bonelizzard;688925 wrote:ok. TWSS?

I had to piece that one together myself.

"That's What She Said."

It means that something someone says could be taken with a sexual conotation, if out of context.

ah!! got it.

O-Trap;688930 wrote:I had to piece that one together myself.

"That's What She Said."

It means that something someone says could be taken with a sexual conotation, if out of context.

Perhaps a visual may help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQMzjoLpFyI&feature=related

bonelizzard;688925 wrote:ok. TWSS?

Hey bonelizzard, ever hear of Google.com? It's a great website that you can type in things you don't know and have a ton of relevant answers displayed right in front of you. The best part is, its FREE and you can access anywhere in the WORLD as long as you have an internet connection.

Just an FYI.

Senate Bill 5 doesn't remove the ability for public employees to earn annual raises, but rather, they're based on performance. And both federal and state laws protect employees from civil rights violations and wage discrimination. As a public employee myself, I see no value in unions anymore. I guess you can keep paying union fees to take your mandatory fifteen smoke breaks a day.

Y-Town Steelhound;688955 wrote:Senate Bill 5 doesn't remove the ability for public employees to earn annual raises, but rather, they're based on performance. And both federal and state laws protect employees from civil rights violations and wage discrimination. As a public employee myself, I see no value in unions anymore. I guess you can keep paying union fees to take your mandatory fifteen smoke breaks a day.

sleeper;688937 wrote:Hey bonelizzard, ever hear of Google.com? It's a great website that you can type in things you don't know and have a ton of relevant answers displayed right in front of you. The best part is, its FREE and you can access anywhere in the WORLD as long as you have an internet connection.

Just an FYI.

really don't care that much. but thanks for the advice.

Y-Town Steelhound;688955 wrote:Senate Bill 5 doesn't remove the ability for public employees to earn annual raises, but rather, they're based on performance. And both federal and state laws protect employees from civil rights violations and wage discrimination. As a public employee myself, I see no value in unions anymore. I guess you can keep paying union fees to take your mandatory fifteen smoke breaks a day.

Most teachers don't smoke anymore. Used to.

Mandatory twelve coffee breaks then.

sleeper;688937 wrote:Hey bonelizzard, ever hear of Google.com? It's a great website that you can type in things you don't know and have a ton of relevant answers displayed right in front of you. The best part is, its FREE and you can access anywhere in the WORLD as long as you have an internet connection.

Just an FYI.

FYI?

bonelizzard;689143 wrote:really don't care that much. but thanks for the advice.

It's really embarrassing that someone is educating the "future leaders of tomorrow" and they don't even know what Google is. It may even be worse than you not knowing how to capitalize or complete a proper sentence. Please, I beg for this bill to pass, and I now understand why you're against it as you would be the first one out on the street flipping burgers for a living.

FYI?

I lol'd.

lhslep134;688341 wrote:Okay so if your best lawyers and the state and I are both working side by side pro bono because it's mandated by the bar and mandated by my curriculum, you're going to get the same service?

No man, no way.

I'm not clear what your point is. I am certain that the best lawyers in my state devote significant time to pro bono and do it to the utmost of their ability. It's an ethical violation to do otherwise--if only for fear of being sued for malpractice, lawyers don't slack off on pro bono work.

Manhattan Buckeye;688339 wrote:"Sure, many tens of thousands of people have been laid off and many tens of thousands have had their salaries cut...."

Try millions, and perhaps tens of millions. My father-in-law is an exec at Honeywell, they had a 10% across the board salary cut for division managers initiated in '09, they might get it back this year. No bonuses.

My wife's company is actually doing relatively well and they got rid of the 401(k) match and bonuses were halved this year. Nearly all of my friends that are partners at larger law firms (Baker Botts, McGuire, Hunton, Bradley Arant, Dewey LeBouef, etc.) are receiving less in their draws than they were a couple of years ago. Several of them are actually making LESS now than they were before they were partners. My previous "biglaw" firm initiated 15% reductions in associate salary and managed to keep it under the radar for the most part - I think they may review that soon. The partners I am friendly with have taken a huge hit in comp.

And these are the fortunate ones, they are still drawing a paycheck. One of my closest friends was in-house counsel at Circuit City - everyone there got axed, the company doesn't exist anymore. He still hasn't found full-time work and it is going on two years.

If there is embellishment in jmog's post, it isn't much. In all honesty I do not know anyone in the private sector that has received a raise in the last two years. Probably 3/4 of people have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.

Everyone with whom I've had a discussion about salary in the last two years has taken a pay cut. We've taken 10-15% cuts across the board, and then restructured our comp system completely such that I'll have to work here for 5 years before I earn what I earned when I started. Frustrating.

fan_from_texas;689411 wrote:Everyone with whom I've had a discussion about salary in the last two years has taken a pay cut. We've taken 10-15% cuts across the board, and then restructured our comp system completely such that I'll have to work here for 5 years before I earn what I earned when I started. Frustrating.

