|
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Most of their benefits come from the systems pay-as-you-go pension system. That is hardly fair to label those as tangible benefits since they personally retain none of that money, and they (them and the district) are helping to fund the pensioners currently on it right now. |
Why is that unfair? They are tangible benefits because the school district pays the entire premium for them.
| quote: | | I would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't have an agenda like the author of that article clearly does, who would count pensions in a calculation of income, income that is used as part of their living expenses, especially when that pension is partly funded by the teachers themselves. |
Agenda? He was reporting factual data on salary + benefit packages. Uh, sorry but pensions are income. And you're right, it is partly funded by the teachers... a whopping 6% of their healthcare costs compared to 20% for the private sector. But it gets better. If you read the article, which I can tell you didn't, you wouldn't be yapping because of this fact:
| quote: | •State Pension. Teachers belong to the Wisconsin state pension plan. That plan requires a 6.8% employer contribution and 6.2% from the employee. However, according to the collective-bargaining agreement in place since 1996, the district pays the employees' share as well, for a total of 13%.
•Teachers' Supplemental Pension. In addition to the state pension, Milwaukee public-school teachers receive an additional pension under a 1982 collective-bargaining agreement. The district contributes an additional 4.2% of teacher salaries to cover this second pension. Teachers contribute nothing.
•Classified Pension. Most other school employees belong to the city's pension system instead of the state plan. The city plan is less expensive but here, too, according to the collective-bargaining agreement, the district pays the employees' 5.5% share.
Overall, for teachers and other employees, the district's contributions for pensions and Social Security total 22.6 cents for each dollar of salary. The corresponding figure for private industry is 13.4 cents. |
Facts are facts.
| quote: | | The truth of the matter is that teachers are very poorly funded. It is almost impossible for a teacher who does not come from a wealthy family or who has a wealthy partner to teach in a public school and make a living wage that will support an average family in this country. The cost of education for a good teacher is so incredibly high that it is prohibitive to go into the profession in the public sector, even if that teacher only attended state university. Many districts have had to lower there acceptance standards for teachers. |
What the fuck are you talking about? Using the Wisconsin example, where they have a salary + benefit package of $100,005 for 2011, for working 180 days out of the year with summers and every holiday off, the "truth of the matter" is they are poorly funded? You are delirious man, you're not making sense.
Are you aware that teachers in California can retire and make $4256.00 per month for the rest of their lives (not including benefits)? That $51,000 salary is more than active working teachers in 28 states. And you're telling me teachers can barely eek by? What's wrong with you.
| quote: | | Teachers, along with public safety personnel are the most important assets of a society. They should not be marginalized like they are now. They should be hoisted up on the shoulders of the wealthy and society as a whole because their task is extremely essential. |
Wrong. Teachers used to be extremely important. Now the majority are nothing more than a marginally intelligent collective who are more likely to go into teaching because it's an easy way to get an overly high paying job for their talent/abilities where it's virtually impossible to get fired. Could these people who are making what they're making earn that money in the private sector on their own? No.
|
i knew when i saw the explosion of posts that kev & nou were at it again.
