posted on November 14, 2005 09:38:18 AM
OH THOSE HORRIBLE TEACHERS! Wanting a HUGE 1 PER CENT raise!
WHAT socialists!
OMG!
DUH! Those TEACHERS are also PARENTS, people with families to support ! DUH!
People want their kid's well educated ?
Pay for good teaching!
Why should a person stay in teaching for lousy wages ?
Only fascists think low wages help improve an economy....DUH DUH DUH! DOPE!
posted on November 14, 2005 09:45:52 AM
Do you even have a job mingotree or does your husband let you stay home? People are free to work for whatever wage they want, don't like the wage, move on. But classic did bring up one good point strikers should be used for stem cell research, they are worth little else.
People choose what wages they will work for, no one forces them to take less than they think they can get. Minimum wage is a prime example. Do away with it and let the market decide the wages.
posted on November 14, 2005 11:04:33 AM
"Don't go on strike then.
School in Oregon is hiring replacements, so let them keep on walking right down to unemployment"
So Ron what kind of education do these "replacements" have???
Here in N.Y. you have to have a masters degree to teach.Do you know what it costs for education to even become a teacher? After my wife spent all kinds of money just to graduate from college-THEN she spent two years at L.I.U. to get her masters degree-it costs $400 for one credit-that was 12 years ago.Most courses are at least 3 credits-$1200 just for once class.Now your saying that 90 percent of the people in Oregon are against giving the teachers a measly 1 percent raise? Did you expect they were going to work for the same salary for the next 20 years? Please give me a break-you people out there need to get EDUCATED.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[ edited by classicrock000 on Nov 14, 2005 11:14 AM ]
posted on November 14, 2005 11:14:30 AM
mingotree it has to do with your knowledge or lack there of in the job world. If you have never held a job what background do you have to speak with some knowledge?
After all we have already covered previously that you have no clue what a facist is and just use the word indiscriminately
Opinions are nice though.
Classic, irregardless of how much education these teachers have or don't have, they agreed to work for a certain salary. The replacements must all have 4 year degrees and an Oregon teaching certificate.
Didn't say Oregon, just this particular school district. If they don't have the money how can they give them a raise classic?
Oh and what do you consider low wages mingotree? Even CEO's want more money and don't think they make enough.
Ron
[ edited by WashingtoneBayer on Nov 14, 2005 11:17 AM ]
posted on November 14, 2005 11:19:12 AM
"If they don't have the money how can they give them a raise classic?"
well if they cant even afford a 1% raise,they had better straighten out whos running the government.
"Oh and what do you consider low wages mingotree? Even CEO's want more money and don't think they make enough"
Ron were talking about a MEASLY 1% percent raise.CEO'S are making millions-completely different ballgame.CEOS are greedy little sh*ts..a 1 percent raise is hardly greedy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[ edited by classicrock000 on Nov 14, 2005 11:22 AM ]
posted on November 14, 2005 11:26:59 AM
On the other side classic people are saying, "these a$$holes go on strike for a measly 1%?"
You see it works both ways.
As I said 90% of the parents in the school district are against the teachers, I predict a long wait for the teachers.
posted on November 14, 2005 11:42:43 AM
Glad to have helped. You now seem to understand the parents ire at the strikers and their support of the school board. 1% is nothing and that is what they will be getting nothing.
posted on November 14, 2005 11:49:24 AM
Yes, Ron, I have never held a job, ..I was born independently wealthy and just come in here for kicks and giggles...the Polo Luncheon was called off today.
As usual you have things backwards...your ignorance of economics is as dismal as your knowledge of politics.
1% raise IS measly , that's WHY they want to strike...they strike for a more fitting wage...THEY are parents, too, with children to raise .
But who needs a good education when you can always work at Walmart...the PLAN by our Fascist government........
posted on November 14, 2005 11:50:37 AM
You guys are going to pizz off the OP attention troll with this legitimate discussion in her thread. Just guessing due to the grrreat ignore feature.
__________
The Islamofascist fig-puckers are fighting to spread their culture and religion, and to destroy ours
posted on November 14, 2005 12:02:40 PM
You know mingotree I know you are being sarcastic, but I could actually believe that. Your posting style shows little real world experience other than off the cuff opinions.
