PDA

View Full Version : Economics Madison, WI bus driver is city's highest paid employee


chiefsnorth
03-10-2011, 09:18 AM
Madison Metro driver highest paid city employee

DEAN MOSIMAN | dmosiman@madison.com


Madison's highest paid city government employee last year wasn't the mayor. It wasn't the police chief. It wasn't even the head of Metro Transit.

It was bus driver John E. Nelson.

Nelson earned $159,258 in 2009, including $109,892 in overtime and other pay.

He and his colleague, driver Greg Tatman, who earned $125,598, were among the city's top 20 earners for 2009, city records show.
They're among the seven bus drivers who made more than $100,000 last year thanks to a union contract that lets the most senior drivers who have the highest base salaries get first crack at overtime.

And there was a lot of overtime - $1.94 million last year, $467,200 more than the bus system budgeted for and the most ever for the system - as employees exhausted sick leave and took advantage of unpaid leave through the federal Family Medical Leave Act, officials said.

"That's the (drivers') contract," said Transit and Parking Commission Chairman Gary Poulson. "(But) I think we want more information to the TPC and a discussion of all the facts."

The high salaries for Metro bus drivers come as Metro's ridership continues to grow and the system ranks high among peers according to a 2009 state audit. Metro, which increased fares last year, carried 13.58 million riders in 2009, the second highest total in 40 years.

Metro general manager Chuck Kamp, who earned $118,690 last year, defended the employees.

"These are very good employees who follow the rules that have been negotiated with the Teamsters," Kamp said, adding that Nelson and Tatman "are senior drivers with excellent safety and customer service records."
But he said Metro is looking at ways to limit overtime, including tighter follow up on workman's compensation claims and exploring how to control the growth of Family Medical Leave Act time off by employees.
Nelson, Tatman and Gene Gowey, business manager for the bus drivers union, Teamster Local 695, could not be reached Friday.
In the past, drivers have defended the pay, saying they earn it by working long hours that can create hardships on families. Also, the job requires navigating an oversized vehicle through city streets and dealing with sometimes uncivil riders and other challenges, they have said.

The bus drivers' contact, which calls for pay up to $26.02 an hour, expired at the end of December and the sides are now in negotiations.

Many make more than the mayor

Over all, Madison paid at least 20 employees more than $125,000 in 2009, according to city records.

After Nelson, the top paid employees in 2009 were City Comptroller Dean Brasser, who earned $151,551, and Police Chief Noble Wray, who made $143,585.

Mayor Dave Cieslewicz was paid $112,880. He wasn't among the top 20.

Concern about bus drivers being among the city's highest earners isn't new. The issue surfaced after Metro changed from a Downtown hub to a transfer station system in 1998.

In 1997, before the change, no driver made more than $70,000. But two years later, as Metro struggled to fill vacancies, two drivers topped $100,000 and seven more made more than $70,000. A high base salary and other benefits for drivers were largely set in the 1970s and 1980s, when the city took over the bus company. Also, the union contract limits part-timers to 15 percent of the number full-time drivers, and part-timers can only drive morning and afternoon school routes. Those rules create opportunities for overtime and other special pay for full-time workers.

The city negotiated more flexibility for using part timers in 2002-03, but a state audit last year recommended Metro seek even more flexibility and noted that some pay premiums, such as those for evening and Sunday shifts, are uncommon in the industry.
Busting overtime budgets

In the past three years, Metro has been below budget for regular salaries, mainly due to vacancies, but exceeded budget for overtime, Metro data shows. In 2009, Metro was $290,000 under budget for salaries, spending $22.8 million, but $467,200 over budget for overtime, spending $1.94 million, the most ever.

Overtime is high for several reasons, Kamp said.

Metro employees are exhausting sick leave time, taking advantage of the federal Family Medical Leave Act and have high rate of absenteeism without pay, Kamp said.

For example, use of the medical leave act by Metro employees jumped 44 percent to 28,340 hours from 2008 to 2009, Kamp said, calling it "the driving factor" for overtime last year.

A city hiring freeze last year blocked Metro from replacing drivers for a time, Kamp said. Cieslewicz later authorized Metro to fill vacancies after learning it was cheaper than paying overtime.

Also, Metro undertook a safety program that took drivers off their jobs and increased overtime, Kamp said. But the training helped cut preventable accidents 17 percent last year, he said.

Metro is working with the Teamsters to control vacancies and absenteeism, including a progressive discipline system for absence without pay, Kamp said.

Already, Metro has cut worker's compensation costs 27 percent to $632,600 between 2007 and 2009, he said. Despite challenges with overtime, Metro's cost per rider rose just 5 percent to $3.07 between 2006 and the third quarter of 2009, Kamp said.

"There are a number of things we're trying to do to create efficiencies," he said.

Copyright 2011 madison.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_24af32d4-13f4-11df-86b2-001cc4c002e0.html

Saul Good
03-10-2011, 09:29 AM
What's wrong with a bus driver in a town of 200,000 people making $160k?

Jaric
03-10-2011, 09:30 AM
I need to get in on this whole public employee thing. I'll drive a bus all over Wisconsin for that much. Without hesitation.

The Mad Crapper
03-10-2011, 09:31 AM
Sounds reasonable.

chiefsnorth
03-10-2011, 09:31 AM
What's wrong with a bus driver in a town of 200,000 people making $160k?

I agree.. They need to stop trying to curbstomp the middle class!!!!!

The Mad Crapper
03-10-2011, 09:33 AM
Where's Kotter? LMAO

BigMeatballDave
03-10-2011, 09:33 AM
What's wrong with a bus driver in a town of 200,000 people making $160k?Seriously? I dont want to begrudge anyone earning a nice living, but he's a fucking bus driver. Not a police officer. Not an EMT saving people's lives. A bus driver.

Saul Good
03-10-2011, 09:36 AM
Seriously? I dont want to begrudge anyone earning a nice living, but he's a fucking bus driver. Not a police officer. Not an EMT saving people's lives. A bus driver.

No. Not seriously.

Donger
03-10-2011, 09:41 AM
LMAO

Radar Chief
03-10-2011, 09:43 AM
What's wrong with a bus driver in a town of 200,000 people making $160k?

I ain’t hate’n the playah.
If I could earn $160K for no more responsibility than driving people around town I’d be all over it.

I need to get in on this whole public employee thing. I'll drive a bus all over Wisconsin for that much. Without hesitation.

Damn straight, we need to get in on this gig.

chiefsnorth
03-10-2011, 09:53 AM
Where's Kotter? LMAO

Getting his CDL?

Radar Chief
03-10-2011, 09:54 AM
Getting his CDL?

ROFL Nice.

The Mad Crapper
03-10-2011, 10:01 AM
Getting his CDL?

:LOL:

orange
03-10-2011, 10:02 AM
I ain’t hate’n the playah.
If I could earn $160K for no more responsibility than driving people around town I’d be all over it.



Damn straight, we need to get in on this gig.


I'll bet you wouldn't. That's ca. 80 hours a week. Every week.

Radar Chief
03-10-2011, 10:25 AM
I'll bet you wouldn't. That's ca. 80 hours a week. Every week.

:shrug: Maybe that’s a bit much for your constitution but its not like I haven’t worked 80 hour weeks before.
Even did some of that driving “Deuce and a half” and 5-Ton trucks for the Army.
A bus would be cake after driving a manual steering Deuce and a half all over Germany.

mlyonsd
03-10-2011, 10:29 AM
I'll bet you wouldn't. That's ca. 80 hours a week. Every week.

I would hope a bus driver isn't driving 80 hours a week.

Radar Chief
03-10-2011, 10:30 AM
I would hope a bus driver isn't driving 80 hours a week.

They probably can’t. I assume that they have to keep a ledger just like any other truck driver and are limited to the number of hours they can drive continuously.

orange
03-10-2011, 10:36 AM
I would hope a bus driver isn't driving 80 hours a week.

That's about 11-12 hours a day, 7 days a week. No one would have a problem with 12 hour days.

I actually cut him DOWN to 80 hours - it's ca. 90 at time-and-a-half, but I'm sure there's double-time for holidays and so on.

Iowanian
03-10-2011, 10:39 AM
#WINNING!!!!
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6ememUxgm_xGjqpyvfUQE4v4WK2Iu6CRvxogVCRVAvVi_8ISG7w


There needs to be some stunta' bling in heeerr.

DJ's left nut
03-10-2011, 10:39 AM
I would hope a bus driver isn't driving 80 hours a week.

Sounds like they would, depending on the OT structure.

$160,000 divided by $26.02/hr = about 6,100 hours of pay. Now if you figure overtime at time + 1/2, that's 2,000 base plus 2,750 OT hours + the 1/2 element = 1375 hrs. The sum total is right at 6,125 'hours' paid.

2,000 base hours plus 2,750 OT hours = 4,750 hours actually worked equals about 90 hours of work/week.

Now ultimately I'd guess their OT structure is probably closer to double, I can't imagine anyone actually worked 90 hrs/week for 52 consecutive weeks.

It's still wildly exorbitant and the OT 'seniority' crap is ridiculous in that it encourages dangers practice, but its probably not that otherworldly.

HonestChieffan
03-10-2011, 10:41 AM
That's about 11-12 hours a day, 7 days a week. No one would have a problem with 12 hour days.

I actually cut him DOWN to 80 hours - it's ca. 90 at time-and-a-half, but I'm sure there's double-time for holidays and so on.


Did this come to you from a source or are you assout speculation bound again?

DJ's left nut
03-10-2011, 10:47 AM
Actually, the time + 1/2 math checks out.

The story also reports that they earned just over 100K in overtime pay.

If you take 2,750 hours of overtime worked, plus 1/2 again in overtime benefit, you get 4,125 OT hours paid. At the $26.02 figure reported as the top hourly wage for the bus drivers, that gets you $107,332 in overtime pay.

Just like the article said.

It seems increasingly likely that you have a handful of bus drivers running 16 hour shifts out there and making bank on account of it. It's a dangerous practice, but the hell I'm going to work 16 hours/day for 6 days/week.

Yeah, I'll let those bus drivers have that gig.

orange
03-10-2011, 10:48 AM
Did this come to you from a source or are you assout speculation bound again?

The numbers are in the article - but of course, I know you don't ever actually read articles. Check DJ's left nut's post above yours.

(The "double-time for holidays" is an extrapolation from my own experience).

BigMeatballDave
03-10-2011, 10:52 AM
No. Not seriously.:doh!: Sarcasm meter under repair.

alpha_omega
03-10-2011, 10:53 AM
Sorry, but...$26.02 per sounds a bit much, even for a senior bus driver.

Radar Chief
03-10-2011, 10:57 AM
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/hos/index.htm

DOT HOS (Hours Of Service) regulations.

