WebFire;739687 wrote:It just affects you, so you can only view it as bad.

It won't affect me, Einstein. And you, too, Sleeper.

Writerbuckeye;739667 wrote:BRF: Take a look at what you wrote and how defeatist it sounded. Does that sound like it should be coming from a 34 year teaching veteran -- someone I would HOPE would be about as confident in his abilities as anyone when it comes to being in a merit system.

Yes, what I wrote was harsh. It needed to be. Honestly, some of the stuff I've seen written on here by teachers is SAD. It comes across as whining, whimpering and defeatist.

Honestly, I think that's what happens when people are in a union setting for so long. They become complacent and lazy. They know their job will be there (with raises) almost regardless of how they do -- short of getting caught with child porn on their computers or something equally egregious.

It also promotes an atmosphere of entitlement that you don't deserve. Nobody does, not if we want this country to figure a way out of the hole we've dug for ourselves and hope to get things at least even so the kids in school now will have at least a decent shot of making a good life for themselves when it's their time to be in charge.

I understand that feeling and have been seduced by it (in a civil service job and a member of the union). I could easily have stayed in that setting and probably put in my 30 years and had a decent retirement. But along with the faux security (it isn't real) comes a stifling of creativity and expression that comes from having a job that challenges you every day.

Because of that, I left that system and took a position that was not only supervisory (not union) but wasn't even civil service; it was as an appointee. Basically, I went to work every day knowing that my boss or the governor's office could fire me for wearing the wrong shirt and tie -- that's how little security there was in an unclassified post.

Not only did I thrive in that slot...I was kept on by the three following administrations (obviously both Republican and Democrat) because each succeeding administration wrote a book on employees and told whether they were worth keeping or not. I obviously got rave reviews (I know I did because I was told so).

My (long-winded) point is that I thrived under a merit system with more pressures than most private sector folks have on them because my job was literally political in nature.

There's no reason teachers and other public employees today can't do the same.

None.

dude you have way too much time to think about yourself that is the funniest post i ever read wtf are you talking about? i wanna smoke some of that smh..just say like you did in your last post..you want to pay less taxes....all your posts are the same unions=lazy entitled, stupid writerbuckye= ultra-intelligent self-taught hero. seriously every post is the same do you have an original fresh statement for this discussion?

Gblock;739705 wrote:dude you have way too much time to think about yourself that is the funniest post i ever read wtf are you talking about? i wanna smoke some of that smh..just say like you did in your last post..you want to pay less taxes....all your posts are the same unions=lazy entitled, stupid writerbuckye= ultra-intelligent self-taught hero. seriously every post is the same do you have an original fresh statement for this discussion?

Thanks for the feedback. It was lovely.

Writerbuckeye;739694 wrote:
As for your last comment: enjoy being a Democrat and the system they want you to be a part of -- lots of entitlements, a declining quality of life for everyone, and more taxes (oh and not just on the "rich" either. What Dems want can't be sustained without a lot of taxes going up).

Did I say that I was going to go to the Democrat side? I think NOT.

BRF;739713 wrote:Did I say that I was going to go to the Democrat side? I think NOT.

I'd honestly prefer with your lack of basic economic understanding(specifically labor economics) that you never vote. To each his own, I suppose.

sleeper;739715 wrote:To each his own, I suppose.

For once I agree with you.

WebFire;739692 wrote:Someone I know who works for the school as a non-teacher told me that a bunch of teachers were in the lounge bitching about SB5, as they were bringing in food and firing up the TV for the NCAA tournament. It wasn't during lunch. That pretty much sums it up.

Like that kind of stuff doesn't happen in the non-union merit based private sector. HAHAHAHA!

Hater.

BRF;739703 wrote:It won't affect me, Einstein. And you, too, Sleeper.

Well, Einstein, you made it sound like it would. And when I say "you", that means the public sectors.

BRF;739724 wrote:Like that kind of stuff doesn't happen in the non-union merit based private sector. HAHAHAHA!

Hater.

You understand the difference, though.

You're just stirring the pot, BRF! haha!

Wasc

BRF;739724 wrote:Like that kind of stuff doesn't happen in the non-union merit based private sector. HAHAHAHA!

Hater.

Sure it does. Better not let the boss find out!

