ernest_t_bass;679289 wrote:I WILL agree with this one, and see it as a flaw. There are many situation where I feel seniority should not be the overwriting circumstance.

Ah, but there's the rub. At least with a seniority based layoff or firings, there is a rule. yeah maybe the other guy is better at the job, but in most companies how is that measured? Usually it's one person's judgment on a performance review. Hell, they could do layoffs by weight or height instead of years on the job, and it wouldn't matter to the company's bottom line. Now throw the rule out, and the surest way a manager or owner(or superintendent) will improve his bottom line will be to cut the expensive employees first. So now the company(school board) has decided that the job is only worth x number of dollars. Hang around as long as you can, but once you cross that line, they will cut you loose and start over with a cheaper guy. And good luck finding a job in the next town cause they're doing the same thing. You want to move, you start over at the bottom. get laid off, start over at the bottom. Don't give a shit how much experience you have, there's 62 others willing to take the job.

Gblock;679554 wrote:Not necessarily this bill but we just got notified last week that the strs board voted to raise our retirement to 35 years instead of30 and have to contribute 5% more money cuz the fund is broke they lost a bunch money in the stock market and shady coin investments from Noe

I believe the Noe thing is a fallacy. My understanding is that all of that money was recovered. The stock market is a different thing, but even there, a lot of systems have recouped much of their losses as the market rebounded. It was only the really inept ones who bailed after losing money that lost out long-term. Those poor decisions, unfortunately, have to be made up somehow, and it usually falls on the shoulders of those still working (mostly) to make up those shortfalls and provide stability to the funds.

I know my retirement system was in better shape than most, but our out of pocket health care costs have risen considerably because of rising costs and some poor investment returns.

FatHobbit;679507 wrote:Does anyone care to answer this? Other than you don't want to give up what you have now, is there any reason regular taxpayers should care? I don't mean to sound insensitive because I'm sure this sucks for each of you personally. But is there any reasons you can give why we should continue on with the current model? How does it benefit us?

I don't Texas has CBA for govt employees.... I could be wrong.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/20/states-debt-pensions-interactive-map.html

UncleYoder;679563 wrote:Hang around as long as you can, but once you cross that line, they will cut you loose and start over with a cheaper guy.

Why should they pay you more to do the same job just for sticking around "x" years?

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Right to work states.

OneBuckeye;679569 wrote:http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/20/states-debt-pensions-interactive-map.html

OneBuckeye;679575 wrote:http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Right to work states.

There appears to be a corralation between the two maps

Every State with a highest rating except NH and MT have right to work states. Every poor state rating except LA and MS are right to work states... I think their issues can be related more to Natural disaster than anything...

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2011/jan/28/ohio-teachers-board-votes-raise-retirement-age-ar-378905/


Cant retire till age 60 and 35 years for full pension for ohio teachers

ernest_t_bass;679539 wrote:I'd like to see a more localized teacher's union, where we can still collectively bargain our contracts.

Which is what we as Firefighters basically have.

Again; Ohio is one of those states that continues its ongoing love affair that really should have ended years ago. Breaking Ohio's addiction to unions will be like telling a heroin addict to give up the dope. You gotta figure that alot of union supporters were born and raised into that mentality. Not all, but probably 90% or something close to it.
....................

True story: Several years ago at Bellaire Schools teachers wanted a general raise (that included all aspects). They didn't get it right off the bat. What do they do? Wait until right before playoffs when BHS was having a good football year to go on strike. In an effort to make peace and keep everybody happy, they were given their raise, even though they knew that to do so would put the district in serious trouble. They obviously either didn't care or thought they were being lied to.
Either way, fast forward a few years. BHS is in a state of fiscal emergency, state takes over, 15 teachers got the heave-ho.
Wait, what?!
I wonder how many people higher up in the union lost a hangnail much less their job?
Was it worth it?

Talk to all those workers at Ormet that lost everything that they had (houses, cars, etc.) because they decided to go on strike. I'm sure they're glad that they made examples out of themselves. I wonder how many people higher up in the union lost a single pair of shoes as compared to the guy who lost everything?
Was it worth it?

Ohhhhh yes. Unions can be manipulative, sly, resentful, and be the biggest bully on the block. They can also hurt their people just as much as they ever could help them. In other words, time after time it happens - unions and their supporters cut their noses off to spite their own faces.
And in the meantime all that anybody else can see is how unions can make a mockery out of their people and they also see how those people just suck it up like beer through a straw.

My suggestion to union supporters is to look ahead and quit holding on the past, because the past will spit in your eye, kick your ass and leave you far behind!

signed,
-somebody who used to belong to a union
- a democrat who found out that she doesn't need a groupthug to get what she wants

sooo...you think the BHS money woes was because of a probly less than 2.5 percent raise by teachers??

Gblock;679601 wrote:sooo...you think the BHS money woes was because of a probly less than 2.5 percent raise by teachers??

Did you not read:

In an effort to make peace and keep everybody happy, they were given their raise, even though they knew that to do so would put the district in serious trouble. They obviously either didn't care or thought they were being lied to.

