Education and Teacher Unions

[Beavah]

And so in the end, non-elected union officials are setting the pay level of the taxpayers and not the elected representatives, those who are elected by the electorate who assign responsibility for that process.

 

Yah, hmmmm....

 

Can yeh explain that to me, jblake?

 

Last time I checked, everywhere in da nation there had to be two parties to a contract who have an actual "meeting of the minds" agreement.

 

For a public employee's union, one party is the union.

 

The other party is the body of elected representatives, supported by a paid professional staff.

 

So it sure seems to me like the elected representatives are doin' their part to set the salaries. If yeh don't like what they're doin' you should vote them out. If you don't monitor what they're doin', then that's your own fault.

 

Blaming the union for not doin' your job as a voter and taxpayer or blamin' the union for not doin' the job of your elected representatives or their highly-compensated professionals seems... silly. Da union is doin' the job its members pay them to do out of their own salaries. If it didn't, those union members would vote 'em out.

 

Why can't you do the same to your representatives?

 

Beavah

 

[Twocubdad]

Yeah, that's the theory Beav, but I suppose there are places where the beneficiaries of government largesse (be they unions or anyone else) are in the majority at the ballot box.

 

I belive it was de Tocqueville who predicted the demise of American democracy would come when Americans realized we can vote ourselves money.

[Beavah]

Michigan teacher salaries, for example, averaged $57,958 in 2009-2010, according to the National Education Association... The annual 2009 average for kindergarten teachers, for example, was $50,500; for special education teachers at that level, the annual salary was $56,830. Secondary school teachers in Michigan earned an average of $52,110.

 

Yah, acco, me thinks yeh have a math problem there, eh? Yeh can't have an average that's higher than all of its components.

 

By comparison with your figures, da national median for people with da same education level (masters and above) is over $70K.

 

So da question we have to ask is why would anybody that we really want to be teachin' the next generation of Americans take the job at a 25% lower level of pay than what they could get elsewhere? Especially when their university tuition costs and loan amounts are higher than ever?

 

I expect there are two reasons. First, yeh get better benefits, which might make up for da lower salary in the long run (includin' those summer months which account for a fair chunk (but not all) of that 25% premium even with usin' some of that time for required professional work).

 

Second, I expect we don't quite attract da above-median quality folks into teaching. In that way, we get what we pay for.

 

Honestly, would anybody with a brain go work in Detroit for only $48K, 32% less than what they'd earn elsewhere, given everything you and Lisabob are sayin' about the place? And then yeh want to take more away from 'em or double their load?

 

Are yeh planning on actually employing teachers who are literate?

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

Yeah, that's the theory Beav, but I suppose there are places where the beneficiaries of government largesse (be they unions or anyone else) are in the majority at the ballot box.

 

Yah, and I've written about that danger in terms of lettin' government get too big, eh? Once government is responsible for a big fraction of GDP, yeh get a big fraction of voters who benefit from votin' increases to the government... and who in turn are dependent on it and can be abused by it.

 

What I can't figure out though, is that there's nowhere outside the beltway where government worker unions amount to more than 10% or so of da population. So if they're really the majority at the ballot box, then yeh have to wonder where everyone else went.

 

Beavah

 

[Twocubdad]

But isn't the idea that an assault on one union is an assault against all unions? You dont' think the UAW encourages their workers to vote for pro-union school board members? The crux of Stosh's argument is the rest of us don't have the opportunity to vote for (or against) our employer.

 

No, there are probably very few places where actual union members determine election results. But given the nature of most elections, a 10% voting bloc is a huge electorial mass.

 

 

[Beavah]

But given the nature of most elections, a 10% voting bloc is a huge electorial mass.

 

No different than the party-line voters who make up 20% or more in some places, or da Chamber of Commerce / business voters who make up another block, or the senior citizen voters who make up a darn large block to protect their interests.

 

What, yeh think those military folks and defense contractors and high-tech firms and employees and oil drillers don't have lobbyists or vote their own financial interests?

