Wisconsin labor protests it's like Cairo has moved to Madison these days

[vici10]

Your data does not match your conclusion. The lowest amount I see is $21,500 - at least 8 years ago (perhaps longer?).

I just rounded the figures, being more pedanting as you demand, I shall say 21,500-27,000.

Although in other thread I found the following:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=441634&page=2"

Here are the twenty worst paying college degrees.

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/saving-m...0-worst-paying-college-degrees-in-2010/2618/"

Oh geez. How did I know Education had to be in there.

And if it's Catholic school, I assure you that the starting salary is $10k-$20k less than mentioned.

Also, did changing states have something to do with the pay raise (NJ to NY)?

Maybe or maybe not. I do not know.It is better to ask people who worked as teachers in different states. FrancisZ said that it was due to unions. Maybe in New York teachers are better unionized than in New Jersey that is why there is such a difference.

Last, just out of curiosity - why is she now subbing at $75 per day? Did she retire - now engaged in "double-dipping"?

First, I think it is he, not she. But I do not know answer to your question. Hopefully, FrancisZ reads the treads and can explain to us more about teacher's life.

Edit: I do not think FrancisZ is retired. According to his profile he is 30 years old. So I do not think it is "double-dipping".

 

[ParticleGrl]

I'd like to point out again, in case it has been missed- the state is not facing a short fall, it is projected to end the year with a balance:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf

The state entered into an collective bargaining agreement, and rather than honor the terms of the contract, it wants to ban the union from collective bargaining and ignore the contract. I think this sets a terrible precedent.

 

[WhoWee]

I'd like to point out again, in case it has been missed- the state is not facing a short fall, it is projected to end the year with a balance:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf

The state entered into an collective bargaining agreement, and rather than honor the terms of the contract, it wants to ban the union from collective bargaining and ignore the contract. I think this sets a terrible precedent.

At first glance, I'm not certain if this is included in the budget or not?

"Patients Compensation Fund. On July 20, 2010, the State Supreme Court ruled that the
state cannot transfer monies out of the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund (Fund).
In the 2007-09 state budget, $200 million was transferred from the Fund to advantage the general
fund. The Court remanded the case to the circuit court with directions that the $200 million,
with lost earnings and interest, be placed in the Fund. To date, the circuit court has not
established an amount or date of payment.
A status conference was scheduled to be held on January 24, 2011, regarding progress of
the parties in coming to an agreement in calculating earnings and attorney fees pertaining to the
Fund transfer. That conference was canceled and has been rescheduled for March 21, 2011.
Pending the outcome of the court directive, the state may be required to return some, or all, of
the court-ordered amount to the Fund in 2010-11."

 

[Janus]

The double dipping is also a major problem in our area - with teachers. They retire and receive about 80% of their former wage - then are rehired at the starting wage (about $28,000).

And this is bad, Why?

I mean, would you object if they went to work for someone else after retirement just as long as it wasn't their original employer?

The district gets a experienced teacher for the price that they would have had to pay to replace them with a new teacher anyway. As long as a new position isn't created for them, the district comes out ahead.

And is that with or without fringe benefits? I know that in my area, if you were to get rehired, it would be without fringe. Of course here, you would also be limited to working 1080 hr/yr without it affecting your pension.

What a lot of teachers do is retire as of Dec 31, and then work out the rest of the school year. Then when the next calendar year starts, they might work as a substitute teacher.

 

[WhoWee]

And this is bad, Why?

I mean, would you object if they went to work for someone else after retirement just as long as it wasn't their original employer?

The district gets a experienced teacher for the price that they would have had to pay to replace them with a new teacher anyway. As long as a new position isn't created for them, the district comes out ahead.

And is that with or without fringe benefits? I know that in my area, if you were to get rehired, it would be without fringe. Of course here, you would also be limited to working 1080 hr/yr without it affecting your pension.

What a lot of teachers do is retire as of Dec 31, and then work out the rest of the school year. Then when the next calendar year starts, they might work as a substitute teacher.

Shouldn't retired people - retire?

