Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• stlouiedipalma

  O-Trap;694945 wrote:Though I always enjoy a good "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" point, I'm afraid it's hardly that black-and-white.
  
  Is borrowing against what you cannot pay back always a matter of fiscal responsibility? To some degree, it is, but there exists something else that takes priority in the minds of the admins negotiating with the collective (ie the continued education of the students and the school remaining open).
  
  I just find it perplexing that the teachers' union is, in many cases (not all, of course), willing to refuse to teach the kids if they aren't paid beyond the means of the district, while the district sends itself further into debt in order to continue the classes where the students will continue to learn ... and yet somehow, the teachers in these instances seem to try to assert a platform that they care about the education of the students. That makes no sense to me.

  
  I sympathize with your position, as a teachers' strike can tear a community apart. All this proposed legislation does, IMO, is "dummy down" the process so that local boards and administrators don't have to make difficult choices or prioritize their limited resources. They can always point to the legislation and say that their hands are tied.
  
  Of course, we need a complete overhaul of the way the schools are funded, but that's another argument for another time.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  stlouiedipalma;695419 wrote:Your position has some merit, but let's go one step further and get some REAL campaign reform and severely limit the amount that any individual or corporation can contribute. Eliminate the PACs and all other means of circumventing the rules and make some hard limits. Let's face it, when large contributions are made there is always the expectation that it will be paid back one way or another.

  
  None of that (probably including my idea) would be upheld by the Supremes, given their last decision. Instead, make it so union dues to be used by political purposes have to be designated as such by the person paying the dues. And include their name as a donor, not hiding it behind the union's name. This doesn't limit anyone from donating but, instead, holds them publicly accountable.
• wkfan

  LJ;694832 wrote:Uh, there are over 30 in the Upper Arlington district alone.
  
  edit: I think some are admins, but that is still ridic.

  Uhh....Upper Arlington has 16 listed on the Buckeye Institure website as being over $100K for 2010....and all 16 are Administrators. Not a single one is a teacher.
  
  You do realize that they are under a 260 day contract and are not a part of the Teachers Collective Bargaining unit...don't you??
• FatHobbit

  

  Saw this on facebook and it made me lol
  
  A politician, a Tea Partier, and a Union guy were having lunch. The waitress put down a platter of 12 cookies.The politician took 11 of them, then said to the Tea Partier, "Be careful. I think that Union guy wants part of yours."
• jmog

  stlouiedipalma;694879 wrote:jmog, Are you saying that your local school board members are elected with campaign funds from unions?

  
  I'm saying that in general, elected officials are partially funded by public unions, and the public unions then negotiate with said elected officials. It causes a conflict of interest.
  
  Public unions do not negotiate with the people who are actually paying them like private unions do, that's another problem.
• jmog

  stlouiedipalma;695419 wrote:Your position has some merit, but let's go one step further and get some REAL campaign reform and severely limit the amount that any individual or corporation can contribute. Eliminate the PACs and all other means of circumventing the rules and make some hard limits. Let's face it, when large contributions are made there is always the expectation that it will be paid back one way or another.

  
  The problem is that private unions directly negotiate their members wages with those they helped get elected. You have to see the conflict of interest here.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  jmog;695594 wrote:I'm saying that in general, elected officials are partially funded by public unions, and the public unions then negotiate with said elected officials. It causes a conflict of interest.
  
  Public unions do not negotiate with the people who are actually paying them like private unions do, that's another problem.

  
  Exactly - if the UAW wants to negotiate with Ford have at it - Ford has to answer to its shareholders and creditors. Since public unions "negotiate" with elected officials, when one major party is up the union's rear end it sort of frustrates the negotiation.
  
  BTW had a long conversation with my Dad last night, I really think even with this issue being front and center most folks do not realize what benefits the teachers' union in Ohio enjoys. They can actually arbitrage their comp and pension among members. For example a member can "donate" vacation days to another member to boost their pension. Ridiculous.
  
  This would be as if Fan From Texas and I work at the law firm Dewey Cheatham and Howe and we get a $40,000 bonus if one bills 2,000 hours - FFT is up to 1950 and me being a slacker only has 1700, and me donating 50 hours out of my 1700 to FFT for a payment of $10,000 from him so he can collect $40,000 - of course we can't do that.
• QuakerOats

  Semi-off topic:
  
  The 'Oats has been banned from jjhuddle; apparently they did not appreciate my passion for these extremely important issues. Thus anyone wishing to cover my back over there in a few of the same threads help yourself ... and thanks.
  
  Hopefully they were not just trying to silence one of the voices for better, affordable, and efficient education and government.
• O-Trap

  

  Did they provide a reason?
• LJ

  

  wkfan;695587 wrote:Uhh....Upper Arlington has 16 listed on the Buckeye Institure website as being over $100K for 2010....and all 16 are Administrators. Not a single one is a teacher.
  
  You do realize that they are under a 260 day contract and are not a part of the Teachers Collective Bargaining unit...don't you??

  
  I'll have to look later. I can't get it to go through my firewall here for some reason
• QuakerOats

  O-Trap;695670 wrote:Did they provide a reason?

  
  See post # 1436 above which was also submitted over there, and included an apparent rules violation. After a couple thousand posts over many years you would think they might allow for some consideration. I guess they have already implemented SB5 and 'tenure' doesn't count for anything anymore ....
• FatHobbit

  

  O-Trap;695670 wrote:Did they provide a reason?

