Why are PA taxpayers paying approx. $20,000,000 for "teachers" doing union work? (Philadelphia: school districts)

[thecoalman]

If we want to expand education spending this looks like a fine place to do it. The taxpayer should not be footing the bill for this, the union should be paying these salaries with union dues.

Group wants 'ghost teachers' barred - The Morning Call
The survey by the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, a self-described nonpartisan think tank based in Harrisburg, revealed 111 public school districts in Pennsylvania — about 22 percent — authorize "ghost teachers" in contracts, and up to 198 former district employees may work full time for the teachers' union while remaining on public payroll.

If you were to assume $100K (salary+benefits) that's almost 20 million per year.

Philly 'ghost teachers' making $1.5 million this year - Watchdog.org

According to public salary data available through Philadelphia city agencies, the school district is paying 16 ghost teachers $1.5 million this year. All of them are making at least $81,000.

PFT Vice President Arlene Kempin, who has been on release time since 1983, is among the highest paid at $108,062. Union head Jerry Jordan, who has also been on release time for more than 30 years, is earning $81,245, according to district payroll logs. The 16 ghost teachers on the books this year are making an average salary of almost $98,000.

How does someone collect a teaching salary for 30 years and never step into a classroom?

[Wells5]

The teachers unions are in control of the PA legislature.

[thecoalman]

There is a bill that the Senate should be voting on that is out of the Education committee,

Senate Committee Roll Call Votes - 2017 RCS# 91 - PA State Senate

Those voting no on saving PA taxpayers 20 million a year for teachers that are not teaching anyone:

BREWSTER
BROWNE
DINNIMAN
WILLIAMS

[BPP1999]

The Teamsters were doing a great job of ruining the PA Convention Center until they refused to sign new work rules. They are now locked out and the other unions (that agreed to sign the work order) are doing the work and convention bookings are way up.

These self-serving corrupt unions need to put in their place. Hopefully the issue in this post gets dealt with. I know that many a Republican politician in PA are in bed with unions and that's why there seems to be no real check on their behavior.

[BPP1999]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

There is a bill that the Senate should be voting on that is out of the Education committee,

Senate Committee Roll Call Votes - 2017 RCS# 91 - PA State Senate

Those voting no on saving PA taxpayers 20 million a year for teachers that are not teaching anyone:

BREWSTER
BROWNE
DINNIMAN
WILLIAMS

While I have applauded DINNIMAN in the past for supporting funding for important infrastructure improvements (such as the widening of US Route 202 in Chester County) he is a union schill. A few years ago, when they were trying pass liquor reform, I received a request to place a call to DINNIMAN's office. Of course no one answered (because he didn't want his staffers to field anti- PLCB calls) so I left a message. He is in bed with the teachers' union.

[Burger Fan]

This isn't as outrageous as it sounds.

The rank and file have a right to representation to resolve disputes, grievances, allegations of harassment, etc. The representation for this is coming FROM the rank and file membership. This is literally always how it works, because the rank and file must vote for their representatives from among themselves.

For large employee populations, or employee populations with a LOT of problems, this is going to eat up a massive amount of time for whoever the teachers elect as their representatives. It's more efficient to have a handful of people dedicated to this job round the clock that know what they're doing, than double or triple this number that are in and out of classrooms, impacting the quality of education to deal with union grievance issues.

"but the union should pay for these people!" you say. Ok- hypothetically lets say these representatives are now on the union payroll, instead of being government employees. You now have your employees being represented by, and having contracts negotated by people for whom those negotations have no impact. They'd be making bargaining decisions that don't affect them at all.

Do you see the problem with that?

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Burger Fan

This isn't as outrageous as it sounds.

The rank and file have a right to representation to resolve disputes, grievances, allegations of harassment, etc.

Sure they do, but they should pay for it.

The representation for this is coming FROM the rank and file membership. This is literally always how it works, because the rank and file must vote for their representatives from among themselves.

There is a guy in that one article that has not stepped into the classroom in 30 years.

"but the union should pay for these people!" you say. Ok- hypothetically lets say these representatives are now on the union payroll, instead of being government employees. You now have your employees being represented by, and having contracts negotated by people for whom those negotations have no impact. They'd be making bargaining decisions that don't affect them at all.

Do you see the problem with that?

I'm not sure what your point here is, if you hire someone to do a job and they are not doing the job you paid them to do you fire them. Are you concerned the negotiators might unionize making it difficult to fire them?