Well, it turns out that that very teacher that claimed to be unfairly compensated, and that she would love to make $83,000, actually gets a salary of $86,389. Plus healthcare. plus pension. In totality, it amounts to well over $100,000 per year. From the Washington Examiner: NJ Teacher who complained to Gov. Chris Christie she deserved $83k actually makes $86k
Yesterday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie had a little dust-up with teacher Rita Wilson. Upset over Christie’s education budget, Wilson complained that she wasn’t paid enough and got sharp rebuke from the governor:
But borough teacher Rita Wilson, a Kearny resident, argued that if she were paid $3 an hour for the 30 children in her class, she’d be earning $83,000, and she makes nothing near that.
“You’re getting more than that if you include the cost of your benefits,” Christie interrupted.
When Wilson, who has a master’s degree, said she was not being compensated for her education and experience, Christie said:
“Well, you know then that you don’t have to do it.” Some in the audience applauded.
Christie said he would not have had to impose cuts to education if the teachers union had agreed to his call for a one-year salary freeze and a 1.5 percent increase in employee benefit contributions.
“Your union said that is the greatest assault on public education in the history of the state,” Christie said. “That’s why the union has no credibility, stupid statements like that.”
According to the Rutherford Board of Education meeting minutes from July 13, 2009, she's a step 16 level 4, and makes $86,389. Here's the relevant screenshot:Surrounded by reporters after she spoke, Wilson said she was shaking from the encounter, and worried she might get in trouble for speaking out.
UPDATE #2: Related from NJ.com (written by Kevin Manahan):
In an astonishing fall from grace that has taken only months, teachers have gone from respected and beloved members of the community to some of the most reviled. In a blink, they have trashed years of good will.
Once the patient darlings who nurtured our kids, teachers now look like insensitive, out-of-touch, can’t-think-for-themselves union robots who, when forced to face economic realities, clung to an insulting sense of entitlement, heartlessly sacrificed the jobs of colleagues, called the governor naughty names and used students as political pawns.
All while blaming everyone else.
At Saturday’s rally in Trenton, teachers wondered when the Earth started spinning in the other direction.
“It’s like we woke up one morning and the world had changed,” said Linda Mirabelli, a music teacher in Livingston. “We were liked and respected, and now, overnight, people have turned against us.”
How did it happen? That’s easy: One bad decision, one stupid miscalculation: An overwhelming majority of teachers refused to accept a pay freeze. They could have won taxpayers’ eternal gratitude, but instead demanded their negotiated raises and fought against contributing a dime toward budget-breaking health insurance benefits. Teachers could have pitched in, but they dug in.
They thumbed their noses at taxpayers, who have lost their jobs, had their pay cut, gone bankrupt and fallen into foreclosure. As taxpayers made less, teachers demanded more. You do that, you become a villain. Fast. It doesn’t matter how many stars Junior gets on his book report.
Sounds like Rita would be fine with a 4% across-the-board pay cut, bringing her salary in line with where it ought to be. Let's hear what Rita has to say. I'm sure she'll be piping up again soon.
ReplyDeleteIt's actually more: she also gets an additional $652 for a co-curricular stipend. That makers her total $87,041 + benefits.
ReplyDeleteOne wonders what department she teaches in... it must not involve mathematics in any form.
In Cedar Grove we rejected our school budget this year, and in fact have rejected three of the last four. And rightfully so.
ReplyDeleteTeachers and their union have been conning us for years with their cries of low pay. They make a fair wage and actually make some of the highest starting salaries of college grads. I lost all respect for them years ago after seeing a John Stossel piece on NY teachers marching around with signs about low pay. They were all making six figures. . .
ReplyDeleteFair is fair. Reduce her pay, including benefits, to $83K That's what she saiys she wants. Let's make her happy.
ReplyDeleteThat pay scale is vastly inflated. I say cut their pay, across the board by 25% and freeze it there for a while.
Union crooks!
It's possible that Ms. Wilson had a whole laundry list of all occasion comebacks. A shame that the good governor cut it off:
ReplyDeleteThe cost of living here, is outrageous..
My credit cards are maxed out..
I ran out of checks, now I have no money..
My neighbors cat died and I had to pay burial expenses..
My union dues are in arrears..
A quick math review: If she wants $3/hr/student that comes to $90/hr. Factoring that into her salary demand of $83k/year indicates that she is admiting to working 922hrs/year. Those of us who routinely work in excess of 2,500 hrs/year are not going to have much sympathy for that particular snivel.
