Janus case

I didn’t say it was unique to my school. However, I am making the case that it should be the norm for the harder-to-fill positions. Do you get bonus checks at your school? I do. Do you get to negotiate for a higher wage after being hired following performance reviews? I do, and will do it intermittently. What step do you max out at? I max out at $100k at year 13. I wager you max out in the 20s and potentially 30s. Do you have to pay for your healthcare? I don’t. My class sizes are 25 and below in ALL of my classes. Are yours?

I’m almost certain my private school trumps your public one, by leaps and bounds.

 

I agree that unions built the middle class. That fact is irrefutable. But how can certain teachers unions say they are working in the public teachers’ interests when I hear about 5-year or more pay freezes, no COLA for pensioners, little to no supplies or support, and the list goes on and on, especially when said schools have the most federal funding? It doesn’t make sense. They’re not doing a good job in those instances and should not receive wages when they don’t produce results.

 

its well over 100k in step 19 (some previous steps are at or close to 100 depending on education) and MA step one is at 60K. Next year is negotiations year so I imagine that will increase for the following year. My biggest class is 21 and smallest is 14 although last year I had a class of 29 which is unusual, but they didn’t want to hire a part-time teacher to teach one overflow class. I do pay for healthcare but not vision life insurance (which is 2.5x my salary for basic) or dental. It’s the best healthcare imagineable and I’m very happy with it.The healthcare contribution may change though with the new governor. It’s state law that we pay a certain percentage of healthcare but prior to that our district paid it all. I don’t think we’ll ever go back to paying nothing, because I honestly don’t think it’s sustainable with continually rising costs.

 

A lot of this happened right after 2008 and the Great Recession. There had to be sacrifices or huge staff reduction. It was as bad if not worse in the private sector. In some places I suppose it’s still going on, but a lot of that is a thing of the past, at least in my region. In some areas unions are weaker/stronger than others.

 

I live very close to the district in CO that was mentioned, although I work in a different district. They had a tea party backed "reform board" take over many years ago and they have run the district into the ground. The general theory was that they chose this already wealthy, already very high performing district to take over so they could then brag about how "running the district like a business" worked. Well, they couldn't even make it work in what should have been an "easy" district.

It used to be one of, if not the most respected district in the state, kind of the "gold standard" for teachers when looking for jobs. Trust me, they were not having trouble filling positions within any teaching area. They effectively disbanded the union by simply refusing to negotiate with them. The sad thing is that for many years, even though there was no union, the general public still bought the argument that any problems were the fault of the union.

They tried the "supply and demand" argument, but also decided to pay K and 1st teachers more than 2nd-5th grade teachers because "those early years are really important." It's not like it's any harder to fill a 1st grade position over a 2nd grade position. They basically admitted they value one position over another. Teachers were also required to spend hours upon hours every single week filling out documentation and uploading photos of their work to prove they were doing their jobs. The district touted "pay for performance," but those that put in the work to prove they were "highly effective" only made made a few hundred dollars more per year.

Those that don't support public education often say that if teachers don't like it, they should just get out. Well, that's exactly what happened. Teachers left what was once a "destination district" in droves. I work in a very low SES district with a much tougher population than this district, but former teachers from there flocked to our district. In fact, at this point about half of our staff came from there. Our school psych (who would have been in one of the highest salary "bands") had 17 years of experience when coming to my school. Although my district only gave her credit for 8, the pay cut she took was less than $1,000.

At first, the board and their supporters said, "That's fine, those teachers don't support our vision anyway. We're just getting out the bad teachers" (even though it was proven that the great majority of teachers leaving were rated highly effective or effective). It's unfortunate that it took years and years, but parents finally started to realize what was going on. This is an extremely conservative area where most of the general public would support the anti-union movement.

After seeing what really happened, parents finally started fighting back and supporting the teachers and there was a real grassroots movement to get out the reform board, despite hundreds of thousands of dollars pouring in from the Koch brothers and professional publicists being hired for the "reform" side. Parents saw that the best teachers were leaving the district, sometimes dragged out in the middle of the day in front of students. Test scores dropped , in a district where good test scores should be a given. They saw their property values going down because people no longer wanted to live in that district. The beloved teachers that they looked forward to their child having when their child got to that grade were no longer there. Positions went unfilled and students had a string of subs, or teachers left mid-year and were unable to be replaced.

At the last election this fall, they finally got all of the reform board members out. Although this is great, there is already a lot of damage done. Most of the experienced teachers have left the district, and many charters have popped up in the area due to families wanting to leave the district schools. The district's reputation is in shambles, both with teachers and families. I will be interested to see how long it takes to build themselves back up to what they used to be, if that's even possible.

 

Unfortunately it would seem that the "reformers" met their goals.

