Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• FatHobbit

  

  ernest_t_bass;681696 wrote:Here is my #1 worry. We just closed on a new house... before this hit. Given my current budget, we can afford it. If I see a $300 decrease in my pay, per pay, I will almost immediately lose it. I didn't see any of this coming. Part (hell, maybe most) of the blame is on me for not paying attention and not doing research. But can't some of you even sympathize the slightest with an example like this?

  
  I can definitely sympathize with you. I bought a new house in Dec 2008 and then I found out that we were getting a 10% paycut in Feb 2010. My budget was already stretched to the max with the new house and I had to cut back big time. I'm not saying suck it up, because I know how bad it sucks. Luckily for me we got 5% late last year and I temporarily stopped my 401k contribution to make up the rest but we're still not getting any raises and I have no idea how long that will last.
• Con_Alma

  Gblock;681716 wrote:I think that many many teachers have the abilty to be lawyers, doctors, scientists or engineers....but they chose to be teachers because they like working with children and like to coach etc... and could expect that while they might never make the money of those other fields there were still some perks assiciated with the job and they would be taken care of. i fall into this category.

  
  Nothing I have posted would dispute this at all. The ability to function as a scientist or doctor does not change the content of my posts....nor did I ever inject the amount of money of the respective fields or even the potential amount of money one could make.
  
  Money is not the key ingredient to the ultimate success or efficiency of a formalized education program. If the best and brightest "like working with kids" and want to "coach" it changes nothing and I hope those folks have a fulfilling and wonderful career.
• Gblock

  Con_Alma;681719 wrote:Nothing I have posted would dispute this at all. The ability to function as a scientist or doctor does not change the content of my posts.

  
  right but dont you think if the pay and benefits are lowered this pool of people will shrink and they may choose another field?
• FatHobbit

  

  Gblock;681724 wrote:right but dont you think if the pay and benefits are lowered this pool of people will shrink and they may choose another field?

  
  If there is a shortage of people in the field, don't you think the pay would increase and that would attract more people?
• Con_Alma

  Gblock;681724 wrote:right but dont you think if the pay and benefits are lowered this pool of people will shrink and they may choose another field?

  
  Yes and it won't change a thing.
• Con_Alma

  FatHobbit;681725 wrote:If there is a shortage of people in the field, don't you think the pay would increase and that would attract more people?

  
  Yes and it won't change a thing.
• tsst_fballfan

  

  ernest_t_bass;681715 wrote:What does this smart alec comment prove? Yeah, I'm sure you own house. I gave you a personal example of why this bill scares the beejeezus out of me. You don't need to be condescending.

  
  Not intended to be smart alec or condescending. Simply stating that many of us already have those very concerns on a daily basis.
• Gblock

  Con_Alma;681733 wrote:Yes and it won't change a thing.

  
  I fail to see how lowering the pay and benefits of any job private or public would result in no changes but ok
• tsst_fballfan

  

  Gblock;681707 wrote:i think that the best and the brightest won't become teachers because the job becomes less attractive.
  
  further those who would be in control may be more concerned about the bottom line than the best interests of the students

  When the economy is down what would look more attractive? Unemployment? I doubt that someone that really wants to be a teacher would not become one simply because the union didn't exist. I also doubt that when the strong-arm tactics employed by the unions cease to exist that boards will fire all higher paid teachers, eliminate pensions and insurance and otherwise destroy the district. Most boards are community members with kids in the district elected by the taxpayers whom also have kids in the district. To assume that a board will hack up the district for no reason seems ludicrous to me. :shrugs:
• Con_Alma

  Gblock;681736 wrote:I fail to see how lowering the pay and benefits of any job private or public would result in no changes but ok