HonestChieffan
03-10-2011, 10:57 AM
The numbers are in the article - but of course, I know you don't ever actually read articles. Check DJ's left nut's post above yours.

(The "double-time for holidays" is an extrapolation from my own experience).


Did you enjoy driving a bus on holidays?

DJ's left nut
03-10-2011, 10:57 AM
Sorry, but...$26.02 per sounds a bit much, even for a senior bus driver.

It is.

That would be my ultimate gripe - not their gross pay, but their hourly rate.

$52K for a busdriver seems steep. On the other hand, the article seems to indicate that they weren't able to fill the jobs at a lesser hourly. If that's the case, this is less of a union driven price and pretty much a purely market driven wage.

From there you can go all the way to welfare encouraging people not to work, if you'd like to. Cut the welfare rolls enough and I'd imagine you'd have more people willing to drive a bus for $35K/yr rather than starve. But that's a separate discussion.

Ultimately, if if the facts in the article are to be believed, I see nothing inherently wrong with the pay the bus-drivers are getting. My concern is that their own union went ahead and set up a system that shat on their junior members and ensured that their senior drivers were able to rack up that overtime at the cost of the junior members and at a degree of health/safety risk to the local populace.

DJ's left nut
03-10-2011, 10:59 AM
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/hos/index.htm

So how do you get the numbers?

If you're going to get up in arms about the article and take it's final figures as credible (i.e. that a busdriver earned 150K), you have to take the entire article at face-value, no? You can't pick and choose which parts you deem credible.

So if taken at face value, the max rate for a senior bus-driver is $26/hour. If that's the case, it seems quite likely that the time + 1/2 math is how it has to go. I can't come up with any other way to get approximately 100K in overtime pay + approximately 50K in base pay.

I see the reg and it seems straightforward, but the math don't lie...

Jaric
03-10-2011, 11:01 AM
Hey, if some dude is working 80+ hour weeks, let him earn 6 figures. He's the outlier. It's the hordes of people "working" 40 hour weeks doing nothing that are the problem.

Radar Chief
03-10-2011, 11:05 AM
So how do you get the numbers?

If you're going to get up in arms about the article and take it's final figures as credible (i.e. that a busdriver earned 150K), you have to take the entire article at face-value, no? You can't pick and choose which parts you deem credible.

So if taken at face value, the max rate for a senior bus-driver is $26/hour. If that's the case, it seems quite likely that the time + 1/2 math is how it has to go. I can't come up with any other way to get approximately 100K in overtime pay + approximately 50K in base pay.

I see the reg and it seems straightforward, but the math don't lie...

#1 That link is to the DOT.
#2 I'm not "up in arms" over the article. Orange's claim of 80-90 hour work weeks is what I'm addressing and according to the DOT that is not legal.

orange
03-10-2011, 11:06 AM
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/hos/index.htm

DOT HOS (Hours Of Service) regulations.

So how do you get the numbers?

...

I see the reg and it seems straightforward, but the math don't lie...


Those are just Federal Regs. - for interstate commerce. Madison is free to ignore them.


[edit] #2 I'm not "up in arms" over the article. Orange's claim of 80-90 hour work weeks is what I'm addressing and according to the DOT that is not legal.


*AHEM*

Those are just Federal Regs. - for interstate commerce. Madison is free to ignore them.

Who must comply with the Hours-of-Service Regulations?
Most drivers must follow the HOS Regulations if they drive a commercial motor vehicle, or CMV.

In general, a CMV is a vehicle that is used as part of a business and is involved in interstate commerce and fits any of these descriptions:

Mr. Kotter
03-10-2011, 11:09 AM
Gosh, over-time for teachers would be way cool. :hmmm:

Hydrae
03-10-2011, 11:09 AM
Already, Metro has cut worker's compensation costs 27 percent to $632,600 between 2007 and 2009, he said. Despite challenges with overtime, Metro's cost per rider rose just 5 percent to $3.07 between 2006 and the third quarter of 2009, Kamp said.

This is the problem with public transportation. Even with recently raised rates I am sure it does not cost the rider $3.07 to ride the bus. The difference has to be made up by the local taxpayers.

DJ's left nut
03-10-2011, 11:10 AM
Those are just Federal Regs. - for interstate commerce. Madison is free to ignore them.


Yup, that appears to be the case. The reg refers to vehicles operating in interstate commerce, or intrastate only in the event they're transporting hazardous materials.

This seems to be a case of a municipality not being bound by the reg.

Again, there's just not another good way to make the math check out. If you trust the numbers, there's just not another reasonable conclusion.

mnchiefsguy
03-10-2011, 11:14 AM
Another factor to consider is that while the drivers may have been on the clock for 80-90 hours per week, it is highly unlikely they were driving the entire time. I am sure their union contract gives them plenty of paid breaks, and a nice lunch hour, etc. that cuts down on the actually time they are driving the bus.

Radar Chief
03-10-2011, 11:58 AM
[edit]


*AHEM*



You are correct, point conceded.

Radar Chief
03-10-2011, 12:02 PM
Sorry, but...$26.02 per sounds a bit much, even for a senior bus driver.

I wouldn’t say that, for an over the road trucker with several years of experience that wouldn’t be out of line. Maybe a little high but not outlandish.

Chiefnj2
03-10-2011, 12:24 PM
Gosh, over-time for teachers would be way cool. :hmmm:

Bonuses if your school scores above average in state-wide testing??

fan4ever
03-10-2011, 12:30 PM
Gosh, over-time for teachers would be way cool. :hmmm:

You get the summers off to compensate your overtime pay...get over yourself.


















OK, now that I've pissed you off, my wife is a teacher...there are few vocations I have more respect for...

...doesn't mean I don't think you're politically misguided though. :Poke:

mlyonsd
03-10-2011, 12:33 PM
You are correct, point conceded.

There are reasons for interstate laws and CDL's. Madison's Metro union agreement is just as dangerous as it is wasteful.

DJ's left nut
03-10-2011, 12:34 PM
Gosh, over-time for teachers would be way cool. :hmmm:

You'd have to work 2,000 hrs/yr first.



EDIT:

Now that I've pissed you off, my sister-in-law and mother-in-law are both teachers, as are a few family friends. There is no vocation in the world I believe has a more over-inflated sense of their own self-worth. Nor have I ever known an occupation to have more of a persecution complex than the poor ol' teachers that swear up and down that they do it for the children then spend most of their time bitching about their pay.

Remember - those who can't do, teach.

The Mad Crapper
03-10-2011, 12:44 PM
That's about 11-12 hours a day, 7 days a week. No one would have a problem with 12 hour days.

I actually cut him DOWN to 80 hours - it's ca. 90 at time-and-a-half, but I'm sure there's double-time for holidays and so on.

I know an 18 wheeler CDL operator cannot drive more than 10 hours in a 24 hour cycle, so I'm assuming the same rule applies with a passenger vehicle, so your math is impossible.

Radar Chief
03-10-2011, 12:55 PM
I know an 18 wheeler CDL operator cannot drive more than 10 hours in a 24 hour cycle, so I'm assuming the same rule applies with a passenger vehicle, so your math is impossible.

Covered that TMC. I was thinking the same thing for the same reason but DOT HOS, Hours Of Service, requirements don’t necessarily apply to a municipal bus driver.

DJ's left nut
03-10-2011, 12:57 PM
I know an 18 wheeler CDL operator cannot drive more than 10 hours in a 24 hour cycle, so I'm assuming the same rule applies with a passenger vehicle, so your math is impossible.

Why pay attention when you can just type stuff?

The Mad Crapper
03-10-2011, 01:00 PM
Covered that TMC. I was thinking the same thing for the same reason but DOT HOS, Hours Of Service, requirements don’t necessarily apply to a municipal bus driver.

Thanks, sorry I didn't read the whole thread.

The Mad Crapper
03-10-2011, 01:02 PM
Why pay attention when you can just type stuff?

You don't have to be a sorehead about it. I thought it was pretty stupid orange was defending this shit. I should have just called him a scumbag like I usually do and I wouldn't be in trouble with you now.

phisherman
03-10-2011, 01:18 PM
a gentleman that i work with offered this explanation and said that he's seen it before in situations like these:

when non-union drivers work shifts, the senior union drivers will claim their hours as their own. he tried to explain it a little deeper, but i started nodding off from the boredom.

The Mad Crapper
03-10-2011, 01:24 PM
a gentleman that i work with offered this explanation and said that he's seen it before in situations like these:

when non-union drivers work shifts, the senior union drivers will claim their hours as their own. he tried to explain it a little deeper, but i started nodding off from the boredom.

After about 15 hours of OT, each hour is taxed like 75% so it's actually stupid to take all that OT, but I think these guys do it because they are in fact stupid, that and they want to be a scumbag to the next guy in line, just to fuck him out of the OT.

Velvet_Jones
03-10-2011, 02:46 PM
Where's Kotter? LMAO

Filling out a buss driver application?

RedNeckRaider
03-10-2011, 02:52 PM
Filling out a buss driver application?

LMAO

Velvet_Jones
03-10-2011, 02:53 PM
You'd have to work 2,000 hrs/yr first.



EDIT:

Now that I've pissed you off, my sister-in-law and mother-in-law are both teachers, as are a few family friends. There is no vocation in the world I believe has a more over-inflated sense of their own self-worth. Nor have I ever known an occupation to have more of a persecution complex than the poor ol' teachers that swear up and down that they do it for the children then spend most of their time bitching about their pay.

Remember - those who can't do, teach.

God Damn. You trying to get Kotter to go postal or something? I bet them no good letter carriers get overtime. Just sayin.

RedNeckRaider
03-10-2011, 02:56 PM
You'd have to work 2,000 hrs/yr first.



EDIT:

Now that I've pissed you off, my sister-in-law and mother-in-law are both teachers, as are a few family friends. There is no vocation in the world I believe has a more over-inflated sense of their own self-worth. Nor have I ever known an occupation to have more of a persecution complex than the poor ol' teachers that swear up and down that they do it for the children then spend most of their time bitching about their pay.
Remember - those who can't do, teach.

I am related to some teachers and also know a few. The above is nails on from those I have been around~

chiefsnorth
03-10-2011, 03:02 PM
God Damn. You trying to get Kotter to go postal or something? I bet them no good letter carriers get overtime. Just sayin.

They work 12 months a year too.

I bet the salaries of the average person in the two are similar and I don't have an issue with that.

Your salary is determined by how rare your skill is and how useful it is in making money. Having a doctorate in philosophy might be quite rare, but it doesn't help a company make money - so, little demand, little salary. Or, if the pool of people who are qualified is large, salaries are low because supply is abundant. Secretaries are useful in making money, but the skills required are very common.

