alright. thanks for the definitions otrap. now I know. so I'm pretty sure that some folks in this forum defined me as trolling. Well by your definition otrap I hope that I didn't do that to some of you. Honestly. I don't want to get people upset. I just want to stir up some thinking. Whether you might think it's the best way or how you would think, just thinking.. Using you mind. Not just to sound or type like you know everything. Could be outside the box sometimes, on a different level. Whatever, just stirring up some thinking.

also the lulz def.- never heard that before.

mella;688010 wrote:I am assuming that if (when) the bill passes you will see increases in what most teachers pay toward health care. A decrease in the contributions by districts (taxpayers) toward STRS, a drop in salaries for new teachers, a decrease in yearly raises for all teachers.

The latter two are not at all forgone conclusions. The first of the two seems more likely than not, I suppose, but the last would be entirely based on the economic success of the school district taxpayers. When they make more, the raises can be higher. When they make less or lose, then it only stands to reason that they aren't going to be paying more to the teachers YOY if they themselves are making less YOY.

mella;688010 wrote:I am also assuming that most of the teachers that are in the system will not take a pay cut.

Possible. Depends on what can be afforded.

mella;688010 wrote:I think that most districts realize this would not be practical. "Hey, I am sure you don't mind giving the same quality for less money."

It's not ideal. However, it's no worse than saying to the tax payers, "Hey, I know you guys are in more of a financial bind than usual, but the teachers union wants to pay the teachers more, so we need you to take what little you're still making, and pay even more of it in taxes so the teachers can see a raise while you continue to struggle through the rough economy."

mella;688010 wrote:Compromises need to be made but nobody can really want to trash the educational system. Like I've said before. I don't care if the union goes away. I can stand on my own and I have a back up plan if my job starts to suck, (pay decrease with an expectation of the same quality).

That's good. I have the same. However, my employer already cut my pay (company-wide cuts shortly after the first of the year), and guess what? If I give less effort, they'll find someone who will take that pay and perform where I was performing before I started to quit trying so hard.

So if you would stop trying to educate the kids as hard because you'd take a pay cut, it is quite good and responsible that you have a backup plan.

Then again, if you're willing to lessen the students' education just because your not happy that you weren't given special exemption from economic struggles, perhaps you'd be teaching for the wrong reasons. I could understand if a person was making grossly lower pay than other professionals of similar experience and education, but not just if the sheltering bubble is removed.

mella;688010 wrote:How many on here go to the free clinic to get high quality care from a doctor?

I had to a couple times, because I had no insurance and no job.

bonelizzard;688044 wrote:alright. thanks for the definitions otrap. now I know. so I'm pretty sure that some folks in this forum defined me as trolling. Well by your definition otrap I hope that I didn't do that to some of you. Honestly. I don't want to get people upset. I just want to stir up some thinking.

And that's more than fine. You didn't stir me up. I didn't get upset with anything you said. No sleep lost (like I said, I'm always up until around 1:00AM working on my marketing business). I didn't believe you were trolling, and I still don't.

bonelizzard;688044 wrote:Whether you might think it's the best way or how you would think, just thinking.. Using you mind. Not just to sound or type like you know everything.

Bonelizzard, if you stick around, you'll find that I actually enjoy this kind of thinking to an annoying degree. Fact is, there is plenty I don't know. Related to this topic, I don't know how all this will turn out. However, I know how it has turned out in other industries. I know the law of supply and demand. I know that the private sector, even the niches without hardline metrics to measure success, has not experienced the problems and worries voiced by many on here.

But I also know that many teachers have never experienced this. From that, I suppose (not "know") that it's a lot of the "unknown" that has them worried. Moreover, there ARE going to be problems with the transition, because such a transition will cause discontentment somewhere, because by necessity, someone's got to give, and nobody wants to.

bonelizzard;688044 wrote:Could be outside the box sometimes, on a different level. Whatever, just stirring up some thinking. You certainly may use words that have 5 or 6 syllables and that's fine. I don't beleive that by doing so gives the impression that you are a genius. But, that's ok if you want to try to type like one.

