Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• Con_Alma

  ...and have they demonstrated a lack of competence? If they have why has this not already happened?
  
  The point is the people get to decide at what level they would like to have a system in place above the minimum State requirements. It's their choice.
• tsst_fballfan

  

  Gblock;681781 wrote:its ok i actually agree with that but why do i have to give up collective bargaining to do that is all im saying.

  You wouldn't if the unions and their members were willing to adjust to the revenue base the district has available. That would need to include short term as well as long term. Unsustainable contractual agreements that hamstring a district need to be more fluid. In my experience with unions they are usually not. Whether it be a short lull in tax revenue due to economic down turn or a long term issue due to population decreases. Cuts not shared by the unionized work force will probably impact kids directly. If the money is not there and the union will not move the cuts come from somewhere else.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  O-Trap;681743 wrote: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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  It wouldn't. Even in a school-to-school basis, it doesn't happen without Unions.
  
  
  
  Exactly. No special treatment. That's all I'm asking.
  
  
  
  Exactly. If you know you're competent, and you know how to communicate that, you have nothing to worry about.

  
  <Standing Ovation>
  
  As I said earlier: logic and reason are the worst enemies of union propaganda.
• tsst_fballfan

  

  I personally believe ALL unions both public and private should be TOTALLY voluntary. What I mean is no person or company or public institution should be required by law or by contract to deal with the union. For example if a teacher chooses not to join a union they should not be bound by the union contract. Nor should the district be bound to include that teachers position as a bargained for position. Make the Unions compete and I bet they are gone before long.
• Gblock

  tsst_fballfan;681850 wrote:I personally believe ALL unions both public and private should be TOTALLY voluntary. What I mean is no person or company or public institution should be required by law or by contract to deal with the union. For example if a teacher chooses not to join a union they should not be bound by the union contract. Nor should the district be bound to include that teachers position as a bargained for position. Make the Unions compete and I bet they are gone before long.

  i def agree with this when i first got hired i tried to not be in it because it was like 750 bucks a year but was told i didnt have to be in it but the price was still 750 bucks a year. now its like 1200 with part of it going to NEA, OEA, CEA. at least if they do get rid of unions i can get about 1200 extra bucks(well maybe less cause i think that is a pre-tax deduction before someone injects logic and reason into my post lol)
• QuakerOats

  Writerbuckeye;681847 wrote:<Standing Ovation>
  
  As I said earlier: logic and reason are the worst enemies of union propaganda.

  
  Mega - Ditto both posts !!! O-Trap / Writerbuckeye would make a great ticket.
• I Wear Pants

  Gblock;681676 wrote:not hostile at all i just think that to compare us to children scared to leave the house is demeaning and innacurrate. I dont think you fully understand the reasons that i dont agree with this bill. its has nothing to do with worry about losing my job or my pay. I would like to have the chance to earn more money based on merit...as far as class sizes in our district at one time it was 36...it was the union who got it reduced to 30. im quite sure it would go back up to 36 if the board had its way. I think the union understands where we are in this country and is willing to make concessions and work together with the taxpayers. we realize that unions must evolve. but im not going to give up my right s to collective bargain either and if you were in my shoes you wouldn't either probably. Do you think this bill will improve education? i honestly dont think it will. it will be cheaper and save money. I don't think it will automatically make things more efficient or more like a private sector business.

  I doubt it would go back up to 36 since that's not very effective and the school board's goal, believe it or not is to be an effective school.
• Con_Alma

  Gblock;681856 wrote:i def agree with this when i first got hired i tried to not be in it because it was like 750 bucks a year but was told i didnt have to be in it but the price was still 750 bucks a year. now its like 1200 with part of it going to NEA, OEA, CEA. at least if they do get rid of unions i can get about 1200 extra bucks(well maybe less cause i think that is a pre-tax deduction before someone injects logic and reason into my post lol)

  
  Do you or did you not believe there is at least $750 - $1,200 of value in having someone negotiate contracts on your behalf?
• QuakerOats

  from O-Trap: "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."
  
  EXACTLY. And moreover, these good educations come at a substantially LOWER cost than in public schools. And it is not because teachers are not paid a good wage; it is because CARING, and accountability and parental involvement are paramount. More money is not the answer at all.
• Gblock

  I Wear Pants;681859 wrote:I doubt it would go back up to 36 since that's not very effective and the school board's goal, believe it or not is to be an effective school.

  
  well as some have said its all about the budget depending on the size of the district moving the number from 30 to 36 could allow you to operate with less teachers. for every 5-6 classrooms you have you could eliminate one teacher. if you eliminate 15 teachers you probably save 1.5-2million (guess) dollars. in places where i have worked this was the first move made when budgets got tight.
• Con_Alma

  QuakerOats;681862 wrote:... it is because CARING, and accountability and parental involvement are paramount. More money is not the answer at all.

