Archive

Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

  • ernest_t_bass
    LJ;686207 wrote: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.

    What IS OSDI though?
  • sleeper
    ernest_t_bass;686202 wrote: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.

    Yeah, entirely different situation. I do see your point, but I feel the people I agree with have made point after point with no counter and its gotten to the point where this is the only way to deal with the issue.
  • LJ
    ernest_t_bass;686221 wrote:What IS OSDI though?

    It's a form of disability like SSDI (SSDI is social security and disability)
  • O-Trap
    ernest_t_bass;686208 wrote:I think you are reading too much into it. Who says that these cuts are an injustice... on this board?
    Rest assured, I'm not speaking about you or Gblock. You two have remained pretty level-headed on the issue. There are a lot of topics on this issue and there have been some who have acted like treating them like the rest of the professionals in the country would be committing some horrible crime against both them and society. I didn't mean to indicate that everyone thinks that way, though.
    ernest_t_bass;686208 wrote: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.
    Certainly. I think the reason this topic was brough to light was because people out there are seeing (like I have, and have mentioned) educators that are receiving above-average compensation (something with which, in and of itself, I have no objection whatsoever) for considerably below-average teaching, but simply remaining a resolute supporter of the union that continues to ensure that they see the same increases that the good, hard-working educators receive.

    Like I said, I'm all for paying a good teacher a good compensation package ... better than my own even (if you lived on what I make, you'd hate life). I just object VERY STRONGLY to compensating the good, dedicated teachers the same way I do the lazy, apathetic teachers. The latter are often amazing to me, in that they can maintain their job, and it INFURIATES me to see some of them dragging down the average performance of teachers in the area. They're a leech on the educational system, and a parasite to the schools, the community, and the students.

    In getting rid of collective bargaining, I see their ability to "hide" their poor performance anymore, when they have to sit down, one-on-one, and negotiate their value to the school. A good teacher will have no problem with this, but these leeches will be shaking in their shoes ... and rightfully so.
  • ernest_t_bass
    sleeper;686224 wrote:Yeah, entirely different situation. I do see your point, but I feel the people I agree with have made point after point with no counter and its gotten to the point where this is the only way to deal with the issue.

    What do you want me to counter? My take on the whole this is that I don't want to see a huge hit in my own personal income, let alone the entire state. YES, I know that it is needed. I understand fully. I'm just fighting to keep it.
  • sleeper
    ernest_t_bass;686232 wrote:What do you want me to counter? My take on the whole this is that I don't want to see a huge hit in my own personal income, let alone the entire state. YES, I know that it is needed. I understand fully. I'm just fighting to keep it.

    Okay cool. Fight on your own time. If you call in sick to protest, you should be fired. Take a personal day if you have to be there.
  • I Wear Pants
    ernest_t_bass;686232 wrote:What do you want me to counter? My take on the whole this is that I don't want to see a huge hit in my own personal income, let alone the entire state. YES, I know that it is needed. I understand fully. I'm just fighting to keep it.
    So you're willing to hurt everyone so you don't have to. Great.
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;686235 wrote:If you call in sick to protest, you should be fired. Take a personal day if you have to be there.
    This is certainly how I would be treated by my employer, so I'm A-OK with it.
  • ernest_t_bass
    O-Trap;686229 wrote:Certainly. I think the reason this topic was brough to light was because people out there are seeing (like I have, and have mentioned) educators that are receiving above-average compensation (something with which, in and of itself, I have no objection whatsoever) for considerably below-average teaching, but simply remaining a resolute supporter of the union that continues to ensure that they see the same increases that the good, hard-working educators receive.

    Shouldn't we go after that part of it, then, and not benefits? I don't like merit based pay, but I also don't like protection of poor teachers. I could see the possibility of eliminating tenure.

    I've said this before, but for some reason it doesn't hold much discussion... WHY NOT PUT MORE BLAME AND WEIGHT ON ADMINISTRATORS FOR LETTING IT GET TO THIS?

    Oops, didn't mean to yell :D
  • FatHobbit
    I Wear Pants;686238 wrote:So you're willing to hurt everyone so you don't have to. Great.

    perhaps there are other places the budget could be cut, instead of making all the regular joe state employees suffer?
  • FatHobbit
    ernest_t_bass;686242 wrote: WHY NOT PUT MORE BLAME AND WEIGHT ON ADMINISTRATORS FOR LETTING IT GET TO THIS?

    Do they have collective bargaining?
  • ernest_t_bass
    sleeper;686235 wrote:Okay cool. Fight on your own time. If you call in sick to protest, you should be fired. Take a personal day if you have to be there.

    LOL. Don't generalize me. I take my personal days to golf!