I don't think that makes anyone sound like a genius, or even necessarily smart. A good vocabulary can simply be a reflection of a good education (since we're on the topic). I did receive a good one, and I appreciate it immensely. If you think I have a good vocabulary, it's as much attributed to my teachers and parents as it is me.

bonelizzard;688044 wrote:thanks for the lulz def. too.

No problem.

FALLSGUY;687887 wrote:As long as the millionaires like Kasich and his buds at Lehman give back a similar proportion we will all be happy.

I think Kasich and every other politician (at every level of government) should take HUGE paycuts, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

dwccrew;688122 wrote:I think Kasich and every other politician (at every level of government) should take HUGE paycuts, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

Agreed ... BIGTIME.

bonelizzard;688044 wrote:alright. thanks for the definitions otrap. now I know. so I'm pretty sure that some folks in this forum defined me as trolling. Well by your definition otrap I hope that I didn't do that to some of you. Honestly. I don't want to get people upset. I just want to stir up some thinking. Whether you might think it's the best way or how you would think, just thinking.. Using you mind. Not just to sound or type like you know everything. Could be outside the box sometimes, on a different level. Whatever, just stirring up some thinking.

Sometimes it is hard to understand where somebody is coming from when you're not used to their typing mannerisms. After reading this, it helps to explain your intentions much better.

"How many on here go to the free clinic to get high quality care from a doctor? "

They should expect the same care that they get from one they pay. Likewise attorneys that do pro bono work are expected to put in the same effort that they would if they had a paying client. These are professions, and they are expected to be professional in their work, regardless of the pay.

Manhattan Buckeye;688204 wrote:
They should expect the same care that they get from one they pay. Likewise attorneys that do pro bono work are expected to put in the same effort that they would if they had a paying client. These are professions, and they are expected to be professional in their work, regardless of the pay.

Expectations and reality are two different things. In reality, how can you motivate yourself the same for a paying job and a non paying job, regardless of how similar? I can tell you that for law school I'm going to have to do pro bono work and I can guarantee you that I won't be able to provide the same quality of service as someone who's been a lawyer for 20 years.

lhslep134;688207 wrote:Expectations and reality are two different things. In reality, how can you motivate yourself the same for a paying job and a non paying job, regardless of how similar? I can tell you that for law school I'm going to have to do pro bono work and I can guarantee you that I won't be able to provide the same quality of service as someone who's been a lawyer for 20 years.

???

No one expects a fresh lawyer to be as effective as a seasoned lawyer, but the expectations are that you do the best you can do whether it is representing Bank of America or representing the pro bono client. You motivate yourself because your reputation is reflected in your work, not how much money you make from the representation. I don't get your post at all.

Well...I'm going to weigh in on this topic. Some thoughts that have been brewing for a couple of days and a new one this morning....

Apparently, our government places much more value on producing cars than it does educating the children of this country and protecting the citizens of this country......

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/23/news/companies/gm_bailout/index.htm

a 'Sweetheart' deal for GM that will allow them to make millions after we, the taxpayers, bailed them out with billions of our dollars.

This, coupled with what is going on around the country with the states union-busting of the police, firefighters, teachers and state employees....states trying to balance their budgets on the backs of public workers.

Interesting priorities.

I have an idea...instead of using public workers to balance budgets, why not share the burden? Effective immediately, I think that the states should pass a resolution that calls for a 10% cut in each and every contract that they have entered into for goods and services, employment, etc. Then, those companies whose contracts have been cut can pass those cuts on to their workers in the form of a 10% pay cut.

For instance, if the State of Ohio is contracted to pay $100,000 for new office furniture....the bill is now $90,000. When the State pays the office furniture company the $90,000...then the workers who built the office furniture have their salary cut by that 10% to make up for the lesser amount that the office furniture company was paid. Then, when the office furniture company payes their corporate income taxes, their revenues are down 10%, so their tax payment to the State and Federal Government is lessed...there by forcing cuts in things like entitlement programs by 10%.

That way, everyone plays in the 'let's balance the budget' game.