People wish salary was a measure of how much they feel they are worth, but unfortunately it's a measure of how valuable their skills are to making money.

I don't feel sorry for teachers, no one promised them an Escalade, and they had 4 years to think about their choice before accepting this world and what comes with it. And they continue to accept again every year.

Velvet_Jones
03-10-2011, 03:09 PM
They work 12 months a year too.

I bet the salaries of the average person in the two are similar and I don't have an issue with that.

Your salary is determined by how rare your skill is and how useful it is in making money. Having a doctorate in philosophy might be quite rare, but it doesn't help a company make money - so, little demand, little salary. Or, if the pool of people who are qualified is large, salaries are low because supply is abundant. Secretaries are useful in making money, but the skills required are very common.

People wish salary was a measure of how much they feel they are worth, but unfortunately it's a measure of how valuable their skills are to making money.

I don't feel sorry for teachers, no one promised them an Escalade, and they had 4 years to think about their choice before accepting this world and what comes with it. And they continue to accept again every year.

FYI - I got a jelly of the month club bonus this year and I am a partner in the company. I'm just fucking with Kotter because I don't have enough overtime money to buy a real home entertainment center. Kotter will have to do for right now.

Radar Chief
03-10-2011, 03:24 PM
You don't have to be a sorehead about it. I thought it was pretty stupid orange was defending this shit. I should have just called him a scumbag like I usually do and I wouldn't be in trouble with you now.

ROFL Its never too late to call Orange a scumbag. He’s a donk fan, he knows its true. ;)

Chief Henry
03-10-2011, 03:32 PM
Filling out a buss driver application?

ROFL

jettio
03-10-2011, 04:17 PM
They work 12 months a year too.

I bet the salaries of the average person in the two are similar and I don't have an issue with that.

Your salary is determined by how rare your skill is and how useful it is in making money. Having a doctorate in philosophy might be quite rare, but it doesn't help a company make money - so, little demand, little salary. Or, if the pool of people who are qualified is large, salaries are low because supply is abundant. Secretaries are useful in making money, but the skills required are very common.

People wish salary was a measure of how much they feel they are worth, but unfortunately it's a measure of how valuable their skills are to making money.

I don't feel sorry for teachers, no one promised them an Escalade, and they had 4 years to think about their choice before accepting this world and what comes with it. And they continue to accept again every year.

Man, it seems like you Walker supporters have a lot of hatred towards people just because you do not make any money.

Seems like a strategy of the Walker crowd is to make tiny earners mad at other people.

I do not think our country will be much of a place to be if your hatred becomes universal enough to make it the way most people are.

The Mad Crapper
03-10-2011, 04:51 PM
Man, it seems like you Walker supporters have a lot of hatred towards people just because you do not make any money.

Seems like a strategy of the Walker crowd is to make tiny earners mad at other people.

I do not think our country will be much of a place to be if your hatred becomes universal enough to make it the way most people are.

Yeah that's it, we're jealous. :drool:

mlyonsd
03-10-2011, 04:58 PM
Man, it seems like you Walker supporters have a lot of hatred towards people just because you do not make any money.

Seems like a strategy of the Walker crowd is to make tiny earners mad at other people.

I do not think our country will be much of a place to be if your hatred becomes universal enough to make it the way most people are.

Yes, the goal is to get to the point everyone is making death threats. Great analysis.

Saul Good
03-10-2011, 05:13 PM
Man, it seems like you Walker supporters have a lot of hatred towards people just because you do not make any money.

Seems like a strategy of the Walker crowd is to make tiny earners mad at other people.

I do not think our country will be much of a place to be if your hatred becomes universal enough to make it the way most people are.

Yep. The Republicans want to unite the proletariat so that they turn against the bourgeoisie. That sounds right.

Mr. Kotter
03-10-2011, 10:00 PM
Bonuses if your school scores above average in state-wide testing??

EVERY year, bi-atch. Bring it on!!! Yeah. :toast:

Now, what? LMAO

Mr. Kotter
03-10-2011, 10:06 PM
You get the summers off to compensate your overtime pay...get over yourself.

OK, now that I've pissed you off, my wife is a teacher...there are few vocations I have more respect for...

...doesn't mean I don't think you're politically misguided though. :Poke:

ALREADY do that. Every summer; I work other jobs....pool manager, summer school teacher, driver's ed.

Done ANOTHER job, to supplement and try to find some spending money/fun money.

:harumph:


Except now, it's gonna be: "pay-the-bills" money. Okay....I'm gonna be the big 5-0 soon, and somehow, expecting experienced teaching professionals to work for $20 an hour....is, well, what "those lazy SOBs deserve!"

Mr. Kotter
03-10-2011, 10:26 PM
You'd have to work 2,000 hrs/yr first....

Don't believe me, if you wanna be a moron...but, last year, school year alone: I put in 2100 hours, PLUS...and during my 10 week "summer" I worked another 543 hours. Total truth, despite your baloney skepticism.

In other words, I averaged over 50 hours a week for the year, for an hourly wage of about $45 per hour; with an MA in my profession, and with 20+ years of experience.

Yeah, that makes me "over-paid"..... LMAO

jettio
03-10-2011, 10:34 PM
Yep. The Republicans want to unite the proletariat so that they turn against the bourgeoisie. That sounds right.

Why is the propaganda machine trying to put out so many articles complaining about what people make?

It is no different than poor whites who did not own slaves fighting for the confederacy in the civil war.

Hatred will not win.

How do you expect to have a prosperous society if the economic elites hoard all the money and make everybody else poorer and poorer fighting over scraps?

You might think society will be better if everybody that punches a clock gets paid subsistence wages, but that will not be a good society.

banyon
03-10-2011, 10:40 PM
This article is pretty worthless without a rate of pay or hours worked.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 07:35 AM
Gosh, over-time for teachers would be way cool. :hmmm:

You should focus on getting your first 40 hours in before you start thinking about overtime. :Poke:

Saul Good
03-11-2011, 07:42 AM
You should focus on getting your first 40 hours in before you start thinking about overtime. :Poke:

Let's see here. 185 working days on the school calendar. 8:00 - 4:00 less 30 minutes for lunch comes to 7.5 hours per day. That comes to 1387.5 hours worked per year. 40 hours per week comes to 2080 hours per year. That leaves they only 700 hours or so short of qualifying for this theoretical overtime. Why, they are 2/3 of the way to working a "normal" number of hours.

Another way of expressing this would be to say that for every hour a teacher works, a "normal" employee works an hour and a half.

mlyonsd
03-11-2011, 07:45 AM
You should focus on getting your first 40 hours in before you start thinking about overtime. :Poke:

Just about spit my coffee on that one.

Saul Good
03-11-2011, 07:48 AM
Don't believe me, if you wanna be a moron...but, last year, school year alone: I put in 2100 hours, PLUS...and during my 10 week "summer" I worked another 543 hours. Total truth, despite your baloney skepticism.

In other words, I averaged over 50 hours a week for the year, for an hourly wage of about $45 per hour; with an MA in my profession, and with 20+ years of experience.

Yeah, that makes me "over-paid"..... LMAO

You think that $45 per hour is underpaid?

The average American earns around $15-$16 per hour. You are paid triple that. I don't begrudge you the pay, but let's not pretend that you are underpaid.

Also, you didn't work 12.5 hour days on average during the school year. That did not happen.

(8 months (1 year minus Summer, Spring Break, and Christmas Vacation) @ 21 working days per month comes to 168 days. 2100 / 168 = 12.5 hours worked per day.

Saul Good
03-11-2011, 07:51 AM
ALREADY do that. Every summer; I work other jobs....pool manager, summer school teacher, driver's ed.

Done ANOTHER job, to supplement and try to find some spending money/fun money.

:harumph:


Except now, it's gonna be: "pay-the-bills" money. Okay....I'm gonna be the big 5-0 soon, and somehow, expecting experienced teaching professionals to work for $20 an hour....is, well, what "those lazy SOBs deserve!"

$20 per hour? Assuming you started at age 25, that means that you have 25 years of experience and, presumably, a doctorate. According to the schedules I posted (one for a highly paid suburban district and another for a lower paid rural district), you would make somewhere between $55k and $75k. That's anywhere from $40-$55 per hour. Where do you come up with $20?

fan4ever
03-11-2011, 09:21 AM
Don't believe me, if you wanna be a moron...but, last year, school year alone: I put in 2100 hours, PLUS...and during my 10 week "summer" I worked another 543 hours. Total truth, despite your baloney skepticism.

In other words, I averaged over 50 hours a week for the year, for an hourly wage of about $45 per hour; with an MA in my profession, and with 20+ years of experience.

Yeah, that makes me "over-paid"..... LMAO

Unionized state? Here in az the NEA is pretty weak considering it's a right to work state...and my wife's pay is nowhere near yours...but you also got your MA...she couldn't because of our situation...but she has taught 7 years longer than you also.

After our healthcare insurance and all the other deductions from her paycheck, she gets to bring home just a tad over $1,000 a month. She regrets EVER having gone into teaching for a myriad of reasons, poor pay being just one of them.

AndChiefs
03-11-2011, 09:34 AM
Don't believe me, if you wanna be a moron...but, last year, school year alone: I put in 2100 hours, PLUS...and during my 10 week "summer" I worked another 543 hours. Total truth, despite your baloney skepticism.

In other words, I averaged over 50 hours a week for the year, for an hourly wage of about $45 per hour; with an MA in my profession, and with 20+ years of experience.

Yeah, that makes me "over-paid"..... LMAO

Let's see.....50*45*52 = $117,000

It must be tough to survive on that.

The Mad Crapper
03-11-2011, 09:38 AM
Six-Figure Bus Drivers and Other Working-Class Heroes

Can we stop acting as if people who work for the government are the heroes of working people?

Fine, we understand that Wisconsin public sector employees like the system that pays them an average of $76,500 per year, with splendiferous benefits, and are fighting like wildcats against any proposed reforms to that system. But it's madness to keep treating people who are promoting their own self-interest as if they are James Meredith walking into the University of Mississippi.

This isn't how we usually view people fighting for their own economic interests.

When Wall Street opposes financial reforms or a tobacco company opposes new cigarette taxes, no one hails them as "working men and women" who "deserve a decent pay and decent retirement." We're not told Wall Street has a "fundamental right" not to be regulated, or tobacco companies promoting their own interests are just trying to "help working people and middle-class people retain a good job in America." People on the other side of the issue aren't said to be "just trying to kick the other guy in the shin and exterminate him."

And yet all that was said by the Democratic governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, on MSNBC's "Hardball" last week, about government workers fighting to preserve their own Alex Rodriguez-like employment contracts.