The teachers were told that the district was tight. They were told the possible consequences of their demands. They knew that going in. They didn't give a fuck. All they wanted was what they wanted and to hell with anything or anybody else.
Period.

Are you trying to misconstrue what I typed in black and white on purpose to make me look discredited? Or did you just really not understand that? Did I read that you were a teacher?

im just saying they were already in serious trouble and that made no difference the problems down there are waaay bigger than a meager raise the teachers got. your post makes it sound like the district would've been ok without that raise is all.

Gblock;679610 wrote:im just saying they were already in serious trouble and that made no difference the problems down there are waaay bigger than a meager raise the teachers got. your post makes it sound like the district would've been ok without that raise is all.

If they were already in trouble why did the teachers ask for the raise in the first place? I think that is the more important question.

Fab4Runner;679625 wrote:If they were already in trouble why did the teachers ask for the raise in the first place? I think that is the more important question.

Logic. The worst enemy of a union supporter.

it is way more complicated than is stated here. center's statement is a nice story but not exactly accurate. who told them? what were they told? did you tell them? what was their raise? when was the last tiime they had a raise? how does their pay rank with peers? is it competitive? school funding was declared unconstitutional in ohio long ago. not fair to blame the teachers because a whole town goes under. they lost all their businesses, property values plummeted etc...they were one of the lowest paid if i remember correctly. teachers rarely want to strike and to make it so ominous as if they waited till they had a good team is misleading. most likely that is when their contract ended and it was a coincidence.

queencitybuckeye;679573 wrote:Why should they pay you more to do the same job just for sticking around "x" years?

If they hold the line on starting pay with no chance of a raise, they'll be doing nothing but training newbies. Gotta spread it out a little. You'll get your merit raises, but when it's time to cut back, the highest paid will be shown the door first.

Our local newspaper is The Times Leader if you REALLY believe I'm lying.

timesleaderonline.com

gblock: All your questions are meaningless. It comes down to ONE THING and ONE THING only: if there is no money in the budget, there is no money in the budget. Everything else is ancillary.

Center clearly said the budget couldn't sustain a raise, and the teachers were told that. Forcing a raise on the board with the threat of a strike put the budget into crisis mode. If there's no raise, there might still have EVENTUALLY been a budget problem, or maybenot, but it's obvious from the facts that the raise pushed everything over the edge.

ernest_t_bass;679270 wrote:The company was MORE EFFICIENT before they went to hourly. They got more work done in less amount of time. In the free market, we strive for efficiency, don't we?

And the market will correct itself. If the employer feels they were getting better results when employees were on salary, they will switch or fire them and hire employees who want to work. No need for a CBA though or a union. It will be corrected on its own.

jc10380;679287 wrote:My point is you are going to be disgruntled. That is the point.

Instead of being disgruntled, I am going to fight like hell to avoid it, which if you had the option, you would do the same.

Maybe, but I am logical and realistic. I know that if the budget can't handle the CBA, it must be eliminated. Sometimes sacrifices are made for the overall betterment of everyone (fellow employees and taxpayers).

jc10380;679381 wrote:For the first time in history last year. So, we are not as valuable as you?

No one is saying that, you are just being sensitive. What people are saying is the money isn't there for the budgets any longer. How do you expect contracts to be upheld when there is declining tax revenue?

jc10380;679387 wrote:So, you want to pay less taxes? Then you have to be prepared to get less services.

Less services? More efficient services maybe.

jc10380;679427 wrote:I see what you mean. So, in the private sector, is pay not discussed between employees? Do you not know what a couterpart of yours is making?

This would create tension in my profession as our salaries are public record.

I am not saying tension is a reason to not go this route. Just some questions

Would it create tension, or just motivate someone to work harder so they too can make more money? Unions have caused and created and entitlement mentality amongst the members. Well if "John" is making X amount of money, so should I. Who says? Not everyone, including firefighters and police, are created equal. Some work harder than others doing the same job and should be compensated accordingly.

ernest_t_bass;679457 wrote:Under new STRS guidelines, teachers will have to more than likely work until they are 60 years old. For some, that is 37 or so years.

This argument is always laughable. MOST professions have to work at least 35-40 years and can't collect until after 60. Why should teachers be any different? Not too mention teachers only work 180 days out of a year for those 35-40 years.

Gblock;679610 wrote:im just saying they were already in serious trouble and that made no difference the problems down there are waaay bigger than a meager raise the teachers got. your post makes it sound like the district would've been ok without that raise is all.

The point is not that the teachers getting a raise put the district over the top, it is that the teachers didn't care at all about anyone but themselves in the situation. If it was really about the children and quality of education, like some argue, the teachers would have realized that they should hold off until the district gets a little healthier before they demanded raises.

If my company is losing money, I am not going to ask my boss for a raise, it makes no sense to.

U think they didn't care? Not sure about that

Gblock;679728 wrote:U think they didn't care? Not sure about that

I look at it this way: Either they didn't care or the union didn't care, or both.

If they really cared, they wouldn't have put their heel to the throats of the board when they were most vulnerable politically. Great move for a power play, but shows zero compassion.

That's a union mentality: it's only about them.

Our union is quite the opposite...we talk regularly about customer service and working with the board and community to make good decisions for a common goal