CenterBHSFan;739739 wrote:You understand the difference, though.

You're just stirring the pot, BRF! haha!

BRF;739680 wrote:Oh, maybe their RETIREMENT package, for example?

Whatever.................let's just put all the burden of our problems on the middle class. Tax them more. You all might be interested to know that I am a Republican and was always proud of it until now (except one time during my college days when I voted for McGovern!). I am about ready to renounce my party, BUT before I do that, I will just say that I will NEVER again vote for a GOP who supports this kind of stuff. I tip my hat to the Republicans who voted against this bull crap.

I'm middle class and if anything, SB5 will have positive impacts for me. Sorry, these talking points you keep posting are nothing but regurgitated shit that the unions spew. The middle class is not public sector union employees. If anything that makes up a very small percentage of the middle class. Please think for yourself, as you seem to be intelligent and educated, not what the union tells you to think.

Public sector unions are fighting for their lives because without brainwashing members into thinkning they actually need them, these top union officials are the ones that will be screwed, not the members.

BRF;739724 wrote:Like that kind of stuff doesn't happen in the non-union merit based private sector. HAHAHAHA!

Hater.

I'm sure it does, the only difference is the non-union merit based private sector workers would most likely face harsh penalties (likely lose their job and rightfully so) and the union employees wouldn't.

dwccrew;739910 wrote:I'm middle class and if anything, SB5 will have positive impacts for me. Sorry, these talking points you keep posting are nothing but regurgitated shit that the unions spew. The middle class is not public sector union employees. If anything that makes up a very small percentage of the middle class. Please think for yourself, as you seem to be intelligent and educated, not what the union tells you to think.

Public sector unions are fighting for their lives because without brainwashing members into thinkning they actually need them, these top union officials are the ones that will be screwed, not the members.

not really...i think its been over exaggerated how hard it is to get fired if you are in a union and also how easy it is to get fired if you are in the private sector...


I'm sure it does, the only difference is the non-union merit based private sector workers would most likely face harsh penalties (likely lose their job and rightfully so) and the union employees wouldn't.

as far as the bill goes im sure that if i was in the private sector and there was a chance that maybe now or in the future i would pay less taxes i would be for this bill

likewise if you were a public worker and you see that they want to say you will be paid on a yet to be determined matrix(that many here say will be fair) by a yet to be determined person all under the premise that they want to save 200 million dollars. you likely see that as writing on the wall that they will want to save money by paying public workers less in benifts and salary by said amount. you would be against the bill too. to say otherwise imo is hypocritical. people keep talking about step increases and they constantly talk about those at the top of the pay scale but conveniently gloss over the bottom of the pay scale where everyone starts out lower then they would at the private sector for at least 5 years.

also i think that people should understand that most people have spouses that work in th private sector and have horses on both sides of this race. we pay taxes too and we deal with the same private sector issues that others do. i dont get why you think in a union we dont. under this bill it would take two years and two unsuccessful evaluations to get a teacher fired....that is exactly what it is now in my district.

as far as unions being lazy and ruining schools...actually individual schools have the power to set whatever standards they want for each school. our school goes way above and beyond the contract. in fact teachers were given a memo yesterday of things that we should all agree on if you want to teach here next year. all of the things in the memo are above and beyond union requirements. we will have 100 percent on board next year. this year it was about 75-80 percent. they include:

An adjusted schedule that extends instructional time and reduces teacher and student lunch periods to 30 minutes
Involvement in innovative and active school committees
Development dinners that will be held once monthly, student data will be discussed, professional development will be provided and staff memebers will bring examples of student work
August Professional development and staff retreat(5 days of your summer)
Department meetings twice a week after school
Focused and guided Team Grade level meetings three times a week during your planning period
Active participation in additional learning an professional development activites throughout the academic year
Volunteer to canvas the neighborhoods this summer to boost enrollment.
Everyone also donated 50 dollars, administrators 100 dollars to buy prizes to encourage kids to show up and try hard for the OAA in week and a half from now

this doesnt make anyone a hero but also when some on here constantly talk about things they have no idea what the reality is. just trying to paint a picture of what really goes on and that people go above and beyond all the time. this is a more accurate picture than people who feel they cant be fired and who get paid for just breathing or whatever. ok have at it

Gblock;740036 wrote:as far as the bill goes im sure that if i was in the private sector and there was a chance that maybe now or in the future i would pay less taxes i would be for this bill

No one should be expecting the savings from this bill to come in the form of lower taxes. That would defeat the purpose. They save the money and use it for other areas. With the deficit the state has, there is no room to cut taxes, IMO.