Yes, we understand that public sector employees got themselves terrific overtime, holiday, pension and health care deals through buying politicians with their votes and campaign money. But now, responsible elected officials in Wisconsin are trying to balance the budget.

MSNBC is covering the fight in Wisconsin as if it's the 9/11 attack -- and the Republicans are al-Qaida. Its entire prime-time schedule is dedicated to portraying self- interested government employees as if they're Marines taking on the Taliban. The network's Ed Schultz bellows that it is "morally wrong" to oppose the demands of government employees.

Yes, and I guess pornographers are noble when they launch a full-scale offensive against obscenity laws.

Public sector workers are pursuing their own narrow financial interests to the detriment of everyone else in their states. That's fine, but can we stop pretending it's virtuous?

Because of the insane union contracts in Wisconsin, one Madison bus driver, John E. Nelson, was able to make $159,000 in 2009 -- about $100,000 of which in overtime pay. Jackie Gleason didn't make that much playing bus driver Ralph Kramden on "The Honeymooners." Seven bus drivers took home more than $100,000 that year.

When asked about the outrageous overtime pay for bus drivers -- totaling $1.94 million in 2009 alone -- Transit and Parking Commission Chairman Gary Poulson said: "That's the contract."

It's ludicrous to suggest that these union contracts were fairly bargained. Only one side was at the negotiating table. Ordinary people with jobs were not at the meetings where public sector compensation was discussed.

Union hacks play on our heartstrings, weeping about the valuable work government employees do: These are the people who educate our children, run into burning buildings and take dangerous criminals off our streets!

Politicians who do not immediately acquiesce to insane union demands are invariably accused of hating teachers, nurses or cops. In California, this has been standard operating procedure for decades. The voters never seem to catch on.

In 1972, E. Richard Barnes lost his re-election campaign to the California state Assembly after being accused by cops and firefighters of coddling criminals.

In fact, Barnes, a conservative Republican, had one of the toughest records on crime. But he had voted against fringe benefits and better pension benefits for public employees.

Years later, in 2005, Don Perata, Democratic state senator from Oakland, suggested that the legislature reconsider the requirement that 40 percent of the entire state budget be spent on public schools. The teachers' unions instantly plastered his district with fliers calling him anti-education. Perata is a far-left Democrat, who had himself been a teacher for 15 years before entering politics.

Fine, we like teachers, firemen and police officers. We appreciate them. (And for the record, it is statistically more dangerous to be a farmer, fisherman, steelworker or pilot than a cop or fireman. Soldiers also have pretty dangerous jobs, and they don't get to strike.)

Does that mean we should pay them $1 million dollars a year? How about $10 million? After all, these are the people who educate our kids, run into burning buildings and take dangerous criminals off our streets!

Assuming the answer is no, then apparently we're allowed to discuss government workers' compensation -- even though they do important work. As George Bernard Shaw concluded his famous quip (often attributed to Winston Churchill), "Now, we're just negotiating over the price."

Why do public sector employees have absurd overtime rules? Why don't they pay for their own health insurance? Why do they get to retire at age 45 with a guaranteed pension of 65 percent of their last year's pay -- as state police in New Jersey do?

This is asymmetrical warfare. Seven percent of the population cares intensely about public sector union contracts -- and nothing else. The remaining 93 percent of voters can't be bothered to care.

Meanwhile, state after state spirals into bankruptcy.

-Ann Coulter

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2011/03/09/six-figure_bus_drivers_and_other_working-class_heroes/page/2

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 09:52 AM
Let's see here. 185 working days on the school calendar. 8:00 - 4:00 less 30 minutes for lunch comes to 7.5 hours per day. That comes to 1387.5 hours worked per year. 40 hours per week comes to 2080 hours per year. That leaves they only 700 hours or so short of qualifying for this theoretical overtime. Why, they are 2/3 of the way to working a "normal" number of hours.

Another way of expressing this would be to say that for every hour a teacher works, a "normal" employee works an hour and a half.

You envision teachers as simply a "babysitter" do ya? And, in the crappy districts who can't hire decent teachers....well, okay. If you think that's the "norm" in public schools though, you're more delusional than I thought. Heh.

Grading, lesson plans, parent contacts, curriculum training, technology training all outside of the school day....don't count, eh? Heck, if that's the case, maybe we should all just stop doing that stuff, until we get "over-time" for it.....

:hmmm:

AndChiefs
03-11-2011, 09:57 AM
You envision teachers as simply a "babysitter" do ya? And, in the crappy districts who can't hire decent teachers....well, okay. If you think that's the "norm" in public schools though, you're more delusional than I thought. Heh.

Grading, lesson plans, parent contacts, curriculum training, technology training all outside of the school day....don't count, eh? Heck, if that's the case, maybe we should all just stop doing that stuff, until we get "over-time" for it.....

:hmmm:

In my previous job I worked 50 hour weeks 10 months of the year and 65 hour weeks during November-December. I could be transferred to a different location without notice (and was transferred to one location that was an hour away from where I lived).

This translated to about $18/hour when I left to return to school. (I started about at $15.50/hour). Your job isn't nearly as bad as you make it sound.

Oh yeah, both my parents and my grandfather were/are teachers. I know exactly how much work it is. It's not easy. However, it's also not as comparatively strenuous as you think.

Chiefnj2
03-11-2011, 09:59 AM
Some bus driver busts his ass working 20+ hours of overtime a week and people think it's a bad thing? The guy worked hard, and got paid for it. What the hell is the problem with that? If you think it's an easy job with great pay, then get your license and send in an application.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 10:06 AM
Let's see.....50*45*52 = $117,000

It must be tough to survive on that.

Salary alone is mid 50s, I'm trying to be "fair" though; by including "everything"--second and third jobs, along with benefits. My example includes $45,000 in "benefits"...employer paid expenses (taxes, pension, healthcare, etc) which Tea Party types insist on counting as a part of "compensation," even though, of course, we don't see a dime of that, as income (yet.)

Take an average worker salary of $38,000 or so....add in "benefits" they receive, and suddenly it seems like a whole lot more too: pushing $60,000.

Gotta compare apples to apples....but, yeah, at this point for me, it's still worth it. With the way things are headed though, I won't be encouraging my own kids to follow in my footsteps though--which is why I fear for the future of public education in this country.

DJ's left nut
03-11-2011, 10:13 AM
You envision teachers as simply a "babysitter" do ya? And, in the crappy districts who can't hire decent teachers....well, okay. If you think that's the "norm" in public schools though, you're more delusional than I thought. Heh.

Grading, lesson plans, parent contacts, curriculum training, technology training all outside of the school day....don't count, eh? Heck, if that's the case, maybe we should all just stop doing that stuff, until we get "over-time" for it.....

:hmmm:

Sure, for about 3 years.

Your average teacher has that lesson plan canned and has been using it for 10 years. They spend an hour during their planning period grading papers, maybe another couple hours/week before/after doing the same.

Our school started at 7:45 and ended at 2:38. Each teacher got a lunch period of 45 minutes and a 50 minute 'planning' block sometime during the day. So with lunch removed, you're looking at a 6 hour work day w/ 50 minutes of it being a 'planning' period where you have no kids, you're just sitting in your classroom. Hell, you could take a nap. Most teachers used it to grade papers. There's no way your average teacher works 40 hours/week, nowhere even close. And that's not even counting off for the nearly 3 months off you have.

It's just more tripe about how over worked and under-appreciated you fellas are. Scan-tron tests grade in 3 minutes. Short answer tests can be graded by a house-cat. Essay tests...well I've seen how those get graded by HS teachers; if you used complete sentences, you get an A.

Oh sure, some teachers are good. Some are even great. But by and large, most mail it in. They teach from canned lesson plans generally put together in a little packet prepared by the publisher and forwarded with the teachers version of the textbook they're using. If you're lucky, they'll have updated said lesson plan in the last decade. Or maybe they'll have a legitimately excellent teacher in their department that has prepared a lesson plan for the rest of the free-riders to use. That's why the established clock-punchers love the new blood; it's always nice to have someone do their work for them for 3 or 4 years...until that person becomes another member of their little cabal of loafers.

They're protected by an unassailable union. There's no legitimate accountability as the administrators are the same feckless paycheck players as the teachers; they're not interested in ruffling feathers. They simply coast wherever they can, whenever they can.

But you keep telling everyone how hard you work. Afterall, the rest of us work 18 hour weeks and spend the whole time sipping drinks with little umbrellas in them.

AndChiefs
03-11-2011, 10:17 AM
Salary alone is mid 50s, I'm trying to be "fair" though; by including "everything"--second and third jobs, along with benefits. My example includes $45,000 in "benefits"...employer paid expenses (taxes, pension, healthcare, etc) which Tea Party types insist on counting as a part of "compensation," even though, of course, we don't see a dime of that, as income (yet.)

Take an average worker salary of $38,000 or so....add in "benefits" they receive, and suddenly it seems like a whole lot more too: pushing $60,000.

Gotta compare apples to apples....but, yeah, at this point for me, it's still worth it. With the way things are headed though, I won't be encouraging my own kids to follow in my footsteps though--which is why I fear for the future of public education in this country.

Yeah I wouldn't want my kids being a teacher either. Frankly, there are too many problems with the system that need to be worked on. Salaries are certainly not drawing the best and the brightest to teach.

That being said, I'm tired of the whining about it. Neither of my parents were ever paid what they're worth as teachers. However, they enjoyed it which is reward in itself. Secondly, not many professions can match the job security of the profession (once you get a few years in) which certainly leads to a depressed salary as well.

I have many friends who are teachers. They have better benefits then I've ever had. They make slightly less money in salary but I pay more in benefits. They all complain about how much they make constantly. I'm tired of it.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 10:19 AM
Sure, for about 3 years.

Your average teacher has that lesson plan canned and has been using it for 10 years. They spend an hour during their planning period grading papers, maybe another couple hours/week before/after doing the same.

Our school started at 7:45 and ended at 2:38. Each teacher got a lunch period of 45 minutes and a 50 minute 'planning' block sometime during the day. So with lunch removed, you're looking at a 6 hour work day w/ 50 minutes of it being a 'planning' period where you have no kids, you're just sitting in your classroom. Hell, you could take a nap. Most teachers used it to grade papers. There's no way your average teacher works 40 hours/week, nowhere even close. And that's not even counting off for the nearly 3 months off you have.

It's just more tripe about how over worked and under-appreciated you fellas are. Scan-tron tests grade in 3 minutes. Short answer tests can be graded by a house-cat. Essay tests...well I've seen how those get graded by HS teachers; if you used complete sentences, you get an A.

