bases_loaded;691226 wrote:Im not reading 46 pages:
tell me about this bill
So for you, it's not that you're nervous about negotiating for yourself, it's that you're nervous to have to stand by yourself?bonelizzard;691212 wrote:no school today. just thought I'd fire that in there. not scared to negotiate things myself. I've been a team player all my life and thoroughly enjoy strength in numbers.
CenterBHSFan;691229 wrote:So for you, it's not that you're nervous about negotiating for yourself, it's that you're nervous to have to stand by yourself?
bonelizzard;691212 wrote:no school today. just thought I'd fire that in there. not scared to negotiate things myself. I've been a team player all my life and thoroughly enjoy strength in numbers.
LJ;691233 wrote:So you are more comfortable with letting others decide what you are worth rather than fending for yourself? You are a follower. I totally understand collective bargaining when it comes to benefits like time off and health plans etc. But when it comes to wages it makes much more sense to me to stand on your own. You have a professional value, and that is best worked out between you and the company. Not a group of people saying that you are just like hundreds of others.
bonelizzard;691241 wrote:that's fine that you feel that way. I do have a say in my salary. As a union we discuss how much, if any, pay increase that we want to negotiate and our elected officials take that offer to the table. So, I do have a voice in helping or trying to determine what I am worth. Not necessarily a follower but part of something much bigger than myself. locally, statewide, and nationally. I like strength in #'s.
What we* are seeing beginning to emerge nationally is that there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to that strength in numbers.bonelizzard;691241 wrote:.... Not necessarily a follower but part of something much bigger than myself. locally, statewide, and nationally. I like strength in #'s.
ernest_t_bass;691245 wrote:LJ - I've said this before. I think that teachers should get to determine their value, based on evaluation, etc. However, I would like to see somewhat of a scale used, where all collective staff members can agree, and they can also see what they need to do to get said raises.
If Tom gets a $20,000 raise, it's gonna raise some questions.
Teacher - "What a sec, WTF did he do to get that kinda raise? I would like the same opportunities to pursue!"
Admin - "Sorry, we negotiated his wages separately. It's non of your damn business."
You CANNOT tell me that that situation (or something similar) would not go on... somewhere.
As a future admin, I'd also like to have a contract to say, "This is why Tom got his raise. He met all of these criteria that we all, collectively as a group (BOE, Super, Admins, Teachers) agreed upon."
LJ;691243 wrote:What if you are worth more than everyone else?
LJ;691247 wrote:A lot of companies have cap limits on raises in place already anways.
ernest_t_bass;691250 wrote:How does this answer my question, or respond to my statements?
A lot of places have cap limits. Like, you can't get more than x percent of the median salary in your dept. So that solves that right there. Not sure how that doesn't answer your question, because that is the solution currently used in places where you negotiate your own salary.If Tom gets a $20,000 raise, it's gonna raise some questions.
Do different people bring different strengths and weaknesses? Yes or noernest_t_bass;691248 wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't think that belongs in the K-12 ranks. Why would anyone want to be a SPED teacher, or a Kindergarten teacher, if they know there is more money to be made in other subjects? You will get inferior talent at those levels. If you want to make more money, then continue to move up the ladder, ie: Administration. Like you would pursue a management position in a private sector, etc.
I'm ALL FOR a merit based system, but each individual teacher naming their own price just doesn't make sense to me.
LJ;691251 wrote:A lot of places have cap limits. Like, you can't get more than x percent of the median salary in your dept. So that solves that right there. Not sure how that doesn't answer your question, because that is the solution currently used in places where you negotiate your own salary.
ok. that's fine that you feel that way. I am very comfortable with my salary.LJ;691243 wrote:What if you are worth more than everyone else? You are going to let those people decide how much you are worth. You only have 1 vote against many others. If 100 people vote for a $40k salary and you vote for a $50k salary because you are worth that much, you are going to get a 40k salary. If you were negotiating on your own, you could get much much close to that 50k you want, leaving the underperformers behind. It just makes no sense to me to collectively determine what an individual is worth.
LJ;691252 wrote:Do different people bring different strengths and weaknesses? Yes or no
Ouch!Con_Alma;691253 wrote:Here's FDR's position on collective bargaining for public service employees.
“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.”
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/pension-crisis/public-employee-pension-crisis/primary-sources/roosevelt-against-collective-bargaining-public-s
...but this is only half of the equation. Those who fund your salary must be happy with it also.bonelizzard;691257 wrote:ok. that's fine that you feel that way. I am very comfortable with my salary.
LJ;691243 wrote:What if you are worth more than everyone else? You are going to let those people decide how much you are worth. You only have 1 vote against many others. If 100 people vote for a $40k salary and you vote for a $50k salary because you are worth that much, you are going to get a 40k salary. If you were negotiating on your own, you could get much much close to that 50k you want, leaving the underperformers behind. It just makes no sense to me to collectively determine what an individual is worth.
ernest_t_bass;691256 wrote:LOL. A person would be stupid to take my example as literal. OF COURSE someone would not get a $20,000 raise. It is merely hypothetical. Take the situation for what it is worth, and stop trying to mix, pinpoint and twist arbitrary parts.
ernest_t_bass;691260 wrote:We are all here to educate, at different levels. Absolutely there are different strengths. Stop giving condescending questions.
"Uh, do people grow taller as they get older? Well, do they!?" You know the answer to your own questions. Don't treat me like am an effing idiot.
CenterBHSFan;691261 wrote:Ouch!
ernest_t_bass;691263 wrote:No, you negotiate on a base. You have criteria listed what you need to do to get a raise.
