The next board meeting is tomorrow (Wednesday), 7pm at Glacial Drumlin. The agenda can be found here.
The public meeting is preceded by a closed session where we will hear about and discuss the contract negotiations. I've been asked about the negotiations, but I won't discuss them other to say they are ongoing. The contract does prohibit unilateral "press releases", but that aside I can't speak for the board and any comments I might have could potentially undermine those who do represent the board’s positions in the negotiations.
I do hope we can resolve the issues as soon as possible.
The initial proposals from both sides are available on the MGEA website. The Master Agreement itself is no longer there, I'll ask to have it posted on the district site- I only have a hard copy. If you haven't noticed the MGEA announced that they will be continuing their "work to the contract" job action.
Other items of interest:
VIII. Superintendent’s Report and UpdatesCraig will provide an update on the several topics, including the change over to Chartwells food service (my kids are liking it better so far!), the staff changes for this school year, and the total $40,000 in over payments made to some teachers over the last few years. The "Continuous School Improvement Training" refers to the 2 day workshop conducted for staff, administrators and the board in August by Brenda Clark. I believe that this is the most important work we will be doing this year.
A. Food Service Update
B. 2010-2011 Staffing Update
C. Continuous School Improvement Training Update
D. Teacher Overpayment Update
Paul Brost will give us an update on the High school climate - its important that we don't lose sight of the need to address the racial tensions present in our schools.
IX. Unfinished Business
A. Presentation of High School Discipline Procedures and School Climate Issues (30 min)
C. Discussion of Nichols Property and Appraisal (20 min)The board needs to decide how we will proceed with this property - we need to hear what you think. IMHO this is prime property in Monona and it should be working for our community rather than sitting largely idle.
X. New BusinessThis is the budget we mostly balanced last spring, and will be submitted for approval at the next annual meeting of the district in October.
A. Discussion and Possible Approval of Preliminary 2010-2011 Budget (30 min)
C. Discussion and Possible Approval of the Resolution Authorizing Temporary BorrowingThis is our annual cash flow borrowing that is used to pay the bills between the lump sum payouts we get from the state. We do this each year.
in the Amount Not to Exceed $4,900,000.00;...
___________________________________________________________
Completely off topic-
I have to add a bowl of Pho from Lee's Asian Bistro (Monona drive @ Dean) to my favorite local meals. They also have excellent Spring Rolls, Will loves the pot stickers and I haven't had calamari that good outside of Sausalito. If you haven't been to this new place on Monona Drive just North of Dean be sure to check it out.
For the record I'm also partial to the homemade Tamales from Super Tienda Latina (get a dozen at the deli counter), the Sushi bar at Edo and the curried salmon at David's Jamaican.
40 comments:
I think it is not serving the public well to remain mum about the contract issues. This is hurting kids directly especially at the middle and high school. I understand the contract limits the board to some extent, but if it's press releases you cannot issue, then don't issue one. It doesn't stop the board from issuing a statement to the public via the MG website, does it? Besides, what exactly are you worried about at this point? The teachers have already decided not to allow the process to play out through arbitration.
I suspect the board is holding out on some very important issues that will affect the financial viability of this district for many years to come. Why not be specific so people know why you cannot give in to the union demands?
If you want to see what the school board is trying to achieve with these negotiations, see http://www.mononatv.com/ and click on the Susan Fox video. Go to about minute 27 on the video where she gives a pretty good overview of the issues. What the board is offering to solve the unfunded retirement benefits seems very reasonable. Nobody close to retirement would be affected, but the board wants to slowly change the retirement benefits for younger and new teachers.
Peter, I approve of what you are doing if that is what the board is doing. My problem is that I don't know the board' position. Thus, what is the general public suppose to do send a letter that says "I support the board's position, but I have no idea what the position is-signed Board Supporter?"
Watch the video. Ms. Fox is pretty clear and detailed about what the board is seeking and it seems reasonable to me.
Peter:
On behalf of all the unemployed, furloughed and those that have taken dramatic cuts in pay during this first recessionary dip, I want you and the board to know that we fully support wage and benefit cuts to the MGSD teachers and staff.
Please bring the teacher's contract down into the realm of current realities. To roll-over and INCREASE pay or benfits just puts another shovel of dirt on this school district.