Our unemployment rate is about 9% - quite a few are teachers forced to take part time work in trade schools and community colleges (no benefits) or as subs (and many of the sub jobs are being filled by retirees).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Something else that hasn't been brought up is that the police, fireman and lawmaker's are exempt from this bill.

 

[nismaratwork]

Something else that hasn't been brought up is that the police, fireman and lawmaker's are exempt from this bill.

Well... sure... the first is an industry, the second are generally considered heros, and third are making the bill.

Seems like a built-in argument for collective bargaining.

 

[WhoWee]

Well... sure... the first is an industry, the second are generally considered heros, and third are making the bill.

Seems like a built-in argument for collective bargaining.

SOME of the third - the rest are in hiding.

 

[nismaratwork]

SOME of the third - the rest are in hiding.

Yeah, it's a pretty typical thing in politics; the party out of power always deplores the usage of rules. Which party never seems to matter... which is telling.

 

[WhoWee]

Let's label this opinion - and humor - is it any wonder the states in yellow (Great Lakes and CA specifically) have economic problems?

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

 

[ParticleGrl]

Let's label this opinion - and humor - is it any wonder the states in yellow (Great Lakes and CA specifically) have economic problems?

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

It looks to me like pretty much a wash. Yea, California has a economic problems, but so does Arizona, etc. Keep in mind, 44 states are facing budget shortfalls. This isn't a problem related to unions.

 

[vici10]

Below is a link for some pictures of demonstration in Wisconsin
http://lbo-news.com/2011/02/16/wisconsin-erupts/"
http://lbo-news.com/2011/02/18/more-wisconsin/"

 

[WhoWee]

Below is a link for some pictures of demonstration in Wisconsin
http://lbo-news.com/2011/02/16/wisconsin-erupts/"
http://lbo-news.com/2011/02/18/more-wisconsin/"

Here's a fun video...please label (IMO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=71gsnLfsbbM

 

[WhoWee]

I'm wondering if the school districts are responsible for the safety of the students that were organized by the (non-striking - just "sick" teachers)? Any legal experts want to give an opinion?

 

[Janus]

Shouldn't retired people - retire?

Our unemployment rate is about 9% - quite a few are teachers forced to take part time work in trade schools and community colleges (no benefits) or as subs (and many of the sub jobs are being filled by retirees).

You're assuming that those teachers who "retire" and then continue to work wouldn't have just kept working if the first option were not available to them. In my state, the teacher's pension is basically figured upon how long they have worked and how long they are expected to live after they retire. So if a teacher were not allowed to work after retiring, they would be more likely to work past the point were they could retire in order to pad their pension for when they are no longer able to work.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Something else that hasn't been brought up is that the police, fireman and lawmaker's are exempt from this bill.

That's different- AFAIK, Ohio is not exempting emergency workers.

 

[WhoWee]

You're assuming that those teachers who "retire" and then continue to work wouldn't have just kept working if the first option were not available to them. In my state, the teacher's pension is basically figured upon how long they have worked and how long they are expected to live after they retire. So if a teacher were not allowed to work after retiring, they would be more likely to work past the point were they could retire in order to pad their pension for when they are no longer able to work.

If they weren't ready to retire - why would they retire and be rehired as a teacher - other than to "double dip"?

 

[Andy Resnick]

And this is bad, Why?

I mean, would you object if they went to work for someone else after retirement just as long as it wasn't their original employer?

<snip>

Double-dipping is a problem. The typical situation I dealt with was a government employee would retire ASAP (say, 55), and start to draw retirement benefits. Then, they would cross the street and be hired by a contracting firm because the 'retiree' still had knowledge and contacts to provide a competitive advantage in the bidding process. Thus, the 'retiree' was drawing retirement salary (and other accrued benefits) even though they were not retired, in addition to their contractor salary.

 

[WhoWee]

I wonder how long the WI legislators can hide outside the state - before a special election could be called to replace them or appointments could be made? Also, shouldn't their pay and benefits be suspended - along with all expense reimbursements? Why should WI taxpayers have to pay for their childish (and irresponsible) behavior?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The circus has just begun!

