Gblock;1101980 wrote:i feel like we have had this discussion before but as i said, the districts arent complaining about this type of structure...in my years it has never been a point of contention brought up by the district nor any district i know of.

maybe because they can't do anything about it?

derek bomar;1101984 wrote:what do you think your fair market value is?

idk...depends on the city/area you live, your amount of education and experience. i think that a teacher should make enough to live/buy a house within the district they teach.

derek bomar;1101986 wrote:maybe because they can't do anything about it?

how so?

Gblock;1101994 wrote:idk...depends on the city/area you live, your amount of education and experience. i think that a teacher should make enough to live/buy a house within the district they teach.

Are you suggesting their value is based on their living expenses?

Con_Alma;1102000 wrote:Are you suggesting their value is based on their living expenses?

im suggesting that you cant pay a NYC teacher the same as a teacher in byesville, oh

LJ;1101983 wrote:That still does not answer why they are entitled to a raise when the district is $23m in the hole.

To be kind of a prick...the school district is contracturally obligated to pay the raise. It was agreed to in good faith by both parties (the school district and the teachers CBU) whent he master agreement was signed by both parties.

The teachers union is not in any way, shape or form obligated to forgo any or all of the contracturally agreed upon terms of said master agreement. They have recognized that there is a revenue issue with the dostrict and, out fo the goodness of their hearts have agreed to forgo a portion of the monies that are contracturally due to them.

I have an idea.....why don't you go sign a contract (mortgage or loan of some kind) to borrow money. Then tell the other contracted party that you don't have the money to repay and see how long it takes for you to be served with a foreclosure or legal claim of some kind. Better yet...borrow from the federal government, like a student loan and claim that you cannot pay for it and see how long it takes to be imprisoned.

Now, I am playing devil's advocate here and think that the union should have given back 100% of the raise that they are due under the terms of their contract, as many other teachers CBU's have done. However, to say that they are greedy, etc etc etc when that raise was offered and agreed to in good faith by the school district is a little harsh.

Gblock;1102004 wrote:im suggesting that you cant pay a NYC teacher the same as a teacher in byesville, oh

I agree but what they deserve I would hope is based on their ability to attract and retain the level of service that community is seeking. Right now the community is looking for a lesser service based on their ability to fund the system.

Suburban communities and even rural communities are often times more attractive to teach in than NYC. When the environment based on geography is more attractive the compensation often doesn't have to be as appealing to get teachers to apply.

The true bottom line is the people don't want to provide more money for the service.

wkfan;1102008 wrote:To be kind of a prick...the school district is contracturally obligated to pay the raise. It was agreed to in good faith by both parties (the school district and the teachers CBU) whent he master agreement was signed by both parties.

...

I don't doubt that at all. The ability to fulfill that contract has diminished significantly. fulfilling the contract according to it's terms will likely result in the school system filing for "bankruptcy" or going into State control. IN addition, the desire of the people to provide more funds sounds like it is continuing to diminish. Forcing the school to fulfill the contract won't create a beneficial long term scenario for those employees,

Gblock;1101997 wrote:how so?

did you not see what happened with SB5? Trying to get unions to go along with merit pay won't fly for them.

Gblock;1101994 wrote:idk...depends on the city/area you live, your amount of education and experience. i think that a teacher should make enough to live/buy a house within the district they teach.

so you think a single teacher should be able to afford a median home in say... UA?

wkfan;1102008 wrote:To be kind of a prick...the school district is contracturally obligated to pay the raise. It was agreed to in good faith by both parties (the school district and the teachers CBU) whent he master agreement was signed by both parties.

The teachers union is not in any way, shape or form obligated to forgo any or all of the contracturally agreed upon terms of said master agreement. They have recognized that there is a revenue issue with the dostrict and, out fo the goodness of their hearts have agreed to forgo a portion of the monies that are contracturally due to them.

I have an idea.....why don't you go sign a contract (mortgage or loan of some kind) to borrow money. Then tell the other contracted party that you don't have the money to repay and see how long it takes for you to be served with a foreclosure or legal claim of some kind. Better yet...borrow from the federal government, like a student loan and claim that you cannot pay for it and see how long it takes to be imprisoned.

Now, I am playing devil's advocate here and think that the union should have given back 100% of the raise that they are due under the terms of their contract, as many other teachers CBU's have done. However, to say that they are greedy, etc etc etc when that raise was offered and agreed to in good faith by the school district is a little harsh.

A mortgage and an employment contract are not even in this same world. Really really bad example.

On the mortgage subject though, if I couldn't pay it, I would get rid of enough things to be able to pay it as to not lose my house.

