Why Aren't We Talking About Union Busting?

Yeah, it's a myth that teachers just do nothing over the summer and holidays.

When do you think they prep new lesson plans, update classes to keep them current etc? Along with all the administrative meetings, attending professional development workshops and other seminars etc. that are often mandated by the school board etc.

Especially college professors if you want to get into that, since summers are the only time we have to soley focus on our research work which is 90% of what we're evaluated on for tenure and promotion. And during the school year I'm working nights and weekends staying caught up on lectures, grading and research work. My friends who are teaches in public school are working nights and weekends grading and doing lesson plans etc. as well (and again do a lot of that in the summer as well).

I do agree with Javery about pensions though. Pensions are just a bad idea. No company should be paying people after they retire. Pay them extra while their working for you by paying into their 401k type plans etc., but cut them loose when they retire. People should be responsible for saving for their own retirements, and we already have the social security saftey net as well.

And I say that as a person who works at a university where a state teacher's pension was an option. I didn't choose it as I doubt I'll stay in this state for my whole career (and I think it's a 30 year, rather than 20, requirement here to get the full 80% of salary), so I want something I can roll over when I move jobs/states.
 
Yeah, I have an aunt and uncle who are both teachers, and my aunt especially would go off on anyone who thinks her work stops when she leaves the school every night. She's even taught some during summers in the past. So even though they aren't teaching a normal class, it doesn't mean they aren't working in some capacity.
 
Sorry guys, time wise: [Regular Job] >>>>>> [School Hours] + [Workshops] + [Meetings] + [Professional Development] + [Whatever Else Teachers Say To Try and Make People Think They Are Working All The Time].

Even if you spend 2 out of the three months in the summer and every spring break, winter break and holiday break during the school year working 50 hours a week it still wouldn't equal the time commitment of a regular job. Note that there is a difference between working hard and working a lot. Most teachers I know work very hard, when they are working.
 
C'mon javery, you've got to be sick of the stock standard lawyer jokes. So why do exactly that with regard to teachers?

And at the end of the day, this has zero relevance to the discussion at hand, we're devolving once again into unrelated minutia under the guise of its validity to the subject.
 
[quote name='Javery']Sorry guys, time wise: [Regular Job] >>>>>> [School Hours] + [Workshops] + [Meetings] + [Professional Development] + [Whatever Else Teachers Say To Try and Make People Think They Are Working All The Time].

Even if you spend 2 out of the three months in the summer and every spring break, winter break and holiday break during the school year working 50 hours a week it still wouldn't equal the time commitment of a regular job. Note that there is a difference between working hard and working a lot. Most teachers I know work very hard, when they are working.[/QUOTE]

Explain this to me. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of what you're trying to say here.
 
[quote name='Strell']C'mon javery, you've got to be sick of the stock standard lawyer jokes. So why do exactly that with regard to teachers?

And at the end of the day, this has zero relevance to the discussion at hand, we're devolving once again into unrelated minutia under the guise of its validity to the subject.[/QUOTE]

All true except for the lawyer jokes. I hate 99% of all lawyers. At least teachers have an actual beneficial purpose in society and most of them can probably feel pretty good about what they do. My entire professional career is completely empty and devoid of any meaning.

None of this is on topic though that's for sure.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Explain this to me. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of what you're trying to say here.[/QUOTE]

It was in regards to pure time commitment only - nothing else. All I was trying to say is that an average job in the business world (I can only speak to what goes on in and around NYC) is a bigger time commitment than being a teacher. The teachers I know all leave work around 3:30-4:00pm every day and get summers off (2.5 months), a week at Christmas, a week in February and a week in April plus every weekend and other holidays. With all of that time off, the average teacher can't possibly spend as much time working than someone who works 8-6 at a company somewhere and carries a blackberry 24/7 with 2-3 weeks vacation (even if they spend a couple of hours a night and a few solid weeks in the summer doing all of that extra out of the classroom stuff).

Also, like I said previously - this does not mean that teachers don't work hard - there is a distinction.

Am I way off base here? My best friend (middle school) is constantly telling me how little he actually has to work compared to when he worked in advertising in Manhattan - he takes a freaking nap every single day of his life! Also, like I previously mentioned, I'm sure there is more to do the higher grade you teach - the teachers I interact with teach kindergarten, first grade, fifth grade and middle school.
 
[quote name='Javery']My best friend (middle school) is constantly telling me how little he actually has to work compared to when he worked in advertising in Manhattan - he takes a freaking nap every single day of his life![/QUOTE]

Your best friend sounds like he might be a shitty teacher, if he isn't working a lot.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Your best friend sounds like he might be a shitty teacher, if he isn't working a lot.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't matter! He has tenure! What a deal!
 