ReplyDeleteApparently her Masters Degree isn't in math. Or considering the ability of today's students, maybe it is.
One question, has to be asked. How much of that 86k + does she get to take home?
ReplyDeleteThere are places in the USA where that amount is barely enough to keep a family going. There are other places where that is more than enough. How does New Jersey rank in that respect?
It's more complicated than just a single number.
Maybe she was thinking her take home pay wasn't "anywhere near" $83k. Cuz everything the state pays out in salaries like hers comes from fairies and unicorns, not from actual taxpayers. Think she realizes yet that she's one of those taxpayers too?
ReplyDeleteTeachers are notoriously ignorant of taxes and other costs of their employment. They determine what they make by how much they take home. Our local teacher's union president stated a few years ago that you can't count benefits when determining how much they make. The $29,000 (health and pension costs per teacher) is real money in other places, but not in school.
ReplyDeleteThe teachers here also have to work a mandatory 1008 hours a year, so 1008 x 30 x 3 is more than 83,000, although the cost per pupil per year in NJ is over 13,000 a year, so that room of 30 kids costs the taxpayers about 400,000 per year.
Notice also how they never compare themselves to the private school teacher wages in wanting to be compensated for education and as professionals.
Hmm. I suppose the sensible thing to do here would be to give this teacher what she says she deserves. It seems compassionate, and will save the taxpayers of New Jersey $3000 a year.
ReplyDeleteGlad she doesn't teach math.....
ReplyDeleteIf junior had no stars on his book report, but it was impeccably written, we might have a lot more tolerance for teachers demanding a pay raise. As it is, I have taken my children out of school so I can teach them myself.
ReplyDeleteThe money I pay to them is a total loss and I resent it greatly, especially when I go buy a curriculum that works for far less than they waylay me for.
Nobody ever mentions that in addition to good pay at $86k/year and excellent benefits teachers also get approximately 14 weeks off per year!
ReplyDeleteI'm a nurse and make nowhere near that. And I don't complain about it either. She should be happy to still have a job.
ReplyDeleteI argue... to save money give her the 83,000 she asked for. Then pass a union state operating fee of 7% from the dues collected earnings legislation. and if strikes happen impose additional 5% for disrupting business.
ReplyDeleteHow much of that 86K+ does she get to take home? What difference does it make? If it's not enough, her hubby can take a job, too. That's no different from most Americans who work in the real world.
ReplyDeleteAnd I could never understand why is it that we must factor the average number of students each teacher has to teach, into their pay. It makes the whole debate sound like the teacher somehow splits into 20 or 30 people to deal with each of their students on an individual basis. You could make the same argument for college professors, or even most military servicemembers.
Remember: this is for 9 months' work. The teachers I know either work another job or do some really cool stuff with the other 3 months. That's a lot of extra value.
ReplyDeleteI'm sick of the teachers/cops/fireman all living off of my wallet and telling me they are better than me or my job and that society OWES THEM like they are doing something more special than anyone else. we need vouchers and competition for the public schools and let THE PEOPLE vote WITH THEIR OWN MONEY where to send their kids. Then the truly good teachers will have jobs and be the better paid and the bad ones will find themselves unemployed. The teachers/cops/firemens unions are basically mafia these days...they have lots of power and DEMAND we reach ever deepering into our wallets to give them whatever they want. its time that all ended. if they dont like their cushy, well paid jobs, then QUIT and go do something else. I'm a laid off engineer...and I dont have some powerful lobby/union behind me to SHAKE DOWN the community and fund me and keep me employed and i have bs and ms degrees in engineering. i live in the real world of FREE MARKETS and i have to adapt....this is my 5th layoff since i graduated in 1986.
ReplyDeleteBECKY:
ReplyDeleteThe teachers here also have to work a mandatory 1008 hours a year, so 1008 x 30 x 3 is more than 83,000, although the cost per pupil per year in NJ is over 13,000 a year, so that room of 30 kids costs the taxpayers about 400,000 per year.
LET's SEE:
1008 hours per year / 40 hour work week = 25.2 weeks. Sweet.
For this she earns $86K?
ALSO where'd the other $314K go?
Do the New Jersey schools go year round or is this compensation for 9 months of work? My sister is a teacher, is always complaining about her low pay, yet has never worked a summer since graduating college. If this woman is making 86K per year + 29K in benefits for 9 months of work that is an annualized compensation package greater than $150K.
