CenterBHSFan;686033 wrote:If a teacher is that highly educated (and I have no doubt of this for most of them) then they are educated enough to not have to need somebody else speak for them, they should/are educated enough to speak for themselves articulately.
Also, since they are teachers and no stranger to engaging challenging questions, that gives them even further knowledge on how to handle what can be a stressful thing such negotiating their own pay.

This. Teachers are highly-trained, educated professionals. There is no reason to believe a good teacher could not establish his or her value to the school system, and present it during reviews as part of the evaluation on which pay is determined.

It's pretty simple, the average worker in the private sector has seen pay and benefits get whacked....Now, they are effectively paying the wages & benefits of the public employees, so what's the logical expectation here?

gut;686084 wrote:It's pretty simple, the average worker in the private sector has seen pay and benefits get whacked....Now, they are effectively paying the wages & benefits of the public employees, so what's the logical expectation here?

That the wage and benefits of the public employees goes down an equal proportion.

CenterBHSFan;686033 wrote:If a teacher is that highly educated (and I have no doubt of this for most of them) then they are educated enough to not have to need somebody else speak for them, they should/are educated enough to speak for themselves articulately.
Also, since they are teachers and no stranger to engaging challenging questions, that gives them even further knowledge on how to handle what can be a stressful thing such negotiating their own pay.

I'm not saying I disagree with you and I think I've established before that I'm not a union man...but the idea behind collective bargaining is that an individual, even if highly educated does not have the same bargaining power in an arm's length transaction as a powerful entity like the government of Ohio. If we're to take you seriously as a small government person, you must agree that an individual does not have as much bargaining power, despite how talented, against a state government...hence why it is necessary to try and keep government small and devoid of power as history tells us that this government will abuse this power almost assuredly. Now, I agree, since the government is supported by the tax dollars of the people and not profits earned in a competitive marketplace they don't have resource constraints that say a powerful company might have when bargaining as they could always tax the populace more...and hence the justifications for collectively bargaining against the state might be outweighed by costs it might incur on the population as a whole.

But to me, in this whole debate, it seems strange that you have small government conservatives blaring the trumpet for something that will by definition increase government's power over the individual by disallowing individuals from teaming up against the government in at least one context. Maybe you don't believe in unions against corporations because it raises the cost of doing business, etc.; but I'm not sure that anti-union sentiment automatically would transfer in the public context especially when one of your foundational beliefs is against a strong and abusive government or the potential for one.

This all seems grounded in the idea that, as a general rule, unionization is always bad and that we ought to be self-reliant individuals; a tenet of modern conservativism. But, I'm not sure why uniting against a powerful state government is necessarily bad when we also consider the idea that a government that is too powerful is always bad.

Just seems to me we ought to be looking at pension reform and double-dipping and these sorts of things and making collective bargaining permissible but not mandatory, among other things, rather than making it illegal...as this also doesn't seem really to embolden the idea of increasing the choices of free actors in the marketplace either.

On another not I also, I found this link.



Of the states where collective bargaining is disallowed, only Virginia educates their children in to top 50 percentile....of those 24 states where collective bargaining isn't mandatory, only 4 of them educate their children in the top 50 percentile.

Now, I realize this is just correlation and probably not causation but it seems worth thinking about.

Boatshoes is smarter that I is, so I is just going to say ^^^This!

BoatShoes;686106 wrote:I'm not saying I disagree with you and I think I've established before that I'm not a union man...but the idea behind collective bargaining is that an individual, even if highly educated does not have the same bargaining power in an arm's length transaction as a powerful entity like the government of Ohio. If we're to take you seriously as a small government person, you must agree that an individual does not have as much bargaining power, despite how talented, against a state government...hence why it is necessary to try and keep government small and devoid of power as history tells us that this government will abuse this power almost assuredly. Now, I agree, since the government is supported by the tax dollars of the people and not profits earned in a competitive marketplace they don't have resource constraints that say a powerful company might have when bargaining as they could always tax the populace more...and hence the justifications for collectively bargaining against the state might be outweighed by costs it might incur on the population as a whole.

Teachers aren't bargaining with the state government. They have to bargain with their local school boards.

BoatShoes;686106 wrote:Of the states where collective bargaining is disallowed, only Virginia educates their children in to top 50 percentile....of those 24 states where collective bargaining isn't mandatory, only 4 of them educate their children in the top 50 percentile.

Now, I realize this is just correlation and probably not causation but it seems worth thinking about.

The problem is, proportions narrow the margins described. Moreover, while I think something could be pulled from this, there isn't enough data. A sample of, at most, 39 states (the largest group) doesn't give us a ton in terms of data. I ran a quick search, but I'm not seeing anything that could clearly extrapolate that out.

