3 ms·

Could you point out where they are factually wrong? I don't want to be misled into believing false information. Thanks. Or, if they are not factually wrong but

Could you point out where they are factually wrong? I don't want to be misled into believing false information. Thanks. Or, if they are not factually wrong but misleading and biased in their presentation, could you point to an alternative analysis that shows California's union obligations to be reasonable?

bandushrew 16y ago
I dont have time to go into every point they mention on your behalf, but it is easy to get a little perspective: http://www.educationworld.net/salaries_us.html http://www.educationworld.net/salaries_us.html "Average teacher salaries. California had the nation's highest average salary in 2002-03, at $55,693. States joining California in the top tier were Michigan, at $54,020; Connecticut, at $53,962; New Jersey, at $53,872; and the District of Columbia, at $53,194." 55000/year average for the people teaching children doesn't seem the slightest bit unreasonable to me given the amount of work they are required to do. The statement 'highest salaries in the country' makes things sound awful, into you take into account that many teachers in many places are (IMO) woefully under paid. The same applies in most of the other industries. Do some research and try to get some perspective on the problem - there are some big problems in california but laying them all at the feet of the unions is just ridiculous and lacks a true sense of perspective.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - bandushrew 16y ago
    "however, they do get 3 months vacation every year, on top of holidays, so what an experienced teacher gets is a pretty nice hourly wage." which is unavoidable, simply because we want them to be available again the following year. The alternative is to underpay them, and thereby force them to find other work during those 3 months and thus ensuring that: (a) they dont get a holiday - which will have a negative impact on their performance and (b) that any other job that does pay them a living wage for the whole year looks attractive to them - which will ensure that we have a high turnover, and have a negative impact on the education system as a whole. Also, my understand is that there frequently is work or various kinds that needs to be done during the summer months, so its not exactly a holiday for them. "If you want better people, yes, you need to pay more, but you must also be more selective. If you just pay more without being selective you will get more applicants, sure, but you will get a lot of mediocre and no-so-good applicants, as well." yes...? Im not sure how this is different from any other job? employers do need to be selective, that is true. "the problem is that teaching, right now, is 'employment of last resort' for many people. So you got yourself a liberal arts degree and have no marketable skills? go back to school for another year and you can become a teacher." right. assuming that this is true, the reason that it is 'employment of last resort' is because in many places the pay is barely adequate, and the working conditions are crap. if we offered a slightly more reasonable salary, and better working conditions we might find people are more enthusiastic about becoming teachers and see it more of a career than a stopgap. I would claim that an average salary of 55k/year is just barely enough to support a family on, the fact that in many other states the average teacher's salary is markedly lower is a bug, not a feature.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
      - bandushrew 16y ago
        55k/year supports a family with two cars and a nice house in california? really? median house prices in california: http://www.dqnews.com/Charts/Monthly-Charts/CA-City-Charts/ZIPCAR.aspx http://www.dqnews.com/Charts/Monthly-Charts/CA-City-Charts/Z... I guess maybe every teacher and their family could move to Sheridan? 55000/year average is a reasonable, solid salary for a teacher. its not extravagrant, it just gives them a hope of being able to maintain their family without needing food stamps.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        bandushrew 16y ago
        ok. Im not sure what your point is in regards to the topic at hand?
whyenot 16y ago
Since you appear to have missed it, let me qoute part of the post you are responding to: not that they are wrong, unions are part of the problem Caveat emptor. When a traditional foe of unions pens an article blaming all of California's problems on unions and nobody else, yes, I think it's wise to take their words with several grains of salt, don't you?
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  I didn't read it as an article blaming all of California's problems on unions. I read it as an article illustrating one of California's woes. Is every article biased unless it explicitly pays lip service to your biases?

bandushrew 16y ago

I dont have time to go into every point they mention on your behalf, but it is easy to get a little perspective: http://www.educationworld.net/salaries_us.html http://www.educationworld.net/salaries_us.html "Average teacher salaries. California had the nation's highest average salary in 2002-03, at $55,693. States joining California in the top tier were Michigan, at $54,020; Connecticut, at $53,962; New Jersey, at $53,872; and the District of Columbia, at $53,194." 55000/year average for the people teaching children doesn't seem the slightest bit unreasonable to me given the amount of work they are required to do. The statement 'highest salaries in the country' makes things sound awful, into you take into account that many teachers in many places are (IMO) woefully under paid. The same applies in most of the other industries. Do some research and try to get some perspective on the problem - there are some big problems in california but laying them all at the feet of the unions is just ridiculous and lacks a true sense of perspective.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- bandushrew 16y ago
  "however, they do get 3 months vacation every year, on top of holidays, so what an experienced teacher gets is a pretty nice hourly wage." which is unavoidable, simply because we want them to be available again the following year. The alternative is to underpay them, and thereby force them to find other work during those 3 months and thus ensuring that: (a) they dont get a holiday - which will have a negative impact on their performance and (b) that any other job that does pay them a living wage for the whole year looks attractive to them - which will ensure that we have a high turnover, and have a negative impact on the education system as a whole. Also, my understand is that there frequently is work or various kinds that needs to be done during the summer months, so its not exactly a holiday for them. "If you want better people, yes, you need to pay more, but you must also be more selective. If you just pay more without being selective you will get more applicants, sure, but you will get a lot of mediocre and no-so-good applicants, as well." yes...? Im not sure how this is different from any other job? employers do need to be selective, that is true. "the problem is that teaching, right now, is 'employment of last resort' for many people. So you got yourself a liberal arts degree and have no marketable skills? go back to school for another year and you can become a teacher." right. assuming that this is true, the reason that it is 'employment of last resort' is because in many places the pay is barely adequate, and the working conditions are crap. if we offered a slightly more reasonable salary, and better working conditions we might find people are more enthusiastic about becoming teachers and see it more of a career than a stopgap. I would claim that an average salary of 55k/year is just barely enough to support a family on, the fact that in many other states the average teacher's salary is markedly lower is a bug, not a feature.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - bandushrew 16y ago
      55k/year supports a family with two cars and a nice house in california? really? median house prices in california: http://www.dqnews.com/Charts/Monthly-Charts/CA-City-Charts/ZIPCAR.aspx http://www.dqnews.com/Charts/Monthly-Charts/CA-City-Charts/Z... I guess maybe every teacher and their family could move to Sheridan? 55000/year average is a reasonable, solid salary for a teacher. its not extravagrant, it just gives them a hope of being able to maintain their family without needing food stamps.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        bandushrew 16y ago
        ok. Im not sure what your point is in regards to the topic at hand?

whyenot 16y ago

Since you appear to have missed it, let me qoute part of the post you are responding to: not that they are wrong, unions are part of the problem Caveat emptor. When a traditional foe of unions pens an article blaming all of California's problems on unions and nobody else, yes, I think it's wise to take their words with several grains of salt, don't you?

jacoblyles 16y ago
I didn't read it as an article blaming all of California's problems on unions. I read it as an article illustrating one of California's woes. Is every article biased unless it explicitly pays lip service to your biases?