ReplyDeleteOne should be paid based on ability and productivity--not based upon education and experience.
ReplyDeleteIn all fairness to Rita, as a public school teacher she's probably incapable of doing the arithmetic to figured out how much she makes.
ReplyDeleteDollars per hour per child relevant is not relevant. Salaries are per annum or per hour. Her master's is not in critical thinking. $83000 for 10 months = $99.6K/year plus benefits plus pension. That's a great package.
ReplyDeleteFinally, teachers are being called to task for poor performance. For years, this "it's fer the children" garbage has passed without so much as a peep from the public.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can sympathize that public school teaching must be difficult considering the quality of the parents of students these days, nobody is forcing Ms. Hyphenated Wilson to teach.
If Ms. Wilson thinks she is incredibly talented and worth more, I dare her to resign from her position and put her resume on the open market and get a clue to her real worth.
Hope she knows how to cook better than she can multiply.
Frankly they should fire all the teachers. Public education was a huge mistake. If people want their children educated, they should pay for it.
ReplyDeleteI teach and come from a family of teachers. Most teachers I know believe that schools are great places to get an education. They might be, but there are plenty of others. The teacher in question clearly couldn't care less about her under-funded peers in other states or the hollowing out of the middle-class. The exchange was sad and silly. I respect Gov. Christie for standing up and applying just right amount of hard truth. But, man, he needs to figure how to shed some pounds. Really.
ReplyDeleteGreetings!
ReplyDeleteYou might want to post this link which shows ALL teacher's and public work employees' salaries
http://www.app.com/datauniverse/
Hope she doesn't teach math.
ReplyDeleteI just looked up census figures for 2006 (there may be more recent; that's the first I bumped into) showing the median FAMILY income in New Jersey is just under $78,000. That's for entire families, many of which presumably include two wage-earners. That a schoolteacher alone makes substantially more than that, plus benefits, for a short-ish work day, tons of breaks and holidays, and maybe 8 or 9 months a year, is not exactly heartbreaking.
ReplyDeletePublic servants pay no taxes. Their salary and benefits are funded by taxes, ergo, represent negative income tax payments. On April 15th they go through an elaborate paperwork ritual known as Form 1040 where they give back to the IRS some of the tax money they have been receiving all year long. Teachers, police, firefighters pay no taxes.
ReplyDeleteAnd one more thing (in preemptive answer to the inevitable emotional argument about 'laying our lives on the line'): according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, police work doesn't even make the top ten most dangerous jobs in the country (it's ranked #12). Firefighting is well down the list from there. You risk your lives? So do fishermen and steel workers. Quit and go take your education and experience into the private sector. I hear Walmart needs some night watchmen.
My wife used to complain about how teachers are underpaid. She would get angry when I pointed out how they really made pretty good money.
ReplyDeleteThen, after she got her degree, she got her first job. And, right out of the gate, she was making more money per day than I was, several years into my career as a computer programmer.
That was the end of that argument.
I suspect that the 6/7 of those workers not working for the govt are beginning to get fed up with the idiot demands and smug, contempt attitudes of the 1/7 who are.
ReplyDelete"In all fairness to Rita, as a public school teacher she's probably incapable of doing the arithmetic to figured out how much she makes."
ReplyDeleteSeriously - does she not do her own taxes?! I mean, you would THINK she would at least glance at the W2 form she receives in the mail every year...
"One question, has to be asked. How much of that 86k + does she get to take home?
ReplyDeleteThere are places in the USA where that amount is barely enough to keep a family going. There are other places where that is more than enough. How does New Jersey rank in that respect?
It's more complicated than just a single number."
funny thing about that...
the AP went after Christie for having twice as many 100k+ employees as corzine:
"According to an Asbury Park Press online database of 2009 public payroll records, 18 people made $100,000 or more in 2009 under Corzine. According to payroll records posted on Christie's website on April 8, 34 people in his administration make six figures -- including the governor himself, who makes $175,000 by law."
http://www.1010wins.com/AP--Christie-Administration-Payroll-Nearly--2M-Hig/6840156
If the AP feels that there are too many officals making over 100k, they really should tell us how many teachers are over 100k.
This turned out to be hilarious. How can Ms.Wilson show her face in public?