Hopefully he's in the minority. If you're talking about getting rid of shitty teachers like your best friend, I'm all in favor of that. The teachers unions need to stop protecting the small minority of teachers have the same work ethic as your best friend.
 
[quote name='Javery']It was in regards to pure time commitment only - nothing else. All I was trying to say is that an average job in the business world (I can only speak to what goes on in and around NYC) is a bigger time commitment than being a teacher. The teachers I know all leave work around 3:30-4:00pm every day and get summers off (2.5 months), a week at Christmas, a week in February and a week in April plus every weekend and other holidays. With all of that time off, the average teacher can't possibly spend as much time working than someone who works 8-6 at a company somewhere and carries a blackberry 24/7 with 2-3 weeks vacation (even if they spend a couple of hours a night and a few solid weeks in the summer doing all of that extra out of the classroom stuff).

Also, like I said previously - this does not mean that teachers don't work hard - there is a distinction.

Am I way off base here?
[/quote]

Yes.

I've worked both in the business world (software engineer) and as a teacher.

Teachers may have the school day end sometime between 3:00 and 4:00. Last year, there wasn't a single day I left before 5:00 and many days I was there until 6:00 or 6:30. Then I'd go home and work 2+ hours more for the next day. Then I'd work on the weekends. Not an hour or two. Good chunks of Saturday and Sunday. I was glad when we had some sort of family outing scheduled because then I'd have to put the stuff down and get out.

It's so much work that I sometimes think of going back to tech. There, I was expected to work long hours and weeks, but it was overall less. Plus, I could leave the job in the office. The amount of work I physically bring home as a teacher is staggering, and that's with the compromises I was willing to make to make the workload doable.

The longer you stay a teacher, the more things you have accumulated, so in theory the workload goes down over time. But good teaching isn't stagnant, isn't a worksheet you dust off and copy mindlessly. If you're asked to teach a class you haven't taught before, have fun starting from scratch.

As for vacations, some of each was spent preparing, grading, or attending some sort of mandated professional development. Some of these were after hours or on weekends. Some were during the summer. I won't even go into paperwork, student/parent conferences, student activities that required teachers to staff, and other required timesinks.

[Side story: the school district unilaterally decided to rescind a minor benefit. The union took them to arbitration and won. Teachers were entitled to the value of the rescinded benefit...but they had to attend professional development held on evenings and weekends. Fun stuff!]

The perception is that teachers have a lot of free time. But it's unpaid time, which is not the same thing. There's a ton of work to be done. Always. I would trade it for an 8-6 schedule with lots of overtime in a heartbeat.

I don't know how your friend does it. I can only say there's no way I could do it with a nap each day and time to spare, and still have it be good teaching. It's just not possible.
 
So some Republicans are going after Police and Firefighter Unions.

It may be too early to tell but this Union Busting conservative shitstorm might be the biggest since the Dover Trial, Scopes 2: Electric Boogaloo.
 
Not really sure if this should go on the 'stay classy' thread or this one.

Link

Scott Walker Gives $81,500 Government Job To Top Donor’s 26-Year-Old College Dropout Son

walker.jpg
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R)

Since taking office in January, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has stripped public workers of their collective bargaining rights, proposed wage cuts to local government employees, and insisted that his “state is broke” and that its public workers are overpaid. But Walker applies a different standard to himself. Today, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reveals that Walker is using state funds to pay more than $81,500 a year to the 26-year-old son of a major campaign donor with no college degree and two drunken-driving convictions.
Despite having almost no management experience, UW Madison college dropout Brian Deschane now oversees state environmental and regulatory issues and manages dozens of Commerce Department employees. After only two months on the job, Deschane has already received a 26 percent pay raise and a promotion.
Deschane’s father, Jerry Deschane was a major financial backer of the Governor’s campaign:
Click to expand...
More at link. Nepotism? In my Republican party? Never.

Pre-emptive: Bob, I've been busy with real life so I haven't had time to respond to your bullshit in other threads but it's coming. Do be a [predictable] dear and scrounge up some 'D-d-d-d-democrats are bad guys too!' links so we can get that we can all get that out of the way, ignore you, and keep on posting would you? Thanks!

edit: Wow, didn't realize that grinning idiot's mug would be copypasta'd into the quote. It'll probably be borked in a few weeks/months time but ahhhhh I really don't care if folks want to raze my history.
 
I'd say cronyism more than nepotism but either way.
And yes, giving things to large contributors is a game played on both sides of the aisle, it's just extra disgusting because Gov Walker is such a puke. Then again, at least this kid can't get into a union!
 