"Peter:
On behalf of all the unemployed, furloughed and those that have taken dramatic cuts in pay during this first recessionary dip, I want you and the board to know that we fully support wage and benefit cuts to the MGSD teachers and staff.
Please bring the teacher's contract down into the realm of current realities. To roll-over and INCREASE pay or benfits just puts another shovel of dirt on this school district."
Is that their position? I will sign my name, but not until I know that is the position.
"On behalf of all the unemployed, furloughed and those that have taken dramatic cuts in pay..."
I've been furloughed too and my wife's been cut and we have to say you don't speak for either of us.
While we understand the bind the board is in, we support the teachers. These are hard working people, whose pay has been below "current realities" for years because of the understanding that they would also get good benefits while working and while retired.
It's sad that the way we try to reduce our suffering is by making other suffer.
"It's sad that the way we try to reduce our suffering is by making other suffer."
So as my net income drops, I am suppose to give me to another group?
Dear Monona Parent,
Your position on this issue is compassionate and I am quite sure it makes you feel good about nd yourself. But it doesn't help anything beyond that. It seems to me an easy way out of not confronting the harsh realities. It is not as if the board is sitting on funding they are failing to release. In order to support what the teachers want, you must also support a long term unsustainable budget situation which translates into program cuts, teacher job losses through layoffs and increased class sizes. Perhaps that is o.k. with you. If so, then your position is valid. If not, then from where do you propose the board finds the funding to fill the growing hole the retirement benefits are creating?
"Dear Monona Parent,
Your position on this issue is compassionate and I am quite sure it makes you feel good about nd yourself. But it doesn't help anything beyond that. It seems to me an easy way out of not confronting the harsh realities. It is not as if the board is sitting on funding they are failing to release. In order to support what the teachers want, you must also support a long term unsustainable budget situation which translates into program cuts, teacher job losses through layoffs and increased class sizes. Perhaps that is o.k. with you. If so, then your position is valid. If not, then from where do you propose the board finds the funding to fill the growing hole the retirement benefits are creating?"
Exactly
I fully support a referendum to maintain the current level of programs and the current teacher's contract. With the $800,000 in Federal funds we'll get, it comes out to a little over $100 a year if you live in a $200,000 home. This would last for 2 years. To get through the next 4 years would cost about $200 a year. In that time, we need to fix the problem, by addressing the cause, which was not the teachers.
The budget situation is due to a limit placed on the district by the State, who was supposed to also pay 2/3rds has hasn't done so. If the State kept up their end of the bargain, we wouldn't be in this situation, and the teachers could get their raise.
The State has a lot of options, most of which would loose elections, so they avoid it, and let us suffer. Personally, I think cleaning out the Capitol would be a good thing.
Oddly enough, many of their options wouldn't be that bad for most of us, and might not cost the votes. They could raise the corporate tax rate or cut some subsidies that are abused by business. The main loss would be in campaign donations from lobbies. Even if the State passed a income tax increase which we would all pay, it would be less then a local referendum. The extra $75 you pay would be supplemented by Ron Johnson or Herb Kohl paying $10,000+ (Herb would probably pay more).
We have less money because our bosses cut our pay, and we are facing a budget issue because the State is afraid to do their job. These are the groups we need to stand up too.
"
We have less money because our bosses cut our pay, and we are facing a budget issue because the State is afraid to do their job. These are the groups we need to stand up too."
They are not standing up-the country and the state are in a pattern of decreasing pay and benefits-that is a fact.
Should we be in the business of golden parachutes for teachers?
Direct retirement payments by the MG district to teachers annually, through the teacher's TEP program (not post-retirement health-care benefits, not retirement income from the state retirement fund), runs - guessing here -- about $250,000-$300,000 annually. That's a lot of money just to pay teachers who retire, that bears little if any relation to what goes on in the classroom, to say nothing of supplies, books and other programs that could be supported.
In this day and age, in this economic climate, can the district continue to pay teachers simply to retire? Would any referendum pass to support that particular provision of the teacher's contract? I can see a referendum to help pay for reasonable and market-driven salaries and benefits -- but that one (TEP)?
Did you just say we are spending ever year: "$250,000-$300,000 annually." for teachers that retire?
I assume these teachers are still teaching or doing some type of work for the district, right?
Golden parachutes?