ReplyDeleteSomeone anonymous did get it - there is another teachable moment here. Tax rates are TOO HIGH. She doesn't THINK she makes 80k per year, but she does. The problem is - by the time the tax collectors tax their hands out of her pocket, she likely only takes home the low 60's. So yes, she'd LOVE to take home 83k a year. She needs to be fighting to keep more of her own money, not fighting for more money because of the constant tax robbery of the state.
ReplyDeleteDoing your own taxes has nothing to do with it. Your employer pays part of your FICA, and if you have a health plan and a pension, that's also counted as compensation. Unless you are self-employed, I bet that half of the self-righteous posters here couldn't name their actual compensation. I doubt that her take-home pay is even in the low 60s.
ReplyDeleteBut keep arguing that the people educating your children should be paid _less_ than they are now.
Man, I'd kill for pay THAT low.
ReplyDeleteI'm a cop and this incessant teacher caterwalling about their pay really galls me.
ReplyDeleteHere in the South, you won't see a bunch of cops complaining about a job that's more dangerous, challenging, and much less well-compensated.
I have a master's, too, Ms. O'Neill-Wilson - from Georgetown - and I just got furloughed a day a month from a job that barely pays over $30k.
But I love my job and do it to catch criminals - not for the joy of summers off, fat pay checks, and indoctrinating children.
@turtle
ReplyDeleteBoy, have I got a job for you.
I would love to make that. Teaching in Tennessee with a masters nets me 36,000 plus benefits. My step increase next year is $200. I'd love to ONLY make $83k.
ReplyDeleteUnless you are self-employed, I bet that half of the self-righteous posters here couldn't name their actual compensation.
ReplyDeleteThey're not publicly bitching about their pay, either.
But keep arguing that the people educating your children should be paid _less_ than they are now.
If we paid for results, they'd absolutely be paid less than they are now.
The best part is that she gets summer vacations. 2 weeks off at Christmas, a week or two for Easter and various other holidays during the year. WHO ELSE GETS THAT?!?!
ReplyDelete"Doing your own taxes has nothing to do with it. Your employer pays part of your FICA, and if you have a health plan and a pension, that's also counted as compensation. Unless you are self-employed, I bet that half of the self-righteous posters here couldn't name their actual compensation."
ReplyDelete(I can and its nothing close to what Rita makes)
"I doubt that her take-home pay is even in the low 60s."(So what? If she doesnt like it she can move, she thinks she is not paid enough, find a job that will)
"But keep arguing that the people educating your children should be paid _less_ than they are now."
Ok I call B*ll Sh*t! Ive had enough. Rita went back to the microphone wagging her finger screaming "teachers do it because they love it"
Teachers love to use this phrase as well as throwing in "its for your kids" as if this magical response is a end all be all ultimate end to the discussion.
Well let me clue you and Rita in. The parents of those kids they teach have had their pay raises put on hold. They also have had to pay a higher portion for their benefit packages. This is normal in the real world. its about time that teachers understand the real world. You are not entitled to anything. Be thankful you have a high paying job. many are struggling to even find a job.
So forgive me if I show no pity for some greedy little sanctimonious union troll screaming that she may have to accept a little less for a year.
But please continue on, living in an alternate reality. Just don't blame the rest of us for not wanting to pay for your visit.
Amazing how stupid highly "educated" people can be.
actually, I'm curious about what state the teacher in question is from...
ReplyDeleteapparently there is a New York facebook page for one Rita O'neill wilson.
what is the irony of a ny'er coming down to complain about NJ teacher pay.
hope this isn't the same person.
I spent many years dealing with teachers getting their master's degrees, and I can tell you, I'm not surprised by this at all. There's a special personality that goes into teaching, and unfortunately, part of that personality is clinging to the belief against all evidence that you know more and deserve more than other people.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 12:18 PM: "But keep arguing that the people educating your children should be paid _less_ than they are now."
ReplyDeleteOK, I'm glad to. This teacher makes a *salary* of $86K. Plus the kind of pension package we in the private sector can only dream of. Plus 100% of the cost of very generous health coverage, probably another $20K+. Plus the fact she is essentially unfirable, like public school teachers across the country. Plus the fact that she gets ~8 weeks off every summer, spring break, Christmas break, MLK Day, etc. etc.
It's a very nice compensation package. To tell taxpayers it's anything but remarkably generous is simply reprehensible. Her income, by itself, is 20% higher than the median *family* income in NJ, which includes lots of 2-income families.
And after all that ... she and her coworkers do a remarkably poor job of educating children.
