Pretty sure it comes from everywhere and one party doesn't have a monopoly on taking money.

I Wear Pants;689621 wrote:Pretty sure it comes from everywhere and one party doesn't have a monopoly on taking money.

Agreed.

Whether it's one side telling you they'll give you as much money as they can or the other saying they'll take as little of your money as they can, both sides end up bending you over and saying, "Haha! Pay up, bitch!"

Well we see were Public Servant Obama stands .... "some where in confused"

Obama takes the high road now after he seeing the hand writing on the wall... Once a statement of support from this Public Servant in support of the Unions now he see his political future in 2012 throwing Unions under the bus.
Hey! I’m all for Obama supporting the Unions, nobody likes Obama and sees him for what he is ..fraud and incompetent.
But now we see another side of Obama … it all about Obama and his political future.
I think I come up with his 2012 slogan .. “All about me mofo”

This is just perfect … The Unions will now be divided within Leaders against Members…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/24/obama-sitting-state-fights-unions/

Writerbuckeye;689588 wrote:I find it amusing (and ironic) when all these pro-union folks piss and moan about the Kochs and their financial backing of the governor -- but ignore the tens of millions of union dollars that go exclusively to Democrats each and every year.

The big money in elections these days doesn't come from corporations and businesses -- it comes from unions.

That used to be the case, writer, but the SCOTUS has changed the playing field by allowing corporations (even foreign corporations) to contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns. We got a taste of this in 2010 and I fear that the big guns will come out in 2012.

Manhattan Buckeye;689214 wrote:So I take it you actually read the link you posted, correct?

Yeah, I read it. It's pretty far out there. I was looking for info on the McGiver Institute and this is one of the items I got. I also looked up their claim (provided by fish) that Milwaukee public teachers, on average, made over $100K in total compensation yearly. Being that the average wage was in the $50K range, i find it hard to believe that the benefit package was almost as much as salary. Hell, I have a Cadillac health care plan, but it only costs me $14,000 per year. I highly doubt that they have anything better than mine, which means that they get an annual contribution of $35-40,000 for pension. Those numbers are pure bullshit. Not only that, but the McGiver Institute is the only source for those numbers. Sounds like some heavy propaganda being spread to make them look bad.

stlouiedipalma;689887 wrote:Yeah, I read it. It's pretty far out there. I was looking for info on the McGiver Institute and this is one of the items I got. I also looked up their claim (provided by fish) that Milwaukee public teachers, on average, made over $100K in total compensation yearly. Being that the average wage was in the $50K range, i find it hard to believe that the benefit package was almost as much as salary. Hell, I have a Cadillac health care plan, but it only costs me $14,000 per year. I highly doubt that they have anything better than mine, which means that they get an annual contribution of $35-40,000 for pension. Those numbers are pure bullshit. Not only that, but the McGiver Institute is the only source for those numbers. Sounds like some heavy propaganda being spread to make them look bad.

You can browse through the numbers at http://www.postcrescent.com/article/99999999/APC0110/80221166/DataMine-Search-Wisconsin-teacher-salaries.

stlouiedipalma;689887 wrote:Yeah, I read it. It's pretty far out there. I was looking for info on the McGiver Institute and this is one of the items I got. I also looked up their claim (provided by fish) that Milwaukee public teachers, on average, made over $100K in total compensation yearly. Being that the average wage was in the $50K range, i find it hard to believe that the benefit package was almost as much as salary. Hell, I have a Cadillac health care plan, but it only costs me $14,000 per year. I highly doubt that they have anything better than mine, which means that they get an annual contribution of $35-40,000 for pension. Those numbers are pure bullshit. Not only that, but the McGiver Institute is the only source for those numbers. Sounds like some heavy propaganda being spread to make them look bad.

NO BS. the public sector insurance packages here are an astounding $24,000 - double the national average for private. Throw in another $15- $20k for pension and you are there. If you took the time to watch the fantastic summary of all of this with Chris Christie on msnbc that PTown posted the other day, you will note that some public sector worker benefits were 70% of total comp ---- incredible, but true.

By they way --- California and Arizona are now considering moves to 401k's from pension plans.

fan_from_texas;689967 wrote:You can browse through the numbers at http://www.postcrescent.com/article/99999999/APC0110/80221166/DataMine-Search-Wisconsin-teacher-salaries.

