627 replies to this topic

[TM70]

A

[EDF]

You know after reading that last post regarding the raises these teachers and other union members are demanding... I'm really against them...

They always trott out some kids like the ones they quoted here... they same despicable and ugly tactic they used to divide this community during Measure "O"...

I have to pay my own healt benefits... and no one cares didly about what I do for a living if it doesn't provide health benefits...

Where is it written that you are "entitled" to health benefits... and a stinking raise...

When you teachers and the rest of you government types got union representation... is when this all started to go down hill...

I'm sick and tired of every couple of years these folks putting there hands out for more stinking money... it's never enough.... is it...

[cw68]

It’s lunch, so I’m typing this reply. I find it somewhat unbelievable that so many of you are fixated at when I POST my replies. So typical… *Why is this surprising? We work off the information we are presented with. Typical, yes. Wrong, no.*

I’m happy you posted the superintendents response about the budget situation. Of course you don’t have ALL the facts. The superintendent and the district are using fuzzy math to support their point. The previous contract was based on the total COLA given by the state. The contract for teachers was 75% of that TOTAL COLA. Now the district has pulled out a new term, “effective COLA” which is considerably less. The district is trying to pawn that off as 75%, when in comparison to the previous contract it is 61%.

Now, I’m NOT looking for sympathy, and from this forum I can see that most of you are not terribly supportive of teachers. That’s fine...I never knew how negative the community felt about teachers. It gives me a TOTALLY new perspective. *I am very pro-teacher. However, I'm anti-whining. Anti-blame. Anti-put anyone who disagrees with you down.*

Here’s the real killer for most of you. We ARE going to get our 5.25% or more. Probably closer to 6% raise with or with an increase in benefits. Also, another thing the superintendent neglects to tell you is that 3 years ago the teachers voted in a pay cut of 1.5 %(That’s over the last 3 year, so 1.5% of the salary times three) 5.25% replaces a pay cut from three years and then gives a little more, so basically it’s no improvement in benefits (no offense to the clerical and custodial staff, but they have BETTER benefits than the teachers) over the past three years, a pay cut for three years and a lower COLA than the previous three years, when one of the LARGEST COLAs just came down the pipe. That’s the facts.

Now it’s AFTERSCHOOL…

AND…I was not blatantly incorrect. The comparison of FCUSD to other districts is for TOTAL COMPENSATIOIN. Benefits+salary. FCUSD IS LAST. Looking at the salary schedule only gives part of the story…I can post the info from our union, but it is only half the story as well. You have to look at both, that’s what negotiations are all about. Meet somewhere in the middle, just don’t just come to the table and say, “That’s it, my way or the highway.” That is not a negotiation.

I say it again…if teaching is such an easy job with easy $$, why doesn’t everyone here quit their current job and become a teacher? *Most of us never said it was an easy job with easy money. However, I can't quit my "job" and become a teacher. I work an even thankless job with more hours for zero pay. I stay home with my kids. You want me to feel bad? How about this for you: I gave up experience, pay, respect, benefits, retirement, independence, increasing education, chance for advancement etc. to stay home with my kids. I'm not putting others down for disagreeing with everything I think, the choices I made or the like. You could learn something from it.*

Wait, wait, where you going??? Hey!

I don’t know where the disrespect is being felt. If you feel that way, you must feel like I do. Being a parent myself, I again have to chuckle…

Off to cook dinner...

Basically TM70, I think you're way off the mark to assume that most of us disrespect you. I'm incredibly offended by your attitude and if most teachers act the way you do, my pro-teacher stance is going to flip.

[mylo]

I'm pro-teacher. I always wanted to teach! But the pay sucks.

[TM70]

N

[TM70]

D

[Robert Giacometti]

Not sure if many of you know this, but as of this week, January 22, 2007, Folsom-Cordova teachers are now the LOWEST paid teachers in Sacramento. With the 8.1% COLA raise/increase to Woodland Joint Unified School District teachers, FCUSD teachers have slipped to last in the Sacramento region. And to add insult to injury, this school district requires teachers to pay out of pocket for medical premiums, paying only $375 a month. That means for a family a four, a teacher has to pay over $600 a month for medical coverage. Surrounding districts pay upwards of $550-$600 a month for their coverage requiring teachers to pay much less per month.

This years C.O.L.A. from the state to FCUSD was 8.62%. The superintendent of FCUSD is holding at a 5.24% pay increase without any increase in medical cost coverage. The state C.O.L.A is 5.9%. That means just to keep pace, teachers need to have a C.O.L.A. of at least 5.9% lest they continue to fall behind.

Reports are that school board members and negotiators have been given their walking papers and have no way of negotiating with teachers, although negotiations continue, to what end I have no idea. The superintendent is holding them hostage.

All in all, parents of FCUSD, these teachers work with your children. How long can you expect professionalism and high quality to be maintained when these teachers are being paid the lowest wages in the Sacramento region? It won't take long for teachers to find work elsewhere. FCUSD maintains the highest level of academic accomplishment across the Sacramento region. FCUSD continually scores at or near the top of all STAR tests year after year after year. This can not and will not continue if the superintendent of FCUSD continues to erode teacher wages, year after year after year.

