Wisconsin teachers vs NJ Teachers (Newark: budget, suburbs, health)

[bradykp]

Originally Posted by Ann77

Because they would have to still pay 85% of the dues by law, even if they decide not to join the union. By law. That's the problem. The laws have to be changed. They should have a right to opt out, but as of right now in NJ they can't, or rather they can, but they still have to pay 85% of the dues. That's a bad deal.

I agree they can still do what they want as far as general voting, etc. but I don't find irrational for a worker to go along with the union in their day-to-day life. The local union can make your life hell if you don't go along with them or if you dare to speak up. Or all of a sudden you've got the cruddiest assignment in the whole district. That kind of thing.

Steven Raucci: Schenectady’s Satanic Maintenance Man « Rumors on the Internets

so don't speak up. but then you're part of the problem, in my opinion. look at what it allowed in the above article. all because people didn't want to be the "troublemaker".

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by bradykp

i no it's difficult, but then to me, just admit that you aren't really all that anti-union, because you're participating in it, whether you want to admit it or not.

go teach for a private school. lots of options if you're a good teacher. don't participate in the problem, be part of the solution.

yeah, the younger ones probably become more positive about the union when they have more experience and tenure and dont have to worry about losing their jobs or benefits. but it seems like some of them are seeing now that those benefits may not be there for them when they retire anyway. everyone is for getting themselves the best deal. you cant blame the teachers or unions so much as the people reprenting the taxpayers who arent living up to their fiduciary responsibilites to us. thats why its more fair to have unions in a private sector situation than public. the private sector isnt going to give everything away to the unions because they know they will go out of business if they did. its also why unions are only really prospering in public sector (and public sector contractors).

[theoakman]

Originally Posted by bradykp

so you don't speak out against it because you want to keep your job? and they help keep your job by protecting you, as long as you don't speak out against them? start interviewing at private schools. sorry, i respect your thoughts and ideas, and i think you're right. but if you truly disagree with it, then stop participating in it.

They aren't helping me keep my job. In fact, they've created a situation where I or several other non-tenured teachers are guaranteed to lose our jobs. The fact is, 80% of us non-tenured teachers will still have a job next year. 20% of of us won't. If any of us make noise, we pretty much guarantee that we are part of the 20% that don't because we develop a reputation. Banding together with the other non-tenured teachers to make noise is a lost cause. I suggest you read what I wrote. I don't want any part of the teachers union. If you truly want to reign in the union, give me a way out and find a way to prevent them from garnishing my wages. That's the solution.

If I make noise, the only result is that I will be fired and the status quo continues. I'm not going to be a martyr for a lost cause. If we manage to prevent the union from legally garnishing our wages, the status quo changes and you can reign in the union. That's the real solution.

In short, we need to provide teachers with an escape path from the union where they do not run the risk of getting fired.

[bradykp]

Originally Posted by CaptainNJ

yeah, the younger ones probably become more positive about the union when they have more experience and tenure and dont have to worry about losing their jobs or benefits. but it seems like some of them are seeing now that those benefits may not be there for them when they retire anyway. everyone is for getting themselves the best deal. you cant blame the teachers or unions so much as the people reprenting the taxpayers who arent living up to their fiduciary responsibilites to us. thats why its more fair to have unions in a private sector situation than public. the private sector isnt going to give everything away to the unions because they know they will go out of business if they did. its also why unions are only really prospering in public sector (and public sector contractors).

i think taxpayers need to stop demanding more for less. either pay the taxes, or accept less and don't complain when you get it.
i think teachers need to recognize that the union isn't always doing what's best for them and speak up. stop being bullied into thinking you're the troublemaker if you stand up for what's right.

[bababua]

Originally Posted by shorebaby

Are you going to throw out meaningless excuses for teacher all night? I don't believe, as apparently you do, we should abandon our inner cities to the mediocrity enforced by the unions.

