wkfan;704816 wrote:I doubt that I'll vote for Kasich in 2014...as much for his heavy handed and dictatorial style as what he is doing. I will, however, wait to see how it turns out over the next 4 years.

wkfan;704846 wrote:I understand how it could be done....I just sincerely doubt that a bonus will everbe a pazrt of teacher compensation.

BTW...those of you exempt people who have an opportunity earn extra compensation in the form of a bonus have no room to complain about the high tax rate that it is under....those of us who are in the private sector and are exempt employees and have no bonus provisions in our pay schedules would love to have the opportunity to earn more....bus alas, we do not.

ernest_t_bass;704853 wrote:Don't private sector employers HAVE to match an employee's 7.2% into Social Security? Since we are exempt from SS, then I could see a 7.2% mandate, congruent with the private sector. I don't see it as a right, but equal to what the private sector does. If I, as a public sector employee, paid 7.2% into SS, then my guess is that private sector people (especially those drawing SS) would want my employer to match.

O-Trap;704829 wrote:It wouldn't be that difficult if the means of paying for education was structured differently.

One could conceive of a portion of bonuses going toward such funding ... meaning the bigger the bonus of any taxed individual, the bigger the bonus amount able to be allocated toward rewarding the best teachers.

However, most of us who have a bonus as even an option are pretty sick of how sizeably it is taxed already.

Footwedge;704882 wrote:Otrap.....Bonus dollars are taxed at the same rate as your regular pay...unless your tax bracket changes....which is most likely not the case. Your witholdings are nasty...but once you square up with the IRS....you've paid the exact same percentage.

O-Trap;704880 wrote:Again, if you moved to individual bargaining, and having pay and employment contingent on performance instead of tenure, that could change.

In a sense, collective bargaining prevents it from even being a possibility.

wkfan;704846 wrote:....those of us who are in the private sector and are exempt employees have no bonus provisions in our pay schedules would love to have the opportunity to earn more....bus alas, we do not.

ernest_t_bass;704853 wrote:Don't private sector employers HAVE to match an employee's 7.2% into Social Security? Since we are exempt from SS, then I could see a 7.2% mandate, congruent with the private sector. I don't see it as a right, but equal to what the private sector does. If I, as a public sector employee, paid 7.2% into SS, then my guess is that private sector people (especially those drawing SS) would want my employer to match.

CenterBHSFan;704867 wrote:But don't you think that will take somebody/anybody to be heavy-handed in order to affect change? Not just this issue, but all and any others?

CenterBHSFan;704867 wrote:We're all going to feel something by the time heavy-handed changes are made. It's not going to start at the fed level, so the states are trying to get their houses in order. Or at least some of them are.

wkfan;704918 wrote:As I stated, I am not a teacher but a private sector employee.

O-Trap;704945 wrote:Sorry for the confusion.

coach_bob1;704728 wrote:You're right. I don't speak for everyone. But I do know not all of Ohio supports this bill. In fact, if Ohio falls in line with the recent Gallop poll, then only 33% supports it.

coach_bob1;705249 wrote:http://www.gallup.com/poll/146276/Scaling-Back-State-Programs-Least-Three-Fiscal-Evils.aspx

Writerbuckeye,

Here is the link to the poll. Yes, they do tell you Republican, Democrat, or Independent. If you took any research statistics classes, you will remember that a valid sample set needs just 21 people. It does not mean that 21 people are a representative sample. 33 people surveyed on an issue (i.e. voting on a Senate bill) are also not a representative sample of a population of 11.5 million citizens, regardless of whether they are elected officials or not. 1,000 adults, however, would be considered a representative sample in most cases. The method of selection was a random phone dialer. I stated already that this is not just people in Ohio. If you look at the results, they are generally a 50/50 split across the board if you factor in the 4% margin of error.

LJ;705301 wrote:Phone dialer itself is not a good random sample source anymore due to so many people only having cell phones, which are not allowed to be called.

coach_bob1;705249 wrote:http://www.gallup.com/poll/146276/Scaling-Back-State-Programs-Least-Three-Fiscal-Evils.aspx

Writerbuckeye,

Here is the link to the poll. Yes, they do tell you Republican, Democrat, or Independent. If you took any research statistics classes, you will remember that a valid sample set needs just 21 people. It does not mean that 21 people are a representative sample. 33 people surveyed on an issue (i.e. voting on a Senate bill) are also not a representative sample of a population of 11.5 million citizens, regardless of whether they are elected officials or not. 1,000 adults, however, would be considered a representative sample in most cases. The method of selection was a random phone dialer. I stated already that this is not just people in Ohio. If you look at the results, they are generally a 50/50 split across the board if you factor in the 4% margin of error.

LJ;705301 wrote:Phone dialer itself is not a good random sample source anymore due to so many people only having cell phones, which are not allowed to be called.

LJ;705301 wrote:Phone dialer itself is not a good random sample source anymore due to so many people only having cell phones, which are not allowed to be called.

LJ;705301 wrote:Phone dialer itself is not a good random sample source anymore due to so many people only having cell phones, which are not allowed to be called.

coach_bob1;705799 wrote:Actually, if you read in the methods, they state they reached 850 land lines and 150 cell phones.

LJ;705804 wrote:Ok? That has nothing to do with the decreased sample population

coach_bob1;705813 wrote:Are you familiar with "regression towards the mean"? As a sample gets larger, the closer the results will be towards the average. The reason they use a sample of 1,000 is that once you exceed 1,000 members in a sample, the movement of the results towards the mean becomes very small changes that do not change the data significantly. Does that help any?

LJ;705818 wrote:Ive only developed sampling and testing protocols for a few years now.... Its limiting who you can and cannot test.

coach_bob1;705824 wrote:Unfortunately, telephones are the best current medium for these type of surveys due to accesibility. I would venture to say +90% of people have access to a telephone. If these surveys didn't require speedy responses, US Mail would be the optimal medium.