I didn't see it in the article, but NPR said the guy has a few DUIs on his record too, sounds like a fine upstanding young man. I'm sure he'll go far, they'll make sure of it.
 
[quote name='Clak']I didn't see it in the article, but NPR said the guy has a few DUIs on his record too, sounds like a fine upstanding young man. I'm sure he'll go far, they'll make sure of it.[/QUOTE]

Usually they try to make it vaguely plausible...

But then again Walker is known for his uncanny ability not to give a fuck.
 
I'm with Javery! You Teacher's Union pukes make me sick, get some of that learnin' going on to the chillen and don't do no sleep during the day
We need teacher's to work themselves like horses and get paid less, because they coast on that low pay and no work...days.
Dmaul I bet you do nothin' during the summer but "research" into "Pharmacology" in California and Colorado. Yeah, I know your code. I just went to one of the medical clinics you "practice" at and got me a free sample. All the while I know you're watching that Dave Chapelle movie with a bag of Doritos and Cheetos.









/end joke.

Seriously Javery, I think you're cool usually and I'm seriously disappointed you're so steadfast to this bit against teachers.
Also it's time I came out of the closet. I'm not a big fan of Union's and wouldn't have one at my workplace but I honestly wouldn't try screwing my workers one bit. Bottom line, if I heard a good bit of employees knocking down my door I'd just increase their pay by what they wanted, within' reason. I'd show them the books and if it was truly workable or not.
I'm pro 60-40. The Union's get 40% of the profit after net, with 30% going to the founding CEO and 30% going to the shareholders.
 
I'm not against teachers or against the union but I do think it has gotten too powerful in NJ and asking them to save for retirement on their own like most every other person in this country has to do isn't asking a lot. I also think on average they don't spend as much time working as other salaried employees do (though they will almost always claim no one works more than they do).

It's probably not a popular opinion but that's what the union wants you to think! THEY ARE CONTROLLING YOUR THOUGHTS!!! Privately most people I know feel the same way I do although they would never admit it in mixed company because it makes you sound like a douche which is exactly the perception the union wants!
 
[quote name='Javery'] I also think on average they don't spend as much time working as other salaried employees do (though they will almost always claim no one works more than they do).[/QUOTE]

Are you basing this off of the one guy you know?

Also, didn't you have an H at the end of your name?
 
[quote name='Javery']I'm not against teachers or against the union but I do think it has gotten too powerful in NJ and asking them to save for retirement on their own like most every other person in this country has to do isn't asking a lot. I also think on average they don't spend as much time working as other salaried employees do (though they will almost always claim no one works more than they do).[/quote]

It's the old "I'm jealous of people who make less than I do" routine.
 
Javery if you read how much everyone is being hosed by the average pay of CEO's you would be incensed and would not feel nearly the same animosity to Unions.
What American CEO's need is a good dose of Japanese humble pie fed to them. Maybe they wouldn't be so selfish then.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']What American CEO's need is a good dose of Japanese humble pie fed to them. Maybe they wouldn't be so selfish then.[/QUOTE]

You mean drown them in a flood? I'm all for this.
 
[quote name='Javery']I'm not against teachers or against the union but I do think it has gotten too powerful in NJ and asking them to save for retirement on their own like most every other person in this country has to do isn't asking a lot. I also think on average they don't spend as much time working as other salaried employees do (though they will almost always claim no one works more than they do).[/quote]
How are their pensions funded? Many municipalities require their employees to contribute a percentage of their wages into the pension fund. Require meaning mandatory. As in no way to opt-out. Show us where NJ public employees get a free pension for nothing.

Maybe the reason why pensions are "underfunded" is because many public pension funds got fucked in the financial crisis. The same one where banks were given almost a trillion dollars. What this should mean to anyone that isn't brain dead is that we can apparently afford to pay the richest .001% of the population money that they lost, but fuck everyone else.

It's probably not a popular opinion but that's what the union wants you to think! THEY ARE CONTROLLING YOUR THOUGHTS!!! Privately most people I know feel the same way I do although they would never admit it in mixed company because it makes you sound like a douche which is exactly the perception the union wants!
Click to expand...
Or maybe they don't want to sound like a douche because they are douches. You and most people YOU know!=everyone. This is kinda like how racist white don't act racist to most people, but the second they get comfortable, out come the n****r jokes. Just because you don't act like a racist asshole in public doesn't mean you're not a racist asshole.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Are you basing this off of the one guy you know?

Also, didn't you have an H at the end of your name?[/QUOTE]

No and yes.

[quote name='mykevermin']It's the old "I'm jealous of people who make less than I do" routine.[/QUOTE]

Jealousy has nothing to do with it. I just don't understand why teachers feel entitled to a pension when virtually every other (salaried) job in the country does not provide for one - no matter what you earn. Of course if you can get it, then go for it. I just don't agree.