FWIW, the total comp for the school district next to us (we're in Milwaukee County) starts around $50k for teachers straight out of school for 9 months of work. It's tough to argue that they're underpaid.

Looks like 51,264 salary and benefits that amount to about $25,000 a year for public sector employees. Comparing them with all average workers in the private sector is not an apples to apples comparison because of their higher education requirements. There are lots of studies comparing public sector employees to their private sector counterparts. The studies find that public sector employees make between 4.8 to 6.8 percent less then private sector employees.


http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/23/eric-bolling/fox-business-news-eric-bolling-says-wisconsin-teac/

over 50k in salary for 9 months of work...fuckin tits if you ask me

Bigdogg;690012 wrote:Looks like 51,264 salary and benefits that amount to about $25,000 a year for public sector employees. Comparing them with all average workers in the private sector is not an apples to apples comparison because of their higher education requirements. There are lots of studies comparing public sector employees to their private sector counterparts. The studies find that public sector employees make between 4.8 to 6.8 percent less then private sector employees.


http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/23/eric-bolling/fox-business-news-eric-bolling-says-wisconsin-teac/

Somebody's cooking the books. I don't believe that's true, anymore. Maybe 10 years ago or more, but not now.

Writerbuckeye;691011 wrote:Somebody's cooking the books. I don't believe that's true, anymore. Maybe 10 years ago or more, but not now.

Exactly. This was true......a decade ago. Public sector now makes the same or more than private sector counterparts.

derek bomar;690995 wrote:over 50k in salary for 9 months of work...fuckin tits if you ask me

Plus holidays plus snow days plus "in-service" days plus, plus,.......

There was a time when teachers weren't paid all that well but those days were a long, long time ago. Every time I hear the teachers unions distribute their propaganda about low teachers salaries I have an uncontrollable desire to spew.

believer;691127 wrote:Plus holidays plus snow days plus "in-service" days plus, plus,.......

There was a time when teachers weren't paid all that well but those days were a long, long time ago. Every time I hear the teachers unions distribute their propaganda about low teachers salaries I have an uncontrollable desire to spew.

Im not opposed to the pay...im opposed to fact that everyone get it just for being a teacher regardless of how they perform.

Ok, I am going to try to post this for the third time. For some reason at 3 different computers and internet systems I cant post anything! For the previous 4 posts, normally on chatter if you complain about data with no evidence to refute it you get pwned, or whatever other acronym for not doing your homework and finding evidence to contradict others information, I guess the crew above is immune! lol

I am contracted for 182 days. I have been observed and reviewed by administration, 4 times this school year. I have had 3 walk throughs, these are informal observations to get data on my and every teachers style of teaching. They look at things like do you use group work, lecture and so on.

I have to compile test data on AIMSweb after I give assessments. This information is looked at by administration and compiled into data for the district.

We have teacher based teams, I meet with science and social studies departments for twice a month meetings after school, to discuss teaching techniques and ideas from others classrooms.

We have Marzano training as a district for the last 2 years. We meet as a district and along with Principals.

Teaching isn't shutting your door anymore and no one else in the building knows what you are doing.

Do I agree with SB5 entirely, no. However, it has some good points and change is needed in benefit matching and compensation. My problem is, as I have argued throughout this thread, what other changes are coming? How much will this bill save the state? What is the undefined merit pay system? If I had those three answers, you probably wouldnt hear much from me on this! lol

redstreak. How is your compensation imapacted based on those evaluations as compared to your peers?

2 things: 1 are you asking to truely know, or 2 are you asking to stir the pot? lol

I will assume 1, and say it doesnt affect my pay, but our district has relieved employees of their jobs for not living up to district standards and conduct.

Also, if you read my comments at the bottom of my previous post, I dont mind many of the points of SB5, bring it on. I am completely confident in my abilities to overachieve on a merit based system!

I work 3 jobs in my district, teacher, VLA coordinator and jr/sr athletic director! I put in around 60+ hours a week. On varsity game nights, I get to school around 7:30, get home around 3, back to the school for the game around 4:15 and not back home until 9 or later.

????? This pot don't need stirred my friend.

