Who Worry about Their Pensions? Not High School Teachers. (dump, retiree, salary)
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.
Why attack teachers? The individuals we entrust the care and education of our children to. Low lifes do that. Teacher salaries and benefits are typically subject to collective bargaining. It's a two way street. Both sides agree. Jealous people shouldn't whine about teachers. They should be thanked for their work on our behalf. And, no, I'm not a teacher.
Oh.My.God. Another one who does not look before s/he leaps.
Would you please read the entire thread before posting your comment? There are only 79 posts before yours, it should not take that long.
I do not care to repeat myself over and over again to some Johnny/Jill-Come-Lately who would rather jump in with his/her two cents than learning first what the WHOLE conversation was about.
PS: Does calling a complete stranger a low life without one iota of evidence to back up the insult make you feel superior about yourself?
Last edited by Ol' Wanderer; 12-27-2011 at 10:27 PM..
Why attack teachers? The individuals we entrust the care and education of our children to. Low lifes do that. Teacher salaries and benefits are typically subject to collective bargaining. It's a two way street. Both sides agree. Jealous people shouldn't whine about teachers. They should be thanked for their work on our behalf. And, no, I'm not a teacher.
The only way that collective bargaining is a 2 way street is that the politicians/public officials pander for the vote, and the union gives them the vote in exchange for pay and benefits; There is no one there to protect the taxpayer. This applies to most public employees, except for .fderal employees who do not have collecive bargaining, nor is it needed.
There is a very important reason why the public sector especially teachers have benefits the private sector is moving away from and that is employee retention. Basically an employer has to make a decision and that is to opt for employee retention long term and avoiding the costs of repeatedly training new employees if the occupation requires or to avoid benefits and pay the costs of training new employees. Parents and communities value long term committments on the part of their teachers and benefits become the vehicle for doing that. Schools and school district with high retention rates hold that as a badge of honor and those with low retention rates are frowned upon. Perhaps the most salient question about public sector benefits is whether they should be applicable to all employees and at the same rate of benefits. The least skilled employee usually gets the same health care coverage as the most skilled in demand employee. What would public sector employment be out without collective bargaining if employees negotiated their contracts individually? Unions provide a working environment for public employers trying to navigate the world of government employment rules and regulations. Much of the money saved in benefits would go for increased recruitment and staff training needs. Some private sector employees value turnover in many positions and the ability to start over again with a younger less expensive employee. How many 1-3 year experienced teachers does a parent want for their child?
Indeed, private sector isn't much concerned about retention of the ordinary worker anymore. Get rid of 'em and hire people for half the cost of the more experienced worker. And they won't train anymore, either. Experience is only valued if they aren't paying for it via training and longevity. You're expected to walk in the door with exactly what they need. That greed is what has pitted private v. public these days, and it is wrong.
There is a very important reason why the public sector especially teachers have benefits the private sector is moving away from and that is employee retention. Basically an employer has to make a decision and that is to opt for employee retention long term and avoiding the costs of repeatedly training new employees if the occupation requires or to avoid benefits and pay the costs of training new employees. Parents and communities value long term committments on the part of their teachers and benefits become the vehicle for doing that. Schools and school district with high retention rates hold that as a badge of honor and those with low retention rates are frowned upon. Perhaps the most salient question about public sector benefits is whether they should be applicable to all employees and at the same rate of benefits. The least skilled employee usually gets the same health care coverage as the most skilled in demand employee. What would public sector employment be out without collective bargaining if employees negotiated their contracts individually? Unions provide a working environment for public employers trying to navigate the world of government employment rules and regulations. Much of the money saved in benefits would go for increased recruitment and staff training needs. Some private sector employees value turnover in many positions and the ability to start over again with a younger less expensive employee. How many 1-3 year experienced teachers does a parent want for their child?
But the downside of this is public employees, and that includes teachers, allows incometent people to stay in their jobs year after year when they aren't performing as they should.
I would bet that everyone has had teachers like this who couldn't last in the private sector as competent workers but in the public sector had their jobs protected no matter how poorly they performed.
One more "not meant to be a factual statement" from the GOP
Well that article was useless; don't you just love it when someone puts general statements in print knocking someones position, but doesn't offer any facts.
Well that article was useless; don't you just love it when someone puts general statements in print knocking someones position, but doesn't offer any facts.
If a teacher used everyone of their sick days I suspect the amount of payout after 35 years would be one heck a lot higher than $7,500. Food for thought. Teachers as ten month employees don't get vacation days so during the school year they need some type of day to use for being sick or family emergencies aka sick kids.
Well that article was useless; don't you just love it when someone puts general statements in print knocking someones position, but doesn't offer any facts.
Did you read the entire article or just down to the first block of ads? It goes on for three pages.
I found one of my state and clicked on each individual Municipaity. Geez my County is very expensive. Not all teachers make $50k some do some make less and some make more.
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.