[quote name='Sarang01']Javery if you read how much everyone is being hosed by the average pay of CEO's you would be incensed and would not feel nearly the same animosity to Unions.[/QUOTE]

Believe me, I know exactly what CEOs are getting - I deal with them every single day (often drafting their ridiculous employment agreements). I also know first hand how the people at the top are screwing the people at the bottom (we've had massive layoffs over the past 18 months - but profits per partner have never been higher!). We don't live in a society where people leave money on the table though - if you are that type of person you will never be CEO of a company unless you start your own. I guess it's good to be king.
 
[quote name='Javery']
Jealousy has nothing to do with it. I just don't understand why teachers feel entitled to a pension when virtually every other (salaried) job in the country does not provide for one - no matter what you earn. [/QUOTE]

Did you miss where it was mentioned that it's not a free pension? It's mandatory to contribute to the retirement fund - 7.5% of salary in the case of my wife.
 
[quote name='Javery']No[/quote]

So what are you basing it on?

and yes.
Click to expand...

Why?

Jealousy has nothing to do with it. I just don't understand why teachers feel entitled to a pension when virtually every other (salaried) job in the country does not provide for one - no matter what you earn. Of course if you can get it, then go for it. I just don't agree.
Click to expand...

pooky covered that one.

Believe me, I know exactly what CEOs are getting - I deal with them every single day (often drafting their ridiculous employment agreements). I also know first hand how the people at the top are screwing the people at the bottom (we've had massive layoffs over the past 18 months - but profits per partner have never been higher!). We don't live in a society where people leave money on the table though - if you are that type of person you will never be CEO of a company unless you start your own. I guess it's good to be king.
Click to expand...

You once stated that basically taxing the above Screwers more is crazy/nuts or whatever, did it ever cross your mind that it is a class thing?
 
[quote name='Msut77']You once stated that basically taxing the above Screwers more is crazy/nuts or whatever, did it ever cross your mind that it is a class thing?[/QUOTE]
It's only class warfare when poor people complain; not when rich people are actually screwing them.
 
Yeah, when rich people complain, they're just being whiny and not wanting to pay their "fair share" (which, of course, is more than anyone else's share)
 
[quote name='Javery']Jealousy has nothing to do with it. I just don't understand why teachers feel entitled to a pension when virtually every other (salaried) job in the country does not provide for one - no matter what you earn. Of course if you can get it, then go for it. I just don't agree.[/QUOTE]

Pensions are deferred wages. Pay me $10-15 an hour now, or pay me less up front and more in the future. Nobody is holding a gun (to use the favorite metaphor of the right in terms of taxation) to the head of those who make decisions. School boards, state departments, corporations - ALL of them are party to the negotiating table.

What part of "negotiation" don't you understand? Both sides must agree. It's the market in action. If the business, or the school board, or whomever - if they don't agree, they're welcome to find other persons to fulfill their labor needs. They are not forced to hire, yes?

Similarly, they are not forced to sign any contracts, yes?

So what's the problem? Both groups negotiate contracts, both bring something to the table, both leave the table with something.

Pensions are no longer normative, but they used to be. Now we get wildly inflated executive compensation. Meanwhile, corporations are not legally held liable for wages they promised, via contract, to their employees. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/business/yourmoney/31pension.html

Corporations fail to make good on what they promise employees in exchange for their labor. Laborers are left without a portion of what they were promised, and they're in no position to take back any of the labor they provided to the company over the years. That's the epitome of exploitation.

Wall Street leaves our economy in shambles, gets bailed out by the government. They continue to use government bailout funds to lavish bonuses to WS executives, claiming they are "contractually obligated" to provide them. Funny that contractual obligations are now the furthest things from the minds of those who wish to destroy unions and the wages and benefits they are currently contractually obligated to supply. Contractual obligations did not matter for laborers in 2005, but in 2008 they were the only reason for making sure Goldman Sachs execs got their money.

It's a win-win game for the rich, and those rules don't apply, not even in the form of a signed contract, if you aren't a part of the wealthy elite. How is it that such disparity in outcomes (not just the finances, but how we rationalize who gets what is due them via contract, and whose contracts we seek to destroy) can go on in the real world, and you people see the working class and middle class as the ones perpetuating a class war? How can you blind yourself to the growing oligarchic influence in the United States?

Compare the United Airlines scenario to recent law school grads. As a lawyer in Manhattan, you might appreciate this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/business/09law.html Couldn't that have been you? Should that be you? Should that be anyone?