So yes, all things considered, she and her coworkers are overpaid. We can't afford this nonsense any more. The credit card is maxed out, you see?
At least the teachers do something all day. What about the army of administrators cluttering up the school system? They are so non-productive they are actually counter-productive.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I know Rutherford very well. It's a bedroom community with no industry to speak of, lots of vacant retail property and very, very high property taxes.
When I say high, picture property taxes in excess of $12,000 a year, for a middling sort of house, nice but old, needs new bathrooms and kitchen and a new roof.
Anonymous at 12:03 must have been taught by Ms. Wilson.
ReplyDeleteOh Ms. Oneill-Wilson. I remember my English teachers just like Ms. Oneill-Wilson. They gave me Cs and Ds when I used the As I received in Math in my term papers. Back then I thought my English teachers were just really poor in Math so they couldn't understand the arguments in my term papers. If Ms. Oneill-Wilson is any indicator my teenage instincts were probably right.
ReplyDeleteThe sad truth in public education is how teachers say they are not paid based on their academic background. What they frequently leave out is how they have fully signed up for the monopolized labor ladder that forces them to buy meaningless masters degrees in order to step up the ladder. They're never going to step up the ladder on performance alone. There is no performance metric. It's years of service and years of education. It's a quid pro quo model. Educators paying educators to acquire more education and those footing the bill for this nonsense are property tax payers.
This game is over. Competitive markets in education will destroy the monopolized labor racket. It's about time.
As a former teacher who is now in private industry, I would caution many here about jumping to conclusions.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, it should be noted that the lady in question (despite some apparent gaffes) here is in her 16th year. I would bet that most positions that require a similar level of education (i.e. at least bachelors in a certain field , and possibly a masters) would see higher incomes.
However, the teachers should remember that their benefits are not counted as salary, and therefore should be counted. it is also important to annualize the contract for the typical 8-9 weeks that constitute summer vacation.
But private-industry folks and haters should remember that teachers do not get paid a yearly bonus, often go a year or so at a time without pay raises (due to contract negotiations or breaks in the guide), and only see pay raises of a 1-3% per year REGARDLESS of the economic climate - that is even in a booming economy, teachers do NOT get proportional pay increases, as laws cap the amount that school budgets can increase by. This is why you don't see these vitriolic arguments when the economy is growing at 5% and private industry wages are keeping pace with that number.
Private folks should also remember that teachers get 3-4 vacation days during the year, and that there is no 401k "match" like many private firms offer. This is hard when you work in a "germ factory" that is a public school, and inhale what can only be pounds of chalk, dust, and asbestos over the course of a career.
As for the arguments about the number of hours, the 1008 is ridiculous. Although my experience is only anecdotal, I know that the school day lasted 7.5 hours at my high school (when counting the minimum time that teachers were required to be in the building), and that was for 185 days. That's well over whatever the heck that 1008 number was. and that's the minimum. that is assuming that no work would be taken home, no papers graded on weekends, no letters or recommendation written, no volunteer work for clubs or field trips, no extra help before and after school, etc. etc.
I think realistically, about 50-55 hours a week is a more normal estimate for a teacher, especially the young ones and the devoted ones.
This is not to say that all teachers are great, or that some are overpaid, but just like any profession you have slackers and the good ones. It's a shame that they are all getting lumped in together, and that the unions really restrict the flexiblity of the teachers, many of whom would be amenable to negotiations about either a wage freeze or increase in pay for benefits.
My wife has a PharmD (Doctor of Pharmacy) from the University of Washington. She has worked at a big chain store for the past ten years in the private sector in WA State and gets payed/compensated less than this "teacher" who "loves teaching our children." This teacher only has a master of education, an education that doesn't even come close to that of my wife's. Talking with our public teachers throughout the education of my children, I have grown less and less impressed by their performance. I'm also disgusted that they keep going on strike every year for even higher pay...because they love the children, Ya sure, ya betcha!!!
ReplyDelete7.5 hours ? Counting lunch and other breaks ? I never got paid for lunch.
ReplyDelete"I think realistically, about 50-55 hours a week is a more normal estimate for a teacher, especially the young ones and the devoted ones."
ReplyDelete55 hours per week? Really? Reality check -- that means a 8am to 8pm (plus a one hour lunch break) workday five days a week. I'd think the teachers would be complaining about modern slavery. Not a single teacher I know works those hours.
