Seattle Teacher Strike Starts Today
- Thread starter 22*43*51
- Start date
So collective bargaining. . . Ok for corporations. . . wrong for employees?? Capitalism only for the wealthy I guess.
Yes promotion and more money often come with more responsibility . . . you eventually have to trade one to get the other. I get that, you don't get paid for nothing. The employer is negotiating for himself too and he wants a return for what he pays for.
But there is nothing wrong with employee's trying to negotiate a better deal for all of them. And the truely talented and competitive individuals can go negotiate their own deals elsewhere if they like. But the funny thing is their oh so awesome talents often never make them as much money as employee's under collective bargaining.
My company employs union glaziers. And if you have been in this business for a little while you realize that union glaziers make a darn good income. . . Non union glaziers get beans, usually lucky to get half of what union glaziers make.
Now is it because all the most talented and best glaziers are in the union? Maybe. . . but then why would all these truely talented individuals want to be in the union when their awesome talents should set them apart anyways? Or is it because the union glaziers decided they wanted to participate in capitalism too and found a way to get a better deal instead of the turd sandwich the non union glaziers are forced to take from their employers.
I fail to see how all your talk about competitive and talented employee's isn't just a facade to hide the truth of "capitalism for the employer only, dictated wages for the employee's" Because it sounds to me like unions are just a way of letting employee's participate in capitalism too. Partially be evening out the power differential.
See if an employer doesn't like your deal he'll just look for another guy to take a deal he likes better. . . No sweat. . . maybe a little lost profit, but that's it. But if you don't like the employer's turd sandwich you have to take it anyways in order to feed your family until you can find someone else who maybe will put a little more mayo on the turd sandwich they give you.
That power differential is the very reason why the idea of "Don't like your job/pay then just quit" is so insanely wrong. Because losing me is an annoying side track for my employer. . . he's got to go through the task of finding someone to replace me which that's kind of annoying and it slows him down a bit. But if I quit his wife and kids still eat. If I suddenly quit, his wife and kids are in no danger of starvation.
But on the opposite end me losing my employer puts myself and my whole family in jeopardy. If he suddenly fires me, no matter what the reason might be, we might not eat. That power differential allows employers to artificially lower wages because he stands at less risk then I do. I need him more then he needs me. If you equal out the risk a bit, put it on more level playing field, by making it so he has to up the pay otherwise he has NO EMPLOYEES and it requires replacing all of them which is a ton of lost profit, then suddenly the market wage is quite a bit higher.
Imagine what the market wage would be if his wife and kid's eating 3 meals a day required him to have every job filled and never allow one to sit empty more then a couple weeks. Holy crap we'd probably all double our wages.
Last edited:
Cut that by 10K for NC...add ten days + uncompensated days...and that's the max pay...after 25 years.
I worked 78 extra hours last year over a two week period - including weekends - because we had to move the entire school in the middle of the year (the actual move took place over a three-day weekend). We kept track for flex time. The idea was you could swap out those hours for other days. But you can't use it when kids are in school...or when you have training scheduled...or when you have grades to be finalized and submitted...so the end result was we compared who worked the most extra hours just to see who "won". I wasn't in the running. The superintendent did show up one night while we were packing and bought us pizza so that was nice.
I'm guessing you missed the part about me being amenable to structural changes that make sense. And comparing the pension to the average for private companies means absolutely nothing in terms of the health of the plan. But you knew that...right? The liability on the NC plan is directly traceable to the recession as your article clearly states. In 2006, it was at >105% funding versus liabilities.
If your employer is the owner/entrepreneur, they they've taken a far greater risk than anyone coming on as an employee, and they've also taken on a responsibility to enable those they hire to provide a living for themselves. If they happened to be successful enough to employ you, then that's excellent. You can ask for raises, and look for new employment while still employed if you become unhappy, but your employer does not have that luxury, because it's not so simple for them to go to their boss' office and quit one day, informing them they've taken another job. If you ask for more, and they want to keep you, and can afford it, you'll get more, if not, you won't. There's nothing wrong with that scenario, and the risk taken on by the owner/entrepreneur is far greater than any employee.
If your boss is just a manager denying you a raise to be a jerk, well then, that's a different discussion. Usually it isn't that simple. Employers are not generally out to screw over their employees, but they are out to make a profit. Still, "Equalling out the risk" isn't so cut and dried, and often times someone has taken a HUGE risk to put themselves in the position they're in at the top. They're also not going to be likely to allow you less accountability, when other people's livelihood, not just their own, relies on you performing your job well.
Just some thoughts from the other side of the equation.
I would say year, which is easier to say. But I am paid for the days I work. I am not paid for June, July, and most of August. Not sure the point you are trying to make.