Its obvious you have never set foot in an inner city. I am the product of one. Its called Newark,NJ and the reason I turned out "ok" is because of my parents. The majority of my friends are in J A I L. Guess why, because they had parents that couldnt give two craps. I went to the same schools as them and I got out ok. You honestly wouldnt know anything about city problems if they hit you in the face. Come down to Newark with me and I will show you around and then I dare you to tell me its the unions fault.

[AnesthesiaMD]

Originally Posted by bradykp

i think taxpayers need to stop demanding more for less. either pay the taxes, or accept less and don't complain when you get it.
i think teachers need to recognize that the union isn't always doing what's best for them and speak up. stop being bullied into thinking you're the troublemaker if you stand up for what's right.

I'm not sure which people want more services. Maybe the ones who insist on home rule? Personally, I would be happy accepting less. Look at the front page of the Star Ledger today. 49% of my tax dollars are going to "school funding"...only a lot of it is going to schools in other places. So please, cut my taxes and give less services.

BTW, another 16% goes toward pension supplementation, and that is only going to get bigger. So 16% is going toward no services at all.

[bradykp]

Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD

I'm not sure which people want more services. Maybe the ones who insist on home rule? Personally, I would be happy accepting less. Look at the front page of the Star Ledger today. 49% of my tax dollars are going to "school funding"...only a lot of it is going to schools in other places. So please, cut my taxes and give less services.

BTW, another 16% goes toward pension supplementation, and that is only going to get bigger. So 16% is going toward no services at all.

even the people who say they want less services typically have a "except" in their following statement. i think you're not the norm. people call for cuts but then when you cut something in their district (i.e., mr boehner and the jet engine the pentagon says it doesn't need), they are all of a sudden not for "those cuts". it just annoys me. i think you'd be surprised if you met me in person, we probably have a lot more in common than appears on this forum.

[theoakman]

The suburbs have a reason to be angry. There are tons of school districts in this state who are almost funded entirely through local taxes. The reason their taxes are so high is because they are funding Abbot Districts and other less affluent towns as well. There are towns out there that run 50% of their school system off state aid. At this point, the suburban school districts are forced to make hard choices when a mere 5% of their funding was cut because a lot of them already have made the necessary cuts to bring costs down. Meanwhile, the lower income districts are using the suburban taxpayers dime to fund pre-K and they are busy spending over 20k per student from K-12. The allocation of funds in this state is going to bring the entire school system down in flames if it is not changed.

[shorebaby]

Originally Posted by bababua

Its obvious you have never set foot in an inner city. I am the product of one. Its called Newark,NJ and the reason I turned out "ok" is because of my parents. The majority of my friends are in J A I L. Guess why, because they had parents that couldnt give two craps. I went to the same schools as them and I got out ok. You honestly wouldnt know anything about city problems if they hit you in the face. Come down to Newark with me and I will show you around and then I dare you to tell me its the unions fault.

I know the teachers union use the inner cities a pawns. School choice would greatly enrich that population but it is a threat to the unions so they will not permit it.

[Ann77]

Originally Posted by theoakman

The suburbs have a reason to be angry. There are tons of school districts in this state who are almost funded entirely through local taxes. The reason their taxes are so high is because they are funding Abbot Districts and other less affluent towns as well. There are towns out there that run 50% of their school system off state aid. At this point, the suburban school districts are forced to make hard choices when a mere 5% of their funding was cut because a lot of them already have made the necessary cuts to bring costs down. Meanwhile, the lower income districts are using the suburban taxpayers dime to fund pre-K and they are busy spending over 20k per student from K-12. The allocation of funds in this state is going to bring the entire school system down in flames if it is not changed.

Great post.

They spend more and the results have not gotten any better.

Not sure on your 50% data though, sounds low. In Newark only 10% of funding is local, the rest is mostly state funding with a little bit of federal.

In some suburbs, state funding is basically down to zero now.