Me I have hired and fired people, dealt with strikers. Now I enjoy the fruits of my labor with a good job and low stress. I am pro management all the way and believe unions only attempt to suck a company dry.
posted on November 14, 2005 12:34:04 PM
Okay Ron now I now where you're coming from.I'd like to continue this conversation,but since my wife is still working,and Im retired,I'm left stuck with doing the dishes,vacuuming the rugs,doing the laundry,and going shopping.All I can say is..IT SUCKS TO BE ME
However, as the great Governor of California once said........I'LL BE BACK!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beauty is only a light switch away
[ edited by classicrock000 on Nov 14, 2005 12:34 PM ]
posted on November 14, 2005 01:26:44 PM
Ron - I have two sisters that live in Oregon...they tell me Oregon taxpayers are FED UP with paying such high taxes....so this 1% increase for the teachers is probably just the 'straw that broke the camel's back'.
AND I don't know what kind of union strength the teachers have there....but if they're anything like CA....they don't NEED a 1% pay increase.
----
Speaking of CA and teachers....just read about Barbara Boxer [CA dem/ultra-liberal] complaining about the profit the oil industry has been making. Like to see her try and pass some bill in CA regulating oil company profits ....she'll have the teachers unions all over her a$$....as their UNION [retirement plan] is rolling in the dough from the PROFITS their investments in the oil companies....[the one's Boxer is currently bitching about]....have made for them.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on November 14, 2005 08:25:00 PM
Workers strike and sacrifice for future workers. Strikers never get back what they lost on strike.
My hat is off to the Oregon teachers. Unlike GREEDY,SELF-CENTERED NEOCONS the teachers are looking forward to a better America.
Yes LIAR-LINDA_K and Ron we all know CON-servative lawmakers. The same lawmakers that people like you support,voted themselves PAY RAISES and gave RICH Americans BIG TAX CUTS without having to go on strike.
We all know those PAY RAISES and TAX CUTS were a hell of a lot more than 1 percent.
posted on November 15, 2005 04:00:10 AM
" I don't know what kind of union strength the teachers have there....but if they're anything like CA....they don't NEED a 1% pay increase"
well I guess they're not to strong to ask for only a 1% raise.A 1% raise is PATHETIC
"unlike GREEDY,SELF-CENTERED NEOCONS the teachers are looking forward to a better America."
Big-it has nothing to do with being a Democrat or a Republican.It depends on whose running the government in your town at the time.The teachers in NYC haven't had a raise in years.Mayor Bloomberg was up for re-election this year,and guess who got their raise?My wife's district in Yonkers,NY has had their contract expired this year and due for a raise.
They were asking for a 3% raise and didn't get it.They were talking about going on strike,but they didn't.Quite frankly I'm glad they didn't.I'm really not in favor of strikes unless its ABSOLUTELY necessary.The mayor of Yonkers is up for re-election in 2 years and I can guarantee you the teachers will get their raise then-its all politics.By the way,the mayor of New York City and Yonkers are both DEMOCRATS.
posted on November 15, 2005 12:39:58 PM
"....she'll have the teachers unions all over her a$$....as their UNION [retirement plan] is rolling in the dough from the PROFITS their investments in the oil companies."
I'm not clear on what you mean by this statement....are you saying that California teacher's retirement plan is a plan run by the teacher's Union? That when a California teacher retires, his/her pension is paid by the teacher's union?
posted on November 18, 2005 12:14:45 AM
Hit by friendly fire
With his polls down, Bush takes flak on Iraq from a host of critics--including some in his own party
By Kevin Whitelaw
Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
That's strikingly blunt talk from a member of the president's party, even one cast as something of a pariah in the GOP because of his early skepticism about the war. "I got beat up pretty good by my own party and the White House that I was not a loyal Republican," he says. Today, he notes, things are changing: "More and more of my colleagues up here are concerned."