Thanks for answering. If it doesn't effect your pay now the benefit as claimed by many in ridding collective bargaining for public ervice employees would be to properly compensate individuals as opposed to spreading compensation equally to all. Such evaluations would benefit those who are most deserving and limit those who aren't.

Con_Alma;691204 wrote:????? This pot don't need stirred my friend.

Thanks for answering. If it doesn't effect your pay now the benefit as claimed by many in ridding collective bargaining for public ervice employees would be to properly compensate individuals as opposed to spreading compensation equally to all. Such evaluations would benefit those who are most deserving and limit those who aren't.

if you are a younger teacher sure your pay could go up...but if you are already at the top of the scale chances are your pay isnt going up any higher...there is a cap on how much they are going to pay a teacher no matter how great you are. so it really is of no benefit for a person with 15 plus experience to negotiate on your own.

Gblock;691268 wrote:if you are a younger teacher sure your pay could go up...but if you are already at the top of the scale chances are your pay isnt going up any higher...there is a cap on how much they are going to pay a teacher no matter how great you are. so it really is of no benefit for a person with 15 plus experience to negotiate on your own.

There's no need for the same person to negotiate at all then. Why not let the masses benefit from such a negotiating power?

Gblock;691268 wrote:if you are a younger teacher sure your pay could go up...but if you are already at the top of the scale chances are your pay isnt going up any higher...there is a cap on how much they are going to pay a teacher no matter how great you are. so it really is of no benefit for a person with 15 plus experience to negotiate on your own.

This is the heart of the problem, the teachers' union is so stuck on the union attitude - read, seniority is everything and the only thing re compensation. It is a completely antiquated concept.

Speaking only for myself, I would have no problem with paying a teacher well over 6 figures if they have the superior skills, regardless of age. If someone is smart enough and dedicated to learn Mandarin and can teach it in schools, they should be paid more regardless of their seniority....same thing with advanced math and science. It doesn't matter if they have 5 years on the job or 15, they are worth more. This is how it works in pretty much every other industry (again, including higher education).

Manhattan Buckeye;691287 wrote:This is the heart of the problem, the teachers' union is so stuck on the union attitude - read, seniority is everything and the only thing re compensation. It is a completely antiquated concept.

Speaking only for myself, I would have no problem with paying a teacher well over 6 figures if they have the superior skills, regardless of age. If someone is smart enough and dedicated to learn Mandarin and can teach it in schools, they should be paid more regardless of their seniority....same thing with advanced math and science. It doesn't matter if they have 5 years on the job or 15, they are worth more. This is how it works in pretty much every other industry (again, including higher education).

The fastest way to change someones behavior is not to try to change their behavior, in fact the fastest way is to change their paradigm. Change his map or frame of reference by calling him a different name, giving him a different role or responsibility, or placing him in a different situation.

Stephen Covey

Manhattan Buckeye;691287 wrote:This is the heart of the problem, the teachers' union is so stuck on the union attitude - read, seniority is everything and the only thing re compensation. It is a completely antiquated concept.

Speaking only for myself, I would have no problem with paying a teacher well over 6 figures if they have the superior skills, regardless of age. If someone is smart enough and dedicated to learn Mandarin and can teach it in schools, they should be paid more regardless of their seniority....same thing with advanced math and science. It doesn't matter if they have 5 years on the job or 15, they are worth more. This is how it works in pretty much every other industry (again, including higher education).

+1

I have no issue with the top teachers earning six-figure salaries. I think that reforming the teacher pay system to encourage strong salaries for top performers would encourage more top performers to become teachers. Seniority shouldn't matter.

Does anyone on here work under a contract for an allotted amount of time? One provision that jumps out at me is the 1 year only contract deal. While I dont agree with a continuing contract where the district basically cant get rid of you, but working under just a 1 year doesn't sit well with me. Yes I know, many in the REAL world do it! lol I worked in the real world for 10 years, then went back and finished my teaching degree.

Also, another point is if this passes I will push to get STRS dissolved. My reasoning is right now I cant touch my money without a huge hit in penalties. I cant move it around to another system either. Basically we gave away our right to control our retirement, however we do have a sweet deal in that! lol However, if I am responsible for my negotiating, I want my money back from this with NO penalty!