When I get a moment, I might keep digging, though.

I Wear Pants;686145 wrote:Teachers aren't bargaining with the state government. They have to bargain with their local school boards.

Why does everyone think that the teachers would be sitting down with a state government rep?

O-Trap;686149 wrote:Why does everyone think that the teachers would be sitting down with a state government rep?

We would all actually have to sit down and have a one-on-one with Kasich.

BoatShoes;686106 wrote:

Of the states where collective bargaining is disallowed, only Virginia educates their children in to top 50 percentile....of those 24 states where collective bargaining isn't mandatory, only 4 of them educate their children in the top 50 percentile.

Now, I realize this is just correlation and probably not causation but it seems worth thinking about.

Where are you getting numbers for each state in education? (I want to compare state by state)

ernest_t_bass;686152 wrote:We would all actually have to sit down and have a one-on-one with Kasich.

Tell him to fix his hair when you see him. He looks like a damn fool.

O-Trap;686188 wrote:Tell him to fix his hair when you see him. He looks like a damn fool.

I believe the word you're looking for is "idiot." lol

FatHobbit;686190 wrote:I believe the word you're looking for is "idiot." lol

I was being diplomatic.

BoatShoes;686106 wrote:...

Of the states where collective bargaining is disallowed, only Virginia educates their children in to top 50 percentile....of those 24 states where collective bargaining isn't mandatory, only 4 of them educate their children in the top 50 percentile.

Now, I realize this is just correlation and probably not causation but it seems worth thinking about.

States do not educate children...nor should they. States can only and at best assist in the education process. It is the family who educates the child. It is the child who seeks out education. Formalized education can only add to that effort.

I Wear Pants;685917 wrote:The pay and benefits I guess I can deal with as teachers are highly educated in most cases. (Though that doesn't mean the pay and benefits should be set in stone like they are now). I think the thing that sticks with most people is the unsustainable retirement. It doesn't work when you think about it.

I was wondering how unsustainable the pension system is so I went ahead an spreadsheeted it out. Now I in no way shape or form a financial person and I am making some serious assumptions but I am just trying to ballpark things. Say a newly hired teacher with a master's degree is hired in 40 K per year. Assume that the teacher makes an additional 2% per year for longevity increase for the first 15 years and an additional step every 5 years thereafter. Lets also give the teacher a 2% annual cost of living adjustment. Lets say that the teacher works for 30 years. That would give the teacher a final salary of 98.8 K. The current recommendation for the State Teachers Retirement System is that the teachers contribute 13% of their pay towards their pension (with an option to raise that to 14%). Lets also say the pension money earns an 8% annual return on investment. At retirement the teacher would have added $850,500 to the system.

How long could that cash fund the retirement? STRS is also recommending that the pension amount be 66% of the best five years of earnings. This would be amount to 61.7 K per year. The is a 2% annual COLA that is waived for the first 5 years of retirement. So the pension would take 13 years to be drawn down to zero. If you allow the money to continue to draw a 3% return during the draw down then the money will last 16 years. With a 5% return the money will last 20 years. At an 8% return the money is nearly self sustaining with about 600 K left of the money even after 30 years.

This does not include the money that the district also has to contribute, which STRS recommends be set at an additional 14%. WIth that money added in it seems as if the system should be easily self sustaining barring any financial catastrophe. This is money that is similar to the 401K match that some corporations give. I am just curious. How company still do and how much is that match nowadays?

I think I thought my way through this in a reasonable fashion but then again I am just a science teacher so let me know if I am way off base.

Analog--

Interesting analysis. Are you taking inflation into account? For something like retirement that goes on for 20, 30, or 40 years, inflation is a huge factor that changes the numbers.

Re your question, my employer does not provide a 401k match, and we're generally on the higher end of the benefits spectrum. I don't know how many employers still offer a match.

I Wear Pants;686145 wrote:Teachers aren't bargaining with the state government. They have to bargain with their local school boards.

Exactly...and many(not all) on a school board, are there for personal reasons. Don't kid yourself if you think otherwise. Often, some have a vendetta..I have personally seen it.

BoatShoes;686106 wrote:I'm not saying I disagree with you and I think I've established before that I'm not a union man...but the idea behind collective bargaining is that an individual, even if highly educated does not have the same bargaining power in an arm's length transaction as a powerful entity like the government of Ohio. If we're to take you seriously as a small government person, you must agree that an individual does not have as much bargaining power, despite how talented, against a state government...hence why it is necessary to try and keep government small and devoid of power as history tells us that this government will abuse this power almost assuredly. Now, I agree, since the government is supported by the tax dollars of the people and not profits earned in a competitive marketplace they don't have resource constraints that say a powerful company might have when bargaining as they could always tax the populace more...and hence the justifications for collectively bargaining against the state might be outweighed by costs it might incur on the population as a whole.