"I have an idea...instead of using public workers to balance budgets, why not share the burden? Effective immediately, I think that the states should pass a resolution that calls for a 10% cut in each and every contract that they have entered into for goods and services, employment, etc. Then, those companies whose contracts have been cut can pass those cuts on to their workers in the form of a 10% pay cut."

They don't do this already? There isn't anything stopping the state from negotiating contracts with vendors as it is. Am I missing something?

I've read every single post on this thread (and those closely related) and I still don't see one valid reason as to why anyone NEEDS a union and/or collective bargaining. I see why they may want it...but definitely not why they would need it. I just don't understand why a successful professional that is good at their job would be so scared of having to advocate/bargain for himself. It's has been proven to work time after time, even in those professions where there is no way to measure performace with numbers. Several people on this forum have suggested ways to review teachers that has nothing to do with test scores but everyone keeps using that as an excuse why merit pay won't work. Just because it will take time to implement a good and fair system doesn't mean it can't be done. I get that the unknown is scary but that is no reason to keep the status quo.

Manhattan Buckeye;688219 wrote:They don't do this already? There isn't anything stopping the state from negotiating contracts with vendors as it is. Am I missing something?

You are missing my point. The new regime is making a mandate with SB5 that the budget problems be solved on the backs of public workers. I'm saying that the state government make a similar mandate stating that ALL contracts will be cut by 10% effective immediately....the trickle down of this mandated immediate 10% cut (not one negotiated at the end of a contract, etc). will spread the burden to those workers who get paid by taxpayers for those goods and services.

Manhattan Buckeye;688213 wrote:???

No one expects a fresh lawyer to be as effective as a seasoned lawyer, but the expectations are that you do the best you can do whether it is representing Bank of America or representing the pro bono client. You motivate yourself because your reputation is reflected in your work, not how much money you make from the representation. I don't get your post at all.

You said you expect the same service at a free clinic or pro bono as you do from a paid professional, and I'm telling you that's unrealistic.

lhslep134;688231 wrote:You said you expect the same service at a free clinic or pro bono as you do from a paid professional, and I'm telling you that's unrealistic.

No, it is not unrealistic. If a doctor donates their services to the local clinic, are they expected to half-ass their work? Likewise if an attorney agrees to represent a client pro bono he/she is expected to perform to the best of their abilities.

I can assure you, if an attorney screws up a pro bono representation he/she will have to explain themselves to their malpractice insurer and the bar. Telling them that "well, it was pro bono and I wasn't being paid so I didn't need to perform the same service " isn't an excuse, nor should it be.

wkfan;688218 wrote:Well...I'm going to weigh in on this topic. Some thoughts that have been brewing for a couple of days and a new one this morning....

Apparently, our government places much more value on producing cars than it does educating the children of this country and protecting the citizens of this country......

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/23/news/companies/gm_bailout/index.htm

a 'Sweetheart' deal for GM that will allow them to make millions after we, the taxpayers, bailed them out with billions of our dollars.

This, coupled with what is going on around the country with the states union-busting of the police, firefighters, teachers and state employees....states trying to balance their budgets on the backs of public workers.

Interesting priorities.

I have an idea...instead of using public workers to balance budgets, why not share the burden? Effective immediately, I think that the states should pass a resolution that calls for a 10% cut in each and every contract that they have entered into for goods and services, employment, etc. Then, those companies whose contracts have been cut can pass those cuts on to their workers in the form of a 10% pay cut.

For instance, if the State of Ohio is contracted to pay $100,000 for new office furniture....the bill is now $90,000. When the State pays the office furniture company the $90,000...then the workers who built the office furniture have their salary cut by that 10% to make up for the lesser amount that the office furniture company was paid. Then, when the office furniture company payes their corporate income taxes, their revenues are down 10%, so their tax payment to the State and Federal Government is lessed...there by forcing cuts in things like entitlement programs by 10%.

That way, everyone plays in the 'let's balance the budget' game.

The Government already dose this. It's called Medicaid and Medicare.