In the United States, you're either the super wealthy, or anything promised you can be taken away at any time. Worse yet, when it's taken away, the masses in this country think that the eradication of the middle class is a fine idea that is going to solve our financial problems - as if we're financially in the shit because of teacher pensions and not the Wall Street executives we neglect to vilify.

And get off the fence. You're say you're okay with negotiated benefits, and you also say you're not. So please, pick a side, Javery.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Pensions are deferred wages. Pay me $10-15 an hour now, or pay me less up front and more in the future.[/QUOTE]

Of course, it all depends in how those pensions are set up. If the workers agree to take less now and let the company buy a bunch of lottery tickets to hand out whatever winnings they collect later, then that's an agreement the workers made as well, right? No one held a gun to their head...
 
[quote name='Javery'] (I can only speak to what goes on in and around NYC) .[/QUOTE]

That's your problem. The NYC business market is one of the most insanely intense and competitive in the world. It's a skewed frame of reference to use. There's a huge population of highly educated and experienced people in the business, legal etc. arena's there. Thus companies can slave drive people as there are nor shortage of replacements for people who can't handle it. It's not indicative of the business world in general.

And also, as others have noted, your friend sounds like one of the BAD teachers who gets tenure and then mails it doing the bare minimum to not get fired. That's not indicative of the average teacher workload. But an example of the bad apples we should be weeding out but can't because of teacher's unions, the tenure system etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But an example of the bad apples we should be weeding out but can't because of teacher's unions, the tenure system etc.[/QUOTE]

You haven't been paying much attention in this thread... it's not the union's fault - it's the Tea Party's fault, the Republicans fault, Wall Street's fault, Bush's fault, BP's fault... Not a teacher's union's fault. Those are 100% completely awesome and without flaws. :D
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Of course, it all depends in how those pensions are set up. If the workers agree to take less now and let the company buy a bunch of lottery tickets to hand out whatever winnings they collect later, then that's an agreement the workers made as well, right? No one held a gun to their head...[/QUOTE]

what the fuck are you talking about?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You haven't been paying much attention in this thread... it's not the union's fault - it's the Tea Party's fault, the Republicans fault, Wall Street's fault, Bush's fault, BP's fault... Not a teacher's union's fault. Those are 100% completely awesome and without flaws. :D[/QUOTE]

It's multiple people's faults. But unions are far from perfect. Protecting employee's rights shouldn't go so far as to make it hard to remove mediocre or even bad employees.

They need to work with other organizations on coming up with some fair and consistent mechanism for evaluating teacher performance that are both fair to good teachers, but allow weeding out of bad teachers.

And I don't mean to remotely imply that that's an easy thing to do as all evaluation methods--student evaluation, peer evaluation, standardized test scores etc. all have major flaws for assessing teacher performance nationwide as there are measurement issues statistically, difficulties controlling for things out of teacher's hands (quality of students entering their class rooms, parental reinforcement of education at home etc.).

But teaching unions need to be willing to acknowledge than only effective teachers should be allowed to continue teaching and be a willing participant in working out how to best evaluation effectiveness.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']what the fuck are you talking about?[/QUOTE]

The stock market is, like any investment, a form of gambling.

If you agree to have your pension invested into or tied to any kind of stock market performance, you're simply taking a gamble.

That's not to say that there aren't some companies out there who have pulled some really shady stuff as far as pensions go - and in those cases, there should be recourse for civil restitution... but if part of the agreement is that the money is going to be invested, then that investment goes belly up - well, hope you like greeting at Walmart...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But teaching unions need to be willing to acknowledge than only effective teachers should be allowed to continue teaching and be a willing participant in working out how to best evaluation effectiveness.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. You hear stories like the New York Rubber Room program and such and not only does it make the entire system look bad, but it gives all kinds of ammo to the other side.

Teacher's Unions need to be more willing to step back and say "Yeah... goodbye." instead of wasting resources trying to keep mediocre teachers in paychecks.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The stock market is, like any investment, a form of gambling.

If you agree to have your pension invested into or tied to any kind of stock market performance, you're simply taking a gamble.

That's not to say that there aren't some companies out there who have pulled some really shady stuff as far as pensions go - and in those cases, there should be recourse for civil restitution... but if part of the agreement is that the money is going to be invested, then that investment goes belly up - well, hope you like greeting at Walmart...[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what the details of United's contracts were, but like any retirement fund (or other form of non-wage financial compensation), it hits the market as a means of investment.

side note: one of the reasons universities are in the shit is b/c the stock market crash killed off the endowments they received. A $2 million donation can go far on its own, but invested properly, can go much, much further. States are broke, the fed is broke, in large part due to Wall Street.