It used to be called a pension, and a lot of workers got them. Most CEOs still do, even when they crash a company and get fired. The amount for CEOs is about 500 times greater and they get their money first (hence the term golden parachute), so to me the teacher's pension sounds more like a golden safety slide.
I guess is better then what we're getting, but our goal should be to get rid of those that are crashing the plane, not block the exits.
"It used to be called a pension, and a lot of workers got them. "
I don't think you understand-teachers are getting a pension on-top-of the TEP program.
TEP is not a pension. The teachers receive very excellent pension benefits through the State of Wisconsin. I believe the district funds that as it goes and there's no problem there.
The problem is TEP and health benefits. TEP (teacher emeritus pay) is a bonus in the form of years worth of their highest salary given to them as a cash payment. I believe it is paid out over two years. The teachers also get health insurance paid through age 70! As you can imagine, that's a real killer financially.
Now SHOULD they get this stuff? Sure! Why not? We all should, right? But how to pay for it, well, that's the problem the board faces. I'll vote yes on that referendum, but I doubt 50% of the voters will too, especially when they know it will fund retirement benefits they themselves do not have. People are selfish in the voting booth.
Did you just say we are spending ever year: "$250,000-$300,000 annually." for teachers that retire?
I assume these teachers are still teaching or doing some type of work for the district, right?
No, retirement benefits are paid in exchange for lower salary during the employment. The teachers did the work because we promised to pay for their health care when they retired. Sometimes it's called delayed compensation.
I don't know the actual numbers but if it is $300,000 you're probably paying for 100 retired workers. Each of them probably made $10,000 less each year then the private sector would have paid. If they worked 20 years that's comes to around $200,000 in savings per teacher. Multiply the savings by the number of teachers (100) and the agreement saved 20 million (over 20 years employment) while costing 3 million. That's $300,000 a year times an average retirement of 10 years. Even if the agreement paid $300,000 all 20 years (6 million), and we only count 50 workers (10 million salary savings over 20 years), the district and tax payers are still ahead.
Private sector? For teachers, most private schools in this area pay less and have less generous benefits. If you want to start comparing to the private sector, let's talk about people who actually work all 12 months of the year.
This "working the contract" has got to stop. No college recs, MGHS and GDS clubs cancelled, important elementary school trips cancelled- lots of unhappy kids. HS teachers are talking to their kids about how it is going to last all year, and how many of them don't want to be doing this, but they have to follow the union.
I have always been a huge supporter of teachers- but I am DONE volunteering for lunches, special treats, and support. This is hurting kids, and they have to move the process along faster--- so if the School Board won't talk about it, contact the MGEA board and reps. These are the folks leading the "work the contract" movement and putting pressure on their fellow teachers to cooperate.Lots of info on the MGEA website
Here are the Union Leaders:
President:
Kristine Wollermann, GDS
Vice-President/PR Director:
Sarah Croak, TP
Treasurer:
Kevin Mikelbank, GDS
Secretary:
Janice Stone, GDS
Chief Financial Advisor:
Maurice Smith, MGHS
Social Coordinator:
Robin Krueger, MW & Sarah Croak, TP
Building Representatives
Cottage Grove:
James Steinke
Nancy Hixon
Linda Elsberry
Glacial Drumlin School:
Tracy Ellingson
Sue Guess
Pat Howell
David Kinsler
Kevin Mikelbank
Janice Stone
Jeff Thompson
Maywood:
Jennifer Klotzbach
Robin Krueger
Barbara Trapp
Julie Witherell
Monona Grove High School:
Deidre Bradford
Pat Onsager
Jenifer Smith
Steve Fehringer
Taylor Prairie:
Sarah Croak
Jaime Schmied
Winnequah:
Tamara Schuchardt
"I don't know the actual numbers but if it is $300,000 you're probably paying for 100 retired workers. Each of them probably made $10,000 less each year then the private sector would have paid. If they worked 20 years that's comes to around $200,000 in savings per teacher. Multiply the savings by the number of teachers (100) and the agreement saved 20 million (over 20 years employment) while costing 3 million. That's $300,000 a year times an average retirement of 10 years. Even if the agreement paid $300,000 all 20 years (6 million), and we only count 50 workers (10 million salary savings over 20 years), the district and tax payers are still ahead."
This is fuzzy math at its best (or worst...).