Collective bargaining makes sure the cowboys don't drive the best beef into the ground. Slowing the herd down it collateral damage. If the truly talented and competitive were always brought to top and rewarded, there woud be no collective bargaining. You like to blame unions but the fact remains that the only reason they are in existence is poor management.
I'm honestly curious about this - if you tell this story to your friends / family in the private sector, do they fall down weeping at your feet, or do they more likely say "yeah man, it sucks, I had to work an extra 10 hours per week for three straight months while we changed software packages last year..."
I'll be happy to buy you some cheese to go with your whine though.
True but that's a risk they took of their own free will and that risk has very little to do with their relationship with me. So the negotiations are still very unequal in terms of risk. The only way it could be equal is if the business and their source of income where to shut down if they left the job open too long. I've never heard of or seen a business that relies that much on a single employee. That's partially why collective bargaining helps level the playing field. . . It increases the risk on the company of failing to negotiate a deal. Replacing all of your employee's at once would be a big loss.
As for my company it's been handed down several generations and incorporated since the late 20's. So for my employer, biggest risk is he runs a business that is worth millions that he inherited ownership of (in terms of property etc) into the ground. Now he's been working here since he got out of college and he's competent at running the business, so I don't see that as likely. And don't get me wrong, he works harder at this then I do. (Also get's paid more, it's his business). But he hasn't taken a very big risk. I believe this business goes back to his great great great grandfather.
And I don't mean this to complain about my compensation or anything. I mean this as a defense of the act of collective bargaining as being a very capitalist thing to do and to point out that the typical arguments against collective bargaining of "find a different job or negotiate more money for yourself" are false. Unequal bargaining power basically deflates the wages everywhere. You basically have to take whatever turd sandwich they give you til you find someone that gives you one with a bit more mayo on it.
Also the risk that the entrepreneur takes is dependent upon how much money he has and how much he puts into the business. I'm not saying this is the same thing but if I win a 100 million dollars in the lottery and spend a million opening up a Zaxby's franchise where I live. . . I really didn't take that big of a risk, especially if I LLC or incorporate.
Corporations themselves while necessary also allow people to limit their personal risks.
So we already have a lot of ways that our system limits the risks of the employer. Crap if my employer runs the business into the ground, can't pay me but doesn't tell me that, I can't seek out his personal assets to compensate me for my work. I have no greater claim then any other person or company that he owes money to. So again I the employee take the risk if he's not able to pay.
Explain to me how that would be fair in terms of risk? Say I don't know anything about the status of the business because you know he's running it and 2 weeks later or so he comes to me and says . . . well we're not making any money and we're in debt up to our eyebrows so I'm shutting the place down and going chapter 11 and I'm retiring because I have the personal funds to do that. So I say ok, where is my paycheck for the last 2 weeks? And he says the company can't afford to pay you.
So I go to court and the court says you are right the corporation owes you the money, but the corporation has almost nothing and has tons of debts so you may be owed $1500 but you only get $15 because that's your share of the debts. So I've lost 2 weeks of work time and 2 weeks I could have been finding another source of income. This risks my home and my family. Meanwhile my employer goes home to his house and everything and if he has the personal funds to retire he does so... And because it was incorporated he's not on the hook to pay me anything out of his personal funds. He may do so anyways out of a sense of personal honor, but the law doesn't require him to do that stuff.
And if you are talking about a large publicly traded company you can forget the idea of someone paying you out of a sense of personal honor.
Even then employee takes all the risk employer takes very little. So the whole capitalist arguments fail here because our system already designed shields to eliminate personal risk to the employer.
In the case of my employer since he was handed down the company he could if he chose liquidate the company and retire now. He still eats 3 meals a day, sleeps in a warm bed etc and his family knows no poverty. I can't just quit without securing another source of income.
My point isn't about jealousy but it's about realizing the unequal power in the negotiation that keeps employee wages down. All of the real risk. . . the crap that means anything to anyone . . . our spouses and our children being able to eat and sleep in warm beds is born entirely by the employee.
Last edited:
Big difference between private and public sector. I agree with a liberal hero-FDR- that public employees should not be able to unionize. In addition the big losers here are the kids and the teachers are willing to their future at risk. And Thad perfectly ok with the libs on this board
Let's be intellectually honest about this, teachers unions exist solely for the betterment of teachers. They do no exist for the betterment of students, and never have. It is also true that the betterment of teachers is not synonymous with the betterment of students despite what teachers unions say.
Lets be honest teachers do this for a living. While it's a good thing that they do, it's fair for them to to ask to be paid for it and paid well. Now while because of what they do I would recommend that a strike is an act of last resort, it's their right to try to negotiate better wages for themselves. While it's a good thing to do, it's still their source of income.
