If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Wisconsin discovering that if you vilify workers, cut their pay and slash their benefits, teachers just might not want to work for you anymore   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 315
    More: Obvious, Governor Walker, University of Arkansas, Eau Claire, class size, Oshkosh, changing of the guard, Racine, education reform  
•       •       •

15920 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2011 at 12:53 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



315 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-17 09:28:14 AM
And are being rehired as "consultants" by the school districts while still able to draw their pensions.
 
2011-09-17 09:44:23 AM
In before derpfest of, "Well good! Old tenured ineffective teachers need to be replaced!"
 
2011-09-17 09:47:38 AM
Yeah, Republicans are really going to be surprised by that one.
 
2011-09-17 10:02:37 AM

BreezyWheeze: In before derpfest of, "Well good! Old tenured ineffective teachers need to be replaced!"


The derp is right in the article, since that's pretty much what "Allan Odden, a professor of educational leadership and policy analysis at the University of Wisconsin-Madison" said there.
 
2011-09-17 10:04:52 AM
Pay cuts?
These people cried about having to invest in their pension plans and pay a small portion of their health care costs, like the rest of the country.
FARK THEM
 
2011-09-17 10:13:18 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Pay cuts?
These people cried about having to invest in their pension plans and pay a small portion of their health care costs, like the rest of the country.
FARK THEM


No, they didn't. They AGREED to that. What they didn't want was their rights to collectively bargain stripped.
 
2011-09-17 10:16:43 AM

coco ebert: jehovahs witness protection: Pay cuts?
These people cried about having to invest in their pension plans and pay a small portion of their health care costs, like the rest of the country.
FARK THEM

No, they didn't. They AGREED to that. What they didn't want was their rights to collectively bargain stripped.


After crying for weeks. The collective bargaining part REALLY needed to be stopped. We have plenty of labor laws protecting workers. There is no longer a need for unions as all they are good for now is to scam employers and tax payers.
 
2011-09-17 10:18:12 AM
Good! You get that old, deadwood out of there and you can hire younger, less experienced teachers for $10/hr, call them "at-will" employees!

/That was the goal right?
//Mission Accomplished!
 
2011-09-17 10:21:08 AM
clearly, this is the only way to beat the chinese and indians to the future!
 
2011-09-17 10:22:11 AM

jehovahs witness protection: There is no longer a need for unions as all they are good for now is to scam employers and tax payers.


Yes, why should we fight collectively for higher wages? Everything is juuuuuuust fine!

i53.tinypic.com
 
2011-09-17 10:27:33 AM
However, this is the most likely cause that will be overlooked by both sides beating each other with a wet noodle.

The retirements in many districts can also be attributed, in part, to demographic shifts. This may be a peak year for teachers reaching retirement age nationwide, research has shown.

These are the retirement years for a lot of people in all different professions. Hopefully, that will make more room for jobs to be filled, but we'll have to deal with the legacy cost of the retirements and the cost of new workers simultaneously. That is why so many state budget directors are freaking out.
 
2011-09-17 10:43:17 AM
obviously, the solution is to take MORE rights away from workers. Because that'll make the remaining ones more efficient!
 
2011-09-17 11:17:08 AM

NewportBarGuy: jehovahs witness protection: There is no longer a need for unions as all they are good for now is to scam employers and tax payers.

Yes, why should we fight collectively for higher wages? Everything is juuuuuuust fine!


*crickets*
 
2011-09-17 11:18:06 AM

clancifer: NewportBarGuy: jehovahs witness protection: There is no longer a need for unions as all they are good for now is to scam employers and tax payers.

Yes, why should we fight collectively for higher wages? Everything is juuuuuuust fine!

*crickets*


Yep.
 
2011-09-17 11:19:57 AM
If folks like J H P had their way, that blue line would be a mirror image of the red one.

CLASS WARRIORS!
 
2011-09-17 11:24:59 AM

jehovahs witness protection: coco ebert: jehovahs witness protection: Pay cuts?
These people cried about having to invest in their pension plans and pay a small portion of their health care costs, like the rest of the country.
FARK THEM

No, they didn't. They AGREED to that. What they didn't want was their rights to collectively bargain stripped.