Gblock;740036 wrote:
likewise if you were a public worker and you see that they want to say you will be paid on a yet to be determined matrix(that many here say will be fair) by a yet to be determined person all under the premise that they want to save 200 million dollars. you likely see that as writing on the wall that they will want to save money by paying public workers less in benifts and salary by said amount. you would be against the bill too. to say otherwise imo is hypocritical. people keep talking about step increases and they constantly talk about those at the top of the pay scale but conveniently gloss over the bottom of the pay scale where everyone starts out lower then they would at the private sector for at least 5 years.

I do agree that the merit system should have been in place before the vote. But I also don't think the main idea is to save money by cutting salaries. Most of the savings come from the benefit and retirement systems.

Gblock;740036 wrote:also i think that people should understand that most people have spouses that work in th private sector and have horses on both sides of this race. we pay taxes too and we deal with the same private sector issues that others do. i dont get why you think in a union we dont. under this bill it would take two years and two unsuccessful evaluations to get a teacher fired....that is exactly what it is now in my district.

as far as unions being lazy and ruining schools...actually individual schools have the power to set whatever standards they want for each school. our school goes way above and beyond the contract. in fact teachers were given a memo yesterday of things that we should all agree on if you want to teach here next year. all of the things in the memo are above and beyond union requirements. we will have 100 percent on board next year. this year it was about 75-80 percent. they include:

An adjusted schedule that extends instructional time and reduces teacher and student lunch periods to 30 minutes
Involvement in innovative and active school committees
Development dinners that will be held once monthly, student data will be discussed, professional development will be provided and staff memebers will bring examples of student work
August Professional development and staff retreat(5 days of your summer)
Department meetings twice a week after school
Focused and guided Team Grade level meetings three times a week during your planning period
Active participation in additional learning an professional development activites throughout the academic year
Volunteer to canvas the neighborhoods this summer to boost enrollment.
Everyone also donated 50 dollars, administrators 100 dollars to buy prizes to encourage kids to show up and try hard for the OAA in week and a half from now

Then your district should have very few issues with SB5.

Gblock;740036 wrote:this doesnt make anyone a hero but also when some on here constantly talk about things they have no idea what the reality is. just trying to paint a picture of what really goes on and that people go above and beyond all the time. this is a more accurate picture than people who feel they cant be fired and who get paid for just breathing or whatever. ok have at it

I hate the misconception that because you are in favor of SB5, you think all teachers suck and don't do their jobs. That is just not the case.

Gblock;740036 wrote:the bottom of the pay scale where everyone starts out lower then they would at the private sector for at least 5 years.

I'm merely curious, and I thought it varied by school, but what is the average starting salary for a teacher?

O-Trap;740098 wrote:I'm merely curious, and I thought it varied by school, but what is the average starting salary for a teacher?

it varies by school district..usually in the big cities its more and in the country its less...im not exactly sure what ours is right now probably somewhere around 37,000 and stays flat for the first 2 years. then increases about 1400 a year for the next 13 after that(i should note we pay more than most to remain competitive with suburban schools in franklin county to attract the best teachers)...in the country where im from its probably more like 28,000 or less but that is just a guess.

I would have loved to make $37k right out of college.

I think our rural district starts around $30k.

Gblock;740106 wrote:it varies by school district..usually in the big cities its more and in the country its less...im not exactly sure what ours is right now probably somewhere around 37,000 and stays flat for the first 2 years. then increases about 1400 a year for the next 13 after that(i should note we pay more than most to remain competitive with suburban schools in franklin county to attract the best teachers)...in the country where im from its probably more like 28,000 or less but that is just a guess.

The entry level private sector jobs I've held have both been in the $28,000 range. And there are many that start much lower (I applied for several that were in the $22,000 to $25,000 range).

One of those required either a Masters or equivalent experience. The rest required a college degree.

All in all, it doesn't look like the entry level of your average teacher is below your normal private sector beginner.