Oh sure, some teachers are good. Some are even great. But by and large, most mail it in. They teach from canned lesson plans generally put together in a little packet prepared by the publisher and forwarded with the teachers version of the textbook they're using. If you're lucky, they'll have updated said lesson plan in the last decade. Or maybe they'll have a legitimately excellent teacher in their department that has prepared a lesson plan for the rest of the free-riders to use. That's why the established clock-punchers love the new blood; it's always nice to have someone do their work for them for 3 or 4 years...until that person becomes another member of their little cabal of loafers.

They're protected by an unassailable union. There's no legitimate accountability as the administrators are the same feckless paycheck players as the teachers; they're not interested in ruffling feathers. They simply coast wherever they can, whenever they can.

But you keep telling everyone how hard you work. Afterall, the rest of us work 18 hour weeks and spend the whole time sipping drinks with little umbrellas in them.

*swoon* LMAO

DJ's left nut
03-11-2011, 10:28 AM
Oh wait! I forgot my favorite trick: PEER GRADING!!

Yup, that's right, in about half my classes, at the beginning of class we would trade papers with someone in the row next to us. The teacher would then read from his answer key and our 'grader' would count off where appropriate.

About every 2 or 3 weeks, the teachers would 'audit' the results.

And don't forget, he's actually 'teaching' us when he's mumbling answers in a monotone and hoping the guy who's paper we're actually grading is being quite thorough with ours.

And I took the hard classes - these were with our most 'qualified' teachers at the helm. I didn't go to a shit district, in fact I went to one of the best in the state. A nice little suburban school district that got as much per/pupil funding as anyone in the region. There was no excuse for that crap, but that was absolutely how it went.

Yup, that's your average educator. But I'm sure I just had the 15 or so professors in the entire state of Missouri that pissed on their jobs. Kotter will surely set me straight.

shitgoose
03-11-2011, 10:49 AM
Those are just Federal Regs. - for interstate commerce. Madison is free to ignore them.


[edit]


*AHEM*

Those are just Federal Regs. - for interstate commerce. Madison is free to ignore them.

Who must comply with the Hours-of-Service Regulations?
Most drivers must follow the HOS Regulations if they drive a commercial motor vehicle, or CMV.

In general, a CMV is a vehicle that is used as part of a business and is involved in interstate commerce and fits any of these descriptions:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/types/cdl.htm

Commercial driver licenses (CDL) are required to operate vehicles that:

Weigh over 26,000 pounds, determined by the highest of the following weights:
manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
manufacturer’s gross combination weight rating (GCWR)
actual weight
registered weight
Carry hazardous materials that require placarding under federal law.
Are designed or used to carry 16 or more persons including the driver. (Buses and some school buses.)

A city bus is a commercial vehicle. You are required to have a CDL (Commercial Drivers License) to operate one.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 10:51 AM
DJ, well...there ain't nothing I'm gonna say to change that mind of yours. Sounds to me, you are sorry you didn't jump on our gravy train. There's still time, ya know? Best wishes, man. Seriously.

FWIW, much of what you have described gets teachers fired in our district; seriously. You must be witnessing stuff in districts that can't attract decent teachers, and have to settle.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 11:02 AM
Yeah I wouldn't want my kids being a teacher either. Frankly, there are too many problems with the system that need to be worked on. Salaries are certainly not drawing the best and the brightest to teach.

That being said, I'm tired of the whining about it. Neither of my parents were ever paid what they're worth as teachers. However, they enjoyed it which is reward in itself. Secondly, not many professions can match the job security of the profession (once you get a few years in) which certainly leads to a depressed salary as well.

I have many friends who are teachers. They have better benefits then I've ever had. They make slightly less money in salary but I pay more in benefits. They all complain about how much they make constantly. I'm tired of it.

Fair enough. We are all molded, by that which which we have experienced in life. Can't argue with that. If this is truly where public education is headed over the next two decades, I'll be praying that my grandchildren will be attending private schools then....and that's a very disconcerting notion to me, as a staunch advocate of good public schools.

Radar Chief
03-11-2011, 11:06 AM
A city bus is a commercial vehicle. You are required to have a CDL (Commercial Drivers License) to operate one.

Of course they do, no one said they didn't.
What Orange and I were specifically discussing was HOS, Hours Of Service, regulations.

The Mad Crapper
03-11-2011, 11:06 AM
Some bus driver busts his ass working 20+ hours of overtime a week and people think it's a bad thing? The guy worked hard, and got paid for it. What the hell is the problem with that? If you think it's an easy job with great pay, then get your license and send in an application.

If union members truly cared about their fellow worker (which they don't), why would you work enough OT when they could give another person an opportunity to have a job?

And how many other employees are kept PT without benefits because this altruistic piece of shit and countless others like him is doing two peoples job?

And by the way, union members don't "bust his ass" on regular time or overtime but especially overtime where they stretch a 15 minute break into an hour. I was a teamster in NJ for 6 years. They are scum.

orange
03-11-2011, 11:07 AM
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/types/cdl.htm

A city bus is a commercial vehicle. You are required to have a CDL (Commercial Drivers License) to operate one.

Yes. And... ?

Nothing in there about time worked that I can find.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 11:09 AM
If union members truly cared about their fellow worker (which they don't), why would you work enough OT when they could give another person an opportunity to have a job?

And how many other employees are kept PT without benefits because this altruistic piece of shit and countless others like him is doing two peoples job?

Government has learned the lesson of corporate America; temps and part-timers and OT, can be economically more efficient. Commitment to hiring fulltime regulars is expensive.

The Mad Crapper
03-11-2011, 11:11 AM
Government has learned the lesson of corporate America; temps and part-timers and OT, can be economically more efficient. Commitment to hiring fulltime regulars is expensive.

Oh know Kotter, don't blame corporate America, the union fucks over those PT'ers just as bad, if not worse. PTers get just enough hours to pay their monthly dues, but not enough hours to get benefits. They are kept in a no mans land, hoping to one day make seniority.

It's a racket and you know it.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 11:12 AM
Oh know Kotter, don't blame corporate America, the union ****s over those PT'ers just as bad, if not worse. PTers get just enough hours to pay their monthly dues, but not enough hours to get benefits. They are kept in a no mans land, hoping to one day make seniority.

It's a racket and you know it.

Then why do you insist on pretending it's one-sided, when both do it?

DJ's left nut
03-11-2011, 11:13 AM
DJ, well...there ain't nothing I'm gonna say to change that mind of yours. Sounds to me, you are sorry you didn't jump on our gravy train. There's still time, ya know? Best wishes, man. Seriously.

FWIW, much of what you have described gets teachers fired in our district; seriously. You must be witnessing stuff in districts that can't attract decent teachers, and have to settle.

Park Hill School District, Chief.

One of the best in the state. You pretty much have to know someone to get a job there.

And you'd have a very hard time convincing me that peer grading or naps during your planning period have ever gotten a teacher fired in your district. The union would lose its mind.

Nor do I begrudge your gravy train, not really anyway. My job's a racket for the most part as well and one of these days I hope to abuse the system even better than you guys can (though at least I'm not stealing from taxpayers to do it).

The difference is that I'm honest about it.

The Mad Crapper
03-11-2011, 11:19 AM
Then why do you insist on pretending it's one-sided, when both do it?

I haven't been "pretending" anyting. WTF are you talking about?

patteeu
03-11-2011, 11:23 AM
I haven't been "pretending" anyting. WTF are you talking about?

Take it easy on him. He's just a teacher. He's not used to talking to grown-ups about grown-up stuff.

whatsmynameagain
03-11-2011, 11:30 AM
Take it easy on him. He's just a teacher. He's not used to talking to grown-ups about grown-up stuff.

Well he does deal with kids and the majority of them have fucked up parents so I doubt its much different for him to come on cp and deal with you.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 11:37 AM
Well he does deal with kids and the majority of them have ****ed up parents so I doubt its much different for him to come on cp and deal with you.

Your post is unclear. Which am I, the kid or the ****ed up parent?

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 11:39 AM
Park Hill School District, Chief.

One of the best in the state. You pretty much have to know someone to get a job there.

And you'd have a very hard time convincing me that peer grading or naps during your planning period have ever gotten a teacher fired in your district. The union would lose its mind.

Nor do I begrudge your gravy train, not really anyway. My job's a racket for the most part as well and one of these days I hope to abuse the system even better than you guys can (though at least I'm not stealing from taxpayers to do it).

The difference is that I'm honest about it.

Right to work state, no binding arbitration here. Teachers are prohibited from striking under state law here, man. Peer grading prohibited in our district. One from our own department got fired just last year; 9 in the last five years, my school alone were "non-renewed" (fired) because we don't have "tenure" either, rather "continuing contract" status. The whole truth.

phisherman
03-11-2011, 11:42 AM
Let's see.....50*45*52 = $117,000

It must be tough to survive on that.

if you're making $117,000 per year, even with benefits added in, you deserve zero pity. if you busted your butt and worked a ton of hours, good for you. with all this talk about "combined" salary, i'm curious to see how much i "make" a year with salary and benefits included.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 12:03 PM
if you're making $117,000 per year, even with benefits added in, you deserve zero pity. if you busted your butt and worked a ton of hours, good for you. with all this talk about "combined" salary, i'm curious to see how much i "make" a year with salary and benefits included.

You'll probably be surprised if you have decent benefits. Benefits are expensive. And while it's tempting to blow this off like Kotter does since we don't really ever see this as cash in our pocket, we should all recognize that our employers feel it just as much as if it is all cash out of their pocket because it is.

Saul Good
03-11-2011, 12:04 PM
You envision teachers as simply a "babysitter" do ya? And, in the crappy districts who can't hire decent teachers....well, okay. If you think that's the "norm" in public schools though, you're more delusional than I thought. Heh.

Grading, lesson plans, parent contacts, curriculum training, technology training all outside of the school day....don't count, eh? Heck, if that's the case, maybe we should all just stop doing that stuff, until we get "over-time" for it.....

:hmmm:

Give me a break. If you've been teaching for decades, you aren't doing all of that crap on a routine basis. You can't bullshit a bullshitter. I watched my wife put in longer hours the first couple of years. After that, you just tweak your lesson plans here and there.

WTF is it with teachers that make them wine so fucking much? My wife is meeting a bunch of her co-workers for drinks after they get off work today (at 2:15) before spring break next week. You couldn't pay me enough to sit there with them. They will all just bitch the entire time. THE ENTIRE TIME.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 12:39 PM
Saul, I understand; I hear people say it all the time. It can be accurate, but it's not the norm in my experience. We can agree to disagree. New technology, curriculum, new methods, keeping lessons fresh, continuing education...are hallmarks of good teachers. Some in the profession aren't as professional or coscientious as they ought to be, but that is not a problem exclusive to teaching. I see it just as often in many private sector jobs; "accountabillty" in the private sector isn't nearly as universal as righties claim.