After crying for weeks. The collective bargaining part REALLY needed to be stopped. We have plenty of labor laws protecting workers. There is no longer a need for unions as all they are good for now is to scam employers and tax payers.


I work for an online public charter school. Our teachers aren't unionized, and we get a lot of teachers that are giving up their union, their benefits, and their salaries to come work for us for lower wages. I personally know several special education teachers (Intervention Specialists) and school psychologists that are hanging on in the brick and mortar just for the salary they have accrued over the years.

Eventually, brick and mortar schools will be a rarity -- like bookstores. Everything will be online and the unions will be dismantled.

/not anti-union
//just inside the industry
 
2011-09-17 11:28:32 AM

thismomentinblackhistory: I work for an online public charter school. Our teachers aren't unionized, and we get a lot of teachers that are giving up their union, their benefits, and their salaries to come work for us for lower wages.


Why do suppose that is?

Since this is fark, lemme say I'm not asking rhetorically. I graduated from high school in the triassic and am genuinely curious.
 
2011-09-17 11:29:12 AM

NewportBarGuy: jehovahs witness protection: There is no longer a need for unions as all they are good for now is to scam employers and tax payers.

Yes, why should we fight collectively for higher wages? Everything is juuuuuuust fine!

[i53.tinypic.com image 635x423]


Thank you for summing up nicely why we still need unions.
 
2011-09-17 11:39:17 AM

gilgigamesh: thismomentinblackhistory: I work for an online public charter school. Our teachers aren't unionized, and we get a lot of teachers that are giving up their union, their benefits, and their salaries to come work for us for lower wages.

Why do suppose that is?

Since this is fark, lemme say I'm not asking rhetorically. I graduated from high school in the triassic and am genuinely curious.


Well, there are several reasons.

One of them is the fact that we exist. For every student we enroll, a local district is losing funding, a chair goes empty, and there are natural consequences to that -- maybe they no longer can justify transportation through a certain neighborhood, or they no longer need a particular teacher. If we take 5% of Akron's students (including special education students), Akron takes a financial hit. Akron then challenges our funding and we need to verify residency to get the money Akron would otherwise get. As we get more students from Akron, the quality of services they are able to provide goes down, which eventually leads to us getting more students. That is how the competition hurts them. In theory, it helps them by creating competition. This is why you might see local school districts doing some distance learning.

But it isn't just online schools that traditional school districts are competing with. There are charter schools that cater to minorities, disadvantaged youth, kids who are interested in pursuing a career in a specific field, pregnant students, etc.

For the teachers who willingly give up the union and the benefits, as I mentioned, they are sick of administrators. They are tired of the grind, the discipline. Instead they can come work for us, work from home, have flexible hours, not actually have to "see" children. They can have their own kids at home. We provide health insurance, dental care. It's not for everyone (same as our families), but for some it really works.
 
2011-09-17 11:41:34 AM
thismomentinblackhistory:

OK, that makes sense. Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.
 
2011-09-17 11:49:27 AM

gilgigamesh: thismomentinblackhistory: I work for an online public charter school. Our teachers aren't unionized, and we get a lot of teachers that are giving up their union, their benefits, and their salaries to come work for us for lower wages.

Why do suppose that is?

Since this is fark, lemme say I'm not asking rhetorically. I graduated from high school in the triassic and am genuinely curious.



I can throw my two cents in on that, since I work at the same sort of school (mine's a hybrid though, not all online).

1. Charter schools can offer exactly what a community wants/needs, without being bound to an hierarchy that forces them to do things their way (which generally is a one-size-fits-all approach that has been proven over and over not to work for a large segment of the school population).

2. Charter schools can negotiate salaries with teachers and staff, thus giving those whom deserve larger salaries the chance to earn them, without being tied down to a salary scale that generally requires one to go to school and earn more credits to get a raise - rather than prove one is an effective teacher. (The assumption is that if you are continuing your education, you must be improving your classroom performance, and I can personally attest there is no correlation/causation here).