Hopefully the school district does the same thing and cuts $1.4 million worth of teachers.

again if i keep talking about this writerbuckye is going to come back so im not going to get into another debate about teacher pay or unions or sb5...my point was if they were being unreasonable or not. which i dont think they are. i dont get how we think that teachers are different from other professions. WKFN worded it better than i did for sure but that was the point i was trying to make. look at it from another perspective. i think that you would feel differently if you started out for years making less than you felt like you were worth in promise of future earnings and then when you get to the future earnings the other party wants to change the deal because property values are struggling.

and teachers imo are rarely unreasonable. we gave back our whole step raises for 3 years. but i dont blame them for only giving up half of theirs. this levy is for 211 dollars per 100,000 i beleive. not that much. this money benefits you and your community locally. i would be more upset about the thousands you pay federally that are wasted each year such as the cost of $1,000,000 per soldier in afghanistan that i read about today and other wasteful spending that costs you way more each year.

LJ;1102021 wrote:A mortgage and an employment contract are not even in this same world. Really really bad example.

Disagree. Both are legal contracts. Nothing less.

LJ;1102025 wrote:On the mortgage subject though, if I couldn't pay it, I would get rid of enough things to be able to pay it as to not lose my house.

Hopefully the school district does the same thing and cuts $1.4 million worth of teachers.

This may very well happen....exactly why I think the CBU made a bad decision.

wkfan;1102032 wrote:Disagree. Both are legal contracts. Nothing less.

Except one is a lien on a real asset and the other is an agreement for services.

This may very well happen....exactly why I think the CBU made a bad decision.

I think it should happen. If they want to play hardball, the district should play hardball.

LJ;1102034 wrote:Except one is a lien on a real asset and the other is an agreement for services.

You are splitting hairs. One is a contract to pay for said asset with terms and conditions on both parties...the other is a contract to pay for teaching services with terms and conditions on both parties.

derek bomar;1102018 wrote:did you not see what happened with SB5? Trying to get unions to go along with merit pay won't fly for them.

simply not true...just depends on the merit pay system...teachers would agree to merit pay based more on what you put in...extra training, after school hours, extra coursework, video taping of lessons, submititng portfolios of work that was done in the classroom and other such things that can be documented as to the amount of work they put in. as opposed to basing it on the test scores of students who may or may not have attended school all that much etc. they would like to be part of the system that decides what the system is, not have it dictated them. certainly as a younger teacher i wouldve killed for a chance to make more money.

wkfan;1102040 wrote:You are splitting hairs. One is a contract to pay for said asset with terms and conditions on both parties...the other is a contract to pay for teaching services with terms and conditions on both parties.

I'm not splitting hairs, you are the one comparing 2 completely uncomparable contracts. But even that being said, banks modify loans and refinance all the time.

We could even get into how a mortgage is for a service provided up front, and an employment contract is an agreement for future services. Meaning if you can't pay, no more services will be rendered, technically the service provider will not be losing anything, because they will have already been made whole. Get it?

Gblock;1102042 wrote:simply not true...just depends on the merit pay system...teachers would agree to merit pay based more on what you put in...extra training, after school hours, extra coursework, video taping of lessons, submititng portfolios of work that was done in the classroom and other such things that can be documented as to the amount of work they put in. as opposed to basing it on the test scores of students who may or may not have attended school all that much etc. they would like to be part of the system that decides what the system is, not have it dictated them. certainly as a younger teacher i wouldve killed for a chance to make more money.

so they want to be paid hourly? Again, how much do you think you're worth? And I thought teachers only cared about the kids and not about the $$$

derek bomar;1102056 wrote:so they want to be paid hourly? Again, how much do you think you're worth? And I thought teachers only cared about the kids and not about the $$$

well i currently am a leadership intern (asst principal without the pay) so im not in the classroom but i will make what my teacher salary would have been plus a 7500 stipend. so i will probably make around 76000 this year which i think is fair with 15+ years and a masters+ degree. in a year or two if i get hired as a principal i will make about 85-95000 which is fair to me as well. I think teachers should be allowed to care about the kids and the money

Gblock;1102064 wrote:well i currently am a leadership intern (asst principal without the pay) so im not in the classroom but i will make what my teacher salary would have been plus a 7500 stipend. so i will probably make around 76000 this year which i think is fair with 15+ years and a masters+ degree. in a year or two if i get hired as a principal i will make about 85-95000 which is fair to me as well. I think teachers should be allowed to care about the kids and the money

so you'd be making 6 figures if you worked 4 qtrs out of the year instead of 3 (summer vay-k). Yea, you guys need a raise.

Seriously though, I really could care less what teachers get paid as long as they're worth it. I can't justify raises for the sake of raises, especially when you don't have the money to pay for them. Saying "we only took half our raise" when things like sports are being cut is absurd. There are too many teachers being paid too much who simply just don't deserve it. I'm not saying you are one, I'm just speaking in generalities.

