Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• mella

  jmog;685966 wrote:Since you want to be compared with "highly educated professionals" lets do that.
  
  1. Teachers are about the only college educated career I can think of that is unionized, everyone else with BS or higher (engineers, doctors, lawyers, actuaries, businessmen, etc represent themselves in contract negotiations. So, if you want to be compared to everyone else with a college degree, get rid of your union first. You, on one hand, poke fun at those who "turn screws" and then on the other want to keep your union when typically unions represent those who "turn screws".
  
  4. The BS degreed professional that was making $52k for 240 days of work contributes on average $150/month as their portion of their health insurance cost. The teacher pays no where near this.
  
  So please, don't come on here acting like everyone else is a moron and they need to learn their facts when you apparently haven't learned yours.

  I want to respond to 1 and 4.
  
  #1. I mentioned "turning screws on an assembly line" and I don't want my profession to be compared to this group. I want to be viewed as belonging to a professional organization not a labor union. I also said that the teachers in Wisconsin are making this impossible.
  
  #4. I pay the following for health care $143.85 per paycheck so that is $287.70 a month. Well over $150 per month. My dental is $8.06 per check, $16.12 a month. My vision is $2.40 a paycheck, or 4.80 a month. The dental and vision are comparable to my wife's costs and she is not a teacher. I carry the health for the family because the plan is better and the costs are similar. My cost for family health insurance is 20.2% of the total cost. I have no idea what other teachers in other districts pay.
  
  As far as working less than 240 days a year, that's one of the reasons I got into teaching. My schedule allows my wife to do her job (she makes a lot more than me.) but 95% of the time one of us is home with the kids.
• Bigdogg

  Sorry could not resist,
  
  Sleeper, you have been schooled!
• mella

  I went back and checked my retirement numbers. I pay 10% and the board pays 14%, for a total of 28%. Let me be the 1st to say I can save the taxpayers 8% if the state gives me just 20% and allows me to invest it how I want to. As far as I know this is state controlled not "union" controlled. The state will not allow me to get to my money up front. There is one solution to some of this. Allow me to be responsible and invest my money just like the other professionals and I can save the taxpayers 8%.
• O-Trap

  

  ernest_t_bass;685998 wrote:My gross last paycheck (and really, I have no reason to lie) was $1,634.70. My STRS pay-in was $163.47. Now, I'm no math teacher, but I think that is about 10%. The board pickup of STRS was $228.86. That is actually 14%, so I stand corrected. I thought they paid more.
  
  So, a total of 24% of my salary goes towards pension. I pay 10%, board pays 14%. I DO know that I will be paying 14% per pay next year. I'll have to check on board amount. They are either going to match pay or pay 10% to our 14%.

  That's how it often works.
  
  At my work, the most the employer will ever pay is 7.5%. They will match up to 5%, and they will do half of anything above 5%, but below 10%. So they will donate a max of 7.5%, but only if I'm putting in 10% or more. That's the best I've ever heard as well.
  
  My health benefits are $640 a month (two paychecks' worth), roughly. No vision, but I get dental.
  
  And then, there is the big hit ... the taxes ...
  
  Oooh, I do get 15% off the base of my cell phone plan, though!
  

  ernest_t_bass;685998 wrote:Do you know that most BOE's pay ALL of a superintendent's pension? Same for some administrators.

  Well that's horse pucky.
• O-Trap

  

  mella;686037 wrote:I pay 10% and the board pays 14%, for a total of 28%.

  Math fail.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  mella;686037 wrote:I went back and checked my retirement numbers. I pay 10% and the board pays 14%, for a total of 28%. Let me be the 1st to say I can save the taxpayers 8% if the state gives me just 20% and allows me to invest it how I want to. As far as I know this is state controlled not "union" controlled. The state will not allow me to get to my money up front. There is one solution to some of this. Allow me to be responsible and invest my money just like the other professionals and I can save the taxpayers 8%.

  
  How does 10+14=28?
• ernest_t_bass

  

  My gross was: $1,634.70.
  Total deductions: $567.16
  Total take home: $1,067.54
  
  My Amount:
  FIT: $198.51
  City: $16.35
  STRS: $163.47
  Union: $71
  SIT: $41.61
  Annuity (Term Cancer Plan): $30.45
  Medicare: $23.70
  OSDI: $22.07 (I have no idea what this is)
  Once a month I pay the following:
  Medical: $99.70
  Vision: $1.86
  Dental: $8.06
  
  BOE Amount:
  Medicare: $23.70
  STRS: $228.86
  Once a month they pay the following:
  Vision: $16.70
  Med. Ins: $897.30
  Dental: $72.56
  Life: $9.0 ($50,000 premium)
  
  
  Since I'm a public employee, I'll share them.
• mella

  It does not. I was thinking and typing too quickly. I can blame it on all the coffee. 10 + 14 = 24. I can save the taxpayers 4%. Still a savings of 4%. I made a mistake. So FAIL on my part.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  mella;686059 wrote:So FAIL on my part.

