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?

Typically, employees are discouraged to discuss pay between coworkers. You can, but it's at your own risk (basically, it is as recommended as "dipping your pen into the company ink").

jc10380;679427 wrote:This would create tension in my profession as our salaries are public record.

Yeah, and that IS a difference, admittedly. It is something that would need addressed.

In a way, thought, this could also play to the private sector's advantage. Prior to performance reviews, one can have better reference points when appealing to his superior during the review.

For example, if I make half what my coworkers make, but I don't know it, I may very well be VERY underpaid (for example, at my last job, I found out that I made about 25% of the niche industry average, but only after I was gone did I find out). A public employee can go in with more of a gameplan, and be able to increase his persuasiveness by knowing what his peers make.

Kinda makes me want to work in the public sector, actually.

jc10380;679427 wrote:I am not saying tension is a reason to not go this route. Just some questions

To be sure, it wouldn't at all be a seamless transition, so I, for one, would NEVER chastise someone for asking questions and raising problems. That's how the best, leanest model can happen.

I'm guessing that the crux of the whole thing is that the private employees have to spend their career in the "dog-eat-dog," "survival-of-the-fittest," <enter primal cliche here> rat race, and while they recognize that it is absurdly stressful, it is virtually tailored to make companies strive to work faster, more efficiently, and smarter, because there is company-wide incentive to do so. There's no true "security" in your job unless you continue to do that job at a high level, regardless of how long you've been there. If you make double what a younger person in the same position makes, you need to make sure your experience makes you double as valuable ... or, you need to be willing to take a pay cut, and stay competitive.

It's that kind of thing, I think, that causes the rub.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid51920168001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAACEcotwk~,gYcGnPAbE5DRD2F-d4EW6eHYmGU1d3p5&bclid=0&bctid=763052194001

QuakerOats;679452 wrote:And, when some municipalities are forking over 29% of pay toward pension plans so these publics service workers can retire at 45, it enhances the argument that MAJOR reform is necessary.

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.

ernest_t_bass;679437 wrote:As a teacher, I will say that having security does help in focusing on your job. I've had both ends. I've had a Super who treated the school as a business, and everyone was expendable. This Super was also know to get rid of people he did not like, making up "cause." Morale was TERRIBLE. Everyone did what they could just to make sure they didn't "get in trouble," or get on the Super's bad side. Focus was turned from education to "getting by." Take it for what it's worth. It's just reality.

I don't want my EMS/PD/FD people worrying about whether they are going to have a job tomorrow. I want them focusing on the task at hand. I'm not sure if that makes sense to some people.

I would prefer a teacher not have to worry about security but because they were performing at the highest level, not because they have been there the longest and the union contract protects them over a higher performer.

tsst_fballfan;679458 wrote:I would prefer a teacher not have to worry about security but because they were performing at the highest level, not because they have been there the longest and the union contract protects them over a higher performer.

You don't always get that.

ernest_t_bass;679460 wrote:You don't always get that.

Which part?

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.

BFD --- I will have to work to about 70, at least.

QuakerOats;679474 wrote:BFD --- I will have to work to about 70, at least.

When can someone in the military "retire?"

tsst_fballfan;679468 wrote:Which part?

When you eliminate some of these things, personal conflicts will remove teachers. A new Super could come to the district and get rid of a GOOD tenured teacher, just b/c they don't like them. That teacher has been here 30 years, is GREAT at what they do, etc. The new Super just doesn't like them.

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.

i fall into this category. I am in my 15 th year and im 38. i will be in my 37th year at 60. I wouldnt be surprised if it goes up to 65 by then tho. I actually dont mind because i had planned on doing 35 years anyway which is the new minimum number of years. i might even do 40 years if it helps my cap number out so i can retire and never have to worry about working again hopefully

QuakerOats;679452 wrote:That is a senseless comment. The citizens/taxpayers will pay what they can afford and deem reasonable to obtain adequate protection. Most are finding out how ridiculous it is to send out firemen and firetrucks for every fender bender or to watch the life flight chopper land at the hospital.

And, when some municipalities are forking over 29% of pay toward pension plans so these publics service workers can retire at 45, it enhances the argument that MAJOR reform is necessary.

My municipality does not do that. I pay 10% of what I make into the pension system.

I can retire @ 48 years old with 25 years of service. 25 years in the fire service is a long time. We give our bodies to the job. This is a young mans game.

Life flight and the medical helicopters are a private company, which charges and unbelievable amount of money for that ride. They have there time and place to be used, but overall I would say they are overused.