At any rate, I can't imagine that contracts are allowed to legally say what United (or any employer) can do with their funds. That they promise you $X per year doesn't require them to actually have those holdings. Investing is more complex than gambling, and returns year over year far better than gambling. When we let bubbles develop, when we let government deregulate investment and commercial banks so they can be the same thing, when we let speculators create phony financial instruments and mathematical concepts based on those phony instruments (derivatives, CDOs and CDSs), and THOSE instruments cause the market to flop - that is not the same thing as gambling. That is corruption, that is criminal.

Say I take my paycheck to the dog racin' track in Nitro, WV. I lose it all. I can't pay my mortgage. Hey, fuck the mortgage holder, right? It's still my house, they didn't specify that I had to actually have the money in cash, did I? Is that how you're thinking?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Say I take my paycheck to the dog racin' track in Nitro, WV.[/QUOTE]

There's a dog racing track in Nitro? I though the one in Charlestown in the eastern panhandle was the only one in WV.


Anyway, I kind of get Bob's point--but not the gambling analogy per se. The problem with pensions is they promise a % of your salary every year after retiring. The companies ability to meet that is dependent on their investments on what you paid into the pension plan (and their contributions while you're working) making at least enough to cover all your pension payments until death.

I don't really see why companies--especially public ones like universities and school systems should take that risk. Risks on investments on retirement should lie the individual rather than the employer. Give me bigger matches while I'm working to invest in mutual funds etc. of my choice, and let me take the risk of having enough to retire at an age I like. I just have a hard time justifying why an employer should have to continue any financial obligation to an employee after they retire and no longer work for them. With maybe the exception of continued health coverage under the company plan until they're eligible for medicare.
 
Again, it's deferred compensation. It's not "extra money," it's just letting the employer take their sweet time to pay an employee over time. It's an explicit part of contracts that are signed.

Take it away, and if free market theories hold true (which they don't), you'll see wages shoot up to accommodate the difference (and, of course, inflation to negate that difference).

All businesses expect and work based on plans to be bigger, better, more profitable in the future. Pensions allow businesses to have more money now in order to be bigger, better, more profitable years down the line. That's why I brought up Bronson Arroyo - MLB teams used deferred compensation as a means of reducing their current season salary burden, and they could thus afford another good player who otherwise would have busted their salary cap. That player helps them win, helps them get to the postseason and succeed, sell more tee shirts and hot dogs and $7.25 beers, and thus be more profitable.

Risk now versus risk later. It's basic economics. I don't see how people can view pensions as an expendable part of a person's salary. There's risk involved, but that doesn't negate that an employer has agreed to the pension and therefore is obligated to it. Well, should be, but aren't.
 
I get that. I guess I'm just not a fan of the deferred compensation idea be it pensions or sports salary trickery etc.

And it's moot in many areas. Like I said, at my university there's both a state pension option, or an optional retirement plan (private through TIAA/Cref with lots of options with in it).

There's no deferred compensation for those taking the pension option. The employee required contributions to retirement are the same (or less than 1% different anyway) so employees are taking home the same pay regardless of plan (assuming equal base salaries).

Take the pension option and the state is taking more risk as they probably can't weasel out of paying pensions like private companies have. People who take the option and work until retirement are highly unlikely to not end up getting the 80% of their final year's salary for life.

Take the private option, and the risk is all on yours. You retire and the university doesn't owe you anything, you're dependent on getting buy on the money you invested.

So just a matter of whether you think the risk should be more on the employer or the employee. But you're point is well taken that employees still have risk as companies can backout of pensions. But I think that's unlikely to happen on any large scale in the public sector.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Risk now versus risk later. It's basic economics. I don't see how people can view pensions as an expendable part of a person's salary. There's risk involved, but that doesn't negate that an employer has agreed to the pension and therefore is obligated to it. Well, should be, but aren't.[/QUOTE]

I agree that - depending on how the salary/pension is set up, that if a company screws an employee (or employees) out of agreed upon compensation that there should, 100%, be legal recourse for them to collect money owed (when that money exists, of course).

However, if the pension is set up in such a way that CompanyX is going to put $Y into a pension fund that is tied to a particular investment - and that investment goes south, then - unless the previous agreement says otherwise - CompanyX should have no obligation to make up the difference in what was lost.

You, as a responsible adult, should know where your money is going and if you disagree with it, don't like it, or don't understand it, it should be up to you to determine how you wish to proceed (learn something new, hire someone, or just cut a hole in your mattress and start stuffing)...
 