The firm I was with went from $122K to $105K for first years, "bonuses" were non-existent last year. Salary compression has made promotion increases next to nothing. Non-equity people could have possibly made $200K in a good year with bonus (I never did, came close in '07), now it is capped at about $150K. Many of the "equity" people are pulling in less than $125K. I had lunch with a former co-worker on Monday....she billed approx. 800 hours in '10. She's not worried about her job since she has her own arrangement (read, less than $100K comp., even though she's a "partner") but there isn't a single person in the firm making more than they did in '07. There simply isn't work, a couple of my former juniors are trying to branch off into immigration practice to maintain some reasonable billing goal, and the firm is promoting everyone to "partner" for marketing reasons even though it is partner in name only. Everyone from the class of '03 made partner this year, and I'm guessing they are being compensated 20% less than they were as a Sr. associate.

This whole issue is a payback to unions from republicans. As a teacher, I only recall one time when a republican was endorsed by the OEA - and that came with an explanation to us. (There may be others, that's all I recall). So right, wrong or indifferent, the republicans are evening the score - and then some. Merit pay is a joke as teachers are rarely dealt the same hand so far as student's abilities are concerned. Just one example....how can you expect the same result or even the same level of progress from a kid in an urban or deep rural setting to perform anywhere close to kids from a suburban, wealthy neighborhood? There might be a few exceptions but, very few. So you cut the pay of the teacher from the district or classroom whose kid has nowhere near the IQ or potential to learn and raise the teacher whose students are being raised in a home with physicians, attorneys etc. I am a registered republican but will vote either way - depending on the candidate or issue. I'm just saying this SB5 will create a number issues.

On this thread I've seen lots of teachers expressing fear at just the IDEA of having to (1) negotiate for themselves and (2) stand on their own two feet and be evaluated.

I attribute this to the same "disease" that is afflicting so many who have become dependent on our government for everything in their lives. When you don't have to do anything for yourself, you get to the point you no longer CAN do for yourself (or don't want to).

I think a similar thing takes place with public employees and others represented by unions. They abdicate their individuality to become one of a pack, and when they do that, it's like they can no longer function as individuals, anymore. God forbid they have to do something like negotiate with anyone to get a raise, or say why they deserve one.

All of this gives me great pause as to exactly what the quality of education is that our kids are truly getting. If there's this much group think among teachers; and so much fear of standing on their own merits, how can they possibly teach impressionable children to do this and become productive citizens?

Perhaps the representation on here has been skewed somehow and I'm not really seeing what most teachers are like; somehow those expressing views here are an aberration and not the norm.

God I hope that's the case -- for all of us.

Writerbuckeye;689575 wrote:On this thread I've seen lots of teachers expressing fear at just the IDEA of having to (1) negotiate for themselves and (2) stand on their own two feet and be evaluated.

.

simply not true

but dont tell me that im going to negotiate when your already telling me before the negotiation that you have no money to pay me as it has been stated on here many times "when there is no money something has to give"...

as far as the evaluation goes your not telling me how im going to be evauluated....

who ever said they were scared??

as fab said in her post she can negotiate on her own for benefits...howd that work for her? do you think she didnt ask for benefits??

Teacher: I would like to make this

Board: here is what we can pay

Teacher: i can t live on that

Board: your fired

as fab said in her post she can negotiate on her own for benefits...howd that work for her? do you think she didnt ask for benefits??

I can't say if this pertains to Fab or not, but alot of people take jobs that offer no benefits. They are happy to have those jobs too. They use these jobs and will continue to use these jobs until (hopefully) something else comes along. They also use these jobs for experience and to also get their foot in the door in trying for advancement.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the jobs that offer no benefits.

Gblock;689710 wrote:simply not true

but dont tell me that im going to negotiate when your already telling me before the negotiation that you have no money to pay me as it has been stated on here many times "when there is no money something has to give"...

as far as the evaluation goes your not telling me how im going to be evauluated....

who ever said they were scared??

as fab said in her post she can negotiate on her own for benefits...howd that work for her? do you think she didnt ask for benefits??

Teacher: I would like to make this

Board: here is what we can pay

Teacher: i can t live on that

Board: your fired

so you're cool with paying people when there is no money to be paid?

derek bomar;689748 wrote:so you're cool with paying people when there is no money to be paid?

well i still have to pay my bills when i dont have money...i cant call the electric company and say hey i wont be paying this month...my doctor doesnt slash his prices just cause im struggling, neither did my lawyer. i have to find the money somewhere. if there is no money to be paid how can i negotiate?