Unless you suggest we just get an all volunteer teaching staff. Find some volunteers who want to go to the school and teach for 7 hours and grade papers 9 months out of the year. I'm sure you will find plenty of safe, intelligent, non criminal people who are willing to invest that much time doing so.
Not sure of the reasons but 3% over 3 years is pretty good. I'd like to know what the justification for the raises are. 10.5% over two years isn't even a serious proposal. I'm betting the real problem is the administration is wanting to use standardized test scores to evaluate teachers which has been proven to be terrible practice and actually undermines the intention of doing taking the tests in the first place.
It's really too bad these laws couldn't just require some sort of growth measurement but not base teacher evaluations on the outcomes of those scores, but how the teacher used the scores to address the needs of the student. Force a teacher to collect data and they will use it. Make their jobs dependent on it any objective observation of the results gets thrown out the window.
It's really too bad these laws couldn't just require some sort of growth measurement but not base teacher evaluations on the outcomes of those scores, but how the teacher used the scores to address the needs of the student. Force a teacher to collect data and they will use it. Make their jobs dependent on it any objective observation of the results gets thrown out the window.
I think the point he's trying to make is that teachers often want to compare what they make to what people in the private sector make, or even to what other public employees like police, fire, etc. make. But they fail to disclose, and many fail to even admit, that such a comparison is not apples to apples unless you first convert the salaries so that they share the same time denominator. Dollars/year doesn't work. It needs to be dollars/month, or dollars/week, or dollars/hour. When that conversion is done, teaching is not quite the low paying job that its been sold as.
That said, I think teaching is a noble profession. And I think its difficult as hell. I wouldn't want to do it, and I by no means think teachers are overpaid. But the analytical side of my brain agrees that the conversation on teacher pay is often framed as dollars/year as compared to private sector employees when that's not a fair way to frame it.
Last edited:
Do you, as many other teachers that I know, choose to work some amount of hours during those 2'ish months that you are not contractually bound to be at the school? (Nothing wrong with that IMO, it's just that back and forth conversations about teacher pay rarely highlight that the normal teacher annual salary is essentially for about 1600'ish hours of work per year and most of the rest of us with FT jobs work around 2000-2400.)
So there it seems there is rarely an "apples to apples" conversation, when if we want to be real about it, then we should allow for that pretty substantial difference.
If Trump is the GOP nominee I will hold my nose and vote for him. He is not however my first candidate. So far I like Rubio and Carson the best after the first debate.
As for the rest, I'm not anti teacher, I'm just anti public union. I pay for my kids to go to private school because that is what I believe is best for them. Teachers have a tough job but I do not buy into the myth that they are under paid.
Yes, this is what I was getting at. And if you tell somebody you make $45,000/year does it really matter if you aren't technically getting paid for 2 of those months? You're getting the same amount as money as somebody in a different occupation making $45,000/year, but working 2 months less. I've seen it on here several times where teachers are quick to point out they aren't getting paid during the summer, but to me it doesn't make any difference.
Taking the union out of political activity, I'm all for that. But surrendering their right to vote is silly. Everyone has some sort of conflict of interest that they are going for when they vote, something is always on the table that might benefit them personally and it's not like teachers are such a large number of people that they can over rite everyone elses votes.
But yeah take corporations and unions out of political activity and I'm fine with that.
nole........First, I congratulate you for being a hard working American.......I am so glad you work "twice as hard" as a teacher.
Teachers for the most part work much harder and longer hours than the panacea you describe. I am sure their are those who work exactly as you describe...and less, but for the most part you and I both understand what you describe is a "contract" and not the reality of the situation.
Teachers "get the summer off" may be true however, this is the time when most teachers are going back to school to persue advanced degrees and certification so they can become BETTER teachers and improve their state in life. Many times, these teachers are doing so at their own expense.
Teachers work only when school is "in session". You cannot blame them that their employers (YOU, the school child parents) are DEMANDING 2-week "Christmas" (winter is the more correct term) breaks so parents can take their kids on vacations...the same can be said for "Spring" breaks. If you think it is unfair that teachers get "the summer off" (more accurately they get 8-9 weeks off) push for "year 'round schools. See howe far that goes......with the "parenting community" as opposed to the educational community. It's not "teacher's unions" that are demanding and getting these "vacations" for their members...it is pretty much PARENTS who are designing the school calendar. Again, you have the symptom of the disease confused with the cause of the disease.
My mother taught midd;le school for 25 years. And yes she corrected papers over her luxurious 35 minute lunch hour....she'd also bring papers home at night and on the weekends and correct/read and critique them on "uncompansated time".
