I just looked up the salaries of my former public high school teachers. Seriously WTF!!!!

Here are the hard, cold facts in explicit detail for both public and private teachers.

3,139,200 public teachers

Average school-year and summer earned income from school and non-school sources - $56,410

Average base salary - $53,070

368,400 private teachers

Average school-year and summer earned income from school and non-school sources - $44,130

Average base salary - $40,540

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_211.10.asp

UnionYes wrote:

How is allowing some to not pay dues and reap the benefits of collective bargaining not free riding?

How is forcing someone to pay dues to an organization NOT a violation of their first amendment right to free association?

This should clear things up for you a bit. Unions push the Democrat's liberal agenda. What if part of your job requirement was that you had to pay dues to an organization that supported Republicans,Tea Party groups, and other conservative causes you disagreed with passionately? Would you think that was fair?

I would rather take a pay cut than join an organization that behaves like the teacher's unions. Read Walkers "Unintimidated" to get an idea what I'm talking about.

They're not paying dues. They're paying an agency fee. This was already explained to you above.

In the dissent to the Harris v. Quinn decision: Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977), answers the question presented in this case. Abood held that a government entity may, consistently with the First Amendment, require public employees to pay a fair share of the cost that a union incurs negotiating on their behalf for better terms of employment.

Right so people who choose they do not want to be members pay what are called fair share costs because they reap the benefits of collective bargaining. That should clear things up for you. How in the world should people be allowed to benefit from a union contract they do not put in for? Your solution- let people decide whether or not they pay dues. The result- no union and the employer now sets the terms of employment not the workers. This then causes wages, benefits and job security to weaken.

You also realize that things are done by the majority within a union. Members interview candidates and vote whether or not to endorse someone. If they vote to endorse at 70%, or whatever it might be, then of course some people will not be voting for the endorsed candidate. That is how a democracy works. Nobody is being forced to vote for someone they do not agree with. Further, there are separate means to give political contributions to your union. One is not required to give to political causes. Again, look at all that choice. Unions are democratically set up by their membership and collectively bargain for their contracts to have a choice in the terms of their employment. By taking away fair share costs, the institution weakens and will eventually go away, because, believe it or not, unions are funded by their membership and have staff who work for the membership. An institution set up by workers for workers! Yes, but let's give the power back to the employer because I do not want to contribute to an organization that works for me but I still want pay, benefits and job security.

HRE wrote:

Naturally teachers are not going to get upwards of $200k a year. The point is that it's expensive just to have people watch your kids let alone do something productive with them while they're doing it. I don't think a very low six figure salary for someone with a masters degree and upwards of twenty years experience in an affluent community is "overpaid" at all.

And school districts WANT their experienced teachers to retire and to replace them with less experienced ones. Experienced teachers are at the top of the salary scale often making around twice what newer teachers make. As my dad and his contemporaries were nearing the thirty year marks of their careers the school district did everything possible to make their jobs unpleasant so their salaries would go off the books.

You understand the perverse incentives of a warped pay scale, and you still defend it? This is exactly what happens - the administration is happy to get a competent 30+ year teacher out the door so they can hire two kids out of college at almost the same price. In some cases, that's a plus for the school when you've got your time card puncher moving on, but at age 55, a good teacher is usually at their peak, with another solid block of excellent teaching years in front of them.

In Illinois, if Hinsdale Central, in one of the wealthier residential areas in the country, chooses to pay someone with 15- 20 years experience 120-130,000 a year, that is only a little bit of a stretch. If you lived in Hinsdale, you could choose to pay property taxes that run to and past dozens of thousands of dollars a year. That's a local choice that might make sense for that community.

But ALL Illinois taxpayers will be on the hook for that teacher's six figure pension, likely for two or three decades. The teacher paid in some, the government paid in some, but neither paid anywhere near what is needed to make the pension sound. Blame whatever party you'd like - the teachers' unions, the teachers, the local administrators, the state government - but they all like to play the Illinois pastime of kick the can down the road. The current system is great for the teachers, great for the teachers' unions, great for the Democrat Party which is kicked back huge sums in campaign contributions, but it's not great for anyone paying taxes.