CenterBHSFan;689733 wrote:I can't say if this pertains to Fab or not, but alot of people take jobs that offer no benefits. They are happy to have those jobs too. They use these jobs and will continue to use these jobs until (hopefully) something else comes along. They also use these jobs for experience and to also get their foot in the door in trying for advancement.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the jobs that offer no benefits.

absolutely nothing wrong but im just saying people keep saying negotiate but i can see how that will go

Gblock;689753 wrote:absolutely nothing wrong but im just saying people keep saying negotiate but i can see how that will go

Actually, you don't see how it will go since there is no concrete plan in place. While that may be scary it is simply not a good reason to keep thing the way they are. As has been stated several times before...school districts will need to offer competitive compensation packages to attract good teachers. I highly doubt any district or board in the state will pay teachers minimum wage with no benefits just because they can. The kids will suffer and the district will suffer.

I also don't recall seeing a single piece of evidence that benefits will be scrapped all around. It's simply not true. Paying more for them in these times is hardly unfair in my opinion.

Fab4Runner;689774 wrote:Actually, you don't see how it will go since there is no concrete plan in place. While that may be scary it is simply not a good reason to keep thing the way they are. As has been stated several times before...school districts will need to offer competitive compensation packages to attract good teachers. I highly doubt any district or board in the state will pay teachers minimum wage with no benefits just because they can. The kids will suffer and the district will suffer.

I also don't recall seeing a single piece of evidence that benefits will be scrapped all around. It's simply not true. Paying more for them in these times is hardly unfair in my opinion.

im not saying benefits will be scrapped all around at all

Gblock;689750 wrote:well i still have to pay my bills when i dont have money...i cant call the electric company and say hey i wont be paying this month...my doctor doesnt slash his prices just cause im struggling, neither did my lawyer. i have to find the money somewhere. if there is no money to be paid how can i negotiate?

That's what nearly all of us have to deal with for our entire career. Is there a reason you should get special treatment due to what you do for a living?

Gblock;689710 wrote:but dont tell me that im going to negotiate when your already telling me before the negotiation that you have no money to pay me as it has been stated on here many times "when there is no money something has to give"...

It would indeed be possible for less money to be given to the district for salaries, but for you personally to still see an increase in pay. It is not that there is "no" money. It's that soon there will be "no more" money.

There's an ebb and flow to this. The more paid to the teachers, the less bubble families will have available to budget their lives. Too little either way, and there are going to be families that cannot help but go into the red.

With individual bargaining, each person can have the freedom to ensure that, regardless of how big the pool is for teacher salaries, they can get as much of it as they can negotiate.

Gblock;689710 wrote:as far as the evaluation goes your not telling me how im going to be evauluated....

This is actually not as negative a thing as you think. (1) People work under these conditions all the time, and they make a satisfactory living doing it. (2) It lets YOU set the tone of evaluating your worth. If you see that your attendance rate is up, you can use that. YOY progress? Use that. Student comments that establish that you're making a difference? Use that.

Essentially, without hardline "quotas," you're able to more freely answer the question, "What value do you bring to your position as a teacher here?" You can bring up experience. You can bring up specific situations you've handled. You can bring up problems you've troubleshooted (feels weird typing "shooted"). You have the floor, and you get to set the terms of why you are a valuable asset to the students, to the school, and to the district.

So long as you come prepared, it's really not hard.

Gblock;689710 wrote:as fab said in her post she can negotiate on her own for benefits...howd that work for her? do you think she didnt ask for benefits??

Maybe she did. Maybe she didn't. It's more beneficial to come to an agreement with the person already in front of you than it is to go out in search of another qualified candidate, financially and otherwise.

If the school has to bend a little, it can still save them the cost of taking out job opening ads in the paper and online. Those can actually be pretty expensive, depending on where you are.

Gblock;689710 wrote:Teacher: I would like to make this

Board: here is what we can pay

Teacher: i can t live on that

Board: your fired

If they say "You're fired," that means you've currently got the job. If you've currently got the job, but can't afford to live on what you're making, then it may not necessarily be the board's fault.

However, you have to see this from both sides. If you can't afford to pay on that, but they can't afford to give you more, they're just as much evaluating a budget as you are. If the money isn't there, then no amount of strong-arming can make it magically appear.

Now, if they're low-balling teachers, they'll get a bad reputation, they'll see a decrease in quality of teachers (read: education for the students in their district), and they'll see parents leaving their district for greener pastures, taking the tax dollars with them, so their pool will decrease even more, exacerbating their problem, and they will likely be looking at the end of their jobs.

It's in the school's best interest to be competitive in terms of getting the best teachers they can, because it attracts parents to move into the area, bringing tax monies with them. Essentially, it's a subtle way of "marketing" the education provided by the school to have good, qualified teachers, which they'll only get if they're willing and able to pay for them.