On the first floor of the Capitol rotunda, Democratic activist Jesse Jackson was cheered by the crowd Friday at noon. Surrounded by people on all sides and peering down at the ground floor from the upper-level railing, Jackson addressed the crowd with a bullhorn and most of his speech could not be heard clearly. But he lead the throng in chants of "we're not going away" and "kill the bill" and in singing the civil-rights era standard "We shall overcome."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116470423.html

 

[WhoWee]

The circus has just begun!

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116470423.html

I don't think Jesse Jackson singing civil rights era songs - in support of people who don't want to contribute to their own pensions and healthcare costs - is going to work this time.

This, together with the activities of the DNC, smacks of desperation.

 

[russ_watters]

Why not?

Because I didn't struggle my way through an engineering degree instead of partying my way through a communications degree just to become a teacher!

Teachers usually start working at 7 am though; and also usually go well passed 3 o'clock.

That's said as if it is supposed to be impressive. Assuming a half-hour lunch, 3:30 would be 8 hours. In order to work a basic 40-hour full-time job in 9 months, teachers would have to work roughly from 7 to 6 every day (10.5 hours). I won't complain about working more because I get paid for overtime, but an awful lot of people work more than 40 hours in a typical week and don't get paid overtime.

Regarding your pay data, it's way too low to be representative. In NJ, starting average is $38,000 and average average is $58,000. Both of those are top 5 in the country, though: http://teacherportal.com/salary/New-Jersey-teacher-salary

However, given that they only work about 9 months a year, that's more like $50,000 and $77,000 a year.

I'm alo pretty sure that's just base pay - it doesn't include benefits, which are much better than in most other jobs. Not to mention near-absolute job security...

 

[russ_watters]

And this is bad, Why?

As said, it's double-dipping.

I mean, would you object if they went to work for someone else after retirement just as long as it wasn't their original employer?

No.

The district gets a experienced teacher for the price that they would have had to pay to replace them with a new teacher anyway. As long as a new position isn't created for them, the district comes out ahead.

That's only true if you don't include the pension! It's a loophole that allows them to get paid more than if they hadn't taken advantage of the program and the taxpayers pay for it.

You're assuming that those teachers who "retire" and then continue to work wouldn't have just kept working if the first option were not available to them.

No, that's exactly the point: those who take advantage of the program probably would not have retired if this program wasn't available to them. This is a way to game the system for extra money paid for by the taxpayers.

In my state, the teacher's pension is basically figured upon how long they have worked and how long they are expected to live after they retire. So if a teacher were not allowed to work after retiring, they would be more likely to work past the point were they could retire in order to pad their pension for when they are no longer able to work.

Agreed. So they'd be paid less and pay-in to the pension more for the same work, right?

But at least they only get rehired at the starting salary in your example. I'm not sure that's always the case. Regardless, in some places like for generic city workers (including councilmembers) in Philly, it costs the city hundreds of millions of dollars in extra pay ($258 million over 10 years):
http://articles.philly.com/2010-08-05/news/24973521_1_pension-costs-pension-plan-city-paper

 

[WhoWee]

Because I didn't struggle my way through an engineering degree instead of partying my way through a communications degree just to become a teacher! That's said as if it is supposed to be impressive. Assuming a half-hour lunch, 3:30 would be 8 hours. In order to work a basic 40-hour full-time job in 9 months, teachers would have to work roughly from 7 to 6 every day (10.5 hours). I won't complain about working more because I get paid for overtime, but an awful lot of people work more than 40 hours in a typical week and don't get paid overtime.

Regarding your pay data, it's way too low to be representative. In NJ, starting average is $38,000 and average average is $58,000. Both of those are top 5 in the country, though: http://teacherportal.com/salary/New-Jersey-teacher-salary

However, given that they only work about 9 months a year, that's more like $50,000 and $77,000 a year.

I'm alo pretty sure that's just base pay - it doesn't include benefits, which are much better than in most other jobs. Not to mention near-absolute job security...

