How about Wisconsin?

[Monkeyleg]

People with higher education generally make more money.

So is it your contention that someone who has a bachelor's degree in education should make the same amount of money as, say, the CEO of a small company who  has a bachelor's degree in business? I'm just trying to understand where the issue of education level fits into arguments over benefits and collective bargaining.

[brimic]

These are the kind of numbers I'm looking for! Do you have a source for this?

http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol11No3/Niederjohn11.3.pdf

[ronnyreagan]

So is it your contention that someone who has a bachelor's degree in education should make the same amount of money as, say, the CEO of a small company who  has a bachelor's degree in business?

No, I didn't say anything close to that. When doing a comparison, things like cost of living, experience, and education should be taken into account because they do affect income.  That's all I was saying - nothing about should or shouldn't.

I'm just trying to understand where the issue of education level fits into arguments over benefits and collective bargaining.

I haven't said anything about collective bargaining either. The topic I have the most interest in is whether or not public employees in Wisconsin are "overpaid." How they are compensated compared to their private sector counter parts, how they are compensated compared to public employees in other states, and if the job they do merits the compensation they receive (difficult to measure, I admit.) Unfortunately there's a lot of switching back and forth between all public employees and specifically teachers that makes it hard to get & compare numbers but either are of interest to me. I realize that this thread is more general than that and I don't mean to hog it to satisfy my own curiosity, but it is at least relevant to the broader topic.

http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol11No3/Niederjohn11.3.pdf

Excellent, thank you.

[Monkeyleg]

Unfortunately there's a lot of switching back and forth between all public employees and specifically teachers that makes it hard to get & compare numbers but either are of interest to me.

Yes, there's a lot of switching back and forth, probably because it's more difficult to get number for corrections officers or state troopers than it is to get numbers for teachers. Nonetheless, there's a spillover effect. Teachers don't operate in a vacuum. If they're getting X, then cops or corrections officers are getting something similar. That's why I mentioned in this thread or another the pension deal that Milwaukee cops have.

[dm1333]

I would like to point out one thing to consider while we are bashing teachers and teachers unions.  I'm pretty sure it was Fox that was reporting that 60% of the teachers in Milwaukee didn't call in sick.  Let's just remember that they aren't ALL dirtbags.

[BMacklem]

I'd also like to point out that there are doctors giving out "notes" explaining the "teachers" absence so they can still get paid while they're protesting.
Oh yeah, those notes are being given out on the street corners, with no care taken as to whom is asking for them, free, no consulting really, other than the doctors asking them how they're feeling, and coming to the conclusion that those people are suffering mental stress, and telling them that they should take the day off to rest.
There's several videos about it circulating now, so you can find them on youtube, and I am reasonably certain that FOX has been reporting the story.

Now here's my take on that....those doctors need their medical license revoked, not just suspended for fraud.
Those "teachers" need to be fired for fraud.
End of story.

[brimic]

I would like to point out one thing to consider while we are bashing teachers and teachers unions.  I'm pretty sure it was Fox that was reporting that 60% of the teachers in Milwaukee didn't call in sick.  Let's just remember that they aren't ALL dirtbags.

+amillioneleventy

[Monkeyleg]

They're not even trying to be discrete about it. I wonder if there's enough video evidence here to have the doctors shown lose their licenses.

video

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

did the union get the moral turpitude clause outa the contract?

[BMacklem]

Right, those who did stay at the job should definately keep their jobs, but every one of them who called in sick with a fake note need to be fired post haste, along with those doctors who provided those notes.

[Regolith]

Here's a leftist political cartoonist's take on the matter:

http://disruptthenarrative.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/liberal-wisconsin-political-cartoonist-sides-with/

I'll pause while you pick your collective jaws off the floor...




If the unions have lost the leftist political cartoonists, they're done for.

[AJ Dual]

Here's a leftist political cartoonist's take on the matter:

http://disruptthenarrative.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/liberal-wisconsin-political-cartoonist-sides-with/

I'll pause while you pick your collective jaws off the floor...




If the unions have lost the leftist political cartoonists, they're done for.

"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the head of the National Federation of Federal Employees. In the private sector, organized employees and the employer meet across the bargaining table as (theoretical) equals. But in the public sector, said FDR, "the employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress." Allowing public-employee unions to engage in collective bargaining would mean opening the door to the manipulation of government policy by a privileged private interest.

