This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

GeekNights 20110224 - Unions

24

Comments

  • which I thought was a halfway decent summer action flick
    Where is it in comparison to The Rock? If it's worse than The Rock, why didn't you just watch The Rock instead?
  • edited February 2011
    3/4ths of the year worth of work
    As much as I am in the corner of teachers, this statement is still inflated. You, of course, are commenting on their three-month summer break; don't forget to subtract snow days, Labor Day, Thanksgiving holiday, Christmas break, President's Day, Spring Break, NEA Day, and a handful of other holidays that the local teacher's union may negotiate. My beautiful, hard-working, well-qualified wife hates it when I remind her that she only has 182 working days a year -- and she still manages to take personal days.

    The typical discussion conversation debate argument goes something like this:

    Lisa: "I have a master's degree and eight higher-ed certifications, and I still only get paid $XX,000 a year. That's $10,000 a year less than someone in the private sector with a similar education!"
    Me: "Yes, but they work four months a year more than you."
    Lisa: "You fucker."
    Post edited by Jason on
  • If the movie pisses of fans of the comic, it's probably better.
    I found it more enjoyable.
  • The $89,000 figure is the cost for the state to pay for that teacher's payroll. $51,000 average direct pay and $38,000 benefits package (health plan, contributions to pension, etc.).
    [Citation Needed]
  • The $89,000 figure is the cost for the state to pay for that teacher's payroll. $51,000 average direct pay and $38,000 benefits package (health plan, contributions to pension, etc.).
    The thing is this is disingenuous way to show how much they make. Do I go around saying I make 89,000k when I actually make 51K, no you talk about the salary of cash you get. The problem that occurs when you say they make 89,000k on average, is the average worker doesn't know how much they "ACTUALLY" make. So by talking about the number with benefits included you are misleading the reader to think they are pulling in 89k gross pay, instead of the 51K they are grossing.
  • The $89,000 figure is the cost for the state to pay for that teacher's payroll. $51,000 average direct pay and $38,000 benefits package (health plan, contributions to pension, etc.).
    Do the corresponding calculation for a private sector job with similar benefits. Here's a hint: employers negotiate subsidized costs for health care plans with the insurance company.

    Yes, it costs a lot to pay a teacher, but go ahead and ask a business owner what it costs him to actually pay one of his employees. It's more than just an hourly wage or an annual salary.

    This is where the fallacy lies: the public doesn't actually understand how much money they're worth.
  • Do the corresponding calculation for a private sector job with similar benefits. Here's a hint: employers negotiate subsidized costs for health care plans with the insurance company.
    This is very true.
    The $89,000 figure is the cost for the state to pay for that teacher's payroll. $51,000 average direct pay and $38,000 benefits package (health plan, contributions to pension, etc.).
    If you could provide links for benefit brochure information, that would be great. I would find it interesting to compare it to the amounts that government workers and Postal employees pay.

    I will say that Postal employees pay on average 30% less than other federal government employees in regards to premiums. I am always jealous of that.

    Information (Go to the last page of all these pdf docs. You will see the share of what the government pays and what the employee pays):

    Blue Cross/Blue Shield; Mailhandlers; GEHA; Aetna.
  • So are we implying that the government does not negotiate subsidized costs for their health care plans?
  • edited February 2011
    Looking for some citations here.

    First one up is a comparison of the health plans for NJ educators. Doesn't have contribution costs. Will look for that next.

    http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/hb_open_enrollment_2009/hb-0798-local-ed-comparison-booklet.pdf

    Ro, I use the fepblue you linked above. These copays are about 1/4 to 1/3 of what I pay, but truthfully copays is not an argument-winner. It's maybe $1,000 in savings versus other government employment. Don't know how it compares to private employment plans.
    Post edited by Matt on
  • edited February 2011
    So are we implying that the government does not negotiate subsidized costs for their health care plans?
    No. What I'm saying is that the calculated "teacher salary" often uses the unsubsidized value of their benefits and then compares it to a private sector income with subsidized benefits. This has the effect of artificially inflating the teacher salary while artificially deflating the private sector salary, making it appear as though there is a massive disparity in income.

    In other words, you need to compare the teacher salary on an accurate playing field. Do the same operations to both salaries and then say that teachers are overpaid.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • So are we implying that the government does not negotiate subsidized costs for their health care plans?
    I don't think that was implied anywhere. At least I don't think so.
    http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/hb_open_enrollment_2009/hb-0798-local-ed-comparison-booklet.pdf
    Other than knowing the costs of what the employer/employees pay for insurance, those benefits are very amazing. A lot better than the government plans.
  • edited February 2011
    Oh OK I thought we were saying that private companies got a better deal than the gov't so having the benefits packages cost so much for public employees was justified. I misunderstood the statement "Do the corresponding calculation for a private sector job with similar benefits. Here's a hint: employers negotiate subsidized costs for health care plans with the insurance company."