This problem has been recognized for years, but since it is a short term advantage to the political powers that be that nothing be done, the status quo remains. We're around 100 BILLION dollars in the hole, and the number is rising quickly. The state could try to tax the wealthy and the corporations at French type punitive rates, but only the most partisan liberal would believe that a mass outflow of capital from Illinois would not result. Already, Illinois is one of the leaders in population outflow. The union stranglehold is a primary reason, and the teachers' unions are one of the most powerful political entities in Illinois.

A question to those who live in Illinois ... do teachers pay into the pension system? As I stated a couple pages back, here in CT we pay 7%.

A solution to the problem would be to increase teachers contribution, and leverage that against a pension reduction. It worked in Wisconsin (I think).

I'm a teacher, so I would defend my pension (I've been paying into it for 26 years), but I completely understand why a taxpayer would balk at paying large sums. Someone who doesn't see both sides is not choosing to be a problem solver.

So what is it? How much do Illinois teachers contribute? Up that sum .....

You're not getting rid of pensions IF you want a government whose citizens can trust it, it's an ethical conundrum .....

Better a union stranglehold than the corporate stranglehold you've got now. If the teacher's union were really as powerful as you claim they could get Illinois to raise corporate taxes and deal with the pension business.

HRE wrote:

I never really understand why it upsets some people when they find out that someone else has figured out a way to earn a decent living. If you think it's such a racket why not become a public school teacher yourself or at least learn from them and use their approach to get a better deal for yourself?

Teachers don't bother me, as they aren't making much money. Other public employees however....yikes.

SomeCoach wrote:

A question to those who live in Illinois ... do teachers pay into the pension system? As I stated a couple pages back, here in CT we pay 7%.

A solution to the problem would be to increase teachers contribution, and leverage that against a pension reduction. It worked in Wisconsin (I think).

I'm a teacher, so I would defend my pension (I've been paying into it for 26 years), but I completely understand why a taxpayer would balk at paying large sums. Someone who doesn't see both sides is not choosing to be a problem solver.

So what is it? How much do Illinois teachers contribute? Up that sum .....

You're not getting rid of pensions IF you want a government whose citizens can trust it, it's an ethical conundrum .....

Last time I checked the pension fund was at 40% of the needed amount for solvency. Teachers "pay" in about 8% right now, so in rough number they would have to up that amount to 20% to get things on track. But since local communities are effectively paying the 8% already, the taxpayer would end up paying the 20%, raising property taxes, and continuing the process of converting property values into pension payments.

The problem is not the funding mechanism, it's the unsustainable promises.

Do you really trust politicians to keep your retirement money safe and responsibly invested?

Comedian: "Boy do I have a bad investment banker."

Audience: "HOW BAD WAS HE!?"

Comedian: "He recommended that I give my life savings to a politician for safe keeping!"

Audience: "NOOOOOOO!"

But I do believe that you "trust" the government to pay your pension. The only way to guarantee certain benefits in an uncertain world is if you force someone else the to pay for any shortfalls. So what you are really saying is that you "trust" the government to put a gun to my head and make me pay for all the unsustainable promises and mismanaged funds that you benefit from.

I hope you understand why I have no trust in government when it comes to managing retirement funds.

HRE wrote:

Better a union stranglehold than the corporate stranglehold you've got now. If the teacher's union were really as powerful as you claim they could get Illinois to raise corporate taxes and deal with the pension business.

You're obviously not from Illinois. You think the game is on the level.

There is a Democrat supermajority in the legislature. Any piece of legislation that comes up must be approved by Mike Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House and Democrat Party chair. The section of the constitution of Illinois that says that pensions can neither be "diminished or impaired" cannot be changed without his support, and the unions will only let him go so far. The teachers' unions have been adamant in their opposition.