  
  Until this is fully understood and embraced as the pillar of education no amount of money or level of skilled persons will drastically change the outcome of our educational system.
• Con_Alma

  Gblock;681865 wrote:well as some have said its all about the budget depending on the size of the district moving the number from 30 to 36 could allow you to operate with less teachers. for every 5-6 classrooms you have you could eliminate one teacher. if you eliminate 15 teachers you probably save 1.5-2million (guess) dollars. in places where i have worked this was the first move made when budgets got tight.

  
  Is the reason that was the first move mad because all other expenses were fixed and the variable expenses able to be squeezed were employee costs?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Gblock;681781 wrote:its ok i actually agree with that but why do i have to give up collective bargaining to do that is all im saying.

  See, I think that was where you missed the goal of my post. You and others clearly do not think you will be able to bargain, manage, negotiate by your individual selves in your careers and for your best interest. I have the opposite view in that I absolutely think that you can. As I've said before, public unions are not the Borg. I'm thinking that each of you are (or should be) bright enough and competent enough to face your superiors and negotiate. I'm actually in the line of thought that alot of you could probably do a better job of managing your own independent selves 10x's better than some union rep EVER could.
  
  BTW, I didn't get the chance your answer to our previous exchanges, I'd like to do so now.
  You completely missed the whole point of my post. I was NOT trying to compare you/others to children. I was not trying to be insulting. My whole point was that you are possibly about to face an unknown. Which (as I have said repeated, my comparison and generalization was only small and minor) was what my example was all about. Of course it isn't on the same level at all, but the parallel is there.
  
  As I've said before, I've been a member of AFL-CIO. But I was also in non-union jobs before and after that period of time. So, perhaps I didn't have the tendency to depend on a mouthpiece that you and others have done, but I also have the knowledge and personal experience that tells me that there is more than one way to go about doing things.
• Gblock

  Con_Alma;681861 wrote:Do you or did you not believe there is at least $750 - $1,200 of value in having someone negotiate contracts on your behalf?

  
  at the time(1997) i was broke and my salary was only 24,600 which came out to about 1000 dollars a month. 750 dollars was a substantial amount and i was very young straight out of college. now i do think its worth it but if given the choice ill take the 1200 and take the chance that i wont ever be fired. im already very close to the top of my pay scale for teaching which is why im moving on to administration and wont much longer be in the union. in my time teaching we have had to renew contracts 4 times i think. once we extended the existing contracts. once we went with 1.5 percent raise. and another time i remember we went with a 3percent raise phased in over 3 years. probly was worth it but each time it went very smooth. our union is very progressive and works well with the school board we've never had any issues really. we also work hard to get rid of poor teachers.
• Con_Alma

  That's is a significant percentage of your income. I'm surprised that the union doesn't charge a percentage of pay as opposed to a flat fee...you know, sort of like those who are more able theory!!
• O-Trap

  

  Gblock;681779 wrote: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.

  Oh, I agree with this, but again, you're talking about students. I'm talking about teachers.
  
  All I'm really wanting is that teachers be judged on their own merit ... their effort (which, while not calculated, can be observed) and their ability.
  
  A teacher who sees HUGE improvements in YOY scores every year and a teacher who sees drops in scores every year should not be paid the same just because they have the same number of years under their belts.
  

  Gblock;681779 wrote: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...

  See, that's the thing. If you're in the upper half of competent teachers, you actually have a leg-up in the bargaining process, and are able to appeal to the board for better pay and/or benefits than those who are not.
  
  Survival of the fittest in the job market is not a bad thing, public or private. It gives incentive to those who are at the top of their game to stay that way. It gives incentive to those who aren't at the top of their game to work on getting there.
  
  When you bargain collectively, you remove that. All that people become motivated to do is to not quit, as with each year, you move closer and closer to your peak paygrade. But teachers just "existing" in the role doesn't help anyone learn better, faster, or more. There is no true incentive to push teachers to strive for more, or to push their students to strive for more, either.
  

  Gblock;681779 wrote: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.

  I really doesn't have to cost anyone any more. You take the amount coming in and you scale it based on merit. Thus, the "middle of the pack" teachers wouldn't see much difference. The top would see an increase. The bottom-feeders would see a decrease.
  
  I've tried to get a teacher fired before. He actually told a student who got a 'B' for a presentation that if she'd done it in a bikini, she'd have gotten an 'A'. He had been there for 30 years. There was no disciplinary action taken.
  