Perhaps this will put the Wisconsin situation into perspective:

http://www.teacher-world.com/teacher-salary/wisconsin.html

"Wisconsin Teaching Salaries and Benefits
People often believe that teachers don't make a lot of money. Those in the know, though, are aware that compensation in the education industry can be quite generous, especially when you factor in the great vacation schedule and the comprehensive benefits packages that usually go along with teaching. In Wisconsin, teaching salaries averaged $52,644 in 2009-10, according to the National Education Association, with most school districts offering benefits that range from health insurance to retirement plans. (1)"

 

[vici10]

Because I didn't struggle my way through an engineering degree instead of partying my way through a communications degree just to become a teacher!

You would not believe, but not all teachers partied though communications degree , many have science degrees (physics, mathematics, etc). FrancisZ has degree in physics.

Regarding your pay data, it's way too low to be representative. In NJ, starting average is $38,000 and average average is $58,000. Both of those are top 5 in the country, though: http://teacherportal.com/salary/New-Jersey-teacher-salary

Regarding your data, I guess it includes schools with unions, i.e public schools. My quote in previous post was for catolic schools without unions. So if unions for public schools will be baned then I guess salaries for teachers will drop to the range of 20,000-30,000 without summer paid and without benefits as it is now in schools without unions.
But I guess, it does not bother you, since it seems you think that engeneers superior to teachers.

 

[WhoWee]

This is a link to the Wisconsin Dept of Employee Trust Funds (etf)

http://etf.wi.gov/news/ht_20110211a.htm

From the site
"Department of Employee Trust Funds

Updated on February 17, 2011


State Budget Bill
The Department of Employee Trust Funds (ETF) has received numerous inquiries about the state 2009-2011 Budget Repair Bill (2011 Special Session Senate Bill 11) and the impact of the bill on the public employee benefit programs administered by ETF. "


http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf

 

[Amp1]

Well to throw in me 2 cents, the National Labor Relations Act (1935) - Also called the Wagner Act; gave employees the right to collectively bargain with employers through elected union representatives. Although I don't know the specifics in this case, I do know the US is moving away from industrial/manufacturing towards more service oriented employment. This in turn is one of the reasons unions are declining. Also, it may be unconstitutional to strike out collective bargaining for unionized employees via State authority.

Wagner Act:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act

 

[nismaratwork]

The circus has just begun!



http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116470423.html

No... The circus NEVER ENDS, it just changes rings back and forth.

Russ: You struggled through an engineering degree, instead of partying... Well, it's good to know that the world is binary. It seems fortunate that at some point somebody took a different view, unless your knowledge is "parthenogenetic".

I'd add... $258 million USD over 10 years... and? How does the existence of beaureapathologies in government (shocker) in any way support the argument to dissolve unions and double pension contributions?

As for job security... it would seem that comes as a result of... collective bargaining. That is unless what you're seeing now counts as job security, in which case I envy your sense of fun and a lack of care for the future.

 

[ParticleGrl]

It's a loophole that allows them to get paid more than if they hadn't taken advantage of the program and the taxpayers pay for it. No, that's exactly the point: those who take advantage of the program probably would not have retired if this program wasn't available to them.

It might actually save money, its not so clear. In the district where I used to substitute, a retired teacher drawing on a pension who returns to work is not elegible for benefits. Does the extra money they make off the pension offset the cost the state no longer has to pay in benefits? It probably depends on the situation.

Regardless, in some places like for generic city workers (including councilmembers) in Philly, it costs the city hundreds of millions of dollars in extra pay ($258 million over 10 years):
http://articles.philly.com/2010-08-05/news/24973521_1_pension-costs-pension-plan-city-paper

I'm not sure what the DROP program actually is- it appears to be some additional measure on top of normal pensions?

Because I didn't struggle my way through an engineering degree instead of partying my way through a communications degree just to become a teacher!

There you have it- teaching is a low prestige occupation, that isn't particularly well compensated. And its hard- hard enough that the attrition rate is insane. Something like 50% quit within 5 years. Most don't seem to want the job, but somehow feel that the average teacher is a greedy lack-wit suckling at the government's teat.

The fact is, the unions were granted contracts from the state. Its possible the state cannot honor its end due to the recession- so the answer is to renegotiate.

 

[CAC1001]

I have heard some say they are trying to make Wisconsin a Right-to-Work state with this, but then folks are saying they are trying to end the ability of the union to do collective bargaiing...? Wouldn't the two be different? Because unions can exist in Right-to-Work states, its just an employee is not mandated to have to join the union (I think).