Comparing public sector teaching jobs to private sector jobs of any kind isn't really relevant; it's particularly not relevant for the school board, which faces: a) a very difficult budget problem for many years; and b)a provision in the teacher's contract (TEP) that is simply more generous than anything found in any other teacher's contract in the state, and is unsustainable even in the short run.
The district simply can't afford to continue paying teachers to retire under the parameters of the current TEP program; it's an annual drain on the budget of at least $250,000 a year.
If it's "saving" the district so much money, why is the board trying to curtail it? And why is the union trying so hard to keep it (the work-to-contract stuff is all about TEP and nothing else)?
The union keeps harping that the district is in the market for teachers, and must remain competitive in wages and salaries. True, but the district is also in the market for students (parents deciding where to live, students moving here via open enollment), and the district has to have some kind of niche or distinctivenss to keep it attractive for young families. We have a lot of that (well-run elementary schools, fine arts programming, decent -- not great, but getting better -- college-prep programming), but thoe are jeopardized by provisions in the current teacher's contract that fund a retirement parachute program that far more generous thatn any other single district in the state.
If people want to use private sector comparisons, then let's invite teachers to adopt the private sector. In other words, if you don't like the wages and benefits at MG, go elsewhere and see what you can get. First of all, many of our teachers won't be able to find another job because outside of our little Dane County bubble, there are widespread layoffs. Second, most of our teachers are tenured. They are guaranteed jobs for life unless they do something really, really bad. They will not receive automatic tenure in a new district nor credit for their years of experience on a salary schedule and thus they are held here by handcuffs they negotiated for themselves.
Next, let's take their salaries and use a factor of 1.25 to compare to private sector wages to acknowledge they work just 38 weeks per year. They get nearly 3 weeks of vacation with holiday breaks and the summer off. Now before anyone gets their ponytail in a knot about the fact that teachers work beyond their 8 hour day on the days they do work, I would say that many other professionals do too. And they do it all year long.
This is why private sector comparisons are utterly invalid and unhelpful.
Big picture, our funding mechanisms are messed up, teachers dont' get paid enough and it isn't fair. But that's the teaching profession and when it comes to the contract our school board cannot correct the wrongs of our society and political system. I'm with them on this one. Big time.
And I think it stinks the example teachers are setting if they are telling kids they don't want to do this but the union is making them. Not only are our kids being used as pawns in this demented little game, but they are being taught to act like sheep and not question authority when that authority is asking them to do something they do not believe in.
As I noted, I don't know what the numbers are, but the point is even with conservative estimates, over the past 20-30 years, it has been much cheaper to pay less in salary, in exchange for health care after retirement.
The formula is pretty simple: (years employed) x (salary savings per year) should be greater then or equal to (years retired) x (health care cost in retirement). Plug in your own numbers and you'll see something similar. People usually work for a longer time then they retire, and the pay cut for teachers vs. private sector workers used to be much higher then the cost of retirement benefits. Obviously both of these numbers are approaching a point where they won't save money, mostly because health care costs have gone up a lot, but also because the private sector pay has been cut recently.
But for these 20-30 years, this has made things much cheaper for you and I as tax payers. Unlike a business, which could have saved or invested that money, public institutions return the money. I think this is the right thing to do, but I can see that it hurts both the future budget side, and the public relations side for the school districts (or cities or counties). They don't get credit for the savings, because no one figures out what it would be without the agreement. Then the state comes in and limits the increase each year based upon the savings, not the original cost, which makes the budgeting even harder, and any good PR goes to the state, not the districts who found the savings.
It makes sense for the Board to try get rid of the health care deal, because of the massive increase in cost of insurance the last 10-15 years.
But at the same time, it makes sense for the union to fight it. Teachers can't go back in time and start saving, nor are they getting the extra money to save. I think the proposal keeps the current deal for those within 10 years of retirement. If you worked for 19 years, and had less money and a contract that said your health care would be paid for, could you save up all the funds you need for health care in the next 11 years?
It also makes sense for them to fight as a group. Try it at your job. If you go in and ask for something alone, your odds of getting it are lower then if you go in with 2 or more. Even with a pay freeze and furlough days, my coworkers and I were able to get overtime (which we needed to catch up, with a smaller staff) because all 4 of us said it at the same time and offered something (catching up) in exchange. Please note that we are not in a union, but by acting as a group, we got something from our own "collective bargaining."
