queencitybuckeye;1100768 wrote:And if this has already been done?

Obviously not compelling enough to get the union to agree. Needs to be better.

queencitybuckeye;1100768 wrote:And if this has already been done?

Apparently we can only vote "no" if we have run for school board and have a intricite understanding of the school's books.

wkfan;1100772 wrote:Obviously not compelling enough to get the union to agree. Needs to be better.

How do you know that is reasonable? How do you know that the Union is not being unreasonable?

LJ;1100769 wrote:And that package of "concessions" only cuts half of their raises, still leaving the district on the hook for $1.4 million in raises.

Different discussion.

LJ;1100769 wrote:I'm not sure of the point of your first quote?

Just that discussions are continuing...will continue throughout negotiations on a new contract for the one that wil expire 8/31.

LJ;1100775 wrote:How do you know that is reasonable? How do you know that the Union is not being unreasonable?

I don't. But if you were on the school board, you would!

I'm just saying that a compelling, reasonable argument is usually agreeable to reasonable people.

wkfan;1100772 wrote:Obviously not compelling enough to get the union to agree. Needs to be better.

It doesn't get much simpler that what I've expressed twice. If they don't understand that if they don't give back, this school system will not get a levy passed. This benefits no one.

If they don't get this, the problem is not that the school board has not made a compelling case.

LJ;1100773 wrote:Apparently we can only vote "no" if we have run for school board and have a intricite understanding of the school's books.

How can you make an informed decision unless you do have a good understanding of the finances of your community?

wkfan;1100797 wrote:How can you make an informed decision unless you do have a good understanding of the finances of your community?

It's public information, what does this have to do with running for the school board?

queencitybuckeye;1100821 wrote:It's public information, what does this have to do with running for the school board?

yes, it is public information....doesn't mean that one understands how it works and what has had a effect on it.

Inside millage, outside millage, tangible property taxe phaseout, etc.....

wkfan;1100827 wrote:yes, it is public information....doesn't mean that one understands how it works and what has had a effect on it.

Inside millage, outside millage, tangible property taxe phaseout, etc.....

I'll stipulate that knowledge is good. It doesn't change the fact that the school system in question will not get a levy passed without a reduction in labor costs.

we gave up our step raises for the next 3 years and the last levy passed but i doubt the next one will, so im not sure if it makes a difference or not. schools are going to continue to ask for levies every three years or so as costs go up. until the way schools are funded is fixed blaming the teachers isnt going to get you far. as has been stated on here many times, the way we fund schools has been found unconstitutional. why not focus on finding a better way?

Gblock;1100884 wrote:we gave up our step raises for the next 3 years and the last levy passed but i doubt the next one will, so im not sure if it makes a difference or not. schools are going to continue to ask for levies every three years or so as costs go up. until the way schools are funded is fixed blaming the teachers isnt going to get you far. as has been stated on here many times, the way we fund schools has been found unconstitutional. why not focus on finding a better way?

Disagree. The method of funding would change little other than the method of collection. It's not like the same people who pay the freight wouldn't continue to do so.

queencitybuckeye;1100891 wrote:Disagree. The method of funding would change little other than the method of collection. It's not like the same people who pay the freight wouldn't continue to do so.

Totally agree.

They way we fund schools doesn't is by the people. Changing it only shifts which dollar a different person pays.

The way Ohio schools are funded have been declared unconstitional by the Ohio Supreme Court a few years ago.


They are toothless and the General Assembly has done nothing.

They should be thrown in jail......

how can you call a group who already gave back half their raises unreasonable? you can disagree with them for sure, but to call them unreasonable is unreasonable. 1.4 million dollars while it will help isnt going to fix the problem with westerville schools. Im sure these teachers are thinking when does it stop? so if they give up their raises for this levy what happens in three more years will they be asked to do it again to pass the levy? should they have to go six years with no raise in pay while the cost of living continues to increase. im sure if anyone here was a teacher this is how you would feel. payton manning isnt rushing to give up his 28 million just to stay with the colts, just as im sure that at your job you want to make as much money you can for your family. that doesnt make you unreasonable or uncaring. teachers also pay incrased taxes for levies as well. we are not exempt. im not trying to get into another teacher pay thread as that has been beat to death my only point is that they are not necessarily being unreasonable.

cue the i havent had a raise in 50 years comments....