 

[Janus]

No. That's only true if you don't include the pension! It's a loophole that allows them to get paid more than if they hadn't taken advantage of the program and the taxpayers pay for it.

The pension is paid from money the employee contributed to the pension fund, money the employer paid in and any interest the money earned while in the fund. So this is money already owed. It will be paid to the employee whether he retires now or ten years from now. So the taxpayer is not out any extra money.

At least here,( I can't speak for other public pension programs) it works like this:
The employee is given the choice of taking his pension as one lump sum or getting a monthly pension.

The monthly pension generally is figured from how much money the employee has in his fund and how long he is expected to live. The earlier he retires, the smaller his monthly pension. It is gauged so that the money should last out the rest of his natural life. The only way it costs the taxpayer more than the money already in his fund is if he lives longer than average life expectancy. But there are going to be those that fail to live their full expectancy, so the money not paid to them offsets this. So in essence, it is already the employee's money.
Besides, that, if the employee retires he will be paid his pension whether he continues to work or not. As long as the position he continues to work in would have been filled anyway at an equal amount of pay, The taxpayer isn't out any extra money.

No, that's exactly the point: those who take advantage of the program probably would not have retired if this program wasn't available to them. This is a way to game the system for extra money paid for by the taxpayers.

Again, At least in the case in my state's public pension, this doesn't cost the taxpayer anything more than he would have paid otherwise.

Agreed. So they'd be paid less and pay-in to the pension more for the same work, right?

No, since they paid in more, their pension account would be larger, and since by their calculated life expectancy, they would live fewer years after retiring, Their monthly pension would increase accordingly.
In fact, since the employer would have to contribute to the pension fund while the employee continued to work without retiring, it would cost the taxpayer more for him to work till 65 and then retire than for him to retire at 55, and work post retirement at the same salary, assuming he lives out his expected lifespan.

 

[WhoWee]

The pension is paid from money the employee contributed to the pension fund, money the employer paid in and any interest the money earned while in the fund. So this is money already owed. It will be paid to the employee whether he retires now or ten years from now. So the taxpayer is not out any extra money.

At least here,( I can't speak for other public pension programs) it works like this:
The employee is given the choice of taking his pension as one lump sum or getting a monthly pension.

The monthly pension generally is figured from how much money the employee has in his fund and how long he is expected to live. The earlier he retires, the smaller his monthly pension. It is gauged so that the money should last out the rest of his natural life. The only way it costs the taxpayer more than the money already in his fund is if he lives longer than average life expectancy. But there are going to be those that fail to live their full expectancy, so the money not paid to them offsets this. So in essence, it is already the employee's money.
Besides, that, if the employee retires he will be paid his pension whether he continues to work or not. As long as the position he continues to work in would have been filled anyway at an equal amount of pay, The taxpayer isn't out any extra money.
Again, At least in the case in my state's public pension, this doesn't cost the taxpayer anything more than he would have paid otherwise. No, since they paid in more, their pension account would be larger, and since by their calculated life expectancy, they would live fewer years after retiring, Their monthly pension would increase accordingly.
In fact, since the employer would have to contribute to the pension fund while the employee continued to work without retiring, it would cost the taxpayer more for him to work till 65 and then retire than for him to retire at 55, and work post retirement at the same salary, assuming he lives out his expected lifespan.

Apparently, they've known for almost a year that pensions needed to be addressed. I don't think the 5.5% the Governor wants them to contribute is unreasonable - as you said - it's their money.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/90768644.html

"Wisconsin pension funding for teachers falls $10.9 billion short, report says
e-mail print By Amy Hetzner of the Journal Sentinel
April 13, 2010"

 

[ParticleGrl]

Apparently, they've known for almost a year that pensions needed to be addressed. I don't think the 5.5% the Governor wants them to contribute is unreasonable - as you said - it's their money.

Then he should approach it reasonably- renegotiate the contract. Hamstringing the collective bargaining rights is ridiculous.