    Another thing I have to remind people... it is the LARGE districts (TPS, Col. PS, Cin. PS, Cle. PS, etc.) that are dragging the rest of the state down. Small town districts that are doing outstanding jobs should not be punished for them.
  • ernest_t_bass
    I Wear Pants;686238 wrote:So you're willing to hurt everyone so you don't have to. Great.

    What does that even mean?
  • I Wear Pants
    ernest_t_bass;686242 wrote:Shouldn't we go after that part of it, then, and not benefits? I don't like merit based pay, but I also don't like protection of poor teachers. I could see the possibility of eliminating tenure.

    I've said this before, but for some reason it doesn't hold much discussion... WHY NOT PUT MORE BLAME AND WEIGHT ON ADMINISTRATORS FOR LETTING IT GET TO THIS?

    Oops, didn't mean to yell :D
    The administrators who cannot fire bad teachers unless they do something terrible because the union will sue the hell out of the school?
  • centralbucksfan
    Only 5 states do NOT have collective bargaining for teachers. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:
    South Carolina -50th
    North Carolina -49th
    Georgia -48th
    Texas -47th
    ......Virginia -44th
    Wisconsin -- WITH its collective bargaining for teachers -- is ranked 2nd in the country. Let's keep it that way.

    And you can see where education will be headed in the state of Ohio if this bill passes. FACTS!!
  • ernest_t_bass
    FatHobbit;686244 wrote:Do they have collective bargaining?

    Administrators do not have unions. Some districts do. TPS admins do.
  • I Wear Pants
    ernest_t_bass;686246 wrote:What does that even mean?
    You realize that we cannot sustain the pay/benefits situation with teachers. Yet you're fighting to keep them because you don't like the reality. You'd rather not do anything to fix the problem because it's inconvenient for you.
  • ernest_t_bass
    I Wear Pants;686247 wrote:The administrators who cannot fire bad teachers unless they do something terrible because the union will sue the hell out of the school?

    I'll keep referring to TPS dragging down the state :)
  • I Wear Pants
    centralbucksfan;686249 wrote:Only 5 states do NOT have collective bargaining for teachers. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:
    South Carolina -50th
    North Carolina -49th
    Georgia -48th
    Texas -47th
    ......Virginia -44th
    Wisconsin -- WITH its collective bargaining for teachers -- is ranked 2nd in the country. Let's keep it that way.

    And you can see where education will be headed in the state of Ohio if this bill passes. FACTS!!

    Correlation != causation.
  • ernest_t_bass
    I Wear Pants;686251 wrote:You realize that we cannot sustain the pay/benefits situation with teachers. Yet you're fighting to keep them because you don't like the reality. You'd rather not do anything to fix the problem because it's inconvenient for you.

    I'm saying I want to look everywhere.
  • sleeper
    ernest_t_bass;686245 wrote:LOL. Don't generalize me. I take my personal days to golf!

    Fair enough. You can tell I'm a tad bit peeved about the Wisconsin situation, it wasn't entirely directed at you.
  • O-Trap
    ernest_t_bass;686242 wrote:Shouldn't we go after that part of it, then, and not benefits? I don't like merit based pay, but I also don't like protection of poor teachers. I could see the possibility of eliminating tenure.
    If that alone would get rid of the teachers that don't want to teach, I'd be all for that. However, I see teachers five years older than me, very outspoken advocates of the union base, and they seem to be immune anyway. They can't even have ten years under their belts (10 at the most, I would think).

    Moreover, I still contend that there should simply be better pay for better teachers. I'm not talking a HUGE margin. Just one deemed proportional to the level of quality ... which would be established by reviewing the individual teacher.
    ernest_t_bass;686242 wrote:I've said this before, but for some reason it doesn't hold much discussion... WHY NOT PUT MORE BLAME AND WEIGHT ON ADMINISTRATORS FOR LETTING IT GET TO THIS?

    Oops, didn't mean to yell :D
    I agreed, to some degree, though I know of administrations that feel handcuffed by the local union base. If the administration had the freedom to act like a normal employing entity, I'd put the blame COMPLETELY on their shoulders for continuing to employ a leech.
  • sleeper
    I Wear Pants;686253 wrote:Correlation != causation.

    +1

    You'd think a highly educated professional would understand this.
  • centralbucksfan
    I Wear Pants;685947 wrote:No, evaluating teachers and judging their pay based on standardized test scores isn't a good idea. That's clear.

    Its not only clear, its pretty proven it does NOTHING. Look at the studies!! More FACTS!

    http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/NCPI_POINT_Findings.xml

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-09-21-merit-pay_N.htm
  • ernest_t_bass
    O-Trap;686257 wrote:I agreed, to some degree, though I know of administrations that feel handcuffed by the local union base. If the administration had the freedom to act like a normal employing entity, I'd put the blame COMPLETELY on their shoulders for continuing to employ a leech.

    The thing is, there ARE ways to get rid of poor teachers. It just takes time and effort. Many (MANY) admins just say "screw it."