Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a simple wish and it is that whenever the topic of the contract of teachers or cops or whatever group of municipal employee is discussed that the amount of time they work is not used as leverage in the discussion. The simple fact is that we ALL work hard and work long hours. The only item worth discussing is the contract itself. Both sides of the discussion would best suppport their arguments by being educated about the current municipal contracts (anyone ever heard of seethroughny.net?) and only referring to clauses in those contracts. Otherwise it sounds like a grade school he-said she-said playground tussle.
As mentioned on other threads, seethroughny is see-through because it's full of holes. It's not all that accurate.
If we're gonna go by HEARSAY, the hearsay about the compensation always seems that seethroughny errs on the LOW end when it comes to SeeThroughNY :: Home.
Last edited by I_Love_LI_but; 03-19-2012 at 04:52 PM..
Yes, we know, they are all selfless, giving, noble souls who never do a bad job. No such thing as a bad teacher. It's just not possible! Yet we can have no public evaluations of them. Hmmmm. Amazing how only the best people in the world are drawn to this profession, isn't it? We are so.lucky.to.have.them. And we all know, Long Island teachers are a breed apart from all others. They have to have a master's and all. Oh the horror!
I never claimed, nor implied, that all teachers are good - so I can do without the sarcasm. There are bad teachers just like there are bad doctors, bad accountants, and bad garbagemen.
Evaluations would be great. I would love to be able to reward the good teachers and weed out the bad ones. As of yet, I haven't seen any system proposed that would come anywhere close to properly doing that.
Btw, are you suggesting teachers on LI not be required to have a masters, or just that is an easy accomplishment?
Yes, we know, they are all selfless, giving, noble souls who never do a bad job. No such thing as a bad teacher. It's just not possible! Yet we can have no public evaluations of them. Hmmmm. Amazing how only the best people in the world are drawn to this profession, isn't it? We are so.lucky.to.have.them. And we all know, Long Island teachers are a breed apart from all others. They have to have a master's and all. Oh the horror!
You sound very bitter...
My wife is a special ed teacher and while I think that her departments top pay is a little more then it should be, I don't think it's fair to insinuate that she's a bottom feeder that couldn't have gotten a job in the private sector.
Your generalizations are fairly petty. If you're so miserable maybe you need to reevaluate your own life and quit focusing on picking apart the lives of other people.
Let every school district hire another Superintendent for Personnel at $179K, will you be happy then?
The union funds itself, with member dues, but asks a contribution of it's employer. a 1/5th position of a teacher, plus a union HQ probably is valued at under 25K for an entity the size of 200 employees.
That's really not that big a deal.
I don't think any small districts have a full time rep- you'd have to cite some evidence of that before I could comment.
I can't see any reason why a district would pay a full time "teacher" if all they are is a union person.
I could see a district furnishing a union office + some salary for a union secretary, but likely not amounting to much $$$.
The point is that the unions can well afford their own representation, the school district should not be paying. The teachers union has a huge budget, let them provide their own counsel, space and and secretary. How much it amounts to is beside the point, taxpayers shouldn't be supporting positions for the most powerful lobby in the state. The representative doesn't even have to be a teacher on staff.
Why would the district need to hire another superintendent for personnel, they already have more than enough administration.
As mentioned on other threads, seethroughny is see-through because it's full of holes. It's not all that accurate.
Nonsense - I have asked my sister (Nassau teacher), SIL (Nassau teacher), BIL (NC officer) and FIL (retired city teacher) to verify the data. Everyone of them has said it is accurate over the multiple years reported.
The point is that the unions can well afford their own representation, the school district should not be paying. The teachers union has a huge budget, let them provide their own counsel, space and and secretary. How much it amounts to is beside the point, taxpayers shouldn't be supporting positions for the most powerful lobby in the state. The representative doesn't even have to be a teacher on staff.
Why would the district need to hire another superintendent for personnel, they already have more than enough administration.
So you're saying the district shouldn't pay a union person to assist in staffing, but they also shouldn't hire anyone in the district to pick up the slack that the union does? Sorry that just sounds like you're being cheap.
The moral of the story is the school districts, the board, and the union need to make consenting agreements on hiring and HR issues. Why should the union have to pay to do the job it functions for?!
Frankly, school districts manage with terribly small HR because of the work of the unions.
There are generally no more than 2 school district staff involved in HR in any 5-6 building school district. That's pretty small for a 200+ employee, 200+ retiree operation.
Like most people on here you are just acting petty- and want the school districts to operate on less, with the same results. Don't count on it.
Unions want to make more, and often with more employees to divide the work. Somewhere along the lines there is a happy medium.
So you're saying the district shouldn't pay a union person to assist in staffing, but they also shouldn't hire anyone in the district to pick up the slack that the union does? Sorry that just sounds like you're being cheap.
The moral of the story is the school districts, the board, and the union need to make consenting agreements on hiring and HR issues. Why should the union have to pay to do the job it functions for?!
Frankly, school districts manage with terribly small HR because of the work of the unions.
There are generally no more than 2 school district staff involved in HR in any 5-6 building school district. That's pretty small for a 200+ employee, 200+ retiree operation.
Like most people on here you are just acting petty- and want the school districts to operate on less, with the same results. Don't count on it.
Unions want to make more, and often with more employees to divide the work. Somewhere along the lines there is a happy medium.
No that is notwhat I am saying, they can hire someone from the outside to perform the function if it's such a necessity rather than pulling a teacher from the classroom. You are confusing common sense with petty, the problem is the things like this have become acceptable in school districts. I have little faith that taxpayers are getting their worth.
This is different but it reminds me of when the school districts put outside legal counsel on the payrolls as state employees. The problem is that districts are so far gone with their management they think this is acceptable. When the teachers union says they are helping the taxpayer by adding positions, I worry.
Nonsense - I have asked my sister (Nassau teacher), SIL (Nassau teacher), BIL (NC officer) and FIL (retired city teacher) to verify the data. Everyone of them has said it is accurate over the multiple years reported.
And the people I've asked have said their incomes as reported were wrong. Some were only wrong by a few grand, but wrong is wrong. I also know an incorrectly reported pension. At any rate, because of that, I don't trust it.
seethroughny.net aggregates data submitted. It does not compile the data. It RECEIVES its data from each agency, who are supposed to report their data accurately. If anecdotal "evidence" is so important when it comes to seethroughny.net (yet, curiously, rejected on here when it comes to other subjects), we should be blaming the individual agencies who submit incorrect information for either being incompetent or deliberately deceptive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