As tired as you are hearing us whine, teachers are just as tired of lies and halftruths so many keep repeating about us. I suppose it's a bit of an occupational hazard--we are trained to explain, to question, to challenge, and to continue learning. It's less defensiveness, than merely trying to make the conversation fair. Many of us are stubborn, that way.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 12:43 PM
Poor downtrodden teachers are actually more virtuous forms of life than their misguided critics according to Kotter. LMAO

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 01:32 PM
Poor downtrodden teachers are actually more virtuous forms of life than their misguided critics according to Kotter. LMAO

No, just some of us. :D

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 01:57 PM
No, just some of us. :D

Seriously, though....patty. Teachers aren't the only ones throwing pity parties; plenty of comfortable tea party types and wealthy folks cry in their martinis about stuff at the country club too. Teacher-types, we are just more vocal.

:harumph:

DJ's left nut
03-11-2011, 02:06 PM
WTF is it with teachers that make them wine so ****ing much? My wife is meeting a bunch of her co-workers for drinks after they get off work today (at 2:15) before spring break next week. You couldn't pay me enough to sit there with them. They will all just bitch the entire time. THE ENTIRE TIME.

Same with secretaries and nurses.

Do you need any additional explanation?

patteeu
03-11-2011, 02:14 PM
Same with secretaries and nurses.

Do you need any additional explanation?

LMAO So true.

googlegoogle
03-11-2011, 04:00 PM
Where's Kotter? LMAO


excellent.

He's busy giving negative rep to you and me! ROFL

vailpass
03-12-2011, 04:52 AM
I'll bet you wouldn't. That's ca. 80 hours a week. Every week.

LMAO

NewChief
03-12-2011, 05:18 AM
*peeks head in then backs out slowly*

As I've said repeatedly: I like my job. I feel well-compensated for it (though I'm beginning to feel less so as I watch my friends start climbing the corporate ladder, working fewer hours than me with less stress, and more pay... but that's my own issue for choosing this profession).

My main problem with my career is the flagrant disrespect for the profession. Reading this thread, you'd think teachers are located somewhere between used car salesmen and welfare queens in the American psyche. Good lord.

Anyway, I've been seriously considering getting out. I hate the current trend of education (standardized testing at the expense of student learning and well-being). I hate that my profession has become a political football for both sides. I hate constantly having to see and hear people I respect (teaching detractors) act like other people I respect (teaching colleagues) are greedy charlatans.

I've started looking around for exit opportunities. There are other jobs I can do with better compensation that are much less depressing and take much less of an emotional toll.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 06:48 AM
I blame Kotter for NewChief's lost innocence.

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2011, 07:50 AM
*peeks head in then backs out slowly*

As I've said repeatedly: I like my job. I feel well-compensated for it (though I'm beginning to feel less so as I watch my friends start climbing the corporate ladder, working fewer hours than me with less stress, and more pay... but that's my own issue for choosing this profession).

My main problem with my career is the flagrant disrespect for the profession. Reading this thread, you'd think teachers are located somewhere between used car salesmen and welfare queens in the American psyche. Good lord.

Anyway, I've been seriously considering getting out. I hate the current trend of education (standardized testing at the expense of student learning and well-being). I hate that my profession has become a political football for both sides. I hate constantly having to see and hear people I respect (teaching detractors) act like other people I respect (teaching colleagues) are greedy charlatans.

I've started looking around for exit opportunities. There are other jobs I can do with better compensation that are much less depressing and take much less of an emotional toll.

I agree with every word of your post. Every single word. One question: you think we can make it to retirement before we slink below welfare queen? Heh.

The difference is I'm 10+ years more invested in teaching, so now I'm stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. Could I switch and do something else? Sure. I'd have to be more flexible and patient than someone 10-20 years younger, as my "experience" (age...sigh) would be a hindrance in pursuing other options.

However, enjoying your job goes a long way. OTOH, given the future of the profession and the demoralizing climate, I won't be encouraging anyone else I care for....to follow in my footsteps. The trade-offs really won't be worth it soon.

Chief Henry
03-12-2011, 08:09 AM
[QUOTE=Saul Good;7482744 WTF is it with teachers that make them wine so ****ing much? [/QUOTE]


They get bored in the summer time.

NewChief
03-12-2011, 08:26 AM
However, enjoying your job goes a long way. OTOH, given the future of the profession and the demoralizing climate, I won't be encouraging anyone else I care for....to follow in my footsteps. The trade-offs really won't be worth it soon.

One of my best teaching colleagues (a literacy specialist and interventionist) is actually retiring from teaching this year and going back to school to get another Masters.... this time in....... SOCIAL WORK. ROFL

Talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire. He just says that with the increased emphasis on standardized test results, teaching is no longer intrinsically rewarding for him. He likes to take a holistic approach to student learning and doesn't feel like he can do that any longer in this climate.

It's a shame, because the guy is an amazing interventionist for at-risk students, but maybe he'll be able to do more of the work he loves as a social worker.

Not for me, though.

KCinNY
03-12-2011, 08:33 AM
My main problem with my career is the flagrant disrespect for the profession. Reading this thread, you'd think teachers are located somewhere between used car salesmen and welfare queens in the American psyche. Good lord.

My mother is a retired teacher, as is my mother-in-law so I'll venture this: it's mostly because of teachers' ceaseless bitching about their pay-rate along with(as DJ stated) their inflated sense of their own self-worth.

I had some great teachers in school and I'll always appreciate what they did for me. I also had some half-assed slackers who played favorites and did the absolute bare minimum.

Don't expect those of us who work in the pensionless private sector to pity you and your job security and your eight month, part-time work schedule.

NewChief
03-12-2011, 08:41 AM
My mother is a retired teacher, as is my mother-in-law so I'll venture this: it's mostly because of teachers' ceaseless bitching about their pay-rate along with(as DJ stated) their inflated sense of their own self-worth.

I had some great teachers in school and I'll always appreciate what they did for me. I also had some half-assed slackers who played favorites and did the absolute bare minimum.

Don't expect those of us who work in the pensionless private sector to pity you and your job security and your eight month, part-time work schedule.

I don't know. I worked in the private sector as a copywriter for a major outdoor catalog company. I was extremely successful, but I found the job boring. I basically sat on Chiefsplanet and online games all day while getting paid handsomely. I could distill my work into about 2 hours of actual effort in a given 8 hour work day. I got 10% raises every year I worked there, and I'd probably still have the cushy job, if I didn't have to move back to Arkansas to raise my family.

Also, my wife is an art director for a major company and supervises a team of 10 designers from home. While she has to work her ass off (often working at night and such), she also has amazing flexibility. She keeps one of our children at home all day twice a week. She can run errands, shop, go to the gym, and do any other number of things during her work day. She also gets huge travel benefits with her job. While she works hard, I don't think she works any harder than I do at my job.

On top of that, one thing people don't "get" about a teacher's work day is the fact that good teachers have to be on all day. For those of you in corporate, think about the amount of preparation you have to put into a meeting that you facilitate or a presentation that you give to a group. Think about how draining and tiring that is (also fun and invigorating at times!). That's what a teacher (or a good teacher) should do from 6-8 times a day, depending on how many periods they teach. It's a hell of a lot of fun, but it is exhausting. I'm not whining or complaining, I'm just trying to shed a little insight into how teaching is different from other professions. On a day where I'm doing my job properly, it's basically like a 6 hour-long "performance" of an actor on a stage.

I know that a lot of the private sector is tough and dog eat dog and darwnistic, but I also know that a lot of people lie their asses off about how hard they work at their jobs (just like many teachers lie their asses off about how many hours they put in a given week and during the summers). The difference, of course, is that teacher salary is coming in off the taxpayer dime.

KCinNY
03-12-2011, 08:50 AM
I don't know. I worked in the private sector as a copywriter for a major outdoor catalog company. I was extremely successful, but I found the job boring. I basically sat on Chiefsplanet and online games all day while getting paid handsomely. I could distill my work into about 2 hours of actual effort in a given 8 hour work day. I got 10% raises every year I worked there, and I'd probably still have the cushy job, if I didn't have to move back to Arkansas to raise my family.

I know that a lot of the private sector is tough and dog eat dog and darwnistic, but I also know that a lot of people lie their asses off about how hard they work at their jobs (just like many teachers lie their asses off about how many hours they put in a given week and during the summers). The difference, of course, is that teacher salary is coming in off the taxpayer dime.

Sounds like you had a sweet gig in the private sector. Sorry you had to give it up.

Personally, I can't browse the Planet or play games at work with the surveillance software on my computer. I'd be fired pretty quickly.

I don't really care about the fact that teachers are paid by the taxpayers. From personal experience, I can just say that teachers bitch more than cops, firefighters and military folks combined.

Radar Chief
03-12-2011, 09:30 AM
LMAO

I know. Its a crying shame our younger generation thinks an 80 hour work week is an insurmountable task.

orange
03-12-2011, 03:34 PM
I know. Its a crying shame our younger generation thinks an 80 hour work week is an insurmountable task.

Bunch of whiney ingrates.

http://www.richmondbizsense.com/images//scrooge-300x287.jpg

WilliamTheIrish
03-12-2011, 05:43 PM
And there was a lot of overtime - $1.94 million last year, $467,200 more than the bus system budgeted for and the most ever for the system - as employees exhausted sick leave and took advantage of unpaid leave through the federal Family Medical Leave Act, officials said.

The real culprit isn't some "greedy" worker. It's the useless fucks that are allowed by the fed to use FMLA (the worst, most destructive piece of legislation ever passed) to be off for up to 12 weeks a year.

The rest of the pool of drivers picks up that time.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 05:53 PM
I know. Its a crying shame our younger generation thinks an 80 hour work week is an insurmountable task.

I'll be honest, the only way I'm working an 80 hour week is if society collapses and I have to plow my own field.

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2011, 10:00 PM
I know. Its a crying shame our younger generation thinks an 80 hour work week is an insurmountable task.

You think an 80 yr week ought to be the "norm," for $65-80K annual salary jobs? :spock:

Seriously, making $20 an hour after decades of experience, today? Really??? :hmmm:

Radar Chief
03-13-2011, 12:35 AM
You think an 80 yr week ought to be the "norm," for $65-80K annual salary jobs? :spock:

Seriously, making $20 an hour after decades of experience, today? Really??? :hmmm:

The real shame here is you get paid to spread this kind of stupid to other peoples children.
"80 yr week". :facepalm: Dumbass.

patteeu
03-13-2011, 01:38 AM
You think an 80 yr week ought to be the "norm," for $65-80K annual salary jobs? :spock:

Seriously, making $20 an hour after decades of experience, today? Really??? :hmmm:

This guy made $125k, not $65-80k.