 

[Containment]

Meh so how long will they be willing to protest for? Why couldn't this type of thing happen when I was in school :/ A good couple weeks off of school a chance to cause a riot and tons of girls all in one place what more could a teen ask for?

Actually I bet births especially in teen aged girls are way up 9 months from now in that town.

 

[FrancisZ]

Your data does not match your conclusion. The lowest amount I see is $21,500 - at least 8 years ago (perhaps longer?). Also, did changing states have something to do with the pay raise (NJ to NY)? Last, just out of curiosity - why is she now subbing at $75 per day? Did she retire - now engaged in "double-dipping"?

Yes. That was my salary 8 years ago; for 10 months of work. We were not provided the alternative of dividing the same compensation over 12 months instead (there was no union in that Diocese). So I was basically laid off for two months, and had no choice but to look for another job in the mean time, to get through the summer. It was frequently difficult.

The salary increase I experienced WAS as a consequence, yes, of joining an available union elsewhere. Where I had previously worked, there simply none. NY and NJ Catholic schools that ARE unionized though, DO have compatible pay scales and medical coverage.

I am subbing at $75/day again, because my last full time teaching position ended last May, after the lady I had been subbing full time for (that entire year almost) returned after milking the system. I am presently having difficulty finding full time work.

Prior to that job, I had moved from NJ to NY looking for employment. However, since they have different requirements for teaching employment/certification--and DO NOT accept licensing or certification from even a neighboring state--I have literally had to start from scratch.

The double dipping is also a major problem in our area - with teachers. They retire and receive about 80% of their former wage - then are rehired at the starting wage (about $28,000).

I AGREE that once a person officially retires from a public service position, that they should NOT be allowed to return to work in that position, and collect a second check from the same source. That's flagrantly abusing the system (and is unethical), even if it is legal there.

However, if a person wishes to retire from public education, and then takes a position from the private sector (maybe say, teaching in Catholic school for $25K); I don't believe that is corrupt. That seems like a good financial plan, actually; even if it is a crummy twilight--to work and save until you aren't physically able anymore.

Its worth noting that Wisconsin was not facing a budget shortfall, and is not in need of austerity measures:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...udget-shortfall-to-undercut-worker-rights.php

That was an item on The Ed Show on MSNBC recently also.

If the state government of Wisconsin is in fact in the black, as suggested by Ed's research; then I'll bet that their governor is probably projecting (without admitting to it) that they WOULD have a deficit--only after he's done diminishing or eliminating altogether, taxes on business and industry.

Realistically: industry and big business probably got the governor elected; and so he's going to have to "make good" on whatever financial promises he made to them; even by throwing something else out of whack (namely: public employee pensions and benefits programs). Unions generally support Democrats, and not Republicans; so those people aren't his constituents anyway, in his view.

What never ceases to make me laugh though: is that politicians across the country--while they keep "making these difficult cuts in the name of fiscal responsibility"--they never seem to count themselves also as being a part of "public service employees" or "city workers" or "state workers." And yet, they certainly receive benefits better than anyone else who works in the public sector. It just seems like most politicians do not lead by the example of personal belt tightening.

I hear so much of that and other related things, it is hard for me to feel sympathy for teachers. I've heard them say they work long hours, yet few ever work more than 45 hours a week and have all summer off (most I know work summer jobs!).

Some people are lazy. It really doesn't matter what industry we're talking about.

I have honestly worked long hours regularly though (and almost always weekends); usually (while at work) between 10-12 hours a day during the work week (4-5 additional at home on Saturday or Sunday). And I have--exactly once in my career, as a teacher--gotten paid through the summer time.

If you DO have a union, generally they will fight to get you these options: (1) dividing your salary over 10 months, so you take home more per check (and adding to the illusion that you actually get paid well); or (2) taking less per check, but over the comfort of 12 months instead. It's the same salary you agreed to by contract. I've wished I could have been paid by the hour in some instances.

The sane thing to do is to stretch it out though, so you can survive (in case you can't find a job). But usually, if you do find work over the summer though, it'll be at Home Depot or something outside of teaching, that doesn't pay but minimum wage; or at least close to it.