O-Trap;740148 wrote:The entry level private sector jobs I've held have both been in the $28,000 range. And there are many that start much lower (I applied for several that were in the $22,000 to $25,000 range).

One of those required either a Masters or equivalent experience. The rest required a college degree.

All in all, it doesn't look like the entry level of your average teacher is below your normal private sector beginner.

It isn't, just another talking point from teachers that is not factual. Also consider the generous benefits packages and vacation time for beginning teachers and relatively comparitive salaries (sometimes above the avg. starting private sector salary, sometimes below) and the first year teachers get the better deal IMO.

dwccrew;740160 wrote:It isn't, just another talking point from teachers that is not factual. Also consider the generous benefits packages and vacation time for beginning teachers and relatively comparitive salaries (sometimes above the avg. starting private sector salary, sometimes below) and the first year teachers get the better deal IMO.

Earlier average retirement age (something anyone in the profession, young or old, can look forward to) and the taxation structure both help as well.

our district is probably a bad example as like i said it is difficult to attract good candidates and remain competitive. i think it is actually on par given the current state of the economy. and that is a good thing. it is actually what brought me here..i was in toledo making 24600 and loved my job. columbus offered me a job in 1997 making 32000 and i jumped on it. that i guess is my point. when i was in college i looked at what the compensation package was and decided it was a fair deal. howvever when the economy was good and booming i had a friend who didnt even graduate hs made 93000 for chase. i had at least 5 other friends start morgtage companies and make over 250,000, other friends crated and sold online businesses for over 300,000. now that the economy is bad of course the teacher salary looks great. but i swear until this year i never met a person who thought i was over paid or who ever said it to me. its my 15th year teaching. and as i stated before im leaving the union in the next year or so cause im taking the praxis this summer to become an administrator. so again im not speaking out of fear or any type of benefit that might effect me as far as this bill is concerned

O-Trap;740170 wrote:Earlier average retirement age (something anyone in the profession, young or old, can look forward to) and the taxation structure both help as well.

those are gone now

Gblock;740174 wrote:our district is probably a bad example as like i said it is difficult to attract good candidates and remain competitive. i think it is actually on par given the current state of the economy. and that is a good thing. it is actually what brought me here..i was in toledo making 24600 and loved my job. columbus offered me a job in 1997 making 32000 and i jumped on it. that i guess is my point. when i was in college i looked at what the compensation package was and decided it was a fair deal. howvever when the economy was good and booming i had a friend who didnt even graduate hs made 93000 for chase. i had at least 5 other friends start morgtage companies and make over 250,000, other friends crated and sold online businesses for over 300,000. now that the economy is bad of course the teacher salary looks great. but i swear until this year i never met a person who thought i was over paid or who ever said it to me. its my 15th year teaching. and as i stated before im leaving the union in the next year or so cause im taking the praxis this summer to become an administrator. so again im not speaking out of fear or any type of benefit that might effect me as far as this bill is concerned

I believe you. Trust me. You've been one of the more level heads on this thread.

Your friends, however, are either not the norm, or were not "salaried" those wages.

If your friends started mortgage companies and succeeded like that, they are to be congratulated. Few business owners EVER see that kind of return at the start of a business. My first year owning my business ... I made $9,700 for the year.

The person from Chase probably saw a good portion of his income as commission or bonus for hitting hard-line metrics. Jobs like that are usually high-risk/high reward, and involve essentially living and breathing the job (I applied for such a job at several banks in 2010).

The guy selling online businesses ... probably kind of what I'm building up to. However, that industry was EXPONENTIALLY easier in 1997 based on the lack of regulation and the lack of general skepticism of any and all things sold online. Less of an economic issue, but more of a niche evolution issue. Point being, if he's still making good money like that, he's changed his business model, works a lot harder, or has considerably more assets from earlier years to put back into his business.

None of those were likely "safe" jobs or incomes. Those success stories still happen today. For example, an affiliate of my last employer went from $0 a day for several months to $60,000 overnight. Incredibly atypical story, but those do happen from time to time.

Gblock;740177 wrote:those are gone now

Ah. Not crazy about that, because it means my wife will be treated more like me.

It's more fair, but I'm not sure I will always like it.

What IS the most recent retirement age for teachers?