When my company went into cost cutting mode, we looked at low hanging fruit to cut costs and keep people. We found many places where we could eliminate redundancies. The salaries of employees were a very low percentage of our overall cost. Yes, there were layoffs but not as many as there could have been. I can't imaging that teacher salaries are a much higher percentage of the overall cost that it is with our business. Schools need to think out of the box and come up with a better way to cut costs. One thought running through my head... I haven't sat down to analyze it yet but at first glance, it looks good, at least for most southern schools. How much does it cost to cool a huge building like a school during the hotter months? I know that my AC at our house works much harder to maintain 77 degrees in the heat of the day than it does 74 degrees at night. I lowered our energy bill by 13% by putting in a programmable thermostat and making that small change. So, what if we were to mandate that schools stay in session just one more hour per day during the cool/cold months where the sunlight helps to heat the school during the colder months. With that one hour per day extension, we could cut approximately 30 school days (6 weeks) from the calendar year. That is three weeks at the end of the school year and three weeks at the beginning that the AC could be turned OFF with zero cooling costs. That's just one benefit. You would have 6 weeks of fuel for busses, 6 weeks reduction of paid security, and I am sure much more. I am also sure that there would be some problems with this proposal but I can't think of them right now.
Great ideas Tom, but our school district is already doing all of that stuff. We got out of school on May 26, but we go back on August 8. That way we avoid the hottest days in the Mojave Desert all togther. The air conditioners and heaters are set to go off automatically with our bell system etc... BTW-You can't really add an hour or take an hour away, because that would mean adding or subtracting an entire class and the core classes, math, science, social studies and language arts are already covered during the day. An added class would be an elective or remedial class which most students don't need. You could probably do it in elementary schools though.
Here in NJ our problem is too many chiefs. The hierarchy of management in the typical school would make BOA blush. And they all make six figures and the schools may have 600-800 students. Overhead!
Jim, The classes I teach are divided up into sections similar to school periods. If I could add 10 minutes to each section/period, I could cover more material. I don't have to add another section/period to extend the day. If I extend each day by 1 hour, I can do a 15 day class in 13 days.
Tom, You can't do that in secondary schools here, because anything having to do with time or work is written into our contract. The school districts want us to work for free and the union wants to run the school districts. Right now, we're already working for free in many areas. We teach six periods per day and we have a prep period where we don't teach, that is used instead for parent-teachers conferences, calling parents, attending meetings, preparing lesson plans etc. What the district has been doing is forcing us to cover for other teachers on our prep period for free instead of calling in a substitute teacher. This means that we still have to do all of that other work on our own time before or after school. Teachers are also teaching remedial classes and coaching after school for free, as well as attending meetings and conferences for free. There's only so many hours in the day and we're already maxed out. Even when I get home, I have 2-3 hours of work to do on my own time, grading papers, preparing lesson plans, contacting parents, administrators and others. Remember, I have over 200 students and I don't have ten minutes to spare anywhere in the day. During the school year, I'm up at 5:30; get home at 5:30; and I usually get to bed around midnight.
The alternative to this is layoffs or reductions in al ready low salaries... or God forbid, reductions in the high salaries of the normally useless and redundant government employees making the decisions to cut teachers' salaries.
Yeah but you are all overpaid, lazy good for nothing union members.....at least as far as some misguided right-wingers would have us believe. :roll:
My union controls this state to the point where elections don't matter any more. Our pensions are three times the size of the average California worker and we can retire at age 55 with 90% of whatever our highest paid year was. Older teachers like me can also collect Social Security on top of our salaries. One of the games that administrators play is to volunteer for "consulting" jobs which pay them hundreds of thousands for just a few days of work, then they claim 90% of that level when they retire. The arithmetic doesn't add up. California is already broke and CAN'T pay the current level of pensions and benefits that were promised to buy votes. Now pay attention: 2+2 is never 5 or 7 or eleventy-three or any other number, but four. You can promise the moon to buy votes if you want to, but you can't give out more money than you take in forever. Sooner or later the lenders will demand to be repaid what they have lent to you, before they lend you any more. That time is now. There is no more money.
Sounds like Ca. is unique. Sounds like NJ is unique. I don't think it is a nationwide scenario because for one nome of that is the case here in Florida. I do get that Americans are going to have to be humbled.....and live less than they are used to and become more used to being in the middle of the pack amongst nations when it comes to wealth, health and comfort with the extreme exception of those at the very top 1%......who continue to get politicians elected who will not only protect but enhance and grow the gap between themselves and the rest of Americans.......all in the pretense of " hey.....but what about those stupendous jobs we are intending....at some point.....to create!"