Devils Advocate;1101636 wrote:The way Ohio schools are funded have been declared unconstitional by the Ohio Supreme Court a few years ago.


They are toothless and the General Assembly has done nothing.

They should be thrown in jail......

All well and good, but not particularly relevant to this discussion. The way money is collected for schools will not change the parties from whom the money is collected.

Gblock;1101652 wrote:how can you call a group who already gave back half their raises unreasonable?

Easy: You shouldn't get a raise for just showing up to work. Raises for the sake of raises are bullshit.

Cue the "we negotiated it so it's ours" comment

derek bomar;1101938 wrote:Easy: You shouldn't get a raise for just showing up to work. Raises for the sake of raises are bull****.

Cue the "we negotiated it so it's ours" comment

its not a raise for the sake of a raise...if you want to change the way teachers are paid thats fine...but the districts actually prefer it this way to allow for getting a percentage of their workforce at a reduced price. if you want to go to merit pay or other programs it likely would cost the district more. there is a reason districts havent challenged this policy and it has nothing to do with the union or negotiations.

Gblock;1101951 wrote:its not a raise for the sake of a raise...if you want to change the way teachers are paid thats fine...but the districts actually prefer it this way to allow for getting a percentage of their workforce at a reduced price. if you want to go to merit pay or other programs it likely would cost the district more. there is a reason districts havent challenged this policy and it has nothing to do with the union or negotiations.

Why should they be entitled to a raise when the district is $23m in the hole?

The bottom line is there's not money available to grant what is being asked.

There's not really anything to negotiate. The board doesn't have what was promised or is being asked for.

Gblock;1101951 wrote:its not a raise for the sake of a raise...if you want to change the way teachers are paid thats fine...but the districts actually prefer it this way to allow for getting a percentage of their workforce at a reduced price. if you want to go to merit pay or other programs it likely would cost the district more. there is a reason districts havent challenged this policy and it has nothing to do with the union or negotiations.

really? It has nothing to do with the unions? SB5? GTFOOH

well i look at it more like...ok if i didnt know that in the future if i was successful you were going to pay me more then i would have negotiated for more money than the 24,000 i worked for in my first year when i believe i was woefully underpaid. the reason i agreed to it is because the district promised me in my contract that eventually they would pay me more. so if i feel that my salary was worth 40000 that first year. i would have tried to get that instead of waiting 8 years to make 40000. so what you are considering a "raise" for many this raise is getting them to where they should be paid. also the raises cap out after 15-17 years in most districs so its not like your getting raises forever.

derek bomar;1101962 wrote:really? It has nothing to do with the unions? SB5? GTFOOH

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.

Gblock;1101970 wrote:well i look at it more like...ok if i didnt know that in the future if i was successful you werent going to pay me more then i would have negotiated for more money than the 24,000 i worked for in my first year when i believe i was woefully underpaid. the reason i agreed to it is because the district promised me in my contract that eventually they would pay me more. so if i feel that my salary was worth 40000 that first year. i would have tried to get that instead of waiting 8 years to make 40000. so what you are considering a "raise" for many this raise is getting them to where they should be paid. also the raises cap out after 15-17 years in most districs so its not like your getting raises forever.

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

Gblock;1101970 wrote:well i look at it more like...ok if i didnt know that in the future if i was successful you werent going to pay me more then i would have negotiated for more money than the 24,000 i worked for in my first year when i believe i was woefully underpaid. the reason i agreed to it is because the district promised me in my contract that eventually they would pay me more. so if i feel that my salary was worth 40000 that first year. i would have tried to get that instead of waiting 8 years to make 40000. so what you are considering a "raise" for many this raise is getting them to where they should be paid. also the raises cap out after 15-17 years in most districs so its not like your getting raises forever.

what do you think your fair market value is?