Fab4Runner;688226 wrote:I've read every single post on this thread (and those closely related) and I still don't see one valid reason as to why anyone NEEDS a union and/or collective bargaining. I see why they may want it...but definitely not why they would need it. I just don't understand why a successful professional that is good at their job would be so scared of having to advocate/bargain for himself. It's has been proven to work time after time, even in those professions where there is no way to measure performace with numbers. Several people on this forum have suggested ways to review teachers that has nothing to do with test scores but everyone keeps using that as an excuse why merit pay won't work. Just because it will take time to implement a good and fair system doesn't mean it can't be done. I get that the unknown is scary but that is no reason to keep the status quo.

Everything you have now like paid time off, a safe working environment, health care, etc you got because of collective bargaining. You want to see what happens on the open market, move to a third world country. Very good if you are the company owner, not so good if you are not.

lhslep134;688231 wrote:You said you expect the same service at a free clinic or pro bono as you do from a paid professional, and I'm telling you that's unrealistic.

Doctors have a hippocratic oath they have to obide by. It is very realistic to expect the same service.

Bigdogg;688239 wrote:Everything you have now like paid time off, a safe working environment, health care, etc you got because of collective bargaining. You want to see what happens on the open market, move to a third world country. Very good if you are the company owner, not so good if you are not.

I work in the private sector but am not a company owner and I hardly consider my job similar to those in a third world country.

Fab4Runner;688245 wrote:I work in the private sector but am not a company owner and I hardly consider my job similar to those in a third world country.

First, let me say that I have never been a union member or worked in an industry that had any sort of union representation......

However, if you think that many of the good things that you enjoy about your job...the 40 hour work week, paid sick time, vacation, partially paid for benefits...are not the result of collective bargaining that has happened in the past, you need to review your history lessons.

Those organized collective bargaining agreements forged early in this century have spilled over into our non-union workplace to make it a better place.

wkfan;688246 wrote:First, let me say that I have never been a union member or worked in an industry that had any sort of union representation......

However, if you think that many of the good things that you enjoy about your job...the 40 hour work week, paid sick time, vacation, partially paid for benefits...are not the result of collective bargaining that has happened in the past, you need to review your history lessons.

Those organized collective bargaining agreements forged early in this century have spilled over into our non-union workplace to make it a better place.

And the last time this argument was relevant, I was parking my dinosaur by my cave. It is old, hackneyed, and not relevant anymore.

wkfan;688246 wrote:First, let me say that I have never been a union member or worked in an industry that had any sort of union representation......

However, if you think that many of the good things that you enjoy about your job...the 40 hour work week, paid sick time, vacation, partially paid for benefits...are not the result of collective bargaining that has happened in the past, you need to review your history lessons.

Those organized collective bargaining agreements forged early in this century have spilled over into our non-union workplace to make it a better place.

I don't even get paid sick time or benefits but if I was to get them it would be because I bargained on my own behalf and my boss agreed to it.

Unions served a purpose in the past but this is 2011. You cannot get away with paying under minimum wage, not paying overtime, poor working conditions, ect. There are laws that protect workers. If public unions cease to exist workers rights won't go back a century like some are claiming.

lhslep134;688207 wrote:Expectations and reality are two different things. In reality, how can you motivate yourself the same for a paying job and a non paying job, regardless of how similar? I can tell you that for law school I'm going to have to do pro bono work and I can guarantee you that I won't be able to provide the same quality of service as someone who's been a lawyer for 20 years.

"Won't be able to" is taking skill alone into account. Effort is what's being evaluated. If someone is doing pro bono work, they ought to give as much EFFORT as if they were being paid. That was the point he was trying to make, I think.

Bigdogg;688239 wrote:Everything you have now like paid time off, a safe working environment, health care, etc you got because of collective bargaining. You want to see what happens on the open market, move to a third world country. Very good if you are the company owner, not so good if you are not.

Agreed. We owe a lot to unions and CB for giving us the work environment we enjoy today. That said, their time has past, and continuing to insinuate that working conditions would somehow degrade from current levels without them is pretty silly.

Manhattan Buckeye;688250 wrote:And the last time this argument was relevant, I was parking my dinosaur by my cave. It is old, hackneyed, and not relevant anymore.

Pleast tell me how a point of history is 'not relevant anymore'.

Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 irrelevant? How about the Emancipation Proclimation? Are they irrelevant?