Tell me this, you're in a "fender bender", and no firetruck or ambulance shows up. You go home, you have a small head bleed, you die 2 days later. Who are you suing? My guess is the fire department. That is an issue of the sue happy society we live in. Everyone has to CYA.

Not knowing what you do, I think my job has a bigger role in society than your job. If you don't do whatever it is you do, my guess is the world will keep spinning. If I don't do what I do, people may die. If I don't put a fire out, people may die. If I don't give life saving drugs on the way to the hospital, people may die. Take that however you want.

If the teacher does not show up, kids don't learn. If the cops don't show up, people can die. If the firetruck or ambulance does not show up, people can die. If the snow plow worker does not plow the street, it's not safe and people can die.

We are not GED idiots who deserve low compensation like some people think we are. We are professionals who lay it on the line every day. We deserve some sort of benefit from that.

When you show up for work in the morning, you know you are going to get to go home at the end of the day. When I show up for work there is a possibility of that not being true. When you retire, you will be worried about what golf club you are going to play next. I hope that I will be able to enjoy my retirement and hopefully can swing a golf club. I realized these things when I signed on, but it does not make them any less real.

I do my job because it provides a stable living for my family, I enjoy it, and for the greater good of public service.


Why do you do yours?

jc10380;679485 wrote:I can retire @ 48 years old with 25 years of service. 25 years in the fire service is a long time. We give our bodies to the job. This is a young mans game.

BFD... That one dude has to work until he's 70!

ernest_t_bass;679495 wrote:BFD... That one dude has to work until he's 70!

lol BFD im going to work till im one hundred eleventyone

Again, some here are taking it tooooo personally. This is not about taxpayers saying they do not appreciate fire service, this is about balancing budgets. It is not about personalities, or an attack on the level of commitment, dedication, or skill set of a fireman; it IS about balancing what taxpayers can afford with adequate levels of protection.

Until many can get beyond that, the discussion will remain somewhat fruitless.

I feel like Gas at 3.00 a gallon is a bigger travesty and burden on the taxpayers than police and fire pay/pensions. also fireman and police are taxpayers too!

FatHobbit;678317 wrote:I'm curious. Are there other states that don't have collective bargaining? How do they compare to Ohio? (In teacher salaries and student performance.)

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?

jc10380;679485 wrote:We are not GED idiots who deserve low compensation like some people think we are. We are professionals who lay it on the line every day. We deserve some sort of benefit from that.

I agree with that statement and I mean no disrespect to any public employees.

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?

You shouldnt...but on the other hand its not like they are ever going to LOWER your taxes. this is more of a bandaid solution to the losses that wall street crooks let happen with the pension monies. they got rich and we all lost our money.

Gblock;679515 wrote:but on the other hand its not like they are ever going to LOWER your taxes.

QFT

Gblock;679515 wrote:this is more of a bandaid solution to the losses that wall street crooks let happen with the pension monies. they got rich and we all lost our money.

So getting rid of collective bargaining is just an attempt to make up for pension funds not having more money after the market crashed?

ernest_t_bass;679479 wrote:When you eliminate some of these things, personal conflicts will remove teachers. A new Super could come to the district and get rid of a GOOD tenured teacher, just b/c they don't like them. That teacher has been here 30 years, is GREAT at what they do, etc. The new Super just doesn't like them.

On the flip side of that coin ... what if the RIF gets a better teacher that has only 8 yrs and strives everyday to be the best but protects the teacher with 30 yrs seniority simply because of time not because they were the best at teaching our kids. The union mentality makes a massive assumption that time in seniority equates to best teacher. I simply don't buy that. I have seen too many times in unionized environments where those in the '30 yr seniority' realm are coasting because they know the union will protect them. Many were far from the best and in some cases far from even average. :shrugs:

Gblock;679505 wrote:I feel like Gas at 3.00 a gallon is a bigger travesty and burden on the taxpayers than police and fire pay/pensions. also fireman and police are taxpayers too!

The travesty is taxpayers paying over a dollar per gallon in ............... TAXES!

QuakerOats;679529 wrote:The travesty is taxpayers paying over a dollar per gallon in ............... TAXES!

Ehh, helps pay for the roads I drive on.


As to the thread, as an outsider, I see education unions as more of a hindrance than an asset. Any law that can allow more flexibility and quicker results to the education system by limiting or eradicating the unions, which seem to slow things down, I'm all for.

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

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

good idea

FatHobbit;679521 wrote:QFT



So getting rid of collective bargaining is just an attempt to make up for pension funds not having more money after the market crashed?

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