TM70, I can understand your concern about NOT getting the full amount of the COLA of 5.9%, the State gave to Districts, but IMHO you tried to over dramatize/sensationlize the issue, while trying to introduce other issues and this probably hinders your efforts to garner broader community support.

If I understand correctly....the teachers are unhappy that the state gave a 5.9% COLA to the District and the District is only offering a 5.25% increase to the teachers....is this the correct?

The Superintendent is claiming that some funding for componets/programs weren't increased by the COLA. If indeed this is true ( I don't know if it is or not), then it seems logical that the overall increase for the teachers for all componets/programs would be less than the COLA of 5.9% as some of the programs weren't increased, yet those teachers in those programs that weren't increased in funding would still be getting the COLA increase also.

Lets be honest all of us are somewhere in the middle class and unfortunately we in the middle class are getting squeezed, we all could use more money, all of us seem to be working harder and sometimes the grass does look greener on the other side fence/career.

I'm truly not taking sides pro or against just simply trying to understand the issue. If you could clarify the issue and state specifically what it is you are seeking I would appreciate it.

[cw68]

TM70, I can understand your concern about NOT getting the full amount of the COLA of 5.9%, the State gave to Districts, but IMHO you tried to over dramatize/sensationlize the issue, while trying to introduce other issues and this probably hinders your efforts to garner broader community support.

If I understand correctly....the teachers are unhappy that the state gave a 5.9% COLA to the District and the District is only offering a 5.25% increase to the teachers....is this the correct?

The Superintendent is claiming that some funding for componets/programs weren't increased by the COLA. If indeed this is true ( I don't know if it is or not), then it seems logical that the overall increase for the teachers for all componets/programs would be less than the COLA of 5.9% as some of the programs weren't increased, yet those teachers in those programs that weren't increased in funding would still be getting the COLA increase also.

Lets be honest all of us are somewhere in the middle class and unfortunately we in the middle class are getting squeezed, we all could use more money, all of us seem to be working harder and sometimes the grass does look greener on the other side fence/career.

I'm truly not taking sides pro or against just simply trying to understand the issue. If you could clarify the issue and state specifically what it is you are seeking I would appreciate it.

Good post Robert. (Go Bears!)

[TM70]

D

[Orangetj]

As one could hopefully surmise from my previous post, I am very pro-teacher and have the utmost respect for teaching as a profession. Having said that, I think it is important to look at the overall picture of the employment world and what constitutes competitive employment practice in the workplace in general, not just in teaching. When these issues arise, I often see the reference to keeping the comparison solely between school districts, fire departments, county workers, etc.. To me, it seems that this is an unrealistic approach and doesn't take into account the general environment in which these entities operate. The school districts don't operate in a vacuum and are subject to many of the same economic forces that impact all businesses/employers.

It is a real shame that health insurance costs have increased so dramatically over the past 7 years. Unfortunately, as these costs rise employers who wish to offer insurance benefits are faced with the decision between passing some of those cost increases along to employees or cutting that money out of other areas. I think we all have the tendency to believe that there is always some other budget line item that is less important than what directly impacts our own pocketbooks but this is not always the case. Like it or not, $600/month for family medical insurance is right in line with what the average employee to pay to participate in their employers insurance programs. For a great many people, this pays for insurance with 80% coverage and substantial out of pocket maximums. My understanding is that the insurance made available through the school districts has a higher percentage of coverage than this.

It is also a shame that the relationship between the school system employees and the school system management has become so adversarial. Having worked at companies with union workforces, my own opinion is that this is a natural result of unionization. While unionization and collective bargaining can have some percentage impact on pay rates, the reality is that job salaries are market driven. If the salary being offered for a position is too low, there will be a lack of qualified candidates to perform the position. If the offering is too high, there will be an overabundance of people wishing to do the job and each individual candidate's relative value will diminish until a market-correct salary is realized.

My own limited experience has been that the very best teachers I've known have generally disliked the influence of the unions on their profession. They have each felt that the union has disincentivized top performing teachers and artificially supported lower performing teachers. The problem is that these lower performing teachers (and I'm NOT referring to anybody posting on this thread) ulimately reduce the value of the good teachers. As a parallel in industry, the reality that equivalently educated/experienced professionals in non-union positions are very often able to pull down significantly greater salaries would seem to be evidence that unionizing isn't always as profitable as one might hope.

[SacKen]

Nice...yeah, like we get 5.25% increases every year. Try every 3 years if we're lucky. And, don't even get me started. Let's compare salaries for the last 5 years...I'm sure you have made a LOT more than I have. See, you're just like the superintendent. It's not apples and apples. You're not comparing the same thing. It's all percentages, but percentages of WHAT? 50% cut of what? You still are making a lot more than a teacher.

On the other post, Didn't POST until late. What is it with you people. POST times...