But the biggest reason I'm with the teachers is because of what anonymous said: "teachers dont' get paid enough and it isn't fair." I paid about $1,700 in taxes to the school district last year for 2 kids. If I sent them to a private school, I would have had to spend about $5,000. At some private schools, tuition is $20,000 or more per student (I think the school for the Obama kids is $30,000 a year each). The estimate I saw, figures that to pay the teachers their current contract would cost me an extra $100 a year. I'm willing to pay the $100 to make things a little more fair for teachers.
As I noted, I don't know what the numbers are, but the point is even with conservative estimates, over the past 20-30 years, it has been much cheaper to pay less in salary, in exchange for health care after retirement.
The formula is pretty simple: (years employed) x (salary savings per year) should be greater then or equal to (years retired) x (health care cost in retirement). Plug in your own numbers and you'll see something similar. People usually work for a longer time then they retire, and the pay cut for teachers vs. private sector workers used to be much higher then the cost of retirement benefits. Obviously both of these numbers are approaching a point where they won't save money, mostly because health care costs have gone up a lot, but also because the private sector pay has been cut recently.
But for these 20-30 years, this has made things much cheaper for you and I as tax payers. Unlike a business, which could have saved or invested that money, public institutions return the money. I think this is the right thing to do, but I can see that it hurts both the future budget side, and the public relations side for the school districts (or cities or counties). They don't get credit for the savings, because no one figures out what it would be without the agreement. Then the state comes in and limits the increase each year based upon the savings, not the original cost, which makes the budgeting even harder, and any good PR goes to the state, not the districts who found the savings.
It makes sense for the Board to try get rid of the health care deal, because of the massive increase in cost of insurance the last 10-15 years.
But at the same time, it makes sense for the union to fight it. Teachers can't go back in time and start saving, nor are they getting the extra money to save. I think the proposal keeps the current deal for those within 10 years of retirement. If you worked for 19 years, and had less money and a contract that said your health care would be paid for, could you save up all the funds you need for health care in the next 11 years?
It also makes sense for them to fight as a group. Try it at your job. If you go in and ask for something alone, your odds of getting it are lower then if you go in with 2 or more. Even with a pay freeze and furlough days, my coworkers and I were able to get overtime (which we needed to catch up, with a smaller staff) because all 4 of us said it at the same time and offered something (catching up) in exchange. Please note that we are not in a union, but by acting as a group, we got something from our own "collective bargaining."
But the biggest reason I'm with the teachers is because of what anonymous said: "teachers dont' get paid enough and it isn't fair." I paid about $1,700 in taxes to the school district last year for 2 kids. If I sent them to a private school, I would have had to spend about $5,000. At some private schools, tuition is $20,000 or more per student (I think the school for the Obama kids is $30,000 a year each). The estimate I saw, figures that to pay the teachers their current contract would cost me an extra $100 a year. I'm willing to pay the $100 to make things a little more fair for teachers.
As I noted, I don't know what the numbers are, but the point is even with conservative estimates, over the past 20-30 years, it has been much cheaper to pay less in salary, in exchange for health care after retirement.
The formula is pretty simple: (years employed) x (salary savings per year) should be greater then or equal to (years retired) x (health care cost in retirement). Plug in your own numbers and you'll see something similar. People usually work for a longer time then they retire, and the pay cut for teachers vs. private sector workers used to be much higher then the cost of retirement benefits. Obviously both of these numbers are approaching a point where they won't save money, mostly because health care costs have gone up a lot, but also because the private sector pay has been cut recently.
But for these 20-30 years, this has made things much cheaper for you and I as tax payers. Unlike a business, which could have saved or invested that money, public institutions return the money. I think this is the right thing to do, but I can see that it hurts both the future budget side, and the public relations side for the school districts (or cities or counties). They don't get credit for the savings, because no one figures out what it would be without the agreement. Then the state comes in and limits the increase each year based upon the savings, not the original cost, which makes the budgeting even harder, and any good PR goes to the state, not the districts who found the savings.
It makes sense for the Board to try get rid of the health care deal, because of the massive increase in cost of insurance the last 10-15 years.
But at the same time, it makes sense for the union to fight it. Teachers can't go back in time and start saving, nor are they getting the extra money to save. I think the proposal keeps the current deal for those within 10 years of retirement. If you worked for 19 years, and had less money and a contract that said your health care would be paid for, could you save up all the funds you need for health care in the next 11 years?