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2011, 01:32 PM
The real shame here is you get paid to spread this kind of stupid to other peoples children.
"80 yr week". :facepalm: Dumbass.

80 hr week....typo Nazi....

This guy made $125k, not $65-80k.

Eh, not with one job; with three; and that includes benefits, Mr. Conflation and Obfuscation.
:rolleyes:

patteeu
03-13-2011, 01:45 PM
Eh, not with one job; with three; and that includes benefits, Mr. Conflation and Obfuscation.
:rolleyes:

What are you talking about? It was one job. I don't know where you're getting three. But I was wrong, it was $159k, not $125k.

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2011, 01:55 PM
What are you talking about? It was one job. I don't know where you're getting three. But I was wrong, it was $159k, not $125k.

My primary job accounts for about 70% (of earnings last year; ) two other elective, hourly jobs account for the rest. Those are above and beyond my full-time primary job. What are you talking about? :shrug:

And the 117 is not 125, and includes everything with benefits. As a teacher, it's a matter of public record.

patteeu
03-13-2011, 02:11 PM
My primary job accounts for about 70% (of earnings last year; ) two other elective, hourly jobs account for the rest. Those are above and beyond my full-time primary job. What are you talking about? :shrug:

And the 117 is not 125, and includes everything with benefits. As a teacher, it's a matter of public record.

You responded to a comment that RadarChief made during a conversation he was having with orange. They were talking about an 80+ hour per week job that grossed the bus driver in the OP over $159k.

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2011, 02:29 PM
You responded to a comment that RadarChief made during a conversation he was having with orange. They were talking about an 80+ hour per week job that grossed the bus driver in the OP over $159k.

My bad....nevermind. :redface:

This bus driver is an exteme example of excess; I'm addressing the the more "normal" situation.

RedNeckRaider
03-13-2011, 02:39 PM
You think an 80 yr week ought to be the "norm," for $65-80K annual salary jobs? :spock:

Seriously, making $20 an hour after decades of experience, today? Really??? :hmmm:

In the private sector this person is a target for replacement....younger and cheaper~

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2011, 03:40 PM
In the private sector this person is a target for replacement....younger and cheaper~

So, you don't think pay raises experience and reliable, loyal service are reasonabe? :shrug:

If the bottom-line is your only focus, I understand the motive. I think most though, recognize that experience and service are often a wise investment. You can't have your entire workforce be well compensated veterans, but you can't an entire staff of inexperienced and unproven rookies. That's one of the problems with inner-city and failing public schools--they can't attract or keep enough highly qualified and conscientious experienced teachers. They leave for greener, and less stressful, pastures.

RedNeckRaider
03-13-2011, 07:26 PM
So, you don't think pay raises experience and reliable, loyal service are reasonabe? :shrug:

If the bottom-line is your only focus, I understand the motive. I think most though, recognize that experience and service are often a wise investment. You can't have your entire workforce be well compensated veterans, but you can't an entire staff of inexperienced and unproven rookies. That's one of the problems with inner-city and failing public schools--they can't attract or keep enough highly qualified and conscientious experienced teachers. They leave for greener, and less stressful, pastures.

Did not say I agreed with it, just pointed out a fact~

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2011, 10:01 PM
Did not say I agreed with it, just pointed out a fact~

Is it a fact: perhaps? I think it's important to discover whether you agree, or not. That is relevant, here.

If you agree, what are your reasons? If not, why won't you say so? :shrug:

Another "fact" is, it's too easy to blame public employees for "high taxes" (despite evidence to the contrary--why no gnashing of teeth for corporate welfare, farm subsidies, etc; is it because they benefit more worthy "folks,"? Really?) which is what so many are seeminly trying to do here.

Not you (as directly,) perhaps; but, certainly, others. :hmmm:

chiefzilla1501
03-13-2011, 10:13 PM
My bad....nevermind. :redface:

This bus driver is an exteme example of excess; I'm addressing the the more "normal" situation.

It's not an extreme example of excess. In fact, it's a very typical example of excess. And your argument about loyalty definitely doesn't apply here.

Here's what makes it especially stupid. Teachers, I can understand. If you get rid of good teachers, they can be tough to replace. And I want to keep good teachers. If you get rid of good bus drivers, are you seriously going to tell me they're going to be hard to replace?

I believe in supply and demand of wages, to some extent. Your value should be worth how easy it would be to replace you.

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2011, 10:15 PM
It's not an extreme example of excess. In fact, it's a very typical example of excess. And your argument about loyalty definitely doesn't apply here.

Here's what makes it especially stupid. Teachers, I can understand. If you get rid of good teachers, they can be tough to replace. And I want to keep good teachers. If you get rid of good bus drivers, are you seriously going to tell me they're going to be hard to replace?

I believe in supply and demand of wages, to some extent. Your value should be worth how easy it would be to replace you.

I'd agree to some extent; however, this guy earned a big chunk of his pay via "over-time." That isn't his fault; it's his managers, and their HR department.

chiefzilla1501
03-13-2011, 10:28 PM
Is it a fact: perhaps? I think it's important to discover whether you agree, or not. That is relevant, here.

If you agree, what are your reasons? If not, why won't you say so? :shrug:

Another "fact" is, it's too easy to blame public employees for "high taxes" (despite evidence to the contrary--why no gnashing of teeth for corporate welfare, farm subsidies, etc; is it because they benefit more worthy "folks,"? Really?) which is what so many are seeminly trying to do here.

Not you (as directly,) perhaps; but, certainly, others. :hmmm:

And spare me the "blame the corporation" bullshit. Nobody is forcing me to pay for a bottle of Pepsi. If Pepsi isn't compensating their employees right or their employees work inefficiently, they either deliver an inferior product to me or they are forced to charge a price that's too high for me. Or, if they're massively inefficient, they go bankrupt and in 99% of the cases, don't get bailed out by the government. Why do you think unions were dissolved in the private sector? Because they are massively obsolete in modern society.

On the other hand, the public sector is forcing me, the taxpayer, to pay for services. And because of union bullshit, we the taxpayer have zero power to complain when money isn't spent appropriately. Instead, unions buy off politicians, who are supposed to represent the taxpayer, but instead represent the unions. At least in corporations, you have employees, shareholders, regulators, and of course the threat of bankruptcy to keep them in check. Who pays for the Postal Service to go massively in the red? If they were a private sector corporation, they would have gone bankrupt years ago. Who are employees that fall asleep at work and get payraises accountable to? Why are great teachers compensated the same way that bad teachers are? And if you have a phenomenal young teacher who consistently grades out as a phenomenal teacher, why are they treated like rubbish compared to a tenured teacher who has delivered average results for 20 years? Oh, that's right... loyalty is more important than results, right? Thing about collective bargaining is, who are public sector employees bargaining against? The taxpayer. They're bargaining to agree for taxpayer money to go into payraises.

When I buy stock in a company and they perform shittily, I have the right to sell my stock. I don't have that right in the public sector. So yeah, I am enraged when I invest money in services that are delivering shitty results.

Sorry, buddy. I believe in the system of free enterprise. It's not perfect, but yeah, I believe that we should reward employees who... y'know... actually work hard and deliver results. Those greedy douche bags who make a lot of money, most of them got there by delivering results. And businesses in the private sector, unlike the public sector, pay a price for inefficiency. It means lower bottom line results, which means less profits, and sometimes bankruptcy.

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2011, 10:34 PM
And spare me the "blame the corporation" bullshit. Nobody is forcing me to pay for a bottle of Pepsi. If Pepsi isn't compensating their employees right or their employees work inefficiently, they either deliver an inferior product to me or they are forced to charge a price that's too high for me. Or, if they're massively inefficient, they go bankrupt and in 99% of the cases, don't get bailed out by the government. Why do you think unions were dissolved in the private sector? Because they are massively obsolete in modern society.

On the other hand, the public sector is forcing me, the taxpayer, to pay for services. And because of union bullshit, we the taxpayer have zero power to complain when money isn't spent appropriately. Instead, unions buy off politicians, who are supposed to represent the taxpayer, but instead represent the unions. At least in corporations, you have employees, shareholders, regulators, and of course the threat of bankruptcy to keep them in check. Who pays for the Postal Service to go massively in the red? If they were a private sector corporation, they would have gone bankrupt years ago. Who are employees that fall asleep at work and get payraises accountable to? Why are great teachers compensated the same way that bad teachers are? And if you have a phenomenal young teacher who consistently grades out as a phenomenal teacher, why are they treated like rubbish compared to a tenured teacher who has delivered average results for 20 years? Oh, that's right... loyalty is more important than results, right? Thing about collective bargaining is, who are public sector employees bargaining against? The taxpayer. They're bargaining to agree for taxpayer money to go into payraises.

When I buy stock in a company and they perform shittily, I have the right to sell my stock. I don't have that right in the public sector. So yeah, I am enraged when I invest money in services that are delivering shitty results.

Sorry, buddy. I believe in the system of free enterprise. It's not perfect, but yeah, I believe that we should reward employees who... y'know... actually work hard and deliver results. Those greedy douche bags who make a lot of money, most of them got there by delivering results. And businesses in the private sector, unlike the public sector, pay a price for inefficiency. It means lower bottom line results, which means less profits, and sometimes bankruptcy.

If you've actually been brain-washed to believe that sort of crap, I'll leave you to it.

Dittos, Rush!!! :thumb:

chiefzilla1501
03-14-2011, 12:23 AM
If you've actually been brain-washed to believe that sort of crap, I'll leave you to it.

Dittos, Rush!!! :thumb:

I don't think it's brainwashing to ask that my taxpayer money not be used to overcompensate bus drivers or to give massive increases in pay/benefits to workers who in the private sector would be ranked as a "low performer" and many of whom would be fired, if not for union protection.

I work in a sector where I get rewarded only if I do good work. And where employee engagement is fundamentally important, because businesses recognize that the surest way to make money is to have employees who actually care about their job. I earn my payraises/promotions through hard work and a track record, not a collective group that negotiates my wages for me regardless of my performance.

It's not brainwashing. Like I said, I don't mind paying taxes if it was actually being spent reasonably efficiently. And I don't agree with executives being overcompensated. But again, the difference between the private and public sector is that in the private sector, we overcompensate executives while the public sector overcompensates underachievers. But then again, let's not get away from the fact that politicians are making outrageous pensions, so it's not like they're the model of fair compensation.