But to me, in this whole debate, it seems strange that you have small government conservatives blaring the trumpet for something that will by definition increase government's power over the individual by disallowing individuals from teaming up against the government in at least one context. Maybe you don't believe in unions against corporations because it raises the cost of doing business, etc.; but I'm not sure that anti-union sentiment automatically would transfer in the public context especially when one of your foundational beliefs is against a strong and abusive government or the potential for one.

This all seems grounded in the idea that, as a general rule, unionization is always bad and that we ought to be self-reliant individuals; a tenet of modern conservativism. But, I'm not sure why uniting against a powerful state government is necessarily bad when we also consider the idea that a government that is too powerful is always bad.

Just seems to me we ought to be looking at pension reform and double-dipping and these sorts of things and making collective bargaining permissible but not mandatory, among other things, rather than making it illegal...as this also doesn't seem really to embolden the idea of increasing the choices of free actors in the marketplace either.

On another not I also, I found this link.



Of the states where collective bargaining is disallowed, only Virginia educates their children in to top 50 percentile....of those 24 states where collective bargaining isn't mandatory, only 4 of them educate their children in the top 50 percentile.

Now, I realize this is just correlation and probably not causation but it seems worth thinking about.

Fact is, because these states do not have unions, they have POOR pay, POOR benefits and cannot attract quality teachers, or teachers at all. Quite often, these state are at job fairs in other states BEGGING for teachers to come there. ITs common knowledge, that those states have a POOR education system!! Go dig all the stats up you want...but its really nothing but common sense!! If you want quality education, quality anything, you pay for it. Highly qualified school districts attract quality people, businesses keep home prices up, etc, etc. I could go on and on.

centralbucksfan;686297 wrote:Exactly...and many(not all) on a school board, are there for personal reasons. Don't kid yourself if you think otherwise. Often, some have a vendetta..I have personally seen it.

Stop crying. Many people have bosses that don't like them either yet manage to make it work.

If collective bargaining was eliminated and a school board was being so unfair in it's negotiations that it drove away good teachers and made the district worse guess what would happen? It's likely that school board wouldn't be elected again.

Fan--

It is just annual compounding with COLA adjustments built in. Maybe this is just my ignorance but how would inflation affect the numbers? Just trying to learn something here.

"they have POOR pay, POOR benefits and cannot attract quality teachers, or teachers at all. Quite often, these state are at job fairs in other states BEGGING for teachers to come there"

Link? Serious inquiry, I know many unemployed engineers that would make awesome math teachers - at this point they might even move to some of those "dark" states. One of them, West Virginia, at my brother's entry into the market had about a 3 year waiting period for entry level positions. He subbed in the Charleston-Huntington market for years before he got a full-time job, and even then it wasn't in his concentration.

Manhattan Buckeye;686389 wrote:"they have POOR pay, POOR benefits and cannot attract quality teachers, or teachers at all. Quite often, these state are at job fairs in other states BEGGING for teachers to come there"

Link? Serious inquiry, I know many unemployed engineers that would make awesome math teachers - at this point they might even move to some of those "dark" states. One of them, West Virginia, at my brother's entry into the market had about a 3 year waiting period for entry level positions. He subbed in the Charleston-Huntington market for years before he got a full-time job, and even then it wasn't in his concentration.

Here's a fun one.

A place called Teacher Portal ranked them from most comfortable to least comfortable by using a combination of starting salary, average salary, and cost of living. Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia are all in the top half. Georgia is THIRD, Texas is SEVENTH, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, and Virgina are 23rd, 24th, and 25th respectively.

Ohio is 6th, for what it's worth.

Similarly, you have the dark brown states (AZ, UT, WY, CO, MO, AR, LA, MS, AL, KY, WV), where seven of the eleven fit in the top half (lowest being W. Va at 40th).

So, here's where we are so far:

STATES THAT PROHIBIT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING:
Top half of most comfortable livings: 5 (100%)
Bottom half of most comfortable livings: 0 (0%)

STATES THAT MAKE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OPTIONAL:
Top half of most comfortable livings: 7 (64%)
Bottom half of most comfortable livings: 4 (36%)

STATES THAT REQUIRE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING:
Top half of most comfortable livings: 13 (38%)
Bottom half of most comfortable livings: 21 (62%)

Link: http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

ccrunner609;686421 wrote:your math is wrong.....teachers base their 2% not off of current salary biut all those 2% increases on all those contracts is based off the base pay wich is likely 30,000 range.