It also makes sense for them to fight as a group. Try it at your job. If you go in and ask for something alone, your odds of getting it are lower then if you go in with 2 or more. Even with a pay freeze and furlough days, my coworkers and I were able to get overtime (which we needed to catch up, with a smaller staff) because all 4 of us said it at the same time and offered something (catching up) in exchange. Please note that we are not in a union, but by acting as a group, we got something from our own "collective bargaining."
But the biggest reason I'm with the teachers is because of what anonymous said: "teachers dont' get paid enough and it isn't fair." I paid about $1,700 in taxes to the school district last year for 2 kids. If I sent them to a private school, I would have had to spend about $5,000. At some private schools, tuition is $20,000 or more per student (I think the school for the Obama kids is $30,000 a year each). The estimate I saw, figures that to pay the teachers their current contract would cost me an extra $100 a year. I'm willing to pay the $100 to make things a little more fair for teachers.
As I noted, I don't know what the numbers are, but the point is even with conservative estimates, over the past 20-30 years, it has been much cheaper to pay less in salary, in exchange for health care after retirement.
The formula is pretty simple: (years employed) x (salary savings per year) should be greater then or equal to (years retired) x (health care cost in retirement). Plug in your own numbers and you'll see something similar. People usually work for a longer time then they retire, and the pay cut for teachers vs. private sector workers used to be much higher then the cost of retirement benefits. Obviously both of these numbers are approaching a point where they won't save money, mostly because health care costs have gone up a lot, but also because the private sector pay has been cut recently.
But for these 20-30 years, this has made things much cheaper for you and I as tax payers. Unlike a business, which could have saved or invested that money, public institutions return the money. I think this is the right thing to do, but I can see that it hurts both the future budget side, and the public relations side for the school districts (or cities or counties). They don't get credit for the savings, because no one figures out what it would be without the agreement. Then the state comes in and limits the increase each year based upon the savings, not the original cost, which makes the budgeting even harder, and any good PR goes to the state, not the districts who found the savings.
It makes sense for the Board to try get rid of the health care deal, because of the massive increase in cost of insurance the last 10-15 years.
But at the same time, it makes sense for the union to fight it. Teachers can't go back in time and start saving, nor are they getting the extra money to save. I think the proposal keeps the current deal for those within 10 years of retirement. If you worked for 19 years, and had less money and a contract that said your health care would be paid for, could you save up all the funds you need for health care in the next 11 years?
It also makes sense for them to fight as a group. Try it at your job. If you go in and ask for something alone, your odds of getting it are lower then if you go in with 2 or more. Even with a pay freeze and furlough days, my coworkers and I were able to get overtime (which we needed to catch up, with a smaller staff) because all 4 of us said it at the same time and offered something (catching up) in exchange. Please note that we are not in a union, but by acting as a group, we got something from our own "collective bargaining."
But the biggest reason I'm with the teachers is because of what anonymous said: "teachers dont' get paid enough and it isn't fair." I paid about $1,700 in taxes to the school district last year for 2 kids. If I sent them to a private school, I would have had to spend about $5,000. At some private schools, tuition is $20,000 or more per student (I think the school for the Obama kids is $30,000 a year each). The estimate I saw, figures that to pay the teachers their current contract would cost me an extra $100 a year. I'm willing to pay the $100 to make things a little more fair for teachers.
"I'm willing to pay the $100 to make things a little more fair for teachers."
Well, that's freaking spectacular. Good for you. Do you really think the other 50% of voters in this district will vote themselves a tax increase to provide benefits they themselves do not have? Good luck with that. I don't mean to be overly nasty, but people are incredibly selfish in the voting booth and will usually vote for what they believe (or more specifically what they have been duped into believing) are their own economic self interests.
And the more you cut education, the easier it is to dupe people.
Well, Monona Parent, we at least agree on that point!
Is someone explaining the basics of longevity pay? Do tax payers prefer to pay each employee every year along the way? The previous poster seems to be good with math.
Did you know the HRA or HSA that Ms. Fox described during her monona tv interview, by law, only stays with the employee if they retire in the District. They could work 15 or 20 years and have a larger account balance, then their spouse gets transfered, so the teacher leaves the District. Absolutely 0% of the accumulated benefit transfers with the employee, it all stays with or goes back to the district. Would you like that for your IRA or 401K account?
