dwccrew;687006 wrote:I think you are right. I am done trying to engage with certain posters who seem to have the inability to have rational and logical conversation. Actually, almost everyone on the pro-CBA side has actually made some good arguments (although I still fully support SB5) except for 1 in particular. I think many on the pro-CBA side realize this and have not really agreed or validated that poster's responses. That 1, as you said, is just trolling.

One? I would have figured you would say two (the other one might be on another thread).

bonelizzard;686448 wrote:ok, let me see if I can word this properly? So all employees in the private sector can say specifically to the employer what wage they want to earn?

Why are you having such a hard time with this? The answer is "yes". No ifs ands or buts about it, yes.

"Mr. Bonelizzard, we want to offer you $9 to flip burgers"
"No that doesn't work, how about $15?"
"we can't do $15, how about $11?"
"I would really be comfortable with $13"
"13 it is"
"I would also like 12 vacation days instead of 10"
"We can do that"

It's THAT simple. I think you are confusing the ability of a Union to bully employers (aka The State) into doing what is only best for the employees by using tactics such as striking. When it comes to non union jobs, if the employer doesn't give you what you want, you deal with it, or find another job.

point blank.

WebFire;687013 wrote:One thing I'd like to hear explained...

I keep seeing teachers and firefighters posting about taking a 40% paycut and being paid close to minimum wage, blah blah blah. I get that some are just being extreme to support their cause, but where has anything been said that anyone would get a paycut?

To my knowledge, it hasn't, though I think the overall funds toward teacher compensation packages need to match the economic trends within each district. Fewer tax payers or less income to tax means that much of it just won't be there.

I'm not saying that because I don't think teachers deserve a great compensation package. I'm just saying it's not realistic to try to close our eyes, plug our ears, yell "LALALALALA!" and ignore the fact that the money may not always be there to GIVE them that great compensation package.

From there, as the money is limited, I think that each slice of it ought to be earned. I have no huge issue with a uniform retirement plan or uniform insurance policies (medical, life, dental, vision, etc). I do take exception to everyone just being given the same size chunk to go out there and teach at different degrees of success with different effort.

O-Trap;687012 wrote:I actually think this analogy can be legitimate, but the problem is, when you extrapolate a sports team to a professional level (as we're speaking about a profession here: teaching), some will get more playing time than others because they're better. They'll also typically be paid better because they have more to offer and bring it to the negotiations table. Just because a perennial MVP candidate plays all 162 games and makes eight figures a year, while a benchwarmer who sees 10 at bats all year and makes $500,000 a year, it doesn't mean they aren't on the same team, playing for the same goal.

I agree and mentioned that they are similar in the sense that they work as a unit, but the goals and how they reach the goal is very different. And as you mentioned about sports at the professional level, people are paid/rewarded based on merit, which kind of shoots down bonelizzard's argument.

O-Trap;687025 wrote:To my knowledge, it hasn't, though I think the overall funds toward teacher compensation packages need to match the economic trends within each district. Fewer tax payers or less income to tax means that much of it just won't be there.

I'm not saying that because I don't think teachers deserve a great compensation package. I'm just saying it's not realistic to try to close our eyes, plug our ears, yell "LALALALALA!" and ignore the fact that the money may not always be there to GIVE them that great compensation package.

From there, as the money is limited, I think that each slice of it ought to be earned. I have no huge issue with a uniform retirement plan or uniform insurance policies (medical, life, dental, vision, etc). I do take exception to everyone just being given the same size chunk to go out there and teach at different degrees of success with different effort.

/thread. This sums up what the anti-CBA crowd has been saying for 33 pages.

WebFire;687013 wrote:One thing I'd like to hear explained...

I keep seeing teachers and firefighters posting about taking a 40% paycut and being paid close to minimum wage, blah blah blah. I get that some are just being extreme to support their cause, but where has anything been said that anyone would get a paycut?

As it stands right now, (and this is merely hypothetical), if I were to get a $300 per pay cut, I'd be bringing home b/t $350-$400 every week. That sucks.

