Describe How You Think a Merit Based Pay System Would Work

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Describe How You Think a Merit Based Pay System Would Work
G

georgemc80

Senior Member

983 posts
May 5, 2011 7:53 AM
Question: If most of the nation's educators are happy with the salary schedule rewarding years of service and education level, why would non-teachers try to change it.


Realize one thing, I am a competitive person and know how to work a private sector model of pay. I would be one of the highest paid teachers in the school, but I fear the Pandora's box that would be opened.

Believe it or not, the salary schedule has built in negatives for teachers with over 20 years of experience, yet most have no problem with it.
May 5, 2011 7:53am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 5, 2011 8:47 AM
georgemc80;760186 wrote:Question: If most of the nation's educators are happy with the salary schedule rewarding years of service and education level, why would non-teachers try to change it.


Realize one thing, I am a competitive person and know how to work a private sector model of pay. I would be one of the highest paid teachers in the school, but I fear the Pandora's box that would be opened.

Believe it or not, the salary schedule has built in negatives for teachers with over 20 years of experience, yet most have no problem with it.

I think that, for the most part, teachers are happy with the way salary schedules are set up because it is more than fair. If I had a salary schedule at work that guaranteed me pay raises and COLA increases, I wouldn't want that changed either. However, if the system became unsustainable, changes must be made.

We'll see what happens in November.
May 5, 2011 8:47am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
May 5, 2011 10:06 AM
A schedule also provides security. Seems many people would choose the security over possibly making more money. Can't blame them.
May 5, 2011 10:06am
G

georgemc80

Senior Member

983 posts
May 5, 2011 10:35 AM
At no point are COLA raises guarunteed. Experience increases and education increases are however. But a district can or cannot change the schedule from year to year. For example, my district has used the same schedule for last year, this year, and more than likely next year. Oh, and the experience step is about $750-900/year.

Of course, I work in a non-union state.
May 5, 2011 10:35am
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
May 11, 2011 9:21 AM
At least one Republican in Ohio has some common sense. Here is a letter to a constituent sent by State Senator Bill Seitz. You may remember he was the one removed from committee so SB 5 could pass.
Thank you for your email in opposition to including SB 5 provisions in the budget bill. While I doubt that I will be able to exert much influence on the budget bill, given my marginalization by the Senate “leadership” over my vote on SB 5, I will do what I can. The provisions to which you object are very troublesome to me as well.

I have already opined that no part of SB 5 belongs in the budget bill, and I believe most of what you object to could have easily been resolved by revising SB 5 to say that the criteria by which “merit pay” would be judged would be collectively bargained between the teachers and the administration. That way, there would be agreement on the criteria but management would determine how each teacher measured up. As you know, HB 153 just passed the House last week so we are just now beginning to examine its 4,000 pages of law and policy.

I recognize the dire fiscal situation in which the State finds itself, but the Governor’s proposal to incorporate SB 5 provisions in the budget bill goes too far. Hopefully, my colleagues will find the will to make changes to these proposals, and I will be joining you in urging them to do so.

Sincerely,

William J. Seitz
May 11, 2011 9:21am
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
May 12, 2011 5:46 PM
According to doggie: common sense = giving in to Democrat and union demands.
May 12, 2011 5:46pm
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
May 13, 2011 10:56 AM
Writerbuckeye;766791 wrote:According to doggie: common sense = giving in to Democrat and union demands.

Where do you come up with some of the stupid shit that comes out of your mouth? Show me anywhere where I said anything other then the current system needs fixed. SB 5 goes way too far, effectively eliminates a workers RIGHT to bargain collectively. You are so full of shit your pathetic.
May 13, 2011 10:56am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
May 13, 2011 1:22 PM
Bigdogg;767401 wrote:Where do you come up with some of the stupid shit that comes out of your mouth? Show me anywhere where I said anything other then the current system needs fixed. SB 5 goes way too far, effectively eliminates a workers RIGHT to bargain collectively. You are so full of shit your pathetic.

I missed that in the constitution.
May 13, 2011 1:22pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
May 13, 2011 1:39 PM
Well, for one, the unions will still be in place. So there is no violation.

Two..
That is a fundamental right. Employees have as clear a right to organize and select their representatives for lawful purposes as the respondent has to organize its business and select its own officers and agents.
Salaries and benefits are not for lawful purposes.
May 13, 2011 1:39pm
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
May 13, 2011 1:46 PM
WebFire;767551 wrote:Well, for one, the unions will still be in place. So there is no violation.

Two..



Salaries and benefits are not for lawful purposes.

Now you are changing your tune. Unions will be in place with no power to do anything. Very similar when blacks in the south first got the right to vote. Too many obstacles put in place. Kasick and the rest of the legislature missed an opportunity for real reform. This is what happens when one party tries to ram through it's own agenda without compromise.
May 13, 2011 1:46pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
May 13, 2011 4:17 PM
The 9th amendment pretty much lays it out.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

The 9th Amendment was intended to protect rights not listed in the Constitution. The right of individuals to voluntarily choose to join with their fellow citizens to collectively bargain against the employer (public or private) for salaries and benefits is more than obvious under the 9th. It does not give them the right to monopolize employment in a given field and force everyone who seeks employment in that field to join their union. If joining the union is not voluntary, than the union infringes on the workers right to individually bargain.

The employer also has the right to choose whether to employ individuals who have chosen to collectively bargain against the employer (public or private). If the employer chooses to allow collective bargaining by its workforce they also have an equal right to set the terms under which they will collectively bargain. When an employer is private the terms are set by the owner or board of directors. When the employer is the people the terms are set by passing laws by elected representatives.
May 13, 2011 4:17pm