  
  More like a lolFAIL pwn!
• mella

  okay I surrender. TAP! TAP!
• gut

  O-Trap;686038 wrote:That's how it often works.
  
  At my work, the most the employer will ever pay is 7.5%. They will match up to 5%, and they will do half of anything above 5%, but below 10%. So they will donate a max of 7.5%, but only if I'm putting in 10% or more. That's the best I've ever heard as well..

  
  But a lot of places only match about 50% up to a max of 5%, so if you were making say 100k the most they'd match would be $2500. Sometime there are graduated scales but rarely will you see an employer match a total of more than 5k (and for someone making 50k, that would be a max of $2500). And 401k matches have gotten whacked, significantly reduced an in an increasing number of cases eliminated all together.
  
  Retirement and medical? Ha, you're on your own. Public medical and pensions have huge value in terms of total compensation. I'm more irritated by govt pensions because they used to make less than the private sector, effectively deferring comp, but now that pay is often on par with most private sector counterparts the total comp is just ridiculous. Doesn't really bother me with most teachers who tend to be at the bottom of salary scales, so their total comp is a fairer number (but obviously not those WI folks, 100k total comp is ridiculous).
• sleeper

  

  ernest_t_bass;685998 wrote:Sleeper, you are stupid. Says my paycheck!
  
  My gross last paycheck (and really, I have no reason to lie) was $1,634.70. My STRS pay-in was $163.47. Now, I'm no math teacher, but I think that is about 10%. The board pickup of STRS was $228.86. That is actually 14%, so I stand corrected. I thought they paid more.
  
  So, a total of 24% of my salary goes towards pension. I pay 10%, board pays 14%. I DO know that I will be paying 14% per pay next year. I'll have to check on board amount. They are either going to match pay or pay 10% to our 14%.
  
  Do you know that most BOE's pay ALL of a superintendent's pension? Same for some administrators.

  
  That sucks man. But hey, welcome to the real world. Most people have to contribute 100% of whatever they want to save for retirement.
  
  You're overpaid, time for reality.
• sleeper

  

  Bigdogg;686007 wrote:Sorry could not resist,
  
  Sleeper, you have been schooled!

  
  I will admit that I was wrong. Will you admit this on any of the points you've been "schooled" on in this and other threads?
• ernest_t_bass

  

  sleeper;686135 wrote:That sucks man. But hey, welcome to the real world.

  
  LOL. Nice comeback. "Yeah, yeah... well YOU suck!"
  
  I know you are, but what am I?
• sleeper

  

  ernest_t_bass;686141 wrote:LOL. Nice comeback. "Yeah, yeah... well YOU suck!"
  
  I know you are, but what am I?

  
  Is that what I said? No. I said that sucks that you are losing your highly overpaid compensation package, but hey, the real world has been dealing with fair pay their entire life, welcome to it.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;686079 wrote:But a lot of places only match about 50% up to a max of 5%, so if you were making say 100k the most they'd match would be $2500. Sometime there are graduated scales but rarely will you see an employer match a total of more than 5k (and for someone making 50k, that would be a max of $2500). And 401k matches have gotten whacked, significantly reduced an in an increasing number of cases eliminated all together.

  That's my point. I have a posh package, albeit a dismal salary, and even my compensation isn't as good as most of the teachers', even when some of the new changes go into effect.
  
  The fact that people who have considerably better are treating cuts like an injustice is laughable, as the rest of the country has had to deal with them.
  

  gut;686079 wrote:Retirement and medical? Ha, you're on your own.

  I was for over a year, in addition to a "salary." And rest assured, I'm thankful that most established marketing companies still have benefit packages.
  

  gut;686079 wrote:Public medical and pensions have huge value in terms of total compensation. I'm more irritated by govt pensions because they used to make less than the private sector, effectively deferring comp, but now that pay is often on par with most private sector counterparts the total comp is just ridiculous. Doesn't really bother me with most teachers who tend to be at the bottom of salary scales, so their total comp is a fairer number (but obviously not those WI folks, 100k total comp is ridiculous).

  
  Agreed.
• FatHobbit

  

  O-Trap;686166 wrote:The fact that people who have considerably better are treating cuts like an injustice is laughable, as the rest of the country has had to deal with them.

  
  But it's not like they are taking a % pay cut. Someone wants to scrap their entire pay system. Can you blame them for not wanting that? I would not be in favor of that amount of uncertainty for myself.
• O-Trap

  

  FatHobbit;686172 wrote:But it's not like they are taking a % pay cut. Someone wants to scrap their entire pay system. Can you blame them for not wanting that? I would not be in favor of that amount of uncertainty for myself.