 

Touché, my friend. What is the max specifically? You said, “well over 100k,” so I will admit that I’m curious. With annual bonuses and gifts I will make about $110k annually starting at year 13 from just my teaching salary, and with private tutoring (also through the school) I will make about $140k-$160k if I raise my rates from my current $70/hour. I am currently step 4 and make $82k gross ($55k teaching and $27k tutoring 8-10 hours a week).

 

I don’t count tutoring, bonuses, and gifts. That’s extra compensation that varies year by year and is essentially a second job. Ours max at a PhD is $110 with slightly less for less education. We have bachelors, BA+15, MA, MA+15, MA+30, MA+60, and PhD. Again, negotiations are next year, so there’s going to be a boost(were doing well financially thankfully).
I’ll bet you can raise your rates. I don’t tutor a whole lot, because my salary is fine and I enjoy my free time, but I know our math teachers charge $100/hour! Our union recommends at least 75 which is what I charge. When I do it through the school (home instruction) it’s less (this is where the non union go seeeeeeee) lol.

 

Nice! And you deserve every penny! I didn’t know the average is $75/hr. I aim to eventually get to $120/hr. I have one colleague who charges that much, but then again they have been teaching for 30 years! I’m not nearly at her level, lol.

 

Prof just can't help but brag about how much money he makes every other post. I don't understand why you didn't just decide to work on Wall St. if the money is so hugely important to you.

 

It is kind of applicable here since we are discussing unions and how they allow teachers to be paid more.

 

One of my coworkers once said that if he was going to stay in this profession, he was going to make as much money as possible (coming from another district to ours and original,y in private sector). I guess that makes sense. If you’re doing the same job as others in your field and are in the same region (COL) you would try and make more money if possible. With all else considered too (working conditions, students population, admin, benefits.etc).

 

Using that logic anyone who wants more money and/or better benefits should quit teaching and go to a higher paid jobs. They shouldn't support unions, they should just leave for more lucrative professions.

 

I’m curious. Those that are non-union. What do you propose instead? Do you believe in the step/scale salary guide? What alternatives to pay and negotiation should we consider? Who has the final say? The government or the school? I’m curious about other perspectives. How do you imagine education without associations?

 

Not at all, prof just manages to work his salary into at least a quarter of his posts (not just this thread), which strikes me as someone who is more concerned about that than the average teacher.

 

I spent most of my career in a private school (17 years). I LOVED working there, and for most of my time there, they were very supportive of me and my goals. Even when I left, I really didn't have anything bad to say about them, and even today, they would still welcome me back with open arms. I left there to go to a public school district, which was union, and I more than doubled my salary. My benefits at the private school were much, much better at the time, but my current union eventually fought and made our benefits package more affordable. I now pay nothing for my benefits (I'm single with no kids), same as my old job. While I don't necessarily agree with everything my union does, as a matter of fact, I think some of their decisions are downright stupid at times, I cannot say that they are inconsequential to my job. They have fought for me, both collectively, and even individually on a few occasions. They are definitely a benefit to me.

As far as Janus goes, I hope the plaintiffs lose, simply because in many (if not most) states, the Union is REQUIRED to represent everyone in collective bargaining, regardless of whether they are a union member or not. That's why the fair-share fees came in, because the union has to legally represent everyone, in most work matters. And that is just not fair. If there was a way to only have the union negotiate for it's members, and not have to represent the others in ANY matter whatsoever, I would be okay with that. I'm not sure how that would work, but until the law can be changed to represent that, I think fair-share is the most fair way to go about it.

 

This post is very ironic considering unions constantly fight for teacher salary increases, by and large. Public teachers typically complain about how little they make and ask for higher wages, but it’s not about money and all about the children, right? Why complain about how much you make if it’s all about your students?

 

The school should have the final say, not the government. With that said, teachers are professionals and should be compensated a fair rate (at least twice the highest federal minimum wage starting, IMO). Teachers should have the ability to negotiate their own salaries and use performance reviews and test scores to seek higher compensation packages.

I only bring up my salary to counter the talking point that non-union schools don’t pay teachers fairly. Of course there are exceptions, but I feel that I have more freedom working in a private school than I would in a public. There are too many limitations and rules there.

As I previously said, there are many private schools that pay well, not all, but several do.

 

Not even remotely what I'm getting at. I'm simply stating you are obsessed with touting your wealth. Period.

 

Because money matters. Only a fool says that it doesn’t. Our entire country would grind to a stop without it.

 

Then you’re reading too much into it. I am passionate about teaching mathematics AND making as much as money as I can to live a better life.

 

Perhaps, but it does come off as "look at my Rolex, isn't it awesome"?

