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 never wanted to be in a union. If I were a mediocre worker or had a poor education, yes, I would jump at the chance because I would need one.
I make a distinction between 2 types of unions: private industry and public sector.
I don't care what goes on in private industry. That is between the private employer and the union. Bottom line is, company has to make money for the union to get their perks. It's based in REALITY.
Public sector unions should be illegal. There is no accountability. There is no basis in REALITY for what they do. Then the bill, no matter how high or unrealistic, is forced upon the captive taxpaying public.
Wow for someone that went to a top 5 % college has a great job and married to a Dr. you sure do complain a lot
100K isn't what it use to be especially living on the Island
It sure isn't. Especially not for those who have bought their houses in recent years without handouts from family or via inheriting their parents' houses or by using equity acquired from previous homes.
Once again, if you people want to make the argument that the benefits need to be scaled back, fine. But 100k is not a high salary on Long Island anymore.
I don't know if this has been covered on this thread yet because I haven't read all 30 pages of it, but...
My husband's company is having a layoff at the end of this month, October 2012. Twenty percent will be leaving - that's roughly between 40 and 50 employees let go. Luckily for us my husband has found a parachute with another company if he's laid off, but the same job as he's doing now will be accompanied by a 33% pay cut.
A husband of a friend of mine who's been laid off since June of 2008 has turned up two short-term jobs both at a 50% pay cut from the job he lost, which he held for about 23 years.
Point is, the salaries for private sector jobs have decreased dramatically. Our taxes, real estate and otherwise, keep increasing. No teacher or cop or administrator that I know of would ever dream of taking anywhere from a 33 to 50 percent pay cut.
So, with salaries falling so sharply, where do the teacher unions think their over-bloated paycheck and over-bloated pension money is going to come from? Do the rest of us lose our houses, go hungry, live with no utilities, and walk to work just so we can hand over whatever money we have through the real estate tax portion to the union?
And please keep in mind these teachers all work a part time job. 20 hours a week for 37 weeks a year they spend in the classroom teaching (good, bad, or otherwise), plus one hour for lunch, plus one hour for "planning" where they change the dates on their old lesson plans. Nowhere near a full-time job.
The day is coming when some teacher drives up to my house and demands that we write them a personal check for $10,000. Might as well be now, because that's what we're paying in real estate taxes for the teachers' salaries and pensions.
You're just a cop & teacher hater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdlugozi
It sure isn't. Not for those who have bought their houses in recent years without handouts from family or via inheriting their parents' houses or with having equity from previous homes.
Once again, if you people want to make the argument that the benefits need to be scaled back, fine. But 100k is not a high salary on Long Island anymore.
$100k+, plus all the benefits.. You're talking $140k to $200k per public employee. That's 40%-100% over-and-above what the median HOUSEHOLD makes. it IS a lot of money when you factor in benefits, and for what are essentially part-time jobs. Get it?? Do you really think people are that shortsighted and don't see the big picture?
I do get it. Apparently you did not read my post that you quoted. I was talking salaries only and stated quite clearly that benefits are a different story.
I do get it. Apparently you did not read my post that you quoted. I was talking salaries only and stated quite clearly that benefits are a different story.
It's all the same, isn't it? Total compensation. What point are you trying to make then, that the salaries don't cost any money?...that we should be focusing on the salaries only and ignore the benefits? Or ignore the salaries and focus on the benefits? I don't get it.
I would also like to know where 20 hrs a week came from. Eliminating lunch and prep periods from hours worked isn't exactly fair. I work in private industry. I take lunch. For me and most working people, it is not 40 hrs plus lunch. And part of my time is treating patients and part of it is doing paperwork that is necessary or else medicare will not reimburse the facility for my treatments. That is basically my prep period. And writing up my evaluations and developing the treatment plan is like my lesson planning. None of you do paperwork for your jobs? I do and it is part of what I am paid to do. I am not going to fault a teacher for getting paid for lesson planning. That is part of their job. So only their classroom time counts as working then? Are you accounting for teachers who do grading at home, after school hours? As for lesson planning simply being changing dates on old lessons, that is an unfair generalization and perception that you have. I have 5 kids in school and have done a lot of reading on the new common core standards. With NYS requirements changing all the time, this means that teachers have all HAD to redo their lesson plans to meet the new requirements, and will continue to change things as the requirements continue to change.