3. Students learning online are a. generally allowed to work at their own pace, as long as they complete their coursework within a predetermined timeframe (a semester, a year, etc.). Online education is also easier to customize to the individual, something that I can attest is VERY difficult to do for a room full of 40 kids.

4. Online education costs less. There is less overhead, infrastructure, etc., and fewer lawsuits, simply because all interactions between students, teachers, parents, and administrators are recorded electronically. Not to mention the reduction in discipline problems (the number one problem is cheating), and the reduction in the potential for lawsuits.

5. Studies demonstrate online education is just as or more effective than face to face teaching. It also teaches students self-discipline and forces them to take responsibility for their own education - because students aren't in a desk, they aren't spoon-fed by the classroom teacher. They have to turn on their computer, they have to submit assignments, etc. The teacher can't spoon feed little Johnny assignments just to get enough points for passing because he's not sitting in a classroom. Every major learning management system also tracks how much time little Johnny has spent working online, thus allowing teachers to know how much effort is really going into schooling - and forcing the parents and Johnny to actually make an effort in his education.

There's more, but that's a start. I don't think local schools will necessarily ever go away (too many people like sports, band, etc.) but I could forsee that being replaced by local "club" sports that compete in the same way, in order to accommodate charter schols.
 
2011-09-17 11:49:33 AM

gilgigamesh: thismomentinblackhistory:

OK, that makes sense. Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.


For the record I signed a petition for and plan to vote against the union busting house bill in my state, SB 5. I think it has swung too far against local school districts. But I genuinely do believe that in 50 years, most high schools will be converted into housing.
 
2011-09-17 11:53:11 AM

Kimothy: gilgigamesh: thismomentinblackhistory: I work for an online public charter school. Our teachers aren't unionized, and we get a lot of teachers that are giving up their union, their benefits, and their salaries to come work for us for lower wages.

Why do suppose that is?

Since this is fark, lemme say I'm not asking rhetorically. I graduated from high school in the triassic and am genuinely curious.


I can throw my two cents in on that, since I work at the same sort of school (mine's a hybrid though, not all online).
.


Thank you, you filled in a lot that I left out because I could go on forever a la tl;dr. We run a hybrid in Chicago. I don't think online school is for everyone, but I've noticed that it is a great fit for students who are either far behind or well ahead the typical peer. We've been getting a lot of students whose parents are trying to avoid gangs in Cleveland, too.
 
2011-09-17 12:09:33 PM
If Howe had continued teaching, the law would require him to pay 5.8 percent of his salary into his retirement plan, plus a substantial amount toward health insurance, in effect reducing his take-home pay by 10 percent, he says.

So you have to pay towards your pension and health benefits? Gee, how horrible it must be to be just like everyone else.
 
2011-09-17 12:26:47 PM
Wow. Here's an article from the Toledo Blade today that illustrates what I was posting about: Link (new window)

The money quote: More than anything else, district officials believe TPS enrollment is down simply because Toledo has fewer children. Mr. Gault said he expects later figures will show that charter school enrollment citywide stagnated, or possibly declined.

Meanwhile we are exceeding our enrollment projections from our corporate headquarters. Special Ed. is up 62%. We're approaching 18K students K-12. And we aren't the only game in town. The denial is staggering...
 
2011-09-17 12:28:57 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2011-09-17 12:33:25 PM

ArkAngel: Gee, how horrible it must be to be just like everyone else.


Or, conversely, we could fight to get similar benefits. Just a thought.
 
2011-09-17 12:51:01 PM

jehovahs witness protection: After crying for weeks. The collective bargaining part REALLY needed to be stopped. We have plenty of labor laws protecting workers. There is no longer a need for unions as all they are good for now is to scam employers and tax payers.


You sound uneducated.
 
2011-09-17 12:56:51 PM

Weaver95: obviously, the solution is to take MORE rights away from workers. Because that'll make the remaining ones more efficient!