Well, that cartoonist is in good company then.

IMO, any liberal looking at the issue logically (I know, don't laugh) would be on the side of the Republicans, if for slightly different reasons. Because they would be concerned about the services they provide to the people, and that the public sector payroll would eat up the available funds for those services.

The fundamental underlying reason to protest this is the loss of the union monopoly that's in the budget bill, and it's ability to act as a revenue and lobbying machine for the Democrats. Making the union and it's dues non-mandatory is the real core of the issue for them. Ginning up the teachers and other public sector workers is just to provide useful cannon fodder to make a good crowd in the Capitol.

[roo_ster]

IMO, any liberal looking at the issue logically (I know, don't laugh) would be on the side of the Republicans, if for slightly different reasons. Because they would be concerned about the services they provide to the people, and that the public sector payroll would eat up the available funds for those services.

Many times, the gov't payroll created by <insert_new_govt_program> is the end sought.

[AJ Dual]

Many times, the gov't payroll created by <insert_new_govt_program> is the end sought.

Oh indeed. That's the whole point. Democrats pass legislation to get more unionized .gov employees, collect union dues, union lobbies and campaigns to elect more Democrats, cycle repeats.

And that's why they're going apoplectic over the Republicans trying to break that cycle, and for a level playing field.

However, a smattering of honest/ethical liberal at least wants to see as much of the money as possible going to the actual people served instead of the bureaucracy.

[brimic]

However, a smattering of honest/ethical liberal at least wants to see as much of the money as possible going to the actual people served instead of the bureaucracy.

Gotta add that liberals pay property taxes too and and least some of them are going to see through the waste and draw the correct conclusions.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

In Milwaukee in 2004 (according to the Wash Times) 29% of the teachers sent their kids to private schools.


ouch  now theres a statement about their own work

[brimic]

In Milwaukee in 2004 (according to the Wash Times) 29% of the teachers sent their kids to private schools.


ouch  now theres a statement about their own work

Not only that, but the same teachers have been stridently against allowing vouchers for disadvantaged kids in the same district so that they could choose to go to the private schools as well. (Voucher= money pulled from public school to be given to private school to allow more educational choices for those who can't afford those better choices.)

[AJ Dual]

Well... in a racist/classist sort of way that would make sense.

I would wager that even with the worst aspects of union clock-watching, and tenured untouchability, the "problems" with MPS are probably way less than 50% the MPS teachers and admin, and way more than 50% of the "MPS kids" themselves.

It's harsh, but when presented with a disaster, or even multiple medical problems in one patient, you apply the concept of triage.

And in triage, it's about saving who/or what you can.

[dm1333]

I would wager that even with the worst aspects of union clock-watching, and tenured untouchability, the "problems" with MPS are probably way less than 50% the MPS teachers and admin, and way more than 50% of the "MPS kids" themselves.

Sorry, but tenured teachers most certainly can be fired.  The problem isn't tenure it is school administrators who either don't see that there is a problem or don't take the steps needed to fire that person.

I wanted to know whether the public perception was true, so I took an informal poll among the teachers I know. First I asked, “Is it possible to fire a bad teacher who has tenure?” The answer was a rousing and unanimous “Yes!” It’s harder, I was told, to fire a tenured teacher than a non-tenured teacher, but it certainly is possible.

http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/issues359.shtml

http://neatoday.org/2010/09/17/what-tenure-is-and-what-it%E2%80%99s-not/

Just for a little balance here is a link to a story where the teacher should have been fired but wasn't.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article987898.ece

Or google any combination of Michelle Rhee, tenure and public school teacher. 

[makattak]

Sorry, but tenured teachers most certainly can be fired.  The problem isn't tenure it is school administrators who either don't see that there is a problem or don't take the steps needed to fire that person.
 

http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/issues359.shtml

http://neatoday.org/2010/09/17/what-tenure-is-and-what-it%E2%80%99s-not/

Just for a little balance here is a link to a story where the teacher should have been fired but wasn't.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article987898.ece

Or google any combination of Michelle Rhee, tenure and public school teacher. 