It is the whole two America's those who pay the taxes and those who EAT UP the taxes and when the first one is losing their income while watching the raw political GREED coming from the second America well the Government Party is OVER!
ReplyDeleteColorado allows for charter schools, and there is quite a lot to like about this system. First, it allows for enterprising, ambitious, public-spirited people to start a school. There turn out to be a lot of talented people out there who might not aspire to a career in public school administration where their freedom of action would be considerably circumscribed, but, given the opportunity to have considerable influence in one school, are extremely motivated to put their school creating energies to work. Second, the freedom allowed in creating schools with different focuses/philosophies/curriculum/methods results in considerable choice for students, parents, and faculty. You can choose a "classical approach", a Socratic approach, a science heavy approach, or whatever, within certain parameters. Third, failure is punished, success is rewarded. Successful schools grow in reputation and enrollment, and develop waiting lists. Failing schools fail to attract students, and must close their doors. The facility then becomes available for another school. Isn't this a much better model for everyone involved than the traditional public school model? Most people here still use public schools, and many of them are pretty good. But it seems that every year a new charter school opens up (or two, or three), and this provides increasing choice and competition for everyone involved.
ReplyDeleteOnly in the public sector does a degree automatically confer a pay raise. It's sheer greed and sense of entitlement for a teacher to say she's underpaid because she has a masters degree. So what? Go to your boss in the private sector and demand a raise because you just got your Masters. The likely response will be "produce more, get paid more, otherwise leave me alone".
ReplyDeleteThere are large numbers of Americans with masters' degrees and doctorates who are currently out of work -- and so are not paid large salaries and given entire summers off.
ReplyDeleteThis teacher is no more stupid than the average government school teacher. Which really should be a crime.
At least the teachers do something all day. What about the army of administrators cluttering up the school system? They are so non-productive they are actually counter-productive.
ReplyDeleteIf we could solve this problem, we could solve the main problem raised by this post as well.
Here's how it would work: Require every administrator (from the Deputy Assistant Vice Principal up to the superintendent) to teach one class per day. That would take them out of the proverbial ivory tower and actually require them to have one foot in the world of today's education, as opposed to that of 30 years ago, when a lot of administrators last taught. It would also weed out the politicians and bureaucrats in administration who have lost their heart for teaching (if they ever had one in the first place).
The beauty of an administrators-must-teach policy would be that there would no longer be a need for a teachers' union, since the line between "labor" and "management" would be erased.
I'm a non-unionized teacher, and I find it ridiculous that teachers would ever need a union; teaching is a profession, not a blue-collar trade. You don't see doctors or lawyers going on strike, do you?
i'm greatly encouraged by the fact that so many people are finally catching on to the scam these teachers, their unions, and the entire education establishment has been prepetrating on the taxpayers year after year. they are supported though federal taxes, state taxes, property taxes, lotteries and on and on but there will never be 'enough' money for them. every year there's a vote for more funding since it's 'for the children' and we wouldn't want to shortchange them, would we? they rake in more and more money but nobody seems to know where it all goes and the kids are more poorly educated than ever. well, it's long past time to call b.s. on this fraud. i only hope that this sentiment, expressed by many here, will spread across the country.
ReplyDeleteI have two Master's Degrees, work 2 jobs (one FT, one PT, both in the private sector), and I make $42K. But guess what? I don't go around bitching about how I "deserve" more because I happen to love both my jobs, and job #1 involves a lot of tech skills which I am improving significantly every year. Plus I like the company I work for -- conservatively & honestly run, lots of longevity in employees' stays with the company, and a fairly happy department.
ReplyDeleteEveryone who works at our company knows that the pay is 10-20% lower than at competitor companies. But people still choose to work here because of the good work environment and the stability of the company.
These are choices that most people who work in the private sector negotiate individually all the time, with every job they take. We somehow understand that there is no perfect world in which everyone gets their trifecta: job they love; high compensation; job stability. It's good to have at least one. You are lucky if you get two. Three is a one-in-a-hundred-million shot and, odds are, one of those three will disappear before too long.
Also in the real world, employees do not get to fiat demand their own wages & compensation. In the real world, employees don't get to organize campaigns to vote out their managers and bully their employers into giving in to fiat demands. Employees in the real world understand that your labor is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it in a free and fair exchange, not a buck more or a buck less.