  
  I appreciate you acknowledging that you don't understand that. I truly do.
• Gblock

  tsst_fballfan;681737 wrote:When the economy is down what would look more attractive? Unemployment? I doubt that someone that really wants to be a teacher would not become one simply because the union didn't exist. I also doubt that when the strong-arm tactics employed by the unions cease to exist that boards will fire all higher paid teachers, eliminate pensions and insurance and otherwise destroy the district. Most boards are community members with kids in the district elected by the taxpayers whom also have kids in the district. To assume that a board will hack up the district for no reason seems ludicrous to me. :shrugs:

  
  there will always be plenty of people who really want to be teachers...i was speaking more of those who may be borderline and have the talent and ability to do other things..... the other parts of your posts show extreme ends of the spectrum. im not saying boards will do those but the quality will go down if they are in control. they simply arent qualified. heck some of them are farmers (no disrespect to the intelligence of farmers)i respect your opinion but i work in the industry and feel qualified to make that statement
• Con_Alma

  tsst_fballfan;681737 wrote:... To assume that a board will hack up the district for no reason seems ludicrous to me. :shrugs:

  I think that's silly assumption as well. The level of service above the State required minimums a community wants from it's public education system is completely controllable by those who vote and the board members who implement decisions.
• O-Trap

  

  Gblock;681629 wrote:This bill will weaken education and your children will not recieve the same level of education.

  How will it "weaken" it?
  
  And the level of education the kids receive now is inadequate, whether you're comparing to other nations' public schools or even our own private schools.
  

  Gblock;681629 wrote:I dont think anyone can disagree with that.

  Actually, we can. Private schools, which have no unions, often teach at a MUCH higher level. When I came out of private school, the first two years of public school were basically a recap of what I'd already learned a grade or two earlier in private school.
  

  Gblock;681629 wrote:While some places have board of ed's who will make solid decisions and keep class sizes down and advocate for children. You may even get rid of some poor teachers but overall putting too much power in the hands of local boards will create situations where money/cost will be the deciding factor in their decisions.

  If boards of education do this, and the education suffers, it will be reflected to the rest of the community, and the BoE won't last long before it is replaced. Thus, the board has an incentive, as well, to maximize the education of the students.
  

  Gblock;681629 wrote:I know for a a fact the school board in my hometown is not equipped to make the type of decsions that this bill would give them the power to do. this bill would allow schools to go back to 36 kids in a class...you could see schools cut out art, gym and music....while the union protects it s workers it also advocates for your children and holding the district accountable for the quality of your child's education.

  Then it's dropping the ball faster than the average test score. In many places a "public school education" is damn near a paradox, so the unions are doing exactly dick about holding the district accountable for the quality of anything but their own job security.
  

  Gblock;681629 wrote:Do you really want to save money by reducing the quality of your childrens education?

  Hell, if I pay the same amount of taxes toward education as I do right now, but the teachers don't have unions protecting them from the ramifications of poor performance, I'll be a happy man.
  
  I'm not kidding. If I save $0, but teachers' pay and job security is tied closely to their performance as a teacher, I'll be thrilled.
  

  Gblock;681629 wrote:You also will see a decline in the number of quality applicants who want to be teachers because it just won't be as attractive of a job.

  On the contrary. Since GOOD teachers will still have the potential to make a GOOD living, they'd have plenty of reason to seek such a job.
  
  Who WOULD we lose? The mediocre and below, who are relying on Unions to keep them employed long enough for their tenure to dictate a high paying position.
  

  Gblock;681629 wrote:Besides the fact that you could more easily fire poor teachers or it being cheaper how will this bill improve your child's education?

  It will tie teachers' INDIVIDUAL performances into their pay, meaning nobody can ride anyone else's coat tails. It will allow better teachers to make more money, thus incentivising teachers to never rest on their laurels.
  
  If you don't accept the logical explanation, just look at the evidence. Check the test scores between schools with union presence and schools with no union presence.
  
  That's how.
  

  Gblock;681659 wrote:btw i am applying for my principal's liscense this summer and taking the praxis, so in the next two years or by the time this bill is in effect i wont be in the union anymore anyway.

  That's all fine and good. You seem like a competent person, so I have no doubt you can and will succeed without needing to ride anyone's coat tails.
  

  CenterBHSFan;681670 wrote:My post wasn't just about teachers, it was about public unions in general.
  
  But if you want me to take up your point of view: wouldn't having to teach 36/classroom restrict your abilities?

  Yep, which would reflect poorly on the school board, which means fewer teachers would apply at their school, which means they'd have to be less choosy, which means they'd have to settle for a lower level of education, which would reflect poorly on them additionally, which would result in them losing their positions on the board.
  