Next, I asked, “Is the real reason that bad teachers remain in the classroom the unwillingness of administrators to take on the admittedly arduous and publicly risky task of documenting and acting upon a teacher's failure?” The response again was -- a slightly more guarded -- “Yes!” But it was not quite unanimous.

Of course it is possible to fire any teacher. It's also possible to win the lottery.

You know what those two possibilities have in common? Just about how likely they are to occur.

Let's look at NYC and their process for firing tenured teachers:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2008/05/04/2008-05-04_teachers_in_trouble_spending_years_in_ru.html

Oh, but wait, those "rubber rooms" have finally been done away with!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/nyregion/16rubber.html

“The fact that you won’t have teachers in these rooms sitting all day doing nothing is a positive step,” said Dan Weisberg, the former labor chief for the Department of Education and now a vice president of the New Teacher Project, which has argued for better teacher evaluations and an easier process to dismiss teachers. “But the problem we should be trying to solve is that there are huge barriers that still exist to terminate chronically ineffective teachers. This agreement doesn’t appear to address that at all.”

So, possible, yes. Apparently it takes a lot just for an administration to even begin the process because of how stupidly difficult it is.

As CS&D says, although it's possible to fire a teacher, it's unlikely to happen due to the efforts of the union to protect incompetent members. 

[Monkeyleg]

"When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children."
                               --------Albert Shanker, former president, American Federation of Teachers

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

rhees on her way out the door fired 226
bet that less than 50 stay fired after union does its thing.  i would not be surprised to see em all get their jobs back   with back pay

[dm1333]

Of course it is possible to fire any teacher. It's also possible to win the lottery.

You know what those two possibilities have in common? Just about how likely they are to occur.

Let's look at NYC and their process for firing tenured teachers:

The problem isn't tenure.  I have no problem with tenure.  The problem is that too many administrators either aren't doing their job or have let the process get out of their control.  Which also means that too many school boards aren't doing their jobs. 
This is a quote from the article about rubber rooms.

A recent Education Department analysis found that the average accused educator waits four months as investigators interview witnesses and decide whether to bring formal charges, then nine months for a hearing and six more for a decision.

Don't blame that on the teacher.  The blame for the process taking 19 months belongs to the school boards and administrations.  Part of the blame also probably lies with a teachers union but that is a whole different subject.

rhees on her way out the door fired 226
bet that less than 50 stay fired after union does its thing.  i would not be surprised to see em all get their jobs back   with back pay

Maybe.  But what about all the teachers and principals she fired between 2007 and 2010?  I bet most of them stay fired.

That spring, Rhee began firing principals. Sixty-one principals and assistant principals were fired at the end of the school year. Next came the teachers. By July of 2008, according to some reports (neither DCPS nor the Washington Teachers‘ Union will release actual numbers), Rhee had fired 250 teachers and 500 teachers aides, avoiding union due-process rules by utilizing the ―highly qualified‖ certification requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.(3)

In the spring and summer of 2009 the district hired more than 900 new teachers—three times the usual number of summer hires. Then, in October, Rhee announced that a newly discovered budget shortfall required that 266 teachers be laid off. (6)Because the layoffs were budget related, principals were free to ignore the ―last hired, first fired‖ rules in the union contract.

But Rhee wasn‘t done. On July 23, 2010, she announced 165 additional teacher firings. Of those, 76 were dismissed as a result of poor evaluations under IMPACT. And, as feared, some of the fired teachers were among the most experienced, dynamic, and beloved educators in the system. Rhee boasted that more than 700 additional teachers had been judged ―minimally effective‖ through IMPACT, and that a significant number of them would no doubt be fired after the next school year. The union‘s working group had not even met.

http://www.dfpe.org/pdf/Proving-Grounds-School-Rheeform-In-Washington-DC-Fall-2010.pdf

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of Michelle Rhee.  But you can't deny the fact that she has fired teachers.  But this is all off topic, I just got tired of listening to one of the usual mantras here on APS, that all public school teachers suck.  Maybe I'll start a new thread just to debate that one topic.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

and as a result of doing what was long overdue in dc  rhees out the door.

[Buzzcook]

What I find interesting is that the public employees are willing to take pay and benefit cuts, it's only their right to collective bargaining that is stopping an agreement.

If this is only about the budget short fall then why hasn't an agreement already been made?