Yes, I know... welcome to the real world. That seems to be the easiest answer for anyone to type.

ernest_t_bass;687030 wrote:As it stands right now, (and this is merely hypothetical), if I were to get a $300 per pay cut, I'd be bringing home b/t $350-$400 every week. That sucks.

But you don't know what you're actual compensation would be without the union, correct?

FatHobbit;687034 wrote:But you don't know what you're actual compensation would be without the union, correct?

Of course I don't know. This crap is in its early stages.

ernest_t_bass;687038 wrote:Of course I don't know. This crap is in its early stages.

I understand. I would not be thrilled about the thought of having my compensation package completely reworked either, with no idea as to how it was going to work. When you said a $300 paycut I thought you already knew you were going to be taking that.

ernest_t_bass;687030 wrote:As it stands right now, (and this is merely hypothetical), if I were to get a $300 per pay cut, I'd be bringing home b/t $350-$400 every week. That sucks.

Yes, I know... welcome to the real world. That seems to be the easiest answer for anyone to type.

I suppose it's the easiest answer because most people really don't feel as though it needs to go any further. $400 in take-home pay a week is more than I make at my day job.

I don't WISH any large cut on you (or anyone) like that, but if the economic climate in your district warrants it, I just don't see a better option.

ernest_t_bass;687038 wrote:Of course I don't know. This crap is in its early stages.

Right, but if you are a quality teacher giving a lot of effort every day into teaching these kids, I don't see any objections that anyone could legitimately raise to try to put you below the district average. That still might be less than you make now if the overall pool of money set aside for teacher compensation is smaller, but there's nothing you, I, or anyone else can do about that part.

A bad economy sucks, because it inevitably dips into people's pockets, and there's no real way to combat it, but having a union that flexes its muscles to demand more compensation than is even available doesn't solve the economic problem. If anything, it ensures that the problem will only grow later on (as, if the teachers get the compensatory package higher than what is affordable, there will be debt accumulating in the years to come ... that equals an unbalanced budget).

Look at it this way: If you figure out that your monthly income is $1,800.00, and you budget everything out to find that you don't really have any room in the budget for any extra expenditures, then if your gas company decides to up the rate, then what can you do? Just start taking out debt each month to pay your gas bill, while allowing that debt to accumulate? Do you start using less gas around your house (comparable to laying off teachers to stay under budget)? What other options do you have?

Moreover, what if you do take a paycut at work? You'd be seeing even MORE debt if you tried to maintain everything, but your only other option is to cut your gas consumption to such a small amount every month that it doesn't even sufficiently heat your house. This is comparable to when the economy takes a downturn and the schools have to then choose between: (1) large chunks of debt the currently have no foreseeable way to pay back, (2) laying off so many teachers that the school's level of education drops significantly (not for a lack of effort or ability, but even pretty vital programs get cut), or (3) implementing a pay decrease for all people whose compensation is pulled from this pool.

None of the options are pretty, but (3) is the one that allows everyone (or almost everyone) to keep their job, for the school to still maintain a quality level of education, and for the state not going further and further into debt with no plan to pay it off.

O-Trap;686943 wrote:That was only about 500 words.

Pretty sure the discussions that jmog, nchsbuckeye, Bigred95, and I used to have on TOS wouldn't see posts under 10,000 words for over a page. It was awful.

I resemble that remark .

jmog;687076 wrote:I resemble that remark .

It's true, and you know it!

ernest_t_bass;687038 wrote:Of course I don't know. This crap is in its early stages.

I guess that's my point and question. Why do public employees keep throwing out that they will receive a paycut? I've seen nothing that suggests such as fact.

WebFire;687108 wrote:I guess that's my point and question. Why do public employees keep throwing out that they will receive a paycut? I've seen nothing that suggests such as fact.

the bill wouldnt save any money to taxpayers if they didnt cut pay/benefits

Gblock;687118 wrote:the bill wouldnt save any money to taxpayers if they didnt cut pay/benefits

It might if they could fire the old teachers who were making a lot of money, but didn't do a good job. They could be replaced with younger teachers at starting salaries. (of course the obvious fear is all the old teachers, regardless of quality, will be replaced by younger teacher with starting salaries.)

And you would get an automatic $710 raise by not having to pay union dues.