  
  They aren't scrapping the entire system. The bargaining would still take place. It would simply be more of an "every man for himself" method to reward the best teachers and prevent the worst teachers from abusing the system.
  
  Negotiating a salary is really nothing more than putting your value into a presentation. The only real way I could see this being a problem for someone would be if they couldn't think of any value brought to their position, and I have considerably more faith in our quality teachers than that. If, at that point, a teacher is STILL able to deal for a better-than-average salary and/or benefit package, more power to him/her. He has earned it, through hard work and an ability to demonstrate knowledge of the value of that hard work. All this would really eliminate would be the ability of sub-par teachers to rely on being grouped in with the average and above average teachers when negotiating a uniform compensation structure. Quite seriously, that's all it really changes (well, that, and it raises the potential for the best teachers to be earning above average for a teacher).
• ernest_t_bass

  

  sleeper;686160 wrote:Is that what I said? No. I said that sucks that you are losing your highly overpaid compensation package, but hey, the real world has been dealing with fair pay their entire life, welcome to it.

  
  Your insensitivity to the issue at hand is why I will continue to hold you in low disregard. Yeah, it does suck, you're right.
  
  If your dad died and I said to you, "Sucks to be you. But we all lose our dads, so get over it. Welcome to the real world." I'm sure you may hold some slight resentment to me for that comment. While I know it is apples and oranges with that comparison, it is of the same premise.
• tsst_fballfan

  

  $71 a pay to the union. Is that $142/month? $1700+/yr? $50,000+ in 30yr career? ..... get rid of union and put that $142/month away for yourself. I am not a financial planner but $142/month, earning interest, over 30 yrs would be some nice money for retirement!
• O-Trap

  

  tsst_fballfan;686203 wrote:$71 a pay to the union. Is that $142/month? $1700+/yr? $50,000+ in 30yr career? ..... get rid of union and put that $142/month away for yourself. I am not a financial planner but $142/month, earning interest, over 30 yrs would be some nice money for retirement!

  
  That's a great idea!
• LJ

  

  ernest_t_bass;686052 wrote:My gross was: $1,634.70.
  Total deductions: $567.16
  Total take home: $1,067.54
  
  My Amount:
  FIT: $198.51
  City: $16.35
  STRS: $163.47
  Union: $71
  SIT: $41.61
  Annuity (Term Cancer Plan): $30.45
  Medicare: $23.70
  OSDI: $22.07 (I have no idea what this is)
  Once a month I pay the following:
  Medical: $99.70
  Vision: $1.86
  Dental: $8.06
  
  BOE Amount:
  Medicare: $23.70
  STRS: $228.86
  Once a month they pay the following:
  Vision: $16.70
  Med. Ins: $897.30
  Dental: $72.56
  Life: $9.0 ($50,000 premium)
  
  
  Since I'm a public employee, I'll share them.

  
  OSDI is what you pay instead of SSDI when you are a state employee. In reality, compared to people in the private sector who pay into SSDI, you are paying about 5% of your salary comparitively for your pension.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  O-Trap;686166 wrote:The fact that people who have considerably better are treating cuts like an injustice is laughable, as the rest of the country has had to deal with them.

  
  I think you are reading too much into it. Who says that these cuts are an injustice... on this board? I agree that cuts need to be made... somewhere. I'm just not too certain that this is the best solution. My guess is that there are MANY entitlement programs out there that could be looked at, where we may save a TON more money if we made cuts there. If that were the case, I would expect the SAME reaction out of those people who received said entitlements.
• LJ

  

  sorry 7% is more correct
• ernest_t_bass

  

  tsst_fballfan;686203 wrote:$71 a pay to the union. Is that $142/month? $1700+/yr? $50,000+ in 30yr career? ..... get rid of union and put that $142/month away for yourself. I am not a financial planner but $142/month, earning interest, over 30 yrs would be some nice money for retirement!

  
  $710 per year. $71 spread out over the first 10 pays, after the first of the school year. Believe me, I hate paying that much to a union, considering my district has an extremely weak one. My district runs fine, regardless. We have been "excellent" the past 5 or more years, and "excellent w/ distinction" last year. We do well, run a one-to-one program, etc.
  
  I just don't like the fact that we can no longer ban together, regardless of how weak we are. I also don't like the mandates in this bill. If a district can afford to pay certain amounts of healthcare and pension, why prohibit them? Our district operated in the black last year. We were $3,000 below the state average for per-pupil expenditures. AND... this is while being in a 2-year old building. I know that last number b/c I talked with the superintendent for about 30 minutes today.