Step 1: Set up company.
Step 2: Get employees to pay pensions.
Step 3: Invest in Nigerian prince.
Step 4: It's fake.
Step 5: Keep whatever is left and tell employees it was all part of the risk, it's the free market, why are you against all-glorious-Capitalism, enlist help of batshit 50% of population who would call this completely defensible.
Step 6: Profit
Step 7: There is no step 7, suckers, but I gots all de monies
 
Oh, for the record, there was a dog track in Nitro. I used to ride shotty w/ a friend to Charleston every now and again. I was always drawn to Nitro (1: cool name, 2: dog track).

Not sure if it's there anymore. It's been 13-14 years.
 
I have no problem with deferred compensation either but a pension plan is way more than that - it is a guaranteed payment* for the rest of your life at an unusually high percentage of your last year of employment or an average over the last 3 to 5 years or whatever. My point is that the paltry amount that you put in doesn't come close to covering the amount you get out (in NJ I believe the amount is 5.5%) even factoring in smart investments.

* to the extent that any of it can be guaranteed. I'm sure by the time teachers currently in their 20s retire the money will be mostly gone (like social security) so maybe I shouldn't care.

Also, in NJ teachers currently pay $0 for healthcare - for LIFE. Ridiculous. All state employees pay 1.5% (which is still ridiculous) but teachers pay $0 (for family, vision and dental!) It is just insane. The average teacher in NJ makes almost $60,000 per year - I'm sure the guy manning the tollbooth on the parkway doesn't make 1/2 of that but even he has to contribute to his healthcare.

Better yet, thanks to the union, the economic realities of the world do not have an effect on teachers - while everyone else is getting laid off or getting their pay slashed teachers still march along with their guaranteed 3-4% raise every year no matter what! By the way, something like 50% of kids in Newark and Camden don't even graduate high school - that's some system we've got here. The teachers' union in NJ needs to be taken down a peg. It just does.

P.S. I love Nitro, WVA - my dad was born there (but moved to Wheeling around high school). I haven't been there in ages (I was in Wheeling last summer though for some family shit). :cool:
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yeah, when rich people complain, they're just being whiny and not wanting to pay their "fair share" (which, of course, is more than anyone else's share)[/QUOTE]
When rich people "complain," they use all of their institutional and economic leverage to get what they want; when poor people "complain," they have their social safety nets whittled away. Go suck Trump's cock or any other republifuck/teabagger polititian if you really think the rich are paying more than their "fair share" and looking out for the po' folk. Who cares if they pay more in dollar amount when MARGINAL fuckING UTILITY is JUST AS IMPORTANT.
 
Javery, why are you holding teachers responsible for wanting the best possible deal for themselves? Isn't that the most American thing one can do?

If part of your point is that the toll booth operator's wages aren't impressive, and nor are their benefits, what do we accomplish by bringing teachers down to their level? By what logic must public employees have a cap on their potential earnings?

Also, help me understand the difference between deferred compensation and guaranteed payment. If I am promised a wage, I expect that wage, no matter the form it takes and no matter when it is to be delivered.
 
[quote name='Javery']I have no problem with deferred compensation either but a pension plan is way more than that - it is a guaranteed payment* for the rest of your life at an unusually high percentage of your last year of employment or an average over the last 3 to 5 years or whatever. My point is that the paltry amount that you put in doesn't come close to covering the amount you get out (in NJ I believe the amount is 5.5%) even factoring in smart investments.[/quote]
So what you're saying is that THEY DON'T GET A FREE RIDE. I guess teaching kids to be proper proles shouldn't be rewarded by the power elite.

* to the extent that any of it can be guaranteed. I'm sure by the time teachers currently in their 20s retire the money will be mostly gone (like social security) so maybe I shouldn't care.
Click to expand...
Social security draws a profit every year. A substantial one. It's not a savings account and once all the baby boomers die, balance will eventually be restored as long as we're not fucking future generations out of education and socio-economic mobility. Which makes all of this institutional racism a VERY bad thing when you're going to need workers to pay those taxes to keep all those white conservative whackjobs on life support.

Also, in NJ teachers currently pay $0 for healthcare - for LIFE. Ridiculous. All state employees pay 1.5% (which is still ridiculous) but teachers pay $0 (for family, vision and dental!) It is just insane. The average teacher in NJ makes almost $60,000 per year - I'm sure the guy manning the tollbooth on the parkway doesn't make 1/2 of that but even he has to contribute to his healthcare.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't surprise me if the toll-taker was making more than half that. It's knuckle draggers like you that keep poor people down. Thanks for nothing.

Why is it such a big deal that they pay $0 for healthcare? The real question should be why does everyone else pay $$$$ while getting less coverage and insurance companies making record profits.

