[geeks] Teachers...

[Lionel Peterson]

>From: Lionel Peterson <lionel4287 at verizon.net>
>Date: 2007/09/04 Tue PM 06:37:36 CDT
>To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
>Subject: Re: Re: [geeks] Goodbye, I guess

>
>>From: wa2egp at att.net
>>Date: 2007/09/04 Tue PM 06:37:36 CDT
>>To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
>>Subject: Re: [geeks] Goodbye, I guess
>
>>> The FTE was used to show why a certain teacher was making the highest salary 
>>> (1.2 FTE), and a few others were making low salaries (.6 and .75 FTE).
>>
>>Usually that would be years of service.  This implies that a year may not be a
>>year.  Oh well.  Most people wouldn't see 1.2 FTE being the same as, let's say,
>>25 years of service.


I think that something got lost in the conversation - the FTE I saw had to do with a multiplier (if you will) that explained why a certain teacher was making 20% more than she otherwise would (her job is rated as 1.2 FTE), other teachers were making 60 or 75% of their "rate", as they were working .6 and .75 FTE.

I don't think 1.2 FTE for 5 years = 6 years service towards pension, but it is an interesting question...

>>> The average salary is the only number really talked about here in my local (NJ) 
>>> district, and it is pretty high. The school board and the teachers are at an 
>>> impasse regarding a new contract - the school board wants teachers to contribute 
>>> to their health insurance, they (obviously) prefer to have it paid 100% by the 
>>> school board.
>>> 
>>> Personally, I hope the union goes on strike and the teachers have to contribute 
>>> towards healthcare AND don't get back pay for the time they spend "on the picket 
>>> line"...
>>
>>Average salary can be misleading.  

Agreed.

>>My district it is high because 80% of the 
>>teachers are on the top step.  The pay scale also affects it too.  Each district
>>is different.


But if most are at the top of their payscale, thanit is not too misleading, it might actually approach an accurate number as the number of top earners appraches the number of total teachers.

>>I remember the strike in Middletown a few years ago.  It was health costs.  They
>>had increased $200k.  The union said they would absorb $180K of it.  The board 
>>said no and there was a strike.  Teachers were put in jail. All over $20K in 
>>a district whose cheapest house was $350K

I wonder if the Union would absorb the $180K forever, or just the life of the current contract, leaving a ticking bomb for the next round of negotiations when health care costs would go up the $180K the union offered PLUS inflation/normal increases...

>>You don't get paid when you are on strike.  At best, those days are called 
>>"sick" days.

If you get paid for sick days, then you ARE getting paid for your time on the line. State workers scream bloody murder when the state gov't shuts down and sends all non-essential employees home for a few days, but amazingly, the first thing the legislature does is give them retro-active pay for the days they didn't work.

This has been the case as long as I remember, yet somehow the union members forget it and start screaming about starving children, missed rent payments, etc at the hint of a shut down...

>>I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable amount of health care.
>>Unfortunately, many districts want the teachers to pay ALL of their health
>>care and I'll bet in some of them, people in central office have the system
>>pay most of theirs.  Teachers are easy targets.

I think teachers should pay a portion of their helathcare that is consistent with what others in the community pay (i.e. if the average is that workers in private industry pay, say, 50% of their healthcare costs, and have $15-20 copays for each doctor visit then so should the teachers. Right now (in my district, YMMV), teachers DO NOT contribute to their insurance costs and do not have per-visit co-pays, they do not want to either get a smaller raise or contribute to their health insurance costs, hence the impasse...

Lionel