  Which means it would NOT be in the board's interest to put 36 kids in a room with a teacher if they can help it.
  
  I think it's hilarious that anyone thinks this would happen. Private companies don't treat their employees that way. They know that, in the long run, it's bad for the company. As such, non-union companies are not oppressed, overwhelmed, neglected, or denied adequate compensation by their officers. It's actually the opposite, as competitive companies want the best employees, so they offer as good a package as they can.
  

  CenterBHSFan;681670 wrote:Why would that automatically happen, anyway? Have all districts stated that that would happen if this bill passes?

  It wouldn't. Even in a school-to-school basis, it doesn't happen without Unions.
  

  CenterBHSFan;681670 wrote:Insurance going up and pensions going down are happening to alot of people, not just public union people.

  Exactly. No special treatment. That's all I'm asking.
  

  CenterBHSFan;681670 wrote:What does it have to do about confidence? Everything. Union people absolutely do not think they can speak or manage themselves without unions. We've read that in these sorts of threads a hundred times. I'm not referring to your work abilities as much as I'm talking about your own personal negotiating and managing abilities.

  Exactly. If you know you're competent, and you know how to communicate that, you have nothing to worry about.
• Gblock

  Con_Alma;681742 wrote:I think that's silly assumption as well. The level of service above the State required minimums a community wants from it's public education system is completely controllable by those who vote and the board members who implement decisions.

  
  you ever been to guernsey county?
• Gblock

  Con_Alma;681740 wrote:I appreciate you acknowledging that you don't understand that. I truly do.

  
  if anything as Fat hobbit pointed out it could lead to a shortage and then an increase in pay benefits to attract more teachers, but to say that NO CHANGE would occur shows the lack of understanding.
• Con_Alma

  Con_Almaa wrote:I think that's silly assumption as well. The level of service above the State required minimums a community wants from it's public education system is completely controllable by those who vote and the board members who implement decisions.

  Gblock;681745 wrote:you ever been to guernsey county?

  
  Not that I remember. Are you suggesting that the level of education above the State minimus are not controlled by those who vote and the board members who implement those decisions?
• Gblock

  Con_Alma;681753 wrote:Not that I remember. Are you suggesting that the level of education above the State minimus are not controlled by those who vote and the board members who implement those decisions?

  
  im suggesting that in certain areas the level of education of the communities and those who may run for school board may not be at a level to make the right decisions. Everyone doesnt have the same expectations or put the same amount of importance on education as you or i may do. also where im from the board of ed is a cluster ##ck and a soap opera of people who although they are popular in the town have no business making decisions that effect students. and there is no union where im from.
  
  O trap are you really comparing private school students to public school students? also most private schools excluding the religious ones pay more than public schools and have benefit packages that are also better. Im sure they do attract great teachers. these teachers also can teach great lessons because they have students who are well prepared by their PARENTS and who were raised by parents who probably went to college and place high value on education.
• tsst_fballfan

  

  Gblock;681741 wrote:there will always be plenty of people who really want to be teachers...i was speaking more of those who may be borderline and have the talent and ability to do other things..... the other parts of your posts show extreme ends of the spectrum. im not saying boards will do those but the quality will go down if they are in control. they simply arent qualified. heck some of them are farmers (no disrespect to the intelligence of farmers)i respect your opinion but i work in the industry and feel qualified to make that statement

  I have regularly attended board meetings for the last 20 years and see the decisions being made. My neighbor is also a board member that ran for one simple reason, the kids. More specifically because his grand kids are in the district. We will have to differ on the need to be in the industry to understand the economics of it. I don't believe one needs to sit in an elementary class to comprehend that teachers are doing more with less. I applaud them for it. On the other hand I can't fathom how someone teaching math fails in the logic that when tax revenue decreases expenses MUST follow.
  
  edit: the last statement was in general and not directed at you personally Gblock.
• O-Trap

  

  Gblock;681761 wrote:O trap are you really comparing private school students to public school students? also most private schools excluding the religious ones pay more than public schools and have benefit packages that are also better. Im sure they do attract great teachers. these teachers also can teach great lessons because they have students who are well prepared by their PARENTS and who were raised by parents who probably went to college and place high value on education.