  
  Using a sucky web site?
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;695692 wrote:See post # 1436 above which was also submitted over there, and included an apparent rules violation. After a couple thousand posts over many years you would think they might allow for some consideration. I guess they have already implemented SB5 and 'tenure' doesn't count for anything anymore ....

  
  Which rule? The "GD" part?
• O-Trap

  

  FatHobbit;695693 wrote:Using a sucky web site?

  The site itself isn't much worse (with the exception that many of the best posters no longer post there, but that's not part of "the site" itself). The paying to use it does, though.
• wkfan

  LJ;695682 wrote:I'll have to look later. I can't get it to go through my firewall here for some reason

  Neither could I yesterday, so I looked last night from home.
  
  All 16 of the over $100K are either district administrators or building principals....none a part of the UAEA, none part of the CBA, all have their own 260 or 250 day contracts.
  
  Not really sure if their benefit plan is structured just like the benefit plan that all teachers get...but I feel pretty sure that thair retirement (STRS) is probably stuctured the same.
• Footwedge

  A conumdrum of major proportions. My 2 cents.....teachers should be paid on overall performance....not a collective bargaining agreement. The merit increases should be based on many criteria....and not solely be judged on student performance.
  
  Feedback from the parents, punctuality, attendence, attitude....and yes....some on student achievements....all should be factored in. I think that the performance of teachers are hindered the way that it is structured....due to the lack of incentive to do really well.
• QuakerOats

  O-Trap;695706 wrote:Which rule? The "GD" part?

  
  Yes. I had only been posting in the 'Bleacher Seats' section since the point they decided to go 'pay-to-play', without grandfathering in any 'old-timers'.
• WebFire

  Footwedge;695712 wrote:A conumdrum of major proportions. My 2 cents.....teachers should be paid on overall performance....not a collective bargaining agreement. The merit increases should be based on many criteria....and not solely be judged on student performance.
  
  Feedback from the parents, punctuality, attendence, attitude....and yes....some on student achievements....all should be factored in. I think that the performance of teachers are hindered the way that it is structured....due to the lack of incentive to do really well.

  Seems like common sense to me. But for some reason is a major reason for opposition to doing away with public CBA.
• Gblock

  wkfan;695711 wrote:Neither could I yesterday, so I looked last night from home.
  
  All 16 of the over $100K are either district administrators or building principals....none a part of the UAEA, none part of the CBA, all have their own 260 or 250 day contracts.
  
  Not really sure if their benefit plan is structured just like the benefit plan that all teachers get...but I feel pretty sure that thair retirement (STRS) is probably stuctured the same.

  I am 99.9 percent sure that no teachers in ohio recieve 100000 dollars in retirement money. 74 percent of your highest three years is what it was(i think) so to get 100000 you would have had to make a salary that was well over 100000. i think now its like 66 percent of your highest 5 years... most districts top out at like 88,000 or so if you have a phd and 30 plus years. most teachers would get around 40000......50000 would be close to max for income excluding benefits
• LJ

  

  Gblock;695722 wrote:I am 99.9 percent sure that no teachers in ohio recieve 100000 dollars in retirement money. 74 percent of your highest three years is what it was(i think) so to get 100000 you would have had to make a salary that was well over 100000. i think now its like 66 percent of your highest 5 years... most districts top out at like 88,000 or so if you have a phd and 30 plus years. most teachers would get around 40000......50000 would be close to max for income excluding benefits

  
  They have a little estimator on there. The highest I saw was like $58,000 pension. And that was for someone who retired in 2008
• O-Trap

  

  LJ;695682 wrote:I'll have to look later. I can't get it to go through my firewall here for some reason

  
  You fail teh intrntz.
  
  I ALWAYS go around my firewall at work.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  One of the things that really needs to be done away with is the escalator clauses for teachers that go on to work on their Phds. I don't believe a PHd is necessary to teach in high school, so why have it in there? It's a waste of money. Hell, I'm not sure I think a master's degree is really needed to be a better teacher. All I think those requirements do is artificially drive up the cost of education.
  
  We'd do ourselves a huge favor by finding the best people to teach, regardless of arbitrary education requirements. If someone who has been a journalist for 20 years decides he wants to teach, I'd think some consideration would have to be given, even with the lack of specific education courses in their background. The same with a successful businessman who might want to give back to his community by teaching basic business classes (or advanced, for that matter).
  
  I realize this is probably going to get some of the teachers in an uproar over not having an "education" background (course work in methods of teaching), but I took all those classes and found them mostly worthless when I actually taught a class or seminar.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Writerbuckeye;695752 wrote:One of the things that really needs to be done away with is the escalator clauses for teachers that go on to work on their Phds. I don't believe a PHd is necessary to teach in high school, so why have it in there? It's a waste of money. Hell, I'm not sure I think a master's degree is really needed to be a better teacher. All I think those requirements do is artificially drive up the cost of education.

  
  Under the new licensure requirements, it is no longer needed to obtain a Masters degree as a teacher.
  
  http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=513&ContentID=15511&Content=95038
  
  This was under HB1.
• LJ

  

  O-Trap;695742 wrote:You fail teh intrntz.
  
  I ALWAYS go around my firewall at work.

  
  Yeah, I really don't know much about computers. I can get on porn sites, but can't get other random things to load
• FatHobbit

  

  ernest_t_bass;695754 wrote:Under the new licensure requirements, it is no longer needed to obtain a Masters degree as a teacher.

  
  When did those go into affect? (effect?)