FatHobbit;687128 wrote:It might if they could fire the old teachers who were making a lot of money, but didn't do a good job. They could be replaced with younger teachers at starting salaries. (of course the obvious fear is all the old teachers, regardless of quality, will be replaced by younger teacher with starting salaries.)

And you would get an automatic $710 raise by not having to pay union dues.

Just because you cut high paid teachers doesn't mean you save the tax payers money. The money will just get redistributed elsewhere. This bill will not save any local tax base money, b/c that is voted upon by levies. The money a school receives from local tax will stay the same. The money that each school receives from a state will decrease.

I harped on some folks using dramatic pay cut figures earlier -- and it was noted that the bill has a proposed floor for payment in it. Some on here were saying their wages would fall back to that floor, which is a ridiculous assumption based on nothing more than common sense.

Districts will likely rework pay schedules if this passes, but I don't see anyone taking that dramatic of a pay cut UNLESS the finances in their district are in critical shape. Will they continue to see step-type increases? Probably not. But common sense also says districts are going to try and remain competitive (within their financial structure) to attract better teachers.

All of this discussion has focused mainly on teachers, but there are about 50,000 state employees this would also affect, most of them in one union or another. Doing away with step increases on top of cost of living (contract) raises, could potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars. And allowing state supervisors to actually hold employees accountable will be a godsend to productivity and a better work environment.

I say that having been on both sides (union and supervisor) of state employment.

I have a problem with this. A huge problem. Here is something that is scary for education... online classes. You telling me that one can learn how to teach... ONLINE!?

That is not an argument for or against SB5, and nothing related to the topic of SB5. I'm not trying to argue in my favor. It is just an add I noticed on this site, and it caught my attention.

ernest_t_bass;687171 wrote:

I have a problem with this. A huge problem. Here is something that is scary for education... online classes. You telling me that one can learn how to teach... ONLINE!?

That is not an argument for or against SB5, and nothing related to the topic of SB5. I'm not trying to argue in my favor. It is just an add I noticed on this site, and it caught my attention.

I would say that online classes can replace the in-class learning (where the would-be teacher is the student), but I also think it should be mandatory for a person with a Masters in Teaching to have had some classroom experience (like most undergrads' "student teaching").

Writerbuckeye;687168 wrote:I harped on some folks using dramatic pay cut figures earlier -- and it was noted that the bill has a proposed floor for payment in it. Some on here were saying their wages would fall back to that floor, which is a ridiculous assumption based on nothing more than common sense.

Ridiculous indeed. Like someone stated earlier, the private sector has a floor for payment call minimum wage. Does everyone in the private sector make minimum wage? Not even close.

I guess I don't see how it can be used as a valid reason by CBA advocates, when there is not factual evidence that anyone would receive a pay cut.

ernest_t_bass;686931 wrote:I actually don't mind it, as a base. My beef is the good evaluations of those poor teachers... it happens. And that falls on the administrators.

If we are going to see stiff arm tactics, I want it to be aimed at eliminating tenure and stop giving the union so much power over the elimination process... so long as the paper trail is there.

Admin - "Look, this teacher sucks. We have many evaluations that show it, and many testimonies. We've tried to help her, but she hasn't improved. Here is our proof."
Union - "OK."

or...
Admin - "This teacher sucks b/c people said so. I don't have a bad eval, but we want to get rid of her b/c people don't like her."
Union - "Aw, HELL NO!"

So your problem with evaluations is that they aren't perfect? Of course they aren't, nothing is. But they work to determine pay raises/whether you're good enough to keep your job in every other profession. What makes teaching so different?

Apologies if that's not what you meant.

I Wear Pants;687220 wrote:So your problem with evaluations is that they aren't perfect? Of course they aren't, nothing is. But they work to determine pay raises/whether you're good enough to keep your job in every other profession. What makes teaching so different?

Apologies if that's not what you meant.

No, my problem with evaluations is that POOR teachers are given good evaluations, just because they are either friends with the admins, or the admins don't want to jump through the proper hoops.