In addition, I am shocked that you two were unable to make a go of it.
And I don't buy into the myth that you work twice as hard. Badda-boom.
I note you never did respond to my post. Stop acting like you're the only ones that work hard. Stop whining about a few extra hours. In the private sector, you either perform, or you're gone. Perhaps that's why few of us have sympathy for your "plight"?
We don't have a "plight". We just get sick and tired of assholes coming on here every other week talking $hit about what we do. Guys on here bitch about teaching more than we do. It gets really old.
The private sector performance issue is often the biggest myth there is. I have worked my whole life save for 4 years in the military and 3 months temporarily working for a county, and I can tell you that it really depends on whom you work for and when. I've seen the best be laid off. I've seen friends and relatives get rewarded for no reason other than they are friends or relatives. And I've seen the next to worthless succeed simply because they have someone's ear. While working hard and smart should be the way upward, it often is not.
That is pure unadulterated BS pepperman. If it was the truth economics in 'merica would be much different than they are today. Please quit telling me the BS you think exists in "the private sector"......I worked it for damn near 40 years.
The reason people bring shit up about teachers is threads like this. Easy pickings! Always love a good teach tard thread. Always.
I've gotten 3 major raises in pay since I've worked at this company. 2 where within 1 month of one of my children being born. That's too soon for the kid to cause an unconscious increase in performance and have that noticed and lead to a raise.
I appreciate the hell out of those raises no matter when they come. But I find it highly unlikely that it is a simple coincidence that they came right after I had a kid. One of them I literally came back from taking a a paid week off for the kid, got my paycheck and noted a 17% raise.
Ideally performance would lead to better pay, and sometimes it does. But a lot of times it doesn't.
More lol. I worked in the "private sector" for 15 years before I chose to teach. There were just as many deadbeats there...you undoubtedly work with some.
And I'm not complaining. As a teacher, I'm correcting children who are talking about things they don't understand. Do it every day.
I do work with some deadbeats, but not that many. And they don't advance in my organization. They certainly don't get much in the way of the bonus pool when that time of year comes along. We can thankfully have massive differentiation because there is no union that keeps the worst of us at the same level as the best of us.
I apologize for thinking you were complaining about the extra work you had to do for no extra pay. That whole "week of moving" thing comes to mind.
Whatever, I'm glad people are willing to teach our kids. You sound like you're a good teacher as well. I couldn't do that job myself, as I don't have the necessary tolerance to work with children day in and day out. I admire those that do though.
It is what it is. I will complain about a $5K cut in pay since 2008 and I will complain that they pulled the rug out from under my wife after she started on her master's degree. She could have quit but she was committed to improving her teaching so we now have the $20K loan to pay back with no financial reward. I can also complain when they cut the supply budget by 80% forcing us to spend even more out-of-pocket. Anyone in the private sector who says they wouldn't complain about those circumstances is quite simply a liar.
Love my job...it's the best thing I've ever done. Back when I was a private sector manager - many years ago - I had some time off and went with my wife to help in her class and caught the bug. Quit my job and went back to school for two years to get certified rather than try lateral entry and I'm glad I did. I was much better prepared and I've seen lateral entry teachers flame out time and again. I can retire in three years but I'll likely continue to work as long as I get to teach this pre-engineering class - more fun than humans should be allowed to have.
This is correct. Between the 2+ months 'off' when school is not in session, and the additional time off during holidays (which is usually another 3-4 weeks at least), teachers are working about 9 months compared with 12 months that typical company employees or self-employed small business owners work. (Most companies give 2 weeks paid vacation - not sure if teachers are afforded that or sick leave in typical teaching positions, but even without that, we are comparing 12-month paid salaries vs. approx. 9 month paid salaries; depending on vacation time for teachers vs. 'typical' employees, this could equate to almost 10 months).
Thus, a $50,000 a year teacher's salary is roughly equivalent to $66,600 in a corporate position (based on 9 months) or $60,000 (based on 10 months). That's not because 'teachers are underpaid' necessarily, it's party because they are not required to work for the entire year, and it's clearly not an apples:apples comparison. That means teachers are probably compensated 'fairly' if they are making 75% to maybe 80% of what a typical full time job earns.
When I was a kid, I knew teachers who would run their own house-painting businesses, or would do de-tasseling contracts during the 2-3 months in the summer when they were off to make up the difference.
I'm not posting to insult teachers or justify them making smaller salaries because 'they don't work hard'; I benefitted from some GREAT teachers in HS and grade school. But let's make sure we're being honest about compensation when people are complaining about low teaching salaries; if they are making <75% of an 'equivalent' company/full time salary, then we clearly have a wage gap to fill in....