Also, as for working 10 months a year, how many of yindustry+ weeks vacation in private industry? Many of you do! And many of you also get holidays off, so stop being all high and mighty.
Listen...I am all for cutting out of control benefits. And I am just as pissed as everyone that my taxes are going up by 700 bucks next year. I feel choked by the expense of living here. But to say all teachers are working barely part time hours and just change dates on lessons....come on, that is really a bit much. I am more pissed that my taxes are paying for my neighbor's tax grievance and that there is no rhyme or reason as to how the tax burden is distributed. If the school budget were to drop by 10 percent but there was continued commercial tax relief and successful grievances and no new industry, my taxes would still go up.
It's all the same, isn't it? Total compensation. What point are you trying to make then, that the salaries don't cost any money?...that we should be focusing on the salaries only and ignore the benefits? Or ignore the salaries and focus on the benefits? I don't get it.
I am saying that the pensions, etc are out of control and unsustainable and are a bigger issue than the salaries. This thread should be Teachers Pensions, not Teachers Salaries. I also think Administrative costs and wasteful administrative spending is overlooked. I also think that some districts have taken salary freezes and others have not. I don't think that not taking a freeze should be a choice in this economy.
But sorry, I maintain that 100k is not a high LI salary. And I will not go so far as some here have, calling all teachers lazy and entitled people who barely work. That is just ridiculous to make a blanket statement like that.
True, but to answer your own question, that "magical cut" translates to a potential 5% savings. That's not chicken feed. Of course you're right it's magical or in fact a pipe dream but the "attitude" could produce benefits for the taxpayer. Teachers in my district have NOT taken any freezes and are still getting 7% raises (3.5 step, 3.5 union). No additional buy in to medical. So, reform pension, reduce pay 1% (or not), increase medical contribution and at least you have a semblance of TRYING for fiscal sanity. Just saying "cut a magical $10k" (and I'm not blaming you) is the kind of hyperbole the union lawyers AND the districts rely on to avoid making any reforms. How about "cut 1% per year for 3 years, pay 20% into medical (Empire Plan is the best out there and still a bargain and a half at 20%) and pay into the pension system for 25 years." I also propose "all savings will be split 50/50 between the taxpayers and student programs!"
Point me to the negotiating table, I'm ready to crash the party!!!
WOW. 14% raises over the last two year for every teacher?! And 0% (!!) medical contribution, I can only imagine the administrative compensation situation! Time to run for your board, ditch your superintendent, give firm directions to your school lawyer (contract negotiator) and get your contracts out of the 1990's!!
It sure isn't. Especially not for those who have bought their houses in recent years without handouts from family or via inheriting their parents' houses or by using equity acquired from previous homes.
Once again, if you people want to make the argument that the benefits need to be scaled back, fine. But 100k is not a high salary on Long Island anymore.
Once again....IT IS FOR A KINDERGARDEN TEACHER who works 10mos, has lifetime tenure and a guaranteed pension and medical for life.
Once more...reality check folks!! Put on your real world caps. This is a sick rate of pay. Bless those getting it. Curses to them what pay for it!
WOW. 14% raises over the last two year for every teacher?! And 0% (!!) medical contribution, I can only imagine the administrative compensation situation! Time to run for your board, ditch your superintendent, give firm directions to your school lawyer (contract negotiator) and get your contracts out of the 1990's!!
To be fair 3.5 + 3.5 is 7% not 14% but I like your attitude! lol
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.
What point are you trying to make then, that the salaries don't cost any money?...that we should be focusing on the salaries only and ignore the benefits? Or ignore the salaries and focus on the benefits? I don't get it.