 

Hm, I guess you have a point there. I promise that I don’t mean to brag. I’m just an advocate for teachers — public and private — to make the most amount of money possible wherever the opportunity presents itself.

Think of it like this: The comparison between the private and public sectors are commonly made for teachers and how much more they could be making in some other private sector job. If education is privatized in the sense that we can negotiate on our own behalf, then we could probably make way more than we do. For example, say someone graduates from MIT with a Masters in Computer Engineering and says, “The median starting salary for someone with my skill level is $75k. I want to make at least that, so I want $75k to start. That is what they should be paid and their salary stays that way until state test scores come out, principals do their observations, graduation rates come out, etc. It should be based on performance so the better you are, the more you get paid.

 

I actually believe your school is the exception, not the rule. Granted I can’t see private school pay scales, but those that I know who work or have worked in private are paid less and have no pension plan, and pay for crap insurance. My BF got a 20k raise going from private to public (and this is after not even giving him all his deserved steps!). And much better benefits. Also statistically, private school teachers are paid less. You are in California, a union state with high COL. Your pay is probably on par with other surrounding districts in the region. I imagine some are higher, and some are lower. I’ve looked at some pay scales of public schools in various parts of Ca (I actually considered moving there) and man they are impressive. Again it’s great you’re able to do so well for yourself. But I don’t know anywhere around where I live that would make more working private and I don’t intend to make the jump.

 

By not wanting to or refusing to pay union dues, you’re essentially saying that you disagree with unions (although I know that people just don’t agree with the politics of unions, but still want to be représented. Whatever).

I disagree with the CTA. I do not want them to represent me in any way.

Should they then be dissolved? As long as unions exist with members, those non-union teachers will still benefit from the negotiations that the unions do for its members (salary/benefits, better working conditions etc.), even if non-union members can negotiate for themselves (they will at least be able to negotiate the same or higher salaries as union employees).

No. I believe you have a first amendment right to assemble with like-minded individuals. If the result of you doing so ends up an advantage to someone else that is irrelevant.

Do people really think they (the individual) can negotiate better than a union (a committee of multiple people)?

Yes, because to me "better" means "negotiate in a way that best represents my personal desires and goals."

I think unions also fight against inequality in pay. If everyone negotiated their pay, would there be more of a pay difference between men and women?

Could be, I don't know. There are forums, like legislation, to deal with such issues. If, as some have argued, the union exists only to advance my position, this is beyond that scope.

If non-union people who hate unions want them dissolved, what about the people who want a union? What’s the happy medium? Because as long as unions exist, everyone in that profession (and especially region) will benefit somehow. If we look at non-union states and see how well they’re doing....

California recently was recognized as the least livable state. Our schools consistently rank poorly despite our abundance of wealth. We're heavily unionized.

My bf worked at a private school for a number of years in an area of my state that has lower pay in general for teachers (lower cost of living). The admin threatened to fire teachers if they unionized. They constantly had their benefits worsened and pay cut (so they could create a beautiful admin building and beautify their campus) throughout the years that I don’t know how they could remain competitive. He eventually left.

So the system worked. The school underpaid and the employee used his right to walk away. If he was a highly desired teacher then parents from the school would be upset and pull their kids out leaving the school recognizing their mistake.

 

The laws of supply and demand work well as does the free market economy, Pretty much everyone makes what they are worth in the marketplace. Teachers would make what we do with or without unions.

The NFL QB makes more than the VP of sales who makes more than the district manager who makes more than the area GM of the Waffle House who makes more than the chef at the local restaurant who makes more than the local police chief who makes more than the head of the history department who makes more than the sales rep at the local appliance store who makes more than the shift manger at the local McDonald's who makes more than the stock clerk at the nearest Wal-Mart. It works itself out due to the universal laws of economics. The unions would have you believe otherwise but guess who they make their money from?

 

also, here's the simplest way to tell if your pay is "fair' or not...look at the turnover amongst your colleagues. If jobs are turning over frequently, then the pay is "low' in consideration of all other factors. If teachers tend to stay for long periods of time and turnover is rare, that job is relatively "well paying". No matter what people might say otherwise.Watch how/where people move. This imo is the biggest indicator of pay rate in your local area as most human beings are programmed to complain about their jobs/pay/amount of homework/etc..

 

Market forces work well to improve cell phones and cars, but they are largely ineffective with education. The reason for this is that politicians have a huge amount of influence on schools, and they respond to lobbyists and (sometimes gerrymandered) voting blocks.

How to tell if you are paid enough: can you afford to live a modest, comfortable life and afford to send your kids to college and save for retirement? If not, you need more pay.