It's always tough to watch people ignore large numbers because it's easier to just keep plodding along the same path... until the inevitable finally occurs. ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS cannot be paid for in taxes by a state like Illinois. The federal government plays that game because they can print more money. A state cannot. Illinois must change the funding formula for pensions, and the longer they wait, the more painful it will be for everyone, including those promised those pensions.

The "corporate stranglehold" is something other than most outsiders expect. The big money movers and shakers provide funds to the Democrat machine right along with the unions. They are allowed to get their beaks wet with special perks and state money if they don't criticize the machine and they kick back money when expected "for campaign donations."

In Cook County, it's not even worth throwing money at the Republicans, although if we do one thing well, it's to spread taxpayer dollars around to a wide range of political interests and politicians. There are elements of the Illinois Republican Party that are almost as venal and self-serving as the Democrat Party. It just doesn't get the chance to be as corrupt these days because they have so little political power state wide. Still, the teachers' unions will occasionally toss money a Republican's way, but they usually save the big manpower pushes for the tight races that Madigan feels he has to win.

Post election, it is expected that all votes keep the gravy train rolling. Madigan and almost every money guy in the state knows that the train wreck is coming, but they aren't motivated enough to stand up to the unions, yet.

It's always tough to watch people ignore large numbers because it's easier to just keep plodding along the same path... until the inevitable finally occurs. ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS cannot be paid for in taxes by a state like Illinois.

Anyone outside Illinois who thinks this doesn't effect them better think again. That "inevitable occurrence" Mr. Jailed Governor is talking about is ... wait for it ... a bail out from the federal government.

Yeah. That's right. Our Chicago connections will get us bailed out with your money. After all the fed pumps 85 billion per month into the stock market. What's another $100 billion to the wizards at the Fed with the magic money that never runs out?

$100 billion / $18 trillion = 0.5% of the national debt to save Illinois teacher's pensions. That's a steal, literally.

Someone tell me why I should worry about fixing our problems in Illinois when it would be so easy and painless to fund our liabilities from the federal trough? What could go wrong?

I'm not from Illinois but pensions not being able to be "diminish or impaired" sounds right to me. A deal is a deal.

Then why didn't the Feds bail out Detroit?

Vern wrote:

Then why didn't the Feds bail out Detroit?

They done some of that. The auto bailout was actually used to save the unions' from having to renegotiate their pension plans in a bankruptcy court.

The best answer to your question is that Detroit wasn't "too big to fail". We here in Illinois are so reckless that we have created a problem that's waaaay too big to fail. That's right. We have an inverse meritocracy where the most incompetent are rewarded most richly. Is that a problem?

It's all magic federal money anyway. No one gets hurt. Why worry? Why do the right thing? Why save? Why work? Why plan?

I am starting to see the genius behind the liberals' Utopian dream. As long as federal magic money keeps flowing, we can all promise each other luxurious retirement benefits, stay on unemployment, get health care, eat, spend as much as we want. It's perfect equality for all. Shangri-La.

As long as the magic money keeps flowing the dream can be sustained..

It will always keep flowing, right? What could stop it?

What liberals are you talking about?

What liberals are you talking about?

SomeCoach wrote:

A question to those who live in Illinois ... do teachers pay into the pension system? As I stated a couple pages back, here in CT we pay 7%.

A solution to the problem would be to increase teachers contribution, and leverage that against a pension reduction. It worked in Wisconsin (I think).

I'm a teacher, so I would defend my pension (I've been paying into it for 26 years), but I completely understand why a taxpayer would balk at paying large sums. Someone who doesn't see both sides is not choosing to be a problem solver.

So what is it? How much do Illinois teachers contribute? Up that sum .....

You're not getting rid of pensions IF you want a government whose citizens can trust it, it's an ethical conundrum .....