If teachers want to be paid extra for things like after-school, then they'd also be in for a shock when they weren't paid for things like... Summer Break. So I find fault with your premise that merit-pay would lead to increases in cost... but whatever.

derek bomar;1102096 wrote:so you'd be making 6 figures if you worked 4 qtrs out of the year instead of 3 (summer vay-k). Yea, you guys need a raise.

Seriously though, I really could care less what teachers get paid as long as they're worth it. I can't justify raises for the sake of raises, especially when you don't have the money to pay for them. Saying "we only took half our raise" when things like sports are being cut is absurd. There are too many teachers being paid too much who simply just don't deserve it. I'm not saying you are one, I'm just speaking in generalities.

If teachers want to be paid extra for things like after-school, then they'd also be in for a shock when they weren't paid for things like... Summer Break. So I find fault with your premise that merit-pay would lead to increases in cost... but whatever.

i totally get what your saying...again this is why i say teachers would be for merit based pay in order to document what they do and what they put in..those who dont should make less. your ideas are not lost on me. as far as the school year mine is 210 day contract...the rest of the years it was 190. i can only work the days school is in session. i am not going to insult you by saying "i dont get paid in the summer" i will just say that people dont want school in the summer and they dont want an extended school year. if that changes i would gladly work year round just so i didnt ever have to hear that again. i would need a slight rais tho just saying

derek bomar;1102096 wrote:so you'd be making 6 figures if you worked 4 qtrs out of the year instead of 3 (summer vay-k). Yea, you guys need a raise.

Seriously though, I really could care less what teachers get paid as long as they're worth it. I can't justify raises for the sake of raises, especially when you don't have the money to pay for them. Saying "we only took half our raise" when things like sports are being cut is absurd. There are too many teachers being paid too much who simply just don't deserve it. I'm not saying you are one, I'm just speaking in generalities.

If teachers want to be paid extra for things like after-school, then they'd also be in for a shock when they weren't paid for things like... Summer Break. So I find fault with your premise that merit-pay would lead to increases in cost... but whatever.

as far as the increased cost...many of your young teachers are really good nowadays and are likely to double their pay is what i am referring to. to assume that merit pay would save money you would have to assume that more teachers would have their pay cut than would have their pay raised and im just not sure thats the case. i think this is why districts have been slow to adopt it. also it would make harder to plan a budget... however merit pay is coming. it will be in ohio in the next three years

Gblock;1102031 wrote:again if i keep talking about this writerbuckye is going to come back so im not going to get into another debate about teacher pay or unions or sb5...my point was if they were being unreasonable or not. which i dont think they are. i dont get how we think that teachers are different from other professions. WKFN worded it better than i did for sure but that was the point i was trying to make. look at it from another perspective. i think that you would feel differently if you started out for years making less than you felt like you were worth in promise of future earnings and then when you get to the future earnings the other party wants to change the deal because property values are struggling.

and teachers imo are rarely unreasonable. we gave back our whole step raises for 3 years. but i dont blame them for only giving up half of theirs. this levy is for 211 dollars per 100,000 i beleive. not that much. this money benefits you and your community locally. i would be more upset about the thousands you pay federally that are wasted each year such as the cost of $1,000,000 per soldier in afghanistan that i read about today and other wasteful spending that costs you way more each year.

The problem with the bolded section is that you are acting as if the figure is coming from zero (or something small). Westerville residents already are paying very hefty property tax rates. I live in the district and my taxes are $6K a year. When you add the levy my property tax bill will be now be nearly $7K a year. Most people don't have that extra amount of cash to spend every year.

A second I will make is that Westerville passed a school levy not to long ago. What is in the back of everyone's mind is that we know you assholes will be back asking for more money in a year or two.

Little Danny;1102133 wrote:The problem with the bolded section is that you are acting as if the figure is coming from zero (or something small). Westerville residents already are paying very hefty property tax rates. I live in the district and my taxes are $6K a year. When you add the levy my property tax bill will be now be nearly $7K a year. Most people don't have that extra amount of cash to spend every year.

A second I will make is that Westerville passed a school levy not to long ago. What is in the back of everyone's mind is that we know you ****s will be back asking for more money in a year or two.

which is why my original statement on this thread was to fix the way we fund public schools...no matter how much they cut, no matter how fiscal they are they are going to come back every three years or so FOREVER...when things were booming when i first got hired i think we made a 3 year levy last 8 years...then the bottom dropped out of the economy and gas doubled...and we have been back every three years since and i think that is going to continue. so the teachers taking this pay cut is really just a bandaid on a gaping wound. i pay hilliard taxes so i get what your saying although mine are lower than yours