This is what teabagger governors without college education actually believe.
 
2011-09-17 12:57:25 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Pay cuts?
These people cried about having to invest in their pension plans and pay a small portion of their health care costs, like the rest of the country.
FARK THEM


Be careful, falling off that high horse would really hurt.
 
2011-09-17 12:57:42 PM

jehovahs witness protection: coco ebert: jehovahs witness protection: Pay cuts?
These people cried about having to invest in their pension plans and pay a small portion of their health care costs, like the rest of the country.
FARK THEM

No, they didn't. They AGREED to that. What they didn't want was their rights to collectively bargain stripped.

After crying for weeks. The collective bargaining part REALLY needed to be stopped. We have plenty of labor laws protecting workers. There is no longer a need for unions as all they are good for now is to scam employers and tax payers.


Derp.

1) Outlaw collective bargaining and unions (illegal due to freedom of assembly, but let's assume it works anyway)
2) Start stripping away labor rights, unions can't complain if they don't exist
3) ???
4) Obscene profit

Or put in simpler terms for you and people like you: unions maintain the labor rights that currently exist, whether you like it or not.
 
2011-09-17 01:00:35 PM
Anyone who seriously thinks there's no need for unions is a poor student of history. Pretty much every "perk" any American employee gets, from weekends off to overtime to safe working conditions, was fought for with union blood, sometimes literally. Employers weren't about to give away those things for free and will take them away if people don't pay attention or if said employers can get enough influence in government. Collective bargaining is the cornerstone of labor rights: without it, workers serve at the mercy of their bosses. Anyone with a decent knowledge of history knows how far that mercy goes.
 
2011-09-17 01:00:39 PM

jehovahs witness protection: After crying for weeks. The collective bargaining part REALLY needed to be stopped. We have plenty of labor laws protecting workers. There is no longer a need for unions as all they are good for now is to scam employers and tax payers.


That's right! Just like how we already have a bill of rights so we don't need all these old fashioned civil rights groups mucking up our court system.
 
2011-09-17 01:01:52 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Pay cuts?
These people cried about having to invest in their pension plans and pay a small portion of their health care costs, like the rest of the country.
FARK THEM


Someone doesn't understand deferred compensation. They paid 100% into their pension plans.
 
2011-09-17 01:03:01 PM
Good, time to get all of the old union thugs out.

Unions serve no purpose now but to impede productivity and keep terrible people employed.

Even the idiot above, Jackdragna seems to think unions keep our employees safe. Fark you. There are these things called laws, jackass.
 
2011-09-17 01:03:29 PM

jehovahs witness protection: coco ebert: jehovahs witness protection: Pay cuts?
These people cried about having to invest in their pension plans and pay a small portion of their health care costs, like the rest of the country.
FARK THEM

No, they didn't. They AGREED to that. What they didn't want was their rights to collectively bargain stripped.

After crying for weeks. The collective bargaining part REALLY needed to be stopped. We have plenty of labor laws protecting workers. There is no longer a need for unions as all they are good for now is to scam employers and tax payers.


You said that with a straight face didn't you?
 
2011-09-17 01:03:53 PM

Weaver95: obviously, the solution is to take MORE rights away from workers. Because that'll make the remaining ones more efficient!


We now have all classes, nationwide, taught by one australian guy!
 
2011-09-17 01:04:37 PM
NPR had something about this on their website. The comments section of the story looked like a scientific experiment on herpaderp that got out of hand. People were actually insisting that all teachers be fired and all children can just be sat in front of a computer and go through their lessons electronically, much the way adults take online classes. These people are actually allowed to vote. It's frightening.
 
2011-09-17 01:05:25 PM

Thunderpipes: Good, time to get all of the old union thugs out.

Unions serve no purpose now but to impede productivity and keep terrible people employed.

Even the idiot above, Jackdragna seems to think unions keep our employees safe. Fark you. There are these things called laws, jackass.


madmumblings.com
 
2011-09-17 01:05:35 PM
Also, school districts aren't necessarily losing the ability to teach well if more people retire, since some research shows that teachers with three to five years of experience can be as effective as longtime veterans, says Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

From the article. So good, get rid of them, should cut their pension benefits as well. Scumbags.