OMFG... and I'm sure you make more than the lady that spends 10 hrs a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year scrubbing our toilets because she can't afford to take vacation. Every job has a different salary range than another. I can think of plenty of professions that make more than I do. Percentages ARE how we relate one to the other. To adjust your living by 50% still hits you. Whether you have a $700 mortgage or a $7000 mortgage... it effects your life.

You chose to be a teacher. Crappy pay existed then and you knew it. Don't get all pissy because others chose a different path that pays more. Stop teaching and take another path if you are so miserable.

I know plenty of teachers, including two of my cousins that I see all the time. Don't even try to kid me about how much time off teachers get. They easily get about 3 months of freedom more than me when I count my vacation and holidays. So take about 25% off of another profession's salary before you compare it to yours... even though comparing salaries is not apples to apples.

[CaptainSpaulding71]

You chose to be a teacher. Crappy pay existed then and you knew it. Don't get all pissy because others chose a different path that pays more. Stop teaching and take another path if you are so miserable.

well then, let's not complain when johnny and janey can't spell or count to 3 because we have 'crappy' teachers because only an idiot would choose a profession that pays so little. how many here think teachers should work for free? better yet, i think teachers should pay to work. how about that. sounds about as silly as the quote above in a no-offense but kinda-sorta way.

someone in an earlier post mentioned that they thought it made more sense to award raises, etc based on merit. i am FULLY behind this idea. perhaps the spirit of most people's argument here is the mandatory raise across the board thing gets their goat. guess this boils down to a pro or against a union thing. unions are nice to ensure that the employer is not screwing the workers. but then when does the union end up promoting mediocrity in terms of employee output?

on a different topic, people were mentioning the high cost of medical coverage. why is it so high in the first place? maybe THAT should be solved since it affects all of us (not only teachers). perhaps limiting the amounts of lawsuits might help there? lawsuits are like the lottery these days. drug costs are very high also due to this same thing. it costs tons of money to get a drug approved because...wait for it...lawsuits in case somebody develops a rash or goes crazy from taking too much accutane even though they were probably nuts to begin with.

flame on

[mylo]

I'm very anti-union. I think they had a purpose historically, but our current economy and employee focused labor laws supercede the need for extortionists.

True, perhaps the unions are to thank for this great state we're in, but thank you and goodbye!

I have no problem with paying teachers more, especially if they deserve it. I think teaching is an undervalued important profession, no matter how many hours are worked. I do, however, have a serious problem with anyone saying they 'deserve their share' of any across-the-board raise percentage.

[TM70]

D

[tessieca]

OK, here it is in a nutshell. No sensationalizing here...

8.62% total COLA from state
district uses fuzzy math to chop that down to 7.1% using new "effective" COLA tag.

No, 5.9% is from the state, like Robert said. 0% is added to the federal $ (but the district can't pay special ed teachers less because their program didn't give a COLA, now, can it). "Fuzzy math" is the union tagline. The state also gives money in some years for equalization between districts and for what they call a deficit reduction (they shave some off the top one year and then add it back in another year, depending on economy). This was all added together to get the 8.62%, but while some are okay with adding every single new dollar in to get a "COLA," somehow they are unwilling to adjust for those programs that got less than the 5.9% or no COLA at all.

District offers 61% of total COLA
Previous three years have been 75% of total COLA

Some of the past years used a formula that was set in advance since nobody knows from year to year what the COLA and real dollars will actually be. 75% of new dollars didn't seem to take into effect the huge increases in utilities and benefits that have occurred over the last several years. It also didn't consider the cost of the step and column increases that happen automatically (even when a new contract is delayed, these costs are not). It didn't consider that each textbook now averages about $100, and the district is nearing 20,000 students. So, just because a particular formula was used for a particular contract year doesn't make it mandatory that it continue.

FCUSD used to be in the top 25% of schools a few years ago. Just trying to stay competetive with the surrounding districts. Not looking to be #1, just not #14.

Still is if one looks at salaries. If you want to go with what's been done in the past, benefits have never been added to salary schedules in order to do comparisons with other districts. That's CTA's line for this year.

. . ., the district has the $$ to do this. . . . Can't seem to nail that one down. Also, the admittance of non-public special education students. Not sure what that entails as far as money goes, but the district has been asked for concrete numbers and none have been given after repeated attempts by the negotiating team.

District's budget is public. There are no hidden funds. Take a look. Special ed students who reside in the district must be served per law in the manner they need to be -- even if it includes sending them to a residential school in Colorado, with airfare and hotel for mom and dad to visit them. That must come out of general fund, so additional dollars for special education are spent when they are needed.

well then, let's not complain when johnny and janey can't spell or count to 3 because we have 'crappy' teachers because only an idiot would choose a profession that pays so little. how many here think teachers should work for free?

I don't think anyone on here has called the teachers "crappy," especially in our district. Even SacKen's toilet scrubbers probably scrub those toilets to the best of their ability despite their low pay. People should do the job they signed up for, do it to the best of their ability, and get paid at a rate that shows they are valued. The middle of the district's salary scale is near $48,000 (or $50,000+ if a 5.25% raise is concerned). I would hope that for that amount of pay Johnny and Janey are excellent spellers, readers, writers, scientists, and mathematicians.