Ms. O'Neill-Wilson has evidently lived someplace other than the real world for so long that she suffers from a deficient understanding of basic economics, and, apparently, a good dose of emotional juvenilism as well. "I'm highly educated" is not a self-evident argument for more money. Nor is "I work hard." Nor is "What I do is important."
There is one and only one self-evident argument for more money, and it comes not from the employee but from the employer: "We realize the value of your contributions, and we'd like to give you a raise."
Private-sector taxpayers are the employer. Politicians are the hired management. Teachers are the employees. Governor Christie is actually acting like a manager who is doing exactly what the employer hired him to do, NOT like a manager who is in collusion with the employees to bilk the employer. What a refreshing change! But notice how the teachers' unions and teachers like Ms. O'Neill-Wilson are screaming like stuck pigs when the proper, constitutional order of a government of the people, by the people, for the people is actually enforced.
Ms. O'Neill-Wilson: As long as you draw a paycheck from the public treasury, the taxpayers are your master. Live with it, or go get a job in the private sector.
I have two Master's Degrees, work 2 jobs (one FT, one PT, both in the private sector), and I make $42K. But guess what? I don't go around bitching about how I "deserve" more because I happen to love both my jobs, and job #1 involves a lot of tech skills which I am improving significantly every year. Plus I like the company I work for -- conservatively & honestly run, lots of longevity in employees' stays with the company, and a fairly happy department.
ReplyDeleteEveryone who works at our company knows that the pay is 10-20% lower than at competitor companies. But people still choose to work here because of the good work environment and the stability of the company.
These are choices that most people who work in the private sector negotiate individually all the time, with every job they take. We somehow understand that there is no perfect world in which everyone gets their trifecta: job they love; high compensation; job stability. It's good to have at least one. You are lucky if you get two. Three is a one-in-a-hundred-million shot and, odds are, one of those three will disappear before too long.
Also in the real world, employees do not get to fiat demand their own wages & compensation. In the real world, employees don't get to organize campaigns to vote out their managers and bully their employers into giving in to fiat demands. Employees in the real world understand that your labor is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it in a free and fair exchange, not a buck more or a buck less.
Ms. O'Neill-Wilson has evidently lived someplace other than the real world for so long that she suffers from a deficient understanding of basic economics, and, apparently, a good dose of emotional juvenilism as well. "I'm highly educated" is not a self-evident argument for more money. Nor is "I work hard." Nor is "What I do is important."
There is one and only one self-evident argument for more money, and it comes not from the employee but from the employer: "We realize the value of your contributions, and we'd like to give you a raise."
Private-sector taxpayers are the employer. Politicians are the hired management. Teachers are the employees. Governor Christie is actually acting like a manager who is doing exactly what the employer hired him to do, NOT like a manager who is in collusion with the employees to bilk the employer. What a refreshing change! But notice how the teachers' unions and teachers like Ms. O'Neill-Wilson are screaming like stuck pigs when the proper, constitutional order of a government of the people, by the people, for the people is actually enforced.
Ms. O'Neill-Wilson: As long as you draw a paycheck from the public treasury, the taxpayers are your master. Live with it, or go get a job in the private sector.
Kev,
ReplyDeleteForget about forcing the administrators to teach. Who would want to have an a teacher an administrator forced into a teaching role? No one is going to benefit from that.
The goal is not to punish anyone. The goal is to provide great places for kids to learn in, teachers to teach in, and administrators to work in. The charter schools here do all these things. All that is necessary is to get rid of the monopoly mentality. Public education is a great thing. I can't believe any serious person would suggest getting rid of public education. What sucks is the monopoly on public education money some syndicates have achieved in some parts of the country. What is necessary is to break up these monopolies, and all that is needed to do that is to give parents a voucher, and allow them to take that voucher whereever they please. Charter schools achieve that.
An administrator at a charter school does not need to be forced into a teaching room. In a number of cases, the teachers of the charter schools around here constitute much of the management structure and leadership of the schools as well as the faculty. I haven't met by any means all or even the majority of the people leading and teaching at the charter schools, but I've met a lot of them, and the esprit des corps is outstanding. They believe in what they are doing, and the freedom they have to shape their school unshackled from the educational bureaucracy has unleashed enormous energy, drive, and talent. And these are public schools. They accept everyone who applies, although some of the more popular ones have long waiting lists.
Break up the monopolies, and the good schools will win and the lousy ones will improve or close. Everybody wins. To the extent that there are sad sack teachers (and, really, I've not met many, those our kