Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-27-2010, 06:09 AM
 
1,620 posts, read 3,777,855 times
Reputation: 1192

Advertisements

The fact that the youngest will get let go is the Union's fault and the tenure process. Also, the fact that people are getting laid off and not just have everyone get a pay cut again is the Union's fault. People that are laid off do NOT get to vote next year for the Union President and 100% of the voters are grateful that he/she saved their job. But if everyone gets a pay cut, the next year 100% are mad at the president.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2010, 06:21 AM
 
2,499 posts, read 2,628,670 times
Reputation: 1789
Tenure does not protect teachers from layoff based on finances. Tenured teachers can be laid off if their position is eliminated even when keeping a non-tenured teacher.

School A has 10 English teachers all with tenure and 10 Science teachers all without tenure. The school board determines that they will cut 5 English teachers and 2 Science teachers- the teachers that go are the 5 least senior English teachers and any 2 science teachers the board wants to let go. Tenure does not help the English teacher and seniority does not apply to the non-tenured science teachers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 02:38 PM
 
153 posts, read 488,964 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by bababua View Post
What then do you think would happen to urban cities? Just give me an idea what you think would happen?
Well, there'd probably be a lot of crime, drug dealing and high drop-out rates. Pretty much the same stuff that goes on now. After 30 years, billions of dollars spent, and the state bankrupt, none of it has made Newark, Camden or East Orange nice places to live or go to school.

The money is much better spent saving our middle class than making liberal politicians sleep better at night by pumping all of our money into the "chosen" 31 districts while working families in the 500+ other towns are being systematically forced out of the state due to property taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
2,771 posts, read 6,278,750 times
Reputation: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by bababua View Post
What then do you think would happen to urban cities? Just give me an idea what you think would happen?
You're sugegsting that if we didn't fund them at the current level, they would be completely abandoned. But that's not necessarily true. Newark for example has a substantial commercial tax base. They could fund their schools though at a reduced level.

What seems to have happened looking at some of these payrolls, is that there are an enormous number of people on the payroll who don't do any teaching. The payrolls would need to be trimmed substantially, and the schools would need to get back to the business of teaching.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 06:42 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
858 posts, read 2,994,546 times
Reputation: 708
Unless I missed something, Governor Christie's plan is not limited to teachers; He trying to manage an out of control of all NJ public workers. However, I do agree that teachers have come to the spotlight due to the union not wanting to negoiate.

I also agree if we are going to ask the average public worker to give a little, we need to Eliminate double dipping pensions, and Eliminate lucrative severance and retirement packages.

But we still need to adjust the current public employee benefits package which is placing a heavy burden on the state. The current approach is a band aid fix at best, and real changes are necessary to effect a sustainable program for the future

NJ needs to replace the current defined pension plan with a 401K type pension plan similar to the Federal Government, which all federal government employees are under to include police and fire? The federal government converted to a 401K pension plan in the early 1980’s, while NJ continues to march with a antiquated and unsustainable pension program. NJ Transit has a similar 401K pension plan, and the longer NJ waits to convert it’s employees to a 401K pension system, the longer NJ will continue to endure massive pension payouts.

New Jersey public employees and retirees continue to enjoy premier health benefit plans at a considerable burden to the taxpayers. They get Dental and Vision benefits at no extra cost, deductibles are a mere $10 or $15, and retirees contribute “0” towards their benefits. How many companies provide “Free” Benefits for life?

For example, for 2010, Federal Employees and Retirees who have Blue Cross Basic pay $54 per week towards their health benefit plan; Dental and Vision benefits are not included, but are available at extra cost. Additionally, the 2010 deductibles and copayments are:
Doctor visits: $35
Specialists visits: $45
Emergency room visit: $75
Prescriptions: $35 and $45
Hospital- In patient: $75 per day, up to $750 per each admission

NJ public employees do a great job overall, and there's no intent to start a war here, but the unions have negoiated a benefits package which is no longer sustainable, and the benefits package needs to come more in line with the general economy.

Last edited by marc515; 03-28-2010 at 07:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
2,771 posts, read 6,278,750 times
Reputation: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc515 View Post
NJ public employees do a great job overall, and there's no intent to start a war here, but the unions have negoiated a benefits package which is no longer sustainable, and the benefits package needs to come more in line with the general economy.
One thing I noticed about this is that in the original "88 ways I will fix NJ", Christie had this:

Project Vote Smart - Governor Christopher J. 'Chris' Christie - 88 Ways Chris Christie Will Fix New Jersey

I will increase fairness and reduce costs by bringing state public employee compensation and benefits back in line with employees who have defined contribution plans (such as federal government employees) by closing defined benefit plans for new employees, and replacing them with defined contribution plans.

But later, this was added, it wasn't there before. I see this as a total back pedal:

88 Ways Chris Christie Will Fix New Jersey (http://www.christiefornj.com/about/88-ways-chris-christie-will-fix-nj.html - broken link)

As the former top federal law enforcement official in New Jersey, I recognize the unique requirements and dangers that our police and fire employees face each day and I don’t support any measure to diminish their pension programs. I will not propose or accept any legislation that would seek to impose a new 401K type plan on our police and firefighters or teachers.

If he supports DB plans for police, firefighters and teachers, who does he not support them for ? With that one sentence, he went from promising a major overhaul to promising the status quo. What's sad about this, is that the general public have no idea of what the implications are here. The unions have been able to take advantage of the widespread ignorance of the costs of these promises to extract unsustainable deals. The public never hold whoever made those promises accountable, instead they tend to blame the guy who is in office several years later and has to make the choice between raising taxes and cutting benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 09:01 AM
 
1,931 posts, read 3,415,671 times
Reputation: 956
Quote:
Originally Posted by elflord1973 View Post
You're sugegsting that if we didn't fund them at the current level, they would be completely abandoned. But that's not necessarily true. Newark for example has a substantial commercial tax base. They could fund their schools though at a reduced level.

What seems to have happened looking at some of these payrolls, is that there are an enormous number of people on the payroll who don't do any teaching. The payrolls would need to be trimmed substantially, and the schools would need to get back to the business of teaching.

If we didnt fund the schools as we do right now those cities would be in 100% worse shape then they are right now. Let me just say I do agree education needs to look at itself and honestly make some cuts. The cuts I am talking about are exactly the ones elflord has mentioned. Upper administration is huge problem in terms of salaries. Not to mention do they really deal with children? That aside as it stands right now we still have some classroom overcrowding and cutting teachers would just make this worse. Lets not forget the cities normally have more teachers then suburbs because of the language problems and higher % of special education students. The problem is very very complex and not just as easy as cut cut cut. Some of you may say this but honestly you dont want the consequences that would result from directly cutting teachers or changing the funding formula.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 10:45 AM
 
27 posts, read 43,261 times
Reputation: 22
again, the NJEA doesn't negotiate individual district contracts! Not every district pays 0 into their health plans. Some pay as high as 4%, right inline with federal workers benefits. It averages out to 2400.00 a year.

Why should these districts reopen their contracts and rework their pensions due to years of political abuse those pension funds took. Bailing out the state politicians that throttled the pension funds? No way!. You can't not pay your bills month after month and then turn around to the company and say, your bills are unsustainable we need to rework out the lump sum that I owe. People like to talk about how the state put themselves at risk for % returns on these pensions. The state had mandatory minimums it had to contribute, they didn't. That's the problem not the estimated % returns.

Why should the NJEA ask each district to open up their contracts when they are right now getting mud flung at them and getting a lot of factless attacks on them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 11:35 AM
 
153 posts, read 488,964 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by MudShovel View Post
again, the NJEA doesn't negotiate individual district contracts!
That is very true. The local school boards should be ashamed for approving raise after raise in these contracts. The only problem is that many school boards are populated with dues-paying NJEA members themselves who live in one town and serve on the board while teaching in a neighboring town.

How it's legal for NJEA members to negotiate and vote on their union brothers' and sisters' contracts is beyond me. Absolutely NO NJEA member should be allowed to serve on a school board in this state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 11:41 AM
 
153 posts, read 488,964 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by bababua View Post
If we didnt fund the schools as we do right now those cities would be in 100% worse shape then they are right now.

Some of you may say this but honestly you dont want the consequences that would result from directly cutting teachers or changing the funding formula.
I disagree on both of these accounts. No other state in the union has school funding measures that give nearly ALL of the state's revenue to a few poor school districts. Not one. And all of these other states manage to get along just fine. Yes, the inner city schools are bad. Dropout rates are high, college attendance rates are low, drugs are everywhere the the school environments are chaos. But guess what - it's the same here! And we are driving middle class families out of every suburban town to pay for it while developers get rich off bogus school construction projects and political hacks are paid six-figure salaries for no-show jobs.

The "consequences" of changing the school funding formula to better equalize school aid would mean that middle class families could afford to live in this state again, suburban school districts wouldn't have to deal with ridiculous budget cuts and property taxes would be instantly slashed by 50 percent.

Sometimes you have to look at the situation and ask if propping up 31 failing school districts that WILL fail whether they get billions in state aid or not are worth denying thousands of middle class families a shot at the American dream in New Jersey. Is it worth driving out employers and all of the young people who have to move because they can't afford to live here? I say it isn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top