Indeed, there are signs that the politics of the Iraq war are being reshaped by the continuing tide of bad news. Take this month in Iraq, with 47 U.S. troops killed in the first 15 days. That's already five more than the toll for the entire month of June last year. With the rate of insurgent attacks near an all-time high and the war's cost set to top $230 billion, more politicians on both sides of the aisle are responding to opinion polls that show a growing number of Americans favoring a withdrawal from Iraq. Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee and Lindsey Graham have voiced their concerns. And two Republicans, including the congressman who brought "freedom fries" to the Capitol, even joined a pair of Democratic colleagues in sponsoring a bill calling for a troop withdrawal plan to be drawn up by year's end. "I feel confident that the opposition is going to build," says Rep. Ron Paul, the other Republican sponsor and a longtime opponent of the war.
Sagging polls. The measure is not likely to go anywhere, but Hagel calls it "a major crack in the dike." Whether or not that's so, the White House has reason to worry that the assortment of critiques of Bush's wartime performance may be approaching a tipping point. Only 41 percent of Americans now support Bush's handling of the Iraq war, the lowest mark ever in the Associated Press-Ipsos poll. And the Iraq news has combined with a lethargic economy and doubts about the president's Social Security proposals to push Bush's overall approval ratings near all-time lows. For now, most Republicans remain publicly loyal to the White House. "Why would you give your enemies a timetable?" asks House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. "[Bush] doesn't fight the war on news articles or television or on polls."
Still, the Bush administration is planning to hit back, starting this week, with a renewed public-relations push by the president. Bush will host Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari and has scheduled a major speech for June 28, the anniversary of the handover of power to an Iraqi government from U.S. authorities. But Congress's patience could wear very thin going into an election year. "If things don't start to turn around in six months, then it may be too late," says Hagel. "I think it's that serious."
Bush's exit strategy--which depends on a successful Iraqi political process--got a boost last week when Sunni and Shiite politicians ended weeks of wrangling over how to increase Sunni representation on the constitution-writing committee. Now, however, committee members have less than two months before their mid-August deadline. And given how long it took to resolve who gets to draft the document, it's hard to imagine a quick accord on the politically explosive issues they face.
posted on November 18, 2005 01:33:35 AM
Hello and Welcome to our 'happy family' here in the RT, sharronn.
I'm saying that while old Barbara Boxer a dem senator from the state of CA is bitching/complaining about all the oil profits the 'oil companies' have been/are making.....she's just talking. She'd NEVER have the backbone to actually propose 'cutting' the oil companies profits....BECAUSE the CA teachers unions are heavily invested in Oil Stocks. The profits made from their oil stocks have made big bucks for their teachers retirement plans.
Let her just try and pass a law limiting in any way...THEIR retirement plan profits and she'll have the wrath of God [the teachers unions] coming right down on her little pointed head.
She's talking out of both sides of her mouth. I have no doubt the teachers union enjoys the billions of dollars they have made off their investment in oil stocks....the same one's she bitching about other investors profitting from.
Hope that makes my statement more clear.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on November 18, 2005 03:05:47 AMAND I don't know what kind of union strength the teachers have there....but if they're anything like CA....they don't NEED a 1% pay increase.
Oh, Yes, they do!!!! I live in California, and a couple of years ago I thought to change my profession, from librarian to teacher. Took the CBEST test and was looking into a credentialing program offered by the local school district, that allows you to work & earn while getting your degree. What derailed my plan was the salaries paid to teachers--even those who have been teaching for quite a long time, much less entry-level teachers. Now, teachers in places like California & New York get paid more than those teaching in places like the midwest, but even so I would have had to take a gigantic pay cut if I'd gone through with my plans. And librarians are not the highest-paid profession...
For some to say, that people are free to work for the wage they like, totally ignores the fact that teachers throughout the country are paid far, far less than they should be. And that is why the profession loses its best to other fields where they can get more pay. And that leaves, in large part, the worst of the lot teaching our nation's children. There are good teachers around who have such a love of teaching that they put up with the piss poor wages, but they are outnumbeed byfar by the others.
The saying goes that you get what you pay for. I find it incredibly sad that our nation thinks so little of its children and its future that we pay such an important profession so little.
____________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush
posted on November 18, 2005 03:56:59 AM
Sorry classic.
Edited again...to be clearer. I'm saying the teachers unions would be all over Boxer IF she tried to limit the profits the teachers pension/investment plans are making from their investments in the large oil companies......NOT that the unions pay those pensions/retirement benefits to the teachers upon retirement.