    Here's a news article that cites how NJ educators pay only 1.5% of their salary towards their health plans http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/politics/local_politics/021511-proposals-would-shrink-nj-health-benefits. This was actually zero dollars until last spring when we elected an expense-slashing governor who put the 1.5% into law. This law was fought tooth and nail, going all the way to court: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/05/judge_expected_to_rule_if_nj_p.html

    One thing I noticed in the past 15 minutes of research was that while it was disingenuous of me to say a teacher "makes" a certain amount of money by adding take-home pay and state-paid benefits, the teachers unions do the same thing in their propaganda. They dance around calling it pay by calling it their "compensation" and yell, "so and so is going to slash our compensation by x percent, vote him out!"
    Post edited by Matt on
  • That really is an interesting article. If true, then they are paying at least for the pension part of their benefits.

    Here's a conflicting report: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164290717724956.html
    •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.

    I'd honestly like to know which one is the truth, but my research is done for the day. Even if there is a shred of truth to the WSJ article, it does mean that there is taxypayer money is part of the pension formula though.
  • All this talk about pensions and contributions is a smokescreen. Every dollar of compensation given to a teacher, whether it is in the form of pension contributions, health care, or salary, is a tax dollar. The quantity of those dollars is far more significant than how they are divided up.
  • All this talk about pensions and contributions is a smokescreen. Every dollar of compensation given to a teacher, whether it is in the form of pension contributions, health care, or salary, is a tax dollar. The quantity of those dollars is far more significant than how they are divided up.
    Your right it's a smoke screen but it's a problem with perception. We see a figure like the average teacher makes 86K and people go "Man, that's a lot of money, I am similarly qualified and I make 51k". They then don't realize that they are also making 86K in when benefits are included. The point is, when we talk about about salaries and the like there is a big difference between what you make in dollars per year and what you make in dollars and benefits per year. However that is not adequately explained when figures are presented. I feel more for a teacher who is making 51K a year and complaining then one making 86K a year. So if we are going to say whether a teacher is being paid correctly for their job. We should look into what other people in the private sector are making with the cost of benefits included to make a better comparison. Right now, we are only confusing the issue.

    That being said I thought a provision in the new health-care bill would require them to report on your pay stub how much the company is playing for your health-care so not to hide this cost as we do currently.

    //Has no idea what he makes when he includes benefits but figures it has to be close to what an average teacher makes.
  • The quantity of those dollars is far more significant than how they are divided up.
    Well, not when people are making the fallacious "but the private industry can do it for less" argument. Once you factor in all relevant costs, I doubt that it's much cheaper to privatize teaching.
  • edited February 2011
    I'd pay MORE for quality private teachers. Problem is I would still have to pay for the public education too. Since everyone else is in that same boat, it kills the market.

    Edit: and what market is left is for crazy religious schools. I'll take my chances with public school (I do realize that some of them are quite good)
    Post edited by Matt on
  • On the subject of teacher's unions:
    My mother doesn't like the teacher's union in our county (she's a teacher). They've been known to defend bad teachers while letting good teachers go by the wayside, and have proposed strikes at the worst times (I think they proposed a strike over the summer break once).
  • On empty Big Box stores:they still haven't been able to replace the Circuit City that went under almost two-and-a-half years ago at the mall I work at. Which is attached to Gillete Stadium, and is probably some of the more prime suburban retail space.
  • On empty Big Box stores:they still haven't been able to replace the Circuit City that went under almost two-and-a-half years ago at the mall I work at. Which is attached to Gillete Stadium, and is probably some of the more prime suburban retail space.
    Really? Nobody wants a store attached to the stadium? You know what I would put in there? A Dave & Busters. Tons of people would be hanging out and reserving pre/post-game private parties.
  • On empty Big Box stores:they still haven't been able to replace the Circuit City that went under almost two-and-a-half years ago at the mall I work at. Which is attached to Gillete Stadium, and is probably some of the more prime suburban retail space.
    There's a strip mall near my house where a grocery store used to be. After the whole chain went under (forget the name of the chain) it hasn't been filled since. Another location has a Walmart Neighborhood store, but this one near me is just empty.
  • It's interesting to observe the differences in how a country perceives unions.

    In the US it's all about corruption. In the UK it's about the working class people standing up to their bosses / government.

