• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NJ Teacher's Union refusing minor paycut

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Blackjack200 said:
Maybe for your kids. In fact, you should probably be quite pleased if they turn out mediocre. I'd hope my kids shoot for "exceptional".
Click to expand...
I'd imagine most parents want their kids to be happy and do what they love and probably don't care how much money it happens to pay.
 
Blackjack200 said:
Either one. Teacher or $50k.

Please try to follow the conversation, PJ said "By most of our standards it would be considered a dream job."

I don't think any $50k job would be a dream job for me, especially not being a teacher.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think having the entire summer off along with their benefits, other holidays off, etc. is pretty enticing. And to get back to my original comment (which is what started this tangent, not PJ's comment), the comment you made was this:

Blackjack200 said:
Would you be happy if your kids told you that their ambition in life is to make $50k?
Click to expand...

I'd be happy if my kids (if I had any) picked something they truly enjoyed and were happy doing it, regardless of salary, as long as he/she could support their family. I'm sorry that money is something you would use to deem someone "not ambitious" despite the fact they are doing something they love. I bet there are a lot of teachers out there that make much less money than I do but are far happier at work every day.

If their goal in life is to simply make tons of money, they would never consider teaching as an occupation in the first place. That's the tradeoff with teaching and it isn't going to change any time in the near future. I know what you're trying to say, but society isn't going to start paying teachers $100K.
 
ShawnD1 said:
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=High_School_Teacher/Salary/by_State
It says new high school teachers get about $43k per year. Middle school and elementary teachers are paid considerably less.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104652.html
Median personal income in New Jersey was $47k in this 2006 data, so a fresh teacher with a 4 year degree earns less than most random people while the median teacher is a lot closer to the state median income.
Click to expand...

except you're comparing a "fresh teacher with a 4 year degree" to a pool of workers which can include anyone from CEO's to toilet scrubbers, assuming your data is correct.
not an apples to apples comparison.
 
blanghorst said:
I'd be happy if my kids (if I had any) picked something they truly enjoyed and were happy doing it, regardless of salary, as long as he/she could support their family. I'm sorry that money is something you would use to deem someone "not ambitious" despite the fact they are doing something they love. I bet there are a lot of teachers out there that make much less money than I do but are far happier at work every day.

If their goal in life is to simply make tons of money, they would never consider teaching as an occupation in the first place. That's the tradeoff with teaching and it isn't going to change any time in the near future. I know what you're trying to say, but society isn't going to start paying teachers $100K.
Click to expand...

All I'm trying to say is that it's not a "dream job". I don't know what is so problematic about that. I don't think we need to pay teachers $100k either.
 
Fear No Evil said:
As a fellow IT person, I'm sure you realize that our jobs require that as well.. which is usually unpaid training we do ourselves to keep current on new technologies. Except I don't get a guaranteed raise for teaching myself Vmware.
Click to expand...

Of course, but that's not the point. You were claiming that most teachers go on auto-pilot after a while. I was demonstrating that no, most teachers don't do that.. in WI, anyway.
 
Gotta love unions bankrupting America

Muni drivers and management remain as far apart as ever over the city's demand for major contract concessions - but then, the list of proposed take-backs is long.

Among them:

-- The 8 percent pay premium for drivers who work after 6 p.m.

-- The 50-cents-an-hour premium for employees who work in the same Muni division for more than five years.

-- The $2-an-hour premium for drivers who are transferred to another shift or division.

-- Free fitness club memberships for employees, which cost the system about $200,000 a year.

-- Free Muni passes for drivers and their families.

Management also wants to reassign the six employees now paid to do union business full time. And it wants to boost the workload for the three dozen or so "full-time" drivers who, for reasons no one can explain, are now assigned to just one run a day.
Click to expand...

Why exactly is the agency paying for "union business"?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/13/BAQ11CU3GB.DTL
 
Let me be the one to rain on your parade. The teachers have a valid, enforceable and binding contract. The governor is trying to unilaterally change it. Just like if you were having your house painted and halfway through the contractor came to you to hold you up for more $$ because his pleasure boat needs repairs.

Looks to me like a naked union busting tactic, pure and simple. Especially with the governor's suggestion that the union give up it's dues.

I'm no huge fan of unions but the governor's publicity stunt here is absolutely wrong, both morally and legally. It certainly is not bargaining in good faith.
 
MJinZ said:
ANYbody working in a non-clock-in job (aka/ a REAL job) will do the same thing.... upt in hours WELL beyond the normal 9-5.
Click to expand...
haha mjinz is one of those guys who does unpaid overtime.

Real men punch the clock every day and get paid for their overtime. This isn't Walmart.
 
At-will doesn't mean a valid contract can be unilaterally broken. At-will means that in the absence of an otherwise applicable contract, and so long as the employment action doesn't violate any other law (usually discrimination laws) the employer can hire or fire at will for any reason or no reason at all. If there is a state in the USA that is not at-will, I'm not familiar with it.

Nearly all of us are employed on an at-will basis.
 