I didn't mention who paid teacher salaries....nor their pension/retirement benefits.....but rather referred to the increase in $$ their pension funds [two different ones I believe] have benefited from their investments in the big oil companies.
Salaries are paid by the state of CA....pensions are handled in a seperate manner I believe....like I said by *two different pension groups*, one being something like CALPARS...and then CALxxx? And they, just like any private companies investment/retirement plans invest the teachers pension/retirement funds in the NYSE - and in the case of the union teachers...in oil stocks/companies.
The same companies Boxer and some other dems are complaining who are making the 'record' profits - are also making profits for the teachers retirement/pension plans.
edited after looking up the two CA teacher pension funds:
They are:
CalSTRS and CalPERS
and I believe I've read there is also a third group too.
posted on November 18, 2005 04:21:56 AM
bunni - I think most people are aware that the longer you remain in a job...the more you make. So...going from your job to a brand new entry level job...would even in private industry normally require a pay decrease...sometimes a large one. No surprise to me there. Just as someone taking over your current job...they would not be paid at your salary...they would start somewhere near the bottom of your pay scale too.
-------
Searched for a link to show CA teachers salaries.....they're not underpaid, imo.
Salaries comparison
Education Trust-West studied every public school in California for its new report. To see how your school's teacher salaries compare to other schools in your district, visit http://www.hiddengap.org. written by [email protected].
posted on November 18, 2005 06:45:27 AM
Good try at burying a post you don't like , linda , with a diatribe on how teaching isn't important enough to pay teachers well so here it is again for YOUR viewing pleasure:
Hit by friendly fire
With his polls down, Bush takes flak on Iraq from a host of critics--including some in his own party
By Kevin Whitelaw
Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
That's strikingly blunt talk from a member of the president's party, even one cast as something of a pariah in the GOP because of his early skepticism about the war. "I got beat up pretty good by my own party and the White House that I was not a loyal Republican," he says. Today, he notes, things are changing: "More and more of my colleagues up here are concerned."
Indeed, there are signs that the politics of the Iraq war are being reshaped by the continuing tide of bad news. Take this month in Iraq, with 47 U.S. troops killed in the first 15 days. That's already five more than the toll for the entire month of June last year. With the rate of insurgent attacks near an all-time high and the war's cost set to top $230 billion, more politicians on both sides of the aisle are responding to opinion polls that show a growing number of Americans favoring a withdrawal from Iraq. Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee and Lindsey Graham have voiced their concerns. And two Republicans, including the congressman who brought "freedom fries" to the Capitol, even joined a pair of Democratic colleagues in sponsoring a bill calling for a troop withdrawal plan to be drawn up by year's end. "I feel confident that the opposition is going to build," says Rep. Ron Paul, the other Republican sponsor and a longtime opponent of the war.
Sagging polls. The measure is not likely to go anywhere, but Hagel calls it "a major crack in the dike." Whether or not that's so, the White House has reason to worry that the assortment of critiques of Bush's wartime performance may be approaching a tipping point. Only 41 percent of Americans now support Bush's handling of the Iraq war, the lowest mark ever in the Associated Press-Ipsos poll. And the Iraq news has combined with a lethargic economy and doubts about the president's Social Security proposals to push Bush's overall approval ratings near all-time lows. For now, most Republicans remain publicly loyal to the White House. "Why would you give your enemies a timetable?" asks House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. "[Bush] doesn't fight the war on news articles or television or on polls."
Still, the Bush administration is planning to hit back, starting this week, with a renewed public-relations push by the president. Bush will host Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari and has scheduled a major speech for June 28, the anniversary of the handover of power to an Iraqi government from U.S. authorities. But Congress's patience could wear very thin going into an election year. "If things don't start to turn around in six months, then it may be too late," says Hagel. "I think it's that serious."
Bush's exit strategy--which depends on a successful Iraqi political process--got a boost last week when Sunni and Shiite politicians ended weeks of wrangling over how to increase Sunni representation on the constitution-writing committee. Now, however, committee members have less than two months before their mid-August deadline. And given how long it took to resolve who gets to draft the document, it's hard to imagine a quick accord on the politically explosive issues they face.
posted on November 18, 2005 08:36:41 AM
Thank you for the welcome Linda :-
I'm not new here though...I have been a member of AW/vendio since the fall of 1998. I just haven't posted in the forums for several years now.