    In fact I hadn't heard much about corrupt unions until I came to the US.
  • edited February 2011
    That's because the only thing that EVER gets covered about Unions is the corruption. You hardly ever hear the good stories about Unions... I wonder why that is...

    Even my dad commented yesterday that if you watched FOX news and changed to MSNBC about the labor issues, it was like night and day. (My dad a republican is pretty pissed about this union busting)
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • That's because the only thing that EVER gets covered about Unions is the corruption.
    There's also the secondary factor that, for many people, their personal interaction with unions is often painful.

    If I want to, say, bring a box or bike up a freight elevator, I can't do it myself, nor can I hire a mover to do it for me (even a bonded one): I have to hire the union guys for the building at inflated rates despite their complete lack of value-add.

    If I want to hire security for a convention, I'm often obligated to hire the center's union goons, unable to provide my own security.

    If I want to hang a fucking clock on the wall at work, I can't hire someone to do it or do it myself: I have to pay a building union guy to come in and do the work (weeks late and taking hours to complete).

    As a kid in high school, we got in trouble with the city for picking up trash in the woods at a park. The city has a union that does such work, and we had thus denied them working hours doing it ourselves.


    These are purely anecdotes, but small interactions of the like can go a long way toward engendering general union-hate in people who are otherwise uninvolved.
  • edited February 2011
    Funny part is all of those unions are not State government unions (which are the ones being attacked here) :-p

    In fact I'm pretty sure Pete is the only State Union worker we know :-p

    The park union is the Municipal level stuff, I've never heard of them not letting people pick up trash. I'd think they'd just come out with you, while you volunteered and they would get overtime :-p
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • edited February 2011
    These are purely anecdotes, but small interactions of the like can go a long way toward engendering general union-hate in people who are otherwise uninvolved.
    You think that's bad? There have been times in this nations history where the Unions either came close to or pretty much owned and ran the country - Snarky comments about "Like for example right now" aside. We've also had the famous Painters and Dockers union, which was turned into essentially a Mafia, And specialized in "Bottom of the Harbour" tax avoidance schemes, as well as gun and drug running - they were one of the most feared organisations in the melbourne underworld, for a time, along with The Honoured Society(Linked with control of the Fruit and Vegetable markets, and linked with the associated unions), The Carlton Crew(An independent Cosa Nostra Francise operation, linked with the Australian Workers Union), The Radev Gang(Russian Mafia Offshoot), The Sunshine Crew, The Williams Family and The Lebanese Mafia.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • The park union is the Municipal level stuff, I've never heard of them not letting people pick up trash. I'd think they'd just come out with you, while you volunteered and they would get overtime :-p
    That's true. We didn't spend any time talking about lazy union people. Basically people who can't be fired because a union protects them, so they do almost no work, or are purposely unproductive. Then there are also those who care more about money than free time, so they purposely try to work as much overtime as possible to rake in the cash.

    The thing is, I hear stories like this all the time, but I've only ever seen it for myself just once. I was waiting for a tow truck, and a Con Edison van was parked across the street. Someone was sitting in it, and definitely doing absolutely nothing, for a very long time. Not even reading a book or playing games on their phone. Probably listening to the radio and napping.
  • You think that's bad? There have been times in this nations history where the Unions either came close to or pretty much owned and ran the country - Snarky comments about "Like for example right now" aside. We've also had the famous Painters and Dockers union, which was turned into essentially a Mafia, And specialized in "Bottom of the Harbour" tax avoidance schemes, as well as gun and drug running - they were one of the most feared organisations in the melbourne underworld, for a time, along with The Honoured Society(Linked with control of the Fruit and Vegetable markets, and linked with the associated unions), The Carlton Crew(An independent Cosa Nostra Francise operation, linked with the Australian Workers Union), The Radev Gang(Russian Mafia Offshoot), The Sunshine Crew, The Williams Family and The Lebanese Mafia.
    That's true here as well, Organized Crime got involved in the Unions for a while and it's pretty much one of the reasons Unions are in decline today. See Jimmy Hoffa regardless, the teamsters are generally a clean organization now.
  • In fact I'm pretty sure Pete is the only State Union worker we know :-p
    Wyatt is as well. Adam used to be in the teacher's union, I think. Natalie is probably in the teacher's union as well.
    The thing is, I hear stories like this all the time, but I've only ever seen it for myself just once.
    I see a mix. Usually, it really is a very small minority that are that lazy. It's just that encountering even one such person is an affront to anyone's sensibilities.

    And you don't get to hear about the hard workers, either. They're out there.
Sign In or Register to comment.