  Not as much the students as I am the teachers and the structure. Private schools operate on a business model. They have to. Yet, you don't see teachers' jobs and compensations anywhere near the "gloom and doom" that the most ardent Union supporters typically depict in their propaganda. The "gloom and doom" model doesn't work for ANY organization that pays, promotes, and hires/fires based on competence and effort.
• Con_Alma

  Gblock;681761 wrote:im suggesting that in certain areas the level of education of the communities and those who may run for school board may not be at a level to make the right decisions. Everyone doesnt have the same expectations or put the same amount of importance on education as you or i may do. also where im from the board of ed is a cluster ##ck and a soap opera of people who although they are popular in the town have no business making decisions that effect students. and there is no union where im from.
  
  ...

  I have never suggested this was not nor will not be the case. Do the people not have the right to control their local school districts in your eyes? Are you suggesting that these people should have outsiders come in that are at " the level to make the "right" decisions" come in and take over?
• Gblock

  O-Trap;681767 wrote:Not as much the students as I am the teachers and the structure. Private schools operate on a business model. They have to. Yet, you don't see teachers' jobs and compensations anywhere near the "gloom and doom" that the most ardent Union supporters typically depict in their propaganda. The "gloom and doom" model doesn't work for ANY organization that pays, promotes, and hires/fires based on competence and effort.

  
  that model does work well because it is a business and can pick and choose its students and teachers for 1 school or a small number of schools. i think we could learn a lot from how they do things. in fact we take trips all around the country and visit successful schools all the time. our district has 53000 students and we dont get to pick. we have 24 middle schools alone. Some of our issues are much more severe than theirs.
  
  many changes do need to be made in schools. i could go on all day on things that need to be changed. but im not going to say that i need to give up the right to collective bargain to do it... as i said before most teachers would support merit pay. it really is a win win situation. and actually could cost districts more. if the first year teacher goes from making 33,000 to making 65,000 it really isnt going to help you save any money. the number of teachers is based on the number of students. districts save a lot of money by keeping a high number of young teachers. You are assuming there will be a lot of teachers who will see their pay decrease or who will be fired. im not sure i concur. it honestly is not as hard as you think to get a teacher fired. you just have to be willing to do it. but i guess that if a lot of teachers get paid well by hitting incentives then the community also wins because it means the students are successful and that is a mutual goal of teachers
• Gblock

  Con_Alma;681770 wrote:I have never suggested this was not nor will not be the case. Do the people not have the right to control their local school districts in your eyes? Are you suggesting that these people should have outsiders come in that are at " the level to make the "right" decisions" come in and take over?

  
  happened in cleveland
• Gblock

  tsst_fballfan;681766 wrote:I have regularly attended board meetings for the last 20 years and see the decisions being made. My neighbor is also a board member that ran for one simple reason, the kids. More specifically because his grand kids are in the district. We will have to differ on the need to be in the industry to understand the economics of it. I don't believe one needs to sit in an elementary class to comprehend that teachers are doing more with less. I applaud them for it. On the other hand I can't fathom how someone teaching math fails in the logic that when tax revenue decreases expenses MUST follow.
  
  edit: the last statement was in general and not directed at you personally Gblock.

  its ok i actually agree with that but why do i have to give up collective bargaining to do that is all im saying.
• Con_Alma

  Gblock;681780 wrote:happened in cleveland

  
  That doesn't answer my question at all.
  
  I believe people have the right to determine what level above the minimum State requirements the wish to operate their local schools system. I never suggested that the controlling ability has never been taken a away. I asked if you believe that outsiders should come into Guernsey County and take away the ability to run their schools because you don't think they have such ability?
• Gblock

  Con_Alma;681788 wrote:That doesn't answer my question at all.
  
  I believe people have the right to determine what level above the minimum State requirements the wish to operate their local schools system. I never suggested that the controlling ability has never been taken a away. I asked if you believe that outsiders should come into Guernsey County and take away the ability to run their schools because you don't think they have such ability?

  only if they demonstrated a lack of competence or made decisions that denied students their guranteed rights to an equal education such as cutting out ap classes(maybe a bad example but all i could think of at the moment)