Thanks for this clarification you made to your earlier post --
"Edited again...to be clearer. I'm saying the teachers unions would be all over Boxer IF she tried to limit the profits the teachers pension/investment plans are making from their investments in the large oil companies......NOT that the unions pay those pensions/retirement benefits to the teachers upon retirement."
You also said--
"I didn't mention who paid teacher salaries....nor their pension/retirement benefits.....but rather referred to the increase in $$ their pension funds [two different ones I believe] have benefited from their investments in the big oil companies.
Salaries are paid by the state of CA"
If you are saying that teacher's salaries are paid by the state of California, this would not be true. The local school district that employees the teachers pays the salaries of the teachers in their district (ie..LAUSD pays the salaries of the teachers who teach in the Los Angeles Unified School District...teachers in Riverside school district are paid by that school district, etc.).
CalPERS is the California Public Employees Retirement System...this is the pension plan for all California state employees, the employees of local government agencies who don't have a pension system of their own (counties, cities etc), plus non-credentialed school employees (non-teaching personnel)
CalSTRS (which was started in 1913) is the pension plan for all credentialed (teachers) personnel in the state of California. Teachers are not paid out of two pension plans. All teachers in public schools in California who work at least 50% are required to be members of CalSTRS.
Membership in CalSTRS is not dependant on the teacher being a union member...all teachers, union or not, are required to participate in the state sponsered pension plan.
It is possible that the state sponsered pension plans (both CalPERS and CalStrs) have investments in oil companies, but the possible investments of the teacher's union in oil companies have no bearing on the issue of the teacher's retirement funds since the union's investments do not impact a teacher's pension one way or another.
You also said...
"Searched for a link to show CA teachers salaries.....they're not underpaid, imo."
A new teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School district strarts out at 42,004 a year...top pay for that teacher after a minimum of 14 years and with 98 semester units of continuing education is $68,014. After obtaining 98 semester units of continuing education (27 points) and working for 20 years at the 27 points level, the teacher can top out at 72,624..if the teacher went back to school and obtained her Doctorate degree he/she can top out at $73,695 at point 27 and 20 years.
This may sound generous to someone who lives in an area where housing costs are low, but in LA county housing is NOT cheap. In 2003 the average rent on a 2 bedroom apartment in the city of Los Angeles was $1652, requireing an annual income of $66,560. the average 2005 rent on a 2 bedroom apartment in all of Los Angeles County is $1500 amonth. Median price of a home in LA county is $500,000.
It doesn't do much to think of moving to Orange county because median home prices there are $675,000. One could move to Riverside county where median home prices are $371,000 but that would mean a possible 2 hour or more commute each way since the houses in the $371,000 range are in the further out areas of the county, areas of San Bernardino or Riverside counties that are closer to LA county have prices closer to the LA/Orange county price.
Living in the southern california area pretty much demands one own a car to get to work, public transportation is in short supply. Gas costs are high, insurance is high.
The cost of living in most of California is not cheap and the teacher's salaries don't make it easy to live in this area.
Teachers in California are not overpaid, not by a long shot!!
posted on November 18, 2005 09:24:55 AM
sharronn - LOL....Oh I see you were asking a question you already knew the answer to, it appears.
Well...I lived in CA most of my life, until 6 years ago...I knew many teachers in both the So. CA and No CA areas....and they were making more than substancial salary for only working approx 180 days each year. We must remember they don't work a 1080 hr. year or much more, like other industries do.
Plus there's all the special ed teachers that teach only a handful of students for much larger than normal teacher salaries.
BUT you have focused on their underpayment, in your opinion, when my intent was to make a totally different point.
The teachers union in CA is a strong political group that often has the ability to make major changes in laws....as they did in this past special election...where they showed their power.....showed how much influence and voter persuasion they have.
MY point was that their teachers assoc/union would have a hissy fit with Boxer IF she even tried to stop their investments and profits to their retirement/pension plans.
Is that something you disagree with?
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on November 18, 2005 11:39:16 AM
And that has WHAT to do with the Repugs going down, down, down.....trying to ignore it ? Well, you can try but it won't be easy.....
)