you are going to have to pay them significantly more than what is currently being paid, and I don't see that happening. Most people who go into teaching math don't do it for the money (they could make much more in the private industry), they do it because they want to help kids. Most understand that they won't be paid the same as their private counterparts, but to only pay them half is a very low amount.

Writerbuckeye;766249 wrote:I'm veering off your main point because of something you wrote here: your salary went up $11,000 in eight years? Was that due mostly to step increases? I'm trying to determine how big a role step increases play in raises for teachers since I'm unfamiliar with their salary structure. I know that state employees (generally) do get step increases of close to 4 percent for the first 7 or 8 years in the same position, before they run out of steps, get a new position, or their old position goes through some type of reclassification.

Al Bundy;766258 wrote:I had step increases, but I also earned my masters in that time period. So it was combination of step increase and having a higher degree. Sometimes on the salary scales these are referred to as vertical (step increases) and horizontal (level of education) increases.

Writerbuckeye;766330 wrote:Thank you. I was pretty sure teacher salary schedules had step increases similar to the state's way of doing things. This explains why teacher salaries have continued (mostly) to go up during years when a lot of private sector increases were flat or being cut.

It's also one of the reasons, I believe, public employee costs have gotten onto an unsustainable path and why SB5 was necessary.

Most workers don't just get a 3-4 percent increase each year just for being on the job. Usually, there's an amount given based on merit that may be less or more than that...and of course those increases are typically tied to how economic conditions are at the time.

Al Bundy;766370 wrote: I just don't think SB5 is the way to implement those changes.

WebFire;766236 wrote:And this is true of the private sector to. I don't understand why SB5 opponents argue these things that really have nothing to do with the bill.

Glory Days;766792 wrote:because its not a business where its ok for some to fail. rich communities wouldnt have much of a problem as usual. however the poor commmunities will get poorer due to not being able to pay good teachers what they deserve.

georgemc80;766137 wrote:So even though I tell you I am against unions, you some how surmised that I was prounion?

I was referring to the other aspects of change to the system.

QuakerOats;766753 wrote:and yet those feeding at the trough refuse to acknowledge that radical systemic change is necesary to return the state back to the taxpayers. Get in the game.

WebFire;766813 wrote:Newsflash - poor district teachers make less than rich district teachers NOW. Again, this has nothing to do with SB5.

ernest_t_bass;767067 wrote:I had an interesting time today. After today, I truly believe that (given our current district administration) we could survive without the OEA/NEA. Perhaps I am naive.

FUCK SB5, though, still!

Glory Days;767049 wrote:and now they will be paid even less since they wont have any bargaining power.