We had a situation in my district where a teacher was bad. HS admin was good friends with her, never helped her in her teaching strategies, and let her go through the system. The elem. admin, however, didn't care. He knew she was bad, gave her bad evals, and they eliminated her that way. She deserved it, as much as I loved that woman.

Now, like I've stated before. We have a weak union, so it was easier for admins. I know in some unions, you would have to jump through a lot more hoops.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/two-thirds-wisconsin-public-school-8th-g

"Two-thirds of the eighth graders in Wisconsin public schools cannot read proficiently according to the U.S. Department of Education, despite the fact that Wisconsin spends more per pupil in its public schools than any other state in the Midwest."

And at the end of article many comments such as this one:
"As a former teacher, I quit in disgust after three years exposed to the ruinous place we call public education. Our school was full of worthless "educators" who could not be fired and gave not a wit for the welfare of the students - hell, they didn't even attend graduations, let alone other school events - couldn't be bothered! Last week at our school, the kids were passing around drugs in little envelopes - the teachers thought they were Valentines - the next day a 16 year old died as a result of their inattention. Unions prevent the Board from weeding out the deadwood and as a result, only the youngest and hardest working new staff are fired so the union deadwood can stay on the job and continue the downward spiral. Our foreign students arrive here the equivilant of sophomore in COLLEGE - its a damn shame!"


I rest my case.

QuakerOats;687325 wrote:http://cnsnews.com/news/article/two-thirds-wisconsin-public-school-8th-g

"Two-thirds of the eighth graders in Wisconsin public schools cannot read proficiently according to the U.S. Department of Education, despite the fact that Wisconsin spends more per pupil in its public schools than any other state in the Midwest."

THIS is the kind of stuff I was referring to.

I could live with a quarter, because I understand that you're going to have kids that just don't care. I'm assuming that number will vary statistically, depending on whether you are in urban areas, suburban ares, or rural areas.

Two-thirds? There is no excuse for that, regardless of pay grade, but when you then remember that the average compensation is $100K a year for teachers in that state???

No wonder there are people out for blood. SMH @ the current "education" system in Wisconsin.

Afternoon guys, finished teaching our leaders for tomorrow and thought I would log on and join in. I don’t mix work and free time activities Get your fingers ready because I know you’re itching to blast away. I’ve scrolled back through the threads to try and bring myself up to speed. So, here we go..I’ll try as best I can to be concise. I’m not going to do the fancy quotes like you guys do because really I’m not that good at this. Honestly..

DW- Oh, I’ve been hit financially with pay freezes and will in the future, but thanks for the head’s up. Am preparing now.
No children yet? 28 huh. Wow you’re young. I hope you have kids of your own someday. You see things a little differently, through their eyes. My opinion. I have kids.
Oh I’m a teacher, have been for 20 years. Feel free to go back through this thread and take notes, ha that’s what I do..(smiley face)
Sorry if you don’t like my analogies, but it is just that an analogy.... it’s all about being a “team” player, just so happened to be a youth team.. So you do agree that my youth sports team analogy is ok.? just because Otrap commented on it and somewhat agreed with my analogy? cool. ok

Otrap- I love reading, really I do, but sometimes the things you write I have to get my hip waders on because I feel it’s getting pretty deep.

JMog- I’m pretty sure that I don’t teach where your kids go to school. But I could. Not going to tell you where I teach either just because I choose not to. that’s all..

LJ- I’m just trying to get some definitions by the folks in this forum for what is the private sector and the public sector. I feel that all unions don’t bully, not mine anyway. That’s not to say that some unions may bully. My union negotiates, both sides negotiate to come to a common goal and what’s best for all, and eventually but most importantly the kids.. Been teaching for 20 years, within those years been on strike for a total of 3 days. Strikes are absolutely, positively, without a doubt the last resort. (really wanted to underline “last” there)

ok last thing.. I really am not familiar with some of these terms because, honestly, I haven’t done this very often and I just don’t know what they mean. So I guess you’d call me a “newbie”? But I need some definitions, if you don’t mind. I asked before but didn’t get a response, so I’ll try again.

Terms:
lulz-
trolling-

I like to fish and have been trolling for Pike in Canada so I know what it means in that context, just not familiar with it used in public forums. Concise, ok probably not. But really did try.