That is not my understanding of the process but I will look at my last contract. If things work as you say they may as well call it a $600 raise rather than use percents.

believer;684894 wrote:Exactly. My wife's parents retired from the Columbus school system about 8 years ago. They built and paid cash for a new house 1/2 mile from the beach in Wilmington, NC. They both just paid cash for brand new convertibles, their health care is all but 100% paid (and they complained when they recently had to start paying a $10 co-pay for doctor's visits), and they take home far more monthly income than they ever contributed into the PERS.

I told them that I appreciated their dedication to teaching our kids but they couldn't understand why I thought their retirement was way out of line with economic realities. They honestly believe they earned the right to have a better standard of living in retirement than they had while they were actually teaching.

I asked them if they realized that most of the people who are paying for their cushy retirement can only dream of having half of what they're enjoying...that their relatively luxurious retirement is at the expense of the very people they criticize for voting down school levies.

Amazing mindset.

LOL...actually, sounds like JEALOUSY to me! We all have choices on what we choose to do. Don't go hammering them/us because YOU don't have this. Thats the issue more than anything else here. People feel others shoudl be brought down to their level because things are going well for them. What kind of freaking mentality is this? So if you get ill, are you wishing ill will on everyone else as well?? WTF?

BoatShoes;686106 wrote:I'm not saying I disagree with you and I think I've established before that I'm not a union man...but the idea behind collective bargaining is that an individual, even if highly educated does not have the same bargaining power in an arm's length transaction as a powerful entity like the government of Ohio. If we're to take you seriously as a small government person, you must agree that an individual does not have as much bargaining power, despite how talented, against a state government...hence why it is necessary to try and keep government small and devoid of power as history tells us that this government will abuse this power almost assuredly. Now, I agree, since the government is supported by the tax dollars of the people and not profits earned in a competitive marketplace they don't have resource constraints that say a powerful company might have when bargaining as they could always tax the populace more...and hence the justifications for collectively bargaining against the state might be outweighed by costs it might incur on the population as a whole.

But to me, in this whole debate, it seems strange that you have small government conservatives blaring the trumpet for something that will by definition increase government's power over the individual by disallowing individuals from teaming up against the government in at least one context. Maybe you don't believe in unions against corporations because it raises the cost of doing business, etc.; but I'm not sure that anti-union sentiment automatically would transfer in the public context especially when one of your foundational beliefs is against a strong and abusive government or the potential for one.

This all seems grounded in the idea that, as a general rule, unionization is always bad and that we ought to be self-reliant individuals; a tenet of modern conservativism. But, I'm not sure why uniting against a powerful state government is necessarily bad when we also consider the idea that a government that is too powerful is always bad.

Just seems to me we ought to be looking at pension reform and double-dipping and these sorts of things and making collective bargaining permissible but not mandatory, among other things, rather than making it illegal...as this also doesn't seem really to embolden the idea of increasing the choices of free actors in the marketplace either.

On another not I also, I found this link.



Of the states where collective bargaining is disallowed, only Virginia educates their children in to top 50 percentile....of those 24 states where collective bargaining isn't mandatory, only 4 of them educate their children in the top 50 percentile.

Now, I realize this is just correlation and probably not causation but it seems worth thinking about.

And out of all of those states, how many are operating in the RED and how many in the BLACK?

centralbucksfan;686540 wrote:LOL...actually, sounds like JEALOUSY to me! We all have choices on what we choose to do. Don't go hammering them/us because YOU don't have this. Thats the issue more than anything else here. People feel others shoudl be brought down to their level because things are going well for them. What kind of freaking mentality is this? So if you get ill, are you wishing ill will on everyone else as well?? WTF?

Jealousy? GTFO. It has everything to do with the fact that WE the taxpayers fund your salary and benefits. When we get hit financially.....guess what.....you will get "brought down to our level". It has nothing to do with jealousy, it has everything to do with what we can afford to pay in taxes. There is a reason that many local school levies (northwest ohio for me) have been continually failing. The people can't afford any increases in taxes.

I am not sure why teachers and other public sector employees continue to feel like we are attacking them and feel that they don't deserve high pay. I believe that if people are willing to pay the higher taxes (like we have in better economic periods) teachers should absolutley get high pay and benefits. But right now, the people continue to vote down levies and will continue until our pockets get fatter. Sorry public sector, but it's a trickle down effect and when we feel it, rest assured you will too. It is how the system is set-up.