 

Only a fraction of voters in any block votes da party line all the time. Teachers and public employees are citizens just like da rest of us. Some vote union issues, some vote based on their religious convictions, some vote party, some pocketbook, and some actually vote after carefully weighin' all da issues. Imagining that there's some lockstep public union votin' block is as fictional as imagining that any other group of people behaves that way. It's just a fiction, eh? A phantom conjured up by demagogues.

 

Now, I reckon what is true is that folks tend to vote their own interests, all else bein' equal. Parents of young kids tend to vote pro-education, while folks without kids and those whose kids are grown do so less. So what we're seein' is that shift, eh? As an aging populace, we're gradually less willing to contribute to education on average.

 

Beavah

[Venividi]

"So what we're seein' is that shift, eh? As an aging populace, we're gradually less willing to contribute to education on average."

 

I think thats only part of it. I think another, perhaps larger part, is that the chickens are coming home to roost. In the past, to avoid raising taxes while increasing services, elected gov't officials would agree to increasing future benefits, shifting costs to some undetermined point in the future. Those costs could be masked somewhat by assuming a high rate of return on pension fund investments. And everyone was happy. Citizens didnt really want to know the details, preferring to assume that elected officials were handling it. And then a few events occured that pulled back the curtain:

 

Govt bodies had been providing incentives to public workers to entice them to retire early, helping them stay within current budgets by the reduced salaries received by the new employees that replaced long term employees. (In our area, teachers and school administrators are given additional salary increases for up to 4 years when they announce plans to retire; in the Chicago suburban area, it is not unusual to see teachers earning $100K when they retire; administrators are substantially more than that). This moves people into the pension system earlier than they otherwise would have, and with a higher pension amount than they otherwise would have received. They are also receiving retiree medical coverage for a longer period of time.

 

Life expectancy has increased. Resulting in pensions being paid out for a longer period of time. In our state, state pensions are indexed to inflation, so they grow for a longer period of time also.

 

The recession resulted in lower tax revenue coming in, and lower returns on pension fund assets, making pension funds underfunded to an even greater degree.

 

Medical costs have increased faster than inflation, increasing the cost of retiree health care benefits that government bodies are obligated to pay.

 

Companies in the private sector that provided defined benefit pensions found that made them non-competitive with companies that did not provide defined pensions. Very few companies offer defined benefit pensions any more, and have moved employees to defined contribution programs. As more middle class people feel the effects of no longer receiving retirement benefits, and thus having to pay more out of their own pockets, they question why they have to pay for state employee retiree benefits that are so much better than their own. i.e. there is now a greater disparity between their retiree benefits and public worker retire benefits.

 

Regardless of the cause, at some point the pension and health care obligations owed to retirees will become unsustainable. Governments will need to move to defined contribution plans similar to those in the private sector.

[packsaddle]

And if they do move to defined contribution plans, it will do absolutely nothing to the liability they've already incurred, unless they couple the change with reneging on those prior commitments.

Do you think this is the kind of move that will enhance the interest of competent persons in government service? Hardly. What it will do is make certain that the service is performed with even less and less competence and less and less efficiency by less- and less-qualified persons who more and more will merely monitor contracts for privatized government services.

 

Actually, I'd like to see it happen. I'd like to get ALL government functions into a low-bid, privatized mode, managed by morons. The sooner the better. It would be a good experience for America. Enter the Darwinian world in which the fit continue and the others are removed. I LIKE it!

[Venividi]

Packsaddle,

I agree with you that moving to a defined contribution plan does nothing to reduce exisiting obligations.

 

I'm not sure about the rest of your post. Are you proposing public sector jobs couldn't be structured to carry a pay scale and benefits package that is comperable to those in the private sector? But that if it could, that competent people will leave those jobs? Is that what you are seeing in private sector employment in your area, i.e., have private sector employees that have been moved to defined contribution plans left, with only incompetent morons staying?

 

It would be great if all employees around the world could retire at 55 or 60, live to 100, and be given a pension indexed to inflation and unlimited health care during those years. Those costs have to be paid for, either through higher prices of products and services or through transfer payments from taxpayers. I have yet to meet the person who does not complain about high taxes; and who, when faced with a purchase decision between two equivalent products, chooses the higher priced one.

[packsaddle]

I don't think I actually disagreed with your overall approach did I?

As a former fed, my area was the nation. As a fed, the pay scales were banded and difficult has hell to advance, nowhere near as easy as the private sector if you're good. As far as pay scale...are you kidding? Are you not aware of the salary cap? Heck yeah! Remove that salary cap, make the pay scale comparable and take the measly benefits. When public servants can earn like a stock broker or private professional you'll achieve the kind of parity you suggest. I might even consider going back myself...

 

I do know that for this state, the salaries are low compared to comparable employment in other states (not mine, I'm doing just fine). But believe it or not, salaries are not the only attraction to public service. I was not attracted to federal service by the money. I was attracted by the stability of having a long-term outlook on the development of a research program, raise a family, as well as the resources to get all of it done right. I couldn't care less about having a new desk, paneled office, or nice phone. Give me the lab and competent people to work with and some security for my family.

 

What I saw was that the decisive incentives to attract the best candidates to public service are often the stability and fringe benefits of public employment, not salary. Candidates that are looking for the greatest personal gain tend to try their hand with the private sector where they can advance much more quickly both professionally and in real economic terms...if they're that good.

 

But given the current status, if you remove those non-salary incentives, those public servants who are most able to compete elsewhere will tend to leave. I left. The ones who can't compete will tend to remain in public service. Combining the loss of those incentives with an inability to 'escape', they may become disgruntled or worse...not exactly a prescription for stellar service. The public would naturally respond even more negatively...see the cycle?

 

Moreover, because of those disgruntled employees AND because of persons like ME, the word is getting out to the best young persons.."avoid public service". It is mediocre pay, thankless, with slow or no advancement, and now with not even the incentives of stability or benefits. Might as well go for the dough. It's the American Way after all, and like I said at the end of my previous post, I support your approach...I'd like to see it happen. So hey, what's the problem?

(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Lisabob]

http://aft.org/newspubs/news/2011/030711nylocal.cfm

 

Just one of many frequent examples of teacher's unions and school administrators working together.

 

 

 

(And pack is totally right in his analysis of public vs private sector.)

[OldGreyEagle]

Dr Ray Stantz: Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.

 

[Beavah]

Yah, I reckon that's da problem, OGE.

 

Companies in da private sector, even research companies like pharmaceuticals, all want (short term) results, eh? Look at what that got the BSA in numbers fraud. Gotta have "results" for this year's evaluation. Look at what chasing the quarterly or yearly earnings numbers got GM. Look at what demanding short-term research results is doin' to drug companies like Pfizer.

 

The Universities at least are willin' to invest in research for it's own sake, without expectin' rapid bottom-line results. Lots of it won't pay off, will hit dead ends. But they'll keep those folks anyway because it's good to be investigating and trying new things and teachin' young people to do the same.

 

Just try to build or maintain a modern economy without universities out there producing nothing. Yeh end up with da Arab World. Fact is, in many states the only vibrant areas of their economy right now are their university corridors, with those darn universities that don't care about results.

 

It's da anti-intellectual gibberish like that quote that's alienated me from da neo-con Republicans. We used to be a party that made investments; now we're the party of junk bondsmen, raiding any resource we can for short term gain and thinkin' ourselves wise.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

OGE, that IS quite a quote. Before some tea-party toady thinks it's real or something, they should remember that Dan Akroyd really isn't even a very good actor (although I did enjoy his portrayal of Elwood Blues). His satire of science was entertaining but he would have had to work to pass any of my very real courses.

 

Beavah, I suspect you have been pranked.

 

Edited to add: OGE, that was naughty of you! I liked it!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[OldGreyEagle]

Bite your tongue there Pack, he was great in Driving Miss Daisy