I've heard complaints about it taking a long time to get tenure (5 years!) mixed with complaints about the poor performance of older, burned-out teachers. Teaching really is a pretty sweet deal and in a poor economy, even sweet deals need to be on the cutting table.

It's hard to say that, I would think, unless you've actually done it yourself. I've worked in Jersey City, as well as the St. George's section of Staten Island, NY (which is kind of a misnomer if you ask me--hardly anything saintly about the place some days). You are actually in danger of getting killed in some place in NY and NJ. School feels a lot like jail for kids (only they really didn't do anything). It's a bad vibe for everyone.

And even when you are not worrying about life and death, you're worried about getting so frustrated at the common indifference, the unfairness, and the cruelty you experience so regularly, that you'll break down and yell at some kid (or worse) and get fired.

I consider it a form of social work though; and that is honestly why I've always done it.

Ultimately, our job is to try to provide stability somehow, for generations of people maybe without any at home. And that isn't easy, when you aren't family to start with. You have to their build trust (maybe a 100 people a day). Students are not adults however; and they are not getting paid to be there at all. To be there simply for "their own good" is not enough of a reason to cooperate. And then remember also, that you have to try to convince them to listen to you about whatever subject you teach; and when probably, it's the furthest thing from their own minds. They may be wondering, after all, about getting jumped, raped, shot, stabbed, mugged or whatever have you, themselves.

City workers, I agree though, should have equal benefits and pay scales, and pensions, and retirement rules across EVERY branch of city services. I don't think I'm better than a sanitation worker, a cop, or a firemen.

I will say one legitimate complaint is the continuing education requirements. They're basically required to get phd's for the sake of getting phd's.

It depends on the State. NJ for example, doesn't require an actual Masters in Education (although they strongly encourage it). They demand instead that you get certification; and what that entails is taking maybe 3 less grad classes than the typical Master program; and then to a pass a Praxis exam for whatever your subject area. There is no Bachelors degree in Education in NJ--you get your Bachelors in whatever subject area you want. I actually went to school for Physics.The unfortunate thing IS the expense though. I have been struggling all along: partly because I already have incurred undergraduate debts; partly because I help support my mother, sisters, and nephew; and partly because my salary has been so bad at times (even while working full time, very long hours), that I can't afford my grad classes to get either my Masters or Certification even. That's honestly why I left NJ. But then there's the commute--driving 60 miles away, through NYC traffic, at 6 AM, to get to work by 8 AM, where daily I am then confronted with the task of informing people who frankly don't want to know anything about Math.

Actually, it's a pretty thankless job, most of the time. And I've kept doing it, only because I've had this delusion that somehow I was actually helping people climb out of their own socio-economic tradition.

To tell the truth: I'm looking to leave it now though, teaching. I swear to you: I honestly cannot afford to live anymore, doing it. It is NOT an economically viable career path, the way it is HERE, at least, in NY and NJ.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/02/03/2011-02-03_mikes_reform_plan__no_pension_till_65.html

I ask: what's the life expectancy of a sanitation worker (or other city worker) anyway? I can't imagine it's too high wading through NYC refuse for 20-30 years.

With the way things are going with Union busting of late (in New York and New Jersey in particular), I really don't feel optimistic about the future. I really DON'T BELIEVE there will be either a pension, or social security for me, by the time I am 65.

And the way people talk about things like that: you'd think it was the most alien concept to America. I mean they might as well be saying: "Pension plan? That's sooo 20th century."

My family pretty much thinks I'm nuts anyway. They look at me and say: so you're the guy who went to college--got your Bachelors degree in Physics--and now you want to work for minimum wage in Catholic school.

I have to admit: that certainly does sounds pretty stupid.

They get paid extra for it, but it doesn't really add much value imo. So if they drop the continuing ed requirements, they could save money and save the headache for the teachers.

I don't get paid to advance myself--that would be nice though. I wish someone would pay for my Masters at least (being it's required in some places to get and/or keep the job to begin with).

I wouldn't either, but it is also more because I can't stand other people's kids and actually like engineering, not because of the salary and benefits...though my income potential is better as an engineer. My teacher-friends acknowledge that engineering is more difficult than teaching, though.

It might be more difficult for them, if they are naturally intimidated by Science or Math.