Better yet, thanks to the union, the economic realities of the world do not have an effect on teachers - while everyone else is getting laid off or getting their pay slashed teachers still march along with their guaranteed 3-4% raise every year no matter what!
Click to expand...
And the economic reality was caused by what? And how much money did we give them? And how much were their RECORD BONUSES? We need more teachers than we need more 9 figure millionaires that fuck everyone over.

By the way, something like 50% of kids in Newark and Camden don't even graduate high school - that's some system we've got here.
Click to expand...
Those schools are doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing: being drop out factories. If they city/state/feds REALLY wanted to help, they would put just as much resources into neighborhood rejuvenation as they did gentrification. But no, it's easier to just blame the teachers for kids dropping out rather than the litany of other causes that are just as important beyond parents and teachers.

The teachers' union in NJ needs to be taken down a peg. It just does.
Click to expand...
No. It doesn't. And you haven't given a good reason beyond having some twisted notion of "class envy."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Javery, why are you holding teachers responsible for wanting the best possible deal for themselves? Isn't that the most American thing one can do?

If part of your point is that the toll booth operator's wages aren't impressive, and nor are their benefits, what do we accomplish by bringing teachers down to their level? By what logic must public employees have a cap on their potential earnings? [/quote]

I guess because it affects me directly as a taxpayer. Who do you think is paying for their crazy benefits and everything? I can't fault teachers for wanting the best possible deal for themselves - that's the American way and if I was a teacher I know I'd be on their side - but as an outsider looking in (and paying part of the bill) the teachers' union is just way too strong. They get all of these benefits that really no one else gets, including other state employees, and can't be fired. It boggles the mind. It just seems like a bit of a free ride to me and that makes me a little nuts.

[quote name='mykevermin']Also, help me understand the difference between deferred compensation and guaranteed payment. If I am promised a wage, I expect that wage, no matter the form it takes and no matter when it is to be delivered.[/QUOTE]

I agree completely - the problem I have is that 5.5% of your salary deferred over the lifetime of your employment isn't enough to cover the amount you get out on the back end (generally). Let's say you work 40 years, retire at 65 and pay into your pension plan every year. If your average salary over those 40 years is around $75,000 you pay in a total of $165,000 over your entire career. If we assume investments are sound and you get a 5% annual return on your money every single year the total in the "fund" that you contributed to after 40 years would be roughly $500,000.

In NJ if you retire at 65 the formula for your yearly pension payments is average of last 3 years salary (let's say $100,000 for simplicity) times number of years worked (40) divided by 55. That works out to about $73,000 per year which a teacher gets until they die - it is not unreasonable to think you would enjoy 15 to 20 years of these payments (or more) which is about $1.5M total. You will burn through the money you actually earned in about 7 or 8 years but continue to receive additional money on top of that until you die.

I don't have the answers and nothing will make everyone happy but I do think that the NJ teachers' union needs to scale back their expectations.
 
[quote name='Javery']I guess because it affects me directly as a taxpayer. Who do you think is paying for their crazy benefits and everything? I can't fault teachers for wanting the best possible deal for themselves - that's the American way and if I was a teacher I know I'd be on their side - but as an outsider looking in (and paying part of the bill) the teachers' union is just way too strong. They get all of these benefits that really no one else gets, including other state employees, and can't be fired. It boggles the mind. It just seems like a bit of a free ride to me and that makes me a little nuts.[/quote]
I hate war. fuck all them people in the military. Why should they get free housing, healthcare, AND FOOD. I have to PAY for that stuff out of MY TAXESSS!!!111!!11oneoneONE!!!

Do you see how stupid your argument sounds?

I agree completely - the problem I have is that 5.5% of your salary deferred over the lifetime of your employment isn't enough to cover the amount you get out on the back end (generally). Let's say you work 40 years, retire at 65 and pay into your pension plan every year. If your average salary over those 40 years is around $75,000 you pay in a total of $165,000 over your entire career. If we assume investments are sound and you get a 5% annual return on your money every single year the total in the "fund" that you contributed to after 40 years would be roughly $500,000.

In NJ if you retire at 65 the formula for your yearly pension payments is average of last 3 years salary (let's say $100,000 for simplicity) times number of years worked (40) divided by 55. That works out to about $73,000 per year which a teacher gets until they die - it is not unreasonable to think you would enjoy 15 to 20 years of these payments (or more) which is about $1.5M total. You will burn through the money you actually earned in about 7 or 8 years but continue to receive additional money on top of that until you die.
Click to expand...
Wait...did you just take a magical number out of the air and then apply it as having some factual basis? Are you fucking kidding me?

I don't have the answers and nothing will make everyone happy but I do think that the NJ teachers' union needs to scale back their expectations.
Click to expand...
You don't even have smart questions and just have a hissy fit like a belligerant child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top