 

Again, I would argue that market forces prevail. People still go into teaching knowing in advance the pay. All combined , the "entire package" - the benefits, schedule, opportunity to work with children, etc, - still has more people trying to enter the profession than there are jobs. Supply exceeds demand.
You may argue that this is not true in STEM areas and I would agree - the demand exceeds the supply. Rationally, you would think that STEM teachers would thus make more than their counterparts in a true market economy. At this point I have to agree with you - market economics fail due to government (or political, if you prefer) intervention. Our government, like all others, simply is inefficient and impotent in the ways of true market economics. In the private sector, inefficiencies are driven out of the marketplace. In the public sector, inefficiencies are expected, ignored or celebrated.

 

I've had this same discussion with several of my the-free-market-solves-all-problems friends, and none of them are able to achieve the tone of cold, emotionless logic that you use. I hope to read lots of posts by you in the future.

Despite your mature voice, I still believe your logic is flawed. If you will examine the efforts over the past 15 years of educational "reform", you 'll notice that teachers flourish and grow when they collaborate and not compete. Merit pay did not motivate teachers to try harder, but did motivate them to focus on the testing items and not the whole child. Charter schools have not found a better way of educating children, but did (and do) pull money from higher performing public schools where 90% of children attend. Vouchers have not improved outcomes for poor kids, but do pump public money into private and religious schools.

 

I don’t believe that’s what this poster was suggesting, but I could be wrong. I think they meant that education should be privatized insofar as allowing teachers to negotiate their own salaries given their education level, experience, and skill set.

Some things that they could negotiate with are their effective teaching status, AP/IB pass rates, state test score history, principal observation reviews, whether their students succeed or not (in terms of positive student outcomes), etc. Otherwise, I generally agree with the current system.

Hopefully, that makes sense.

 

One thing that collective bargaining does is level the playing field when it comes to factors like sex, race, and age. Women, people of color, and people who are considered too young or too old have long been compensated unfairly in the workplace. With salary schedules implemented and followed with fidelity, I have some reasonable assurances that the 20-something white dude who happens to be the nephew of the Superintendent's golfing buddy isn't going to "negotiate" a significantly higher salary simply based on his age, sex, race, or familiar status. The same is not true across other professions.

 

So because one person or a few people abuse the system, the rest shouldn’t be able to negotiate? I wonder how all of those types of people you mention do it in the private industry.

 

All teachers, private and public, benefit from collective bargaining. Because there's a salary schedule, does not preclude a teacher from negotiating which step to start out on.

A wonderful kindergarten teacher down the hall is a member of two minority groups and had won several teaching awards in another state before coming to our school. He asked to be placed on step 10 despite only having 7 years of experience. They did it.

 

In the private industry, women make about 80 cents for each dollar that men make. That's a 20% gender pay gap. It's not "one person for a few people". It's a systemic problem.

 

This has already been debunked several times by statisticians from numerous organizations, including Harvard and Stanford, plus others. When maternity leave, promotion rejections, and part-time workers are factored in, women make $0.99 for every dollar a man makes, virtually eliminating the pay gap. You are using misleading statistics and as a mathematician I am calling you out on it.

For example, according to the Pew Research Center:

“Why does a gender pay gap still persist? In our 2013 survey, women were more likely to say they had taken breaks from their careers to care for their family. These types of interruptions can have an impact on long-term earnings. Roughly four-in-ten mothers said that at some point in their work life they had taken a significant amount of time off (39%) or reduced their work hours (42%) to care for a child or other family member. Roughly a quarter (27%) said they had quit work altogether to take care of these familial responsibilities. Fewer men said the same. For example, just 24% of fathers said they had taken a significant amount of time off to care for a child or other family member.”

Guess what? That figure you gave takes into account these women who take significant time off, so of course that’s going to affect the median salary!

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/03/gender-pay-gap-facts/?amp=1

Also, please visit the following links for further details and studies conducted that counter what you said:

https://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap

https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/media/_media/pdf/key_issues/gender_research.pdf

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/amp/

 

Very intellectual rebuttal.

I’m going with Harvard, Stanford, and the US Department of Labor instead of a non-mathematician. Thanks.

 

Let's call it a motherhood penalty, then.

And let's also take a look at how race factors into all of it.

 

I thought the gender pay gap was referring to two people with the same skill set and experience who do the same job... but where the man is paid more than the woman. Am I wrong?

I don't think anyone is shocked when someone working in a lower position or fewer hours or after taking time off is making less than someone who has received a promotion, works more, and never took time off.

Teachers can just as easily experience the "motherhood penalty", even with a salary schedule in place. Districts with salary schedules in place don't typically have situations where a male teacher and a female teacher with the same years of experience and the same education make different salaries. The salary schedule prevents that.

*To be clear, I'm not advocating for salary schedules or unions in this post. Just clarifying what situations the gender pay gap refers to... Again, am I wrong?