Nobody said workers don't have rights, dummies.

Employers have rights too, like not to hire a union thug.
 
2011-09-17 01:05:43 PM
I guess the greedy elements of the GOP wants to go back to good 'ole early days of the industrial revolution, when the boss paid you what he thought it was the right payment, and all the family (yes, including you little Timmy) worked in the factory.
 
2011-09-17 01:06:25 PM

NewportBarGuy: ArkAngel: Gee, how horrible it must be to be just like everyone else.

Or, conversely, we could fight to get similar benefits. Just a thought.


No no, you are lucky to have a job! Only JOBCREATORStm can make jobs! You are lucky that they pay you anything at all, scum. One of the JOBCREATORStm might just be getting ready to make a JOB and they must be given as much of the profit you earn for them as possible just in case they decide to use it to create a job! They already own 99% of everything, but it isn't enough, they want your last 1% to put in their pile. You need to live in a living hell and serve them in case they decide to make a job for you! If they say you need to make a concession, you do! They have made people more desperate than you and ready to come and take your job if you don't give them everything they want. People are waiting to do your job for less because the JOBCREATORStm like to keep you hungry.
 
2011-09-17 01:06:39 PM
Education is for commies and the super rich who can afford to buy governors.
 
2011-09-17 01:06:51 PM
My wife is a teacher. She is forced to contribute 11.4% currently to her pension. Her district also contributes another 9.9% towards her pension. This can be changed at anytime without any union involvement and has been raised the last 2 years. No pay raise in 3 years so her pay keeps going down. Anyone who says she isn't earning her pension is a fool. Masters degree in Math and she earns a whole 45k a year after 8 years of teaching. Her benefits are expensive as hell. Last I checked it was $350 per 2 week check for medical coverage for herself plus kids. Don't even remember what a family plan would cost. With how much her student loans are she always say she doesn't know how she could afford to live on her own.
 
2011-09-17 01:07:27 PM
jehovahs witness protection FARK THEM

pretty much THIS in regards to the latest Southern Cal grocery strike, unemployed unionized aerospace workers & unemployed IATSE guys & unemployed postal workers seem unsympathetic
 
2011-09-17 01:07:28 PM

Thunderpipes: Also, school districts aren't necessarily losing the ability to teach well if more people retire, since some research shows that teachers with three to five years of experience can be as effective as longtime veterans, says Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

From the article. So good, get rid of them, should cut their pension benefits as well. Scumbags.

Nobody said workers don't have rights, dummies.

Employers have rights too, like not to hire a union thug.


"Less experience in our children's classrooms! Hooray!" - I encourage Republicans everywhere to start using this line in their commercials.
 
2011-09-17 01:09:14 PM

FlashHarry: clearly, this is the only way to beat the chinese and indians to the future!


/thread
 
2011-09-17 01:09:32 PM

Jackdragna: Anyone who seriously thinks there's no need for unions is a poor student of history. Pretty much every "perk" any American employee gets, from weekends off to overtime to safe working conditions, was fought for with union blood, sometimes literally. Employers weren't about to give away those things for free and will take them away if people don't pay attention or if said employers can get enough influence in government. Collective bargaining is the cornerstone of labor rights: without it, workers serve at the mercy of their bosses. Anyone with a decent knowledge of history knows how far that mercy goes.


An excellent example is Wisconsin before the teacher's unions in the 1970's. What a freaking mess that was with continuous bitter strikes and districts constantly closed down. Scabs would not cross the lines to take the vacant jobs. Time to repeat history I guess.
 
2011-09-17 01:12:04 PM
What? Quit? I thought all teachers were altruistic? Thats what Matt Damon led me to believe.
 
2011-09-17 01:12:40 PM
After all of these teachers retire and others move to states that will pay them more, then what do you have?

Texas, just a lot farther north.
 
Displayed 50 of 315 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report