The "tax the rich" strategy no longer applies. If you took every cent from the entire Top 1 % it wouldn't scratch the surface of the debt we have created for ourselves. If you are into income redistribution you can fool yourself but it is fruitless to pursue that pipe dream. You need to cut taxes and slash spending dramatically across the board to even begin to address this mess.
re: CA and NJ are unique Uh Dave.... were you following any of that stuff that's been happening in Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio or New York? It was in all the newspapers... Here in the Golden State, our gold plated lefties just got the shock of their lives. In the last election, the government unions robbed us workers blind to make certain that Gov. Moonbeam outspent his Republican opponents by a wide margin. Like Gov. Gay Davis, Jerry Brown is their bought-and-paid-for boy. Well guess what? He just became the first CA governor to veto their ENTIRE budget! His veto message was simple: There's no more money and the banks won't lend us any more. We're tapped out. We have counties here that have official unemployment rates as high as 28%. We don't even have an illegal alien problem anymore. There are no opportunities here; it's game over. So now the lib/Dems are demanding that taxpayers pay higher taxes of more than one-thousand bucks per year so that public employees can retire early with gigantic pensions? That dog won't hunt: not even in California. When you pay people not to work...that's what they do.
Don't have the time to look it up now but your assumption is that many if not all states have a similar problem as does Ca. I don't think Florida compares at all with Ca. not in terms of salaries or in benefits for teachers......probably not even close. Another thought is......even about Ca........is that when people make career choices based on what is factually out there how can you blame them for not wanting to collect on what was their career objective? Not everyone will assume the risks and reward of private ownership when there are seemingly safer alternatives that seem legit. It seems a little unfair at best and immoral at worst to break those promises made to those kinds of individuals but understandably if the money isn't there it can't be done. I just wouldn't be so quick as to villify every single individual who chose those career paths that had promises attached. It isn't a new thing to choose more conservative career paths......it is old school America. It just doesn't matter anymore and it is a thing of the past in this new age of a tiny percentage of super rich getting richer and an ever declining middle class.
:idea: 1. I did not assume "that many if not all states have a similar problem as does Ca." I responded directly to your assertion that "California and New Jersey are unique." They're not unique. They're having similar problem to all other states where the liberal Democrats use public employee unions to buy votes and terrorize private businesses. 2. Florida and many other states don't have these severe problems, because their local Republicans have enough power to keep the union cabals in check. In fact, I see the teachers unions there in Florida are now suing the state, because a new law would require them to contribute 3% of their pay to their own pensions. The teacher's union is calling this "unconstitutional" and a "cut in pay." They feel entitled. They ARE the new elite.
Florida also benefits from snowbirds like myself and the throngs that vacation there. That's a lot of money coming in.
Municipal workers in San Francisco now make more when they retire at age 50 than they do when they were working. That's the Californian way. Dave should move there life is fair!
And that's not unique Terry.....or at least far from the norm? It's ridiculous that's for sure........but it's not the norm.
It's the norm and it's coming to a town near you. That's the plan... WASHINGTON (AP) – Labor regulators are set to propose sweeping new rules Tuesday that would dramatically speed up the time frame for union elections, a move that could make it easier for struggling unions to organize new members, and cut the time businesses have to mount anti-union campaigns. A copy of the planned rules, to be announced by the National Labor Relations Board, was obtained byThe Associated Press. The proposal is expected to irritate Republicans and business groups who have complained about the board’s pro-labor actions. Most labor elections currently take place within 45-60 days after a union gathers enough signatures to file a petition, a time many companies use to discourage workers from unionizing. The new plan could cut that time by days or even weeks—depending on the case—by simplifying procedures, deferring litigation and setting shorter deadlines for hearings and filings. But it does not impose a specific deadline for elections, as many labor leaders had hoped for. Canada, for example, requires such elections to take place in as little as 5 to 10 days. The plan would “better insure that employees’ votes may be recorded accurately, efficiently and speedily,” said the board’s majority, led 3-1 by Democrats. Passage would be a victory for labor unions that have long complained about employers using procedural delays and litigation to hold up elections and intimidate workers. Some employers hire so-called “union busting” consulting firms to produce videotapes, draft talking points or create brochures to deter unionizing. Lynn Rhinehart, general counsel of the AFL-CIO, has called current union election procedures “a very cumbersome process that gets bogged down in litigation.”
I would say that as long as we are all happy ( well the 90% of us in the less than rich group that is ) with the wages that we are paid without much hope for future increases and ecstatic with the benefits we no longer have then let's abolish unions altogether. Right now regular employees are held by the balls.......and it's a tight painful squeeze. The only thing that can alleviate the situation will be the return of a competitive environment for talented workers. Right now everyone is just content to have a job period and "testing the market" seems like a bad idea so we have to live with what is handed out. You will never get me to believe that management and/or owners will dole out raises and benefits for just any reason....even good ones.... unless forced by the competitive pressures to retain good workers. For the past three years and continuing on in the near future that pressure isn't there. Is it any wonder regular workers then will vote for unions over "taking their chances" with management. I'll bet that given the events of the past 3-4 job losing.......pay cutting years that unions will have an easier time than ever in organizing membership in the near future. I am not a union member and have never had a job that would have allowed me to join a union and I wouldn't be inclined to join one now personally but I can see why they might now be attractive for the reasons I named above and I also see a problem for employers retaining good talent as soon as the job market improves to a healthy level. In other words......company loyalty has been shot to hell by this recession.
I would bet that the workers in South Carolina and elsewhere would tell you that the unions have been more of an impediment to job creation than a positive...... I don't see how any organization in opposition to new investment and manufacturing capacity expansion can be beneficial to job creation in our economy, but I'm willing to listen to any reasonable explanation......it would seem quite the opposite.