DrPizza said:
You're forgetting that half the time, the coin comes up heads. In times of prosperity, those teachers are still locked into their contracts, while others are getting significant pay raises or bonuses.
Click to expand...

True, and it doesn't help during lean times like now that past politicians/governors have agreed to raises. The contribution issue thus tends to be somewhat complicated by contractual concerns.

Still though, Christie can make a convincing argument that NJ's fiscal position is dire ($50+ billion debt iirc. over $1 billion shortfall), that previous political promises mad are unsustainable, and that he's asking the teachers to take pay cuts and share in the pain.
 
Thump553 said:
At-will doesn't mean a valid contract can be unilaterally broken. At-will means that in the absence of an otherwise applicable contract, and so long as the employment action doesn't violate any other law (usually discrimination laws) the employer can hire or fire at will for any reason or no reason at all. If there is a state in the USA that is not at-will, I'm not familiar with it.

Nearly all of us are employed on an at-will basis.
Click to expand...
money has to be cut somewhere... if the teachers union isn't willing to accept a pay freeze, he'll probably start laying off non-tenured teachers.
 
Patranus said:
Tenure has to be the stupidest concept ever.
Click to expand...
It makes sense (arguably) in parts of academia to protect the freedom of research, but there is absolutely no reason for it in K-12. It's just the school teachers want to feel like they're in the big leagues and they managed to hoodwink some moronic government officials into inventing it for them.
 
nonlnear said:
It makes sense (arguably) in parts of academia to protect the freedom of research, but there is absolutely no reason for it in K-12. It's just the school teachers want to feel like they're in the big leagues and they managed to hoodwink some moronic government officials into inventing it for them.
Click to expand...

Is that the rationale for it? I've never understood myself. I'd prefer to pay teachers on a range from $40k-$100k depending on how good they are, and fire the bad ones.
 
zsdersw said:
Of course, but that's not the point. You were claiming that most teachers go on auto-pilot after a while. I was demonstrating that no, most teachers don't do that.. in WI, anyway.
Click to expand...

Just because there is some mandated training that they go through I seriously doubt most teachers are actively trying to engage students in critical thinking and motivating them. If they were I think the results would be much better. Not that I entirely blame the teachers, because they are often dealt a pretty shitty hand when it comes to students.. but I think thats part of the reason most just cruise through the later part of their careers. Sure there are always exceptions to the rule, I had some great public school teachers but most of them were just going through the material and did little to push students.

Either way I am not trying to attack teachers, but the protections afforded them don't exactly push them to succeed. They are better off spending 30 years with the same school system and retiring with a massive pension and great benefits. Those in the private sector need to to work hard as as well just to KEEP their jobs in many cases and often they have to move to new companies, careers, etc in order to get salary increases and benefit increases.

I'm not attacking teachers, I'm just saying the complaining from many of them is a bit much considering the protections and benefits they have that most in the privat sector do not.
 
Blackjack200 said:
The same way you measure performance for any other kind of worker?

Evaluations from parents
Evaluations from students
Student performance on standardized tests
Observers that sit in on random classes
Click to expand...
a lot of that is going to be out of their control, though, and unfairly punish urban teachers whose students have apathetic or drugged out parents and no quality home life while rewarding the suburban teachers whose students have parents getting them tutors and test prep programs.
 
loki8481 said:
a lot of that is going to be out of their control, though, and unfairly punish urban teachers whose students have apathetic or drugged out parents and no quality home life while rewarding the suburban teachers whose students have parents getting them tutors and test prep programs.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you'd have to set realistic performance targets for the teachers to hit based on the circumstances.
 
Well how much do they expect to get for working 9 months out of the year?

Looks like a strike is emminent. I say let them starve during the strike. I worked for a union for a while, and it was nothing but trouble form the first day till the last. People would volunteer for overtime and then call off so they could not be forced to work overtime. Then others would get drunk and call off because they were making too much money. Then the company would lay everyone off one week before thanksgiving that did not have seniority. It was a real pain.

Well if the teachers had to start at $21,000 a year I might feel bad for them. Really, 9 months work for a full years pay? Give me a break. First they will strike and then the parents will want it settled. The longer they strike, the lower their pay should be.
 
piasabird said:
Well how much do they expect to get for working 9 months out of the year?

Looks like a strike is emminent. I say let them starve during the strike. I worked for a union for a while, and it was nothing but trouble form the first day till the last. People would volunteer for overtime and then call off so they could not be forced to work overtime. Then others would get drunk and call off because they were making too much money. Then the company would lay everyone off one week before thanksgiving that did not have seniority. It was a real pain.

Well if the teachers had to start at $21,000 a year I might feel bad for them. Really, 9 months work for a full years pay? Give me a break. First they will strike and then the parents will want it settled. The longer they strike, the lower their pay should be.
Click to expand...

1st let me say i think the teachers union does far more damage on how well children learn then it helps. it spends far to much time protecting shitty teachers and doign stupid shit like this to be usefull.


but really if you think they only work th e9 months you are insane.

they have to go for training in the summer, summer school and many other things.

also many go to work early and are pretty much "on call" nearly all night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top