I hope our school district is MAKING sure that he teachers ARE working the CONTRACT. Be on time and in your room and stay to the contracted time, if they want to work the contract making do it.
The district should start by making sure they all attend their teacher's conference for the whole conference and not cut up north for vacation.
The MG Union President sounded like a spoiled child in her television interview from last week. She said something along the lines of "I might have to work longer than I thought if they take this benefit away". Oh my god.
That single sound byte made it clear that these teachers and their views are so far from reality. Hello! Everyone is being affected by these ecomonic circumstances! Why should the teachers be guaranteed an early retirement when none of the rest of will be guaranteed that?
And to expect to raise my taxes to fund it? I don't think so! This, on top of the fact that we are already facing operational funding gaps in the millions of dollars? A referendum is guaranteed to be around the corner.
Gotta be honest. I won't be voting for greedy teachers. Plenty of new blood out there hungry for work. Bring em in.
The point is, teachers are salaried. They get a salary, and are not hourly workers. All of this "volunteerism" like writing letters of recommendation and helping with clubs is part of that salary. If they want to be hourly workers, great- Many of us out here are- and we get paid for every hour we work. However, that would mean no money in the summer, no money over Christmas or Spring Break and no money for all the "comp" time. If that is how they want to work, great. Otherwise do your full and complete job. Kudos to those very few teachers who are actually doing their job and standing up to the bullies in the union. School Board-- Hold the line!
Jessica Ace gives a long detailed explaination on her blog.. This is an important point.
"The decision by the teachers to “work to contract” is by no means a universal union strategy; in fact, it is our understanding that teachers and other represented employees in the majority of districts do not elect to engage in such activities"
Yeah, other schools where the teachers understand professionalism and their duties to the kids.......
Dear Monona Mom of 3-
The teachers have a contract with the district to accept compensation every other week, throughout the year. Before this arrangement, teachers used to get one monthly check. Since teachers are only contracted for 190 days of employment, about 60 work days less than the regular m-f "year round worker" with no vacation time, they actually do a lot of their work up front and then get paid later, as in payments through out the year.
Many teachers would be happy to accept all the money they earn up front and budget it themselves rather than let the district hang on to it for months and either A) collect interest on it or B) not have to pay interest on the money that they need to borrow to float payroll money as the state only disperses it to the district at certain times of the year.
It seems it would make you feel better if the teachers got the money they earned in a more timely manner? They would probably like that too?
It also may make you feel better to think they are salaried, but the contract indeed defines the work day. I don't apologize if it hurts to hear the truth, on both issues.
Feel free to express your opinions, but I would also like you to be aware of knowing the actual facts, including that Maywood is still open! :-)
"As I noted, I don't know what the numbers are, but the point is even with conservative estimates, over the past 20-30 years, it has been much cheaper to pay less in salary, in exchange for health care after retirement."
That argument presumes that the district is saving money by paying the teachers less than they could. But the district has been spending at the revenue cap limits for decades - so they aren't saving money. They are paying the teachers the max available!
The revenue cap limits were started in the mid 90s (1996 I think) under Tommy Thompson. MG (and others) had been doing good retirement benefits in exhange for lower pay for at least 30 years (the length of this year's retires).
Pre-1996, before the cap, the cost each could go up by any ammount. There was a political limit, i.e. people would move or elect new boards if the cost was too high, but the board couldn't budget high and then find savings like a business can. They get credit for being effecient, because nobody sees this diference.
Those districts that didn't find savings before the cap, could now inact changes. The cap encourages the wasteful to change their ways, but doesn't reward the thrifty for their efforts.
Where's my teacher who taught me to proofread? I caught some typos.
The revenue cap limits were started in the mid 90s (1996 I think) under Tommy Thompson. MG (and others) had been doing good retirement benefits in exchange for lower pay for at least 30 years (the length of this year's retires).
Pre-1996, before the cap, the cost each year could go up by any amount. There was a political limit, i.e. people would move or elect new boards if the cost was too high, but the board couldn't budget high and then find savings like a business can. They don't get credit for being efficient, because nobody sees this difference.
Those districts that didn't find savings before the cap, could now enact changes. The cap encourages the wasteful to change their ways, but doesn't reward the thrifty for their efforts.
Post a Comment