  Gblock;681779 wrote: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

  
  Bingo! Teachers bust their asses, and they get the most out of the students (if the students are apathetic, then "the most" is small, but still "the most"). Those students then go on with a MUCH better education.
  
  Like I said, I'm content with paying the exact same amount toward education as I do right now ... so long as it's going to an efficient, survivalist job market to teach our young people. I want the creme de la creme of effort and performance receiving more pay than the man who hasn't updated his teaching method in 12 years, has 30 years of teaching under his belt, and just reads the newspaper and treats the U. S. History class he teaches like a study hall.
• Gblock

  Con_Alma;681872 wrote:Is the reason that was the first move mad because all other expenses were fixed and the variable expenses able to be squeezed were employee costs?

  
  not sure....when i was hired the number was 36...then we negotiated it down to 30....then it went back to 36 when the budget was short and salaries represented 85 percent of the budget or something like that....now it is 30(this is for middle and high) i think elementary is closer to 24. the lower class sizes has improved our district. our graduation rate has risen from 59 percent in late 90's early 00's to 83.4 percent. i think that number will continue to rise.
• Con_Alma

  If you are not sure why the class size was increased you can't be sure that it wasn't the best option available to the administration or board based on budgetary strains.
• I Wear Pants

  Gblock;681865 wrote:well as some have said its all about the budget depending on the size of the district moving the number from 30 to 36 could allow you to operate with less teachers. for every 5-6 classrooms you have you could eliminate one teacher. if you eliminate 15 teachers you probably save 1.5-2million (guess) dollars. in places where i have worked this was the first move made when budgets got tight.

  
  That's because they couldn't cut the money by cutting benefits or pay like every other company or organization. The union basically forces them to fire those teachers.
• Gblock

  Con_Alma;681892 wrote:If you are not sure why the class size was increased you can't be sure that it wasn't the best option available to the administration or board based on budgetary strains.

  
  i m not sure why it was 36 when i started or where they came up with that number...but i am sure that 36 is too high and i am sure that research shows that lower class sizes increases student achievement tho. as far as why they chose to do it that way, i guess it was the quickest way to do it without cutting programs for students. basically i think it never actually got anyone fired it was just that they hired less teachers the next year . other things were cut tho....students inside two miles had to walk, for 3 years we went to school for one hour less per day etc...cant remember them all.
• Con_Alma

  With those efforts I don't see a reason for anyone to suggest the Board was being inappropriate moving the classroom size to 36 when considering the appearance of cutting in as many areas as they appeared to have. If the union negotiated the classroom size be lowered those expenses had to come from some other area.
  
  They are not easy decisions for any board or administration to make. They also are not decisions the tteachers should be able to make in my opinion. If they would like to offer input it should be recieved in a positive spirit but at the end of the day it is the board and administration that has been contracted to make these decisions.
  
  There's a finite amount of money the community is willing to provide. The level of education that resource will support is limited.
• I Wear Pants

  Lower class size does increase achievement and is a good idea. Though they've found that the benefits of smaller classes are mostly concentrated in the younger grades. High school students benefit far less from smaller class sizes than elementary kids.
• Gblock

  well i guess we'll see what happens if this law passes maybe it will be better time will tell
• Con_Alma

  Gblock;681922 wrote:well i guess we'll see what happens if this law passes maybe it will be better time will tell

  
  ...and maybe it will be worse. The point is with limited resources there must be flexibility in order to match expenses with revenue. If the people provide less money to educate there must be an ability to lower expenses without having a committed contract in place.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;681913 wrote:There's a finite amount of money the community is willing to provide. The level of education that resource will support is limited.

  
  Exactly, and THIS is why a private sector model would work. Because it functions on these same principles.
  
  You work with a fixed budget. If your plan doesn't fit within that budget, cuts to the plan have to be made.
  
  Later, if the education being received is of high quality, and the community benefits, the community will be far more willing to pay a little more than before ... because they're getting a superior product/service (the product not being the students, but the education the students receive).
  
  Could I go to the local gas station and buy a 5-pack of Phillies cigars for a couple bucks? Sure.
  
  Why do I buy a single Rocky Patel Decade for four-times as much? Because when quality is taken into account, it is worth it to me.
  
  Same applies. If you show me two groups of teachers, one with four times the years in education, but the other who has consistently recorded a better improvement level among their classrooms, I'm going with the latter ... even if it costs me a bit more.
  
  Paying into the public school system is an investment into the wellbeing of the future of my community. I wouldn't invest in a 120-year-old company that has been hemoraging profits for the last 12 years. I would READILY invest in a 12-year-old company that has shown good returns and a progressive, long-term thinking business model.