Tier 1 is up to 9.4%. It was something like 8% a few years ago. Tier 2 (those entering into the fund after 2011) have the honor of paying that 9.4, plus another 2.4% to pay out the older workers' pension shortfall. And the younger teachers will also likely be forced into the Social Security system, because their benefits will be too low to allow them to be exempt.

Yes, that's right. The teachers did not have the Social Security 6.2% tax withheld from their paychecks because their benefits were generous enough for the public employees to be exempt. The older workers are not eligible for Social Security.

Some wild, irresponsible claims have been made that the Tier 2 increase will pay for the shortfall. In the next 30 years, that increase is projected to add up to around 7 billion. It will not come close, but it will make a younger teacher pay dearly for a pension that is miles away from the older teachers' pensions.

Illinois' unfunded liability is about $106 BILLION officially. Some of the most knowledgeable experts on the situation put the number at $250 billion, using more realistic investment return numbers. That's in a state with less than 13 million people.

Up that sum? Even if it rises to 15%, and it's hard to see the teachers' unions allowing that to happen, it won't come close to covering the shortfall. HRE, no credible plan exists involving budget cuts and tax increases to pay enough to cover the obligations.

Like most things the government touches, it's needlessly complicated, subject to outright lies and subject to corruption and fraud. The younger teachers will not have the golden extravagant pensions the older teachers have, and will pay much more for the privilege. The Illinois state budget will see public employee pension payments eat up even more than the existing 25% of the entire budget. A full 10% of the budget right now goes to teachers.

Young people foolish enough to remain in Illinois will have to pay staggering sums to allow older public employees to retire on their dime, and even then, it can only last a short while before the whole mismanaged mess blows up.

The financial slide gets worse every day reality is ignored.

TAA wrote:

They had had huge salaries compared to what I expected. Easily upper middle class in the extremely low COL area I'm in.

They get:

A great salary

Tons of time off

Only an 8 hour workday

2 months paid vacation

Great government benefits

WTF are these people always whining about???? I see protests on the news all the time about teachers wanted to get paid more. My town used to always have school levies on the ballot. This is nuts.

What kind of public school gets two months vacation? You get (in our school district) 2 weeks off at Christmas, one week off at Spring Break, and 12 weeks off in the summer. Look at a calendar. It is actually a couple days more than 12 weeks in our state.

Add in the Holidays that most of us get (if you work for the government or a big corp). Labor Day, 2 days at Thanksgiving, 2 weeks at Christmas, MLK Day 1/19/2015, President's Day, 1 week of Spring Break, Memorial Day.

What teachers work an 8 hour day? I have asked all my friends who are teachers and they say they DO NOT come in early. They get in there 4 minutes before class starts. For my HS that was 7:55 to 2:25 and they got a lunch period (:35) and a "planning period" (:50) every day. That is 6.5 hours from start to finish, not including the lunch, the breaks (:10 every hour) and the planning period. They did six :50 periods. One of which they didn't have to teach. Add that up.

In elementary school we started at 9:00 and ended at 3:15. Lunch was :45.

An eight hour day if you start at 8:00 would be getting out at 4:30 if you took a 30 min lunch. No teacher gets out at 4:30 every day. Once a year maybe.

If you are a coach as well, you may put in 8 hours of work a day, maybe 8.5 depending on hos you quantify it.

14-flat wrote: A bunch of stuff

They also have to write lesson plans, attend curriculum meetings, PTA meetings and grade tests/papers. Even for teachers who do half-assed jobs, those breaks don't come close to covering the time for that. Anyone who thinks a teacher's responsibilities only run from the start of their students' day to the end of it are moronic.

That said, it is substantially compensated by how much time off they get.

It clearly needs to be said again, if you think it's such a steal why aren't you doing it? Conversely if your current job situation is better then why on earth are you complaining about it?

To Gary Oldman who posted average salaries, I couldn't find median salaries in that link. Do you have access to that data? Means aren't really used for such data, and knowing that in most of the southern states the maximum base salary (i.e. teachers with 20+ years) is 50,000 or less, the median would be a much more telling statistic.