I'm not even a conservative. All I'm demanding is that public sector employees start becoming accountable for results. And that we stop wasting a shitload of money that I've worked my ass off in the expectation that the tax is going to return some kind of a benefit. Unions don't represent me, the person who pays for the service. That's a pretty big flaw when the payer has no say in how his/her money is being spent.

patteeu
03-14-2011, 08:28 AM
Is it a fact: perhaps? I think it's important to discover whether you agree, or not. That is relevant, here.

If you agree, what are your reasons? If not, why won't you say so? :shrug:

Another "fact" is, it's too easy to blame public employees for "high taxes" (despite evidence to the contrary--why no gnashing of teeth for corporate welfare, farm subsidies, etc; is it because they benefit more worthy "folks,"? Really?) which is what so many are seeminly trying to do here.

Not you (as directly,) perhaps; but, certainly, others. :hmmm:

There are plenty of complaints about corporate welfare (although not all of what you describe by that qualifies) and farm subsidies here. One big difference though is that farmers and corporate bosses aren't constantly whining about how victimized they are by the criticisms.

patteeu
03-14-2011, 08:31 AM
If you've actually been brain-washed to believe that sort of crap, I'll leave you to it.

Dittos, Rush!!! :thumb:

:facepalm:

Saul Good
03-14-2011, 08:43 AM
If you've actually been brain-washed to believe that sort of crap, I'll leave you to it.

Dittos, Rush!!! :thumb:

With which part of his post do you disagree?

If you wonder why people don't take you seriously around here, look no further than your last post. It's what I would expect from Frankie.

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2011, 09:32 AM
With which part of his post do you disagree?

If you wonder why people don't take you seriously around here, look no further than your last post. It's what I would expect from Frankie.

My major beef is the insistence by so many to paint with such a broad brush when it comes to public employees, when those same folks tend to ignore similar outrages in the private sector. This thread and forum are evidence of an incredibly transparent double standard. I shouldn't be surprised, but it's frustrating.

mlyonsd
03-14-2011, 10:03 AM
My major beef is the insistence by so many to paint with such a broad brush when it comes to public employees, when those same folks tend to ignore similar outrages in the private sector. This thread and forum are evidence of an incredibly transparent double standard. I shouldn't be surprised, but it's frustrating.

Come on, this is a BB. We probably really think you're only half the sloth as we project in posts here.

chiefzilla1501
03-14-2011, 04:09 PM
My major beef is the insistence by so many to paint with such a broad brush when it comes to public employees, when those same folks tend to ignore similar outrages in the private sector. This thread and forum are evidence of an incredibly transparent double standard. I shouldn't be surprised, but it's frustrating.

No, I completely disagree that there's a double standard because it's not apples to apples. In the private sector, executives are overcompensated, in my opinion. And by a lot. And yes, clearly that needs to be resolved.

But there's no way you can claim that production in the public sector even remotely compares to production in the private sector, if we're talking about apples to apples. It's about accountability. When you don't do your job, there's a good chance you're going to get fired. Companies are pumping a shitload of money into motivating employees, from the guy in the accounting office to the guy flipping burgers at the McDonalds. The only reason I might agree is that private sector employees tend to be lesser educated, and so there's an adverse selection bias here. But if you're talking about two employees of similar education levels, ESPECIALLY if we're talking about tenured employees, I can't imagine the public sector can even touch the private sector when it comes to production and efficiency. Just an educated guess.

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2011, 07:04 PM
....Just an educated guess.

You said all you needed to say, right there; unless you have a link to credible research to support the overly-broad and simplistic asssertions you have made.

chiefzilla1501
03-14-2011, 10:42 PM
You said all you needed to say, right there; unless you have a link to credible research to support the overly-broad and simplistic asssertions you have made.

No more different than you pretending you know the Private Sector. And spare me the "show me the data" argument, as if this thread is filled with a bunch of links to data points.

The assertions I made are simplistic because they're common sense. Everyone knows that the Private Sector invests a lot more money into employee engagement programs, career development programs, and performance-based incentives while public sector employees typically resort to collective bargaining. Everybody knows that it's a lot easier to get fired in the private sector than it is in the public sector.

There are a gajillion books written about employee engagement and motivation, and how it leads to employee productivity. It's not a broad assumption at all to say that when you can't get fired and when you don't get incentivized for good work, chances are lower that you're going to give your maximum effort.

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2011, 07:57 AM
No more different than you pretending you know the Private Sector. And spare me the "show me the data" argument, as if this thread is filled with a bunch of links to data points.

The assertions I made are simplistic because they're common sense. Everyone knows that the Private Sector invests a lot more money into employee engagement programs, career development programs, and performance-based incentives while public sector employees typically resort to collective bargaining. Everybody knows that it's a lot easier to get fired in the private sector than it is in the public sector.

There are a gajillion books written about employee engagement and motivation, and how it leads to employee productivity. It's not a broad assumption at all to say that when you can't get fired and when you don't get incentivized for good work, chances are lower that you're going to give your maximum effort.

You made the assertions; not me. Thanks for playin', though.

So we really are just back to, "Dittos, Rush!" "You're a great American, Shawn!"

NewChief
03-15-2011, 08:08 AM
No more different than you pretending you know the Private Sector. And spare me the "show me the data" argument, as if this thread is filled with a bunch of links to data points.

The assertions I made are simplistic because they're common sense. Everyone knows that the Private Sector invests a lot more money into employee engagement programs, career development programs, and performance-based incentives while public sector employees typically resort to collective bargaining. Everybody knows that it's a lot easier to get fired in the private sector than it is in the public sector.


Uhh. I doubt it. You have no idea how much of the dollars in education are spent on professional development of teachers (I'm required to take 60 hours of professional development a year, and I usually end up with more along the lines of 120 hours, all of which is funded by the taxpayers).

It's the biggest racket in education, and it's where a ton (and I mean a ton) of the money gets funneled. Paying educational consultants and experts to come in and put on dog-and pony shows is a big business, and these same companies who are putting on these shows are the ones who have lobbying clout and political power. They're tied into the testing companies and are often the testing companies. They create the tests (or have people on the boards that create the tests) then sell you the professional development packages you "need" to get your students to pass the tests.


There are a gajillion books written about employee engagement and motivation, and how it leads to employee productivity. It's not a broad assumption at all to say that when you can't get fired and when you don't get incentivized for good work, chances are lower that you're going to give your maximum effort.

You need to read Drive by Daniel Pink for an understanding of what truly motivates people. It's not money. It's worthwhile work, autonomy, and enjoyable collaboration. These were all things that teachers once were rewarded with handsomely (thus balancing out the lack of financial incentive). These intrinsic "rewards" unfortunately are being, slowly but surely, eradicated from the profession by the testing movement.

chiefzilla1501
03-15-2011, 05:17 PM
Uhh. I doubt it. You have no idea how much of the dollars in education are spent on professional development of teachers (I'm required to take 60 hours of professional development a year, and I usually end up with more along the lines of 120 hours, all of which is funded by the taxpayers).

It's the biggest racket in education, and it's where a ton (and I mean a ton) of the money gets funneled. Paying educational consultants and experts to come in and put on dog-and pony shows is a big business, and these same companies who are putting on these shows are the ones who have lobbying clout and political power. They're tied into the testing companies and are often the testing companies. They create the tests (or have people on the boards that create the tests) then sell you the professional development packages you "need" to get your students to pass the tests.
Yeah, as I've said before, teachers are not a group I'm upset about. I know there are a lot of really good teachers out there and for as valuable as their work is, I personally think they're underpaid. I really do hate the tenure system, however. There was a 5th grade teacher at my school that was an absolute joke and yet he was the highest paid teacher in the district because he was there the longest. That's ridiculous. But yeah, as I've said many times in this thread, I have no problem paying good teachers or cops or those in public safety. When I'm talking public sector, I'm largely talking about government employees or administrators, which I think are absolutely draining the living shit out of our tax money. Most people who've worked in the public sector will tell you the same--a lot of lazy people make bank for no good reason at all.

You need to read Drive by Daniel Pink for an understanding of what truly motivates people. It's not money. It's worthwhile work, autonomy, and enjoyable collaboration. These were all things that teachers once were rewarded with handsomely (thus balancing out the lack of financial incentive). These intrinsic "rewards" unfortunately are being, slowly but surely, eradicated from the profession by the testing movement.
It's a book I'd like to get to. I'm not implying that money is the only benefit, though bonuses can be extremely rewarding if (and a VERY big if) your incentives are set right and employees understand how their work moves the needle on performance measures. Having been in the private sector and gotten my MBA, I've seen a million different theories on employee engagement, and really the 12 questions on Gallup, though unbelievably basic, continue to be the gold standard. But that's diverting... Again, I think teaching is a different animal. I've heard teacher friends who say it's extremely difficult to figure out what the best measures of success for a good teacher are. I don't think there should be a reward system. I do think there needs to be a better way to identify the bad ones and not create enormous red tape to get rid of them if they suck at their jobs.

In other areas of public sector, there are a ton of jobs where there is simply no incentive or motivation to do good work. I think about how poorly run our Postal Service is, our Medicare, how rude employees are at the DMV. It's staggering to think of how much further our tax money would go if we could get the lazy ones to just do their f'ing job. Just my opinion.

NewChief
03-15-2011, 07:27 PM
Yeah, as I've said before, teachers are not a group I'm upset about. I know there are a lot of really good teachers out there and for as valuable as their work is, I personally think they're underpaid. I really do hate the tenure system, however. There was a 5th grade teacher at my school that was an absolute joke and yet he was the highest paid teacher in the district because he was there the longest. That's ridiculous. But yeah, as I've said many times in this thread, I have no problem paying good teachers or cops or those in public safety. When I'm talking public sector, I'm largely talking about government employees or administrators, which I think are absolutely draining the living shit out of our tax money. Most people who've worked in the public sector will tell you the same--a lot of lazy people make bank for no good reason at all.


It's a book I'd like to get to. I'm not implying that money is the only benefit, though bonuses can be extremely rewarding if (and a VERY big if) your incentives are set right and employees understand how their work moves the needle on performance measures. Having been in the private sector and gotten my MBA, I've seen a million different theories on employee engagement, and really the 12 questions on Gallup, though unbelievably basic, continue to be the gold standard. But that's diverting... Again, I think teaching is a different animal. I've heard teacher friends who say it's extremely difficult to figure out what the best measures of success for a good teacher are. I don't think there should be a reward system. I do think there needs to be a better way to identify the bad ones and not create enormous red tape to get rid of them if they suck at their jobs.

In other areas of public sector, there are a ton of jobs where there is simply no incentive or motivation to do good work. I think about how poorly run our Postal Service is, our Medicare, how rude employees are at the DMV. It's staggering to think of how much further our tax money would go if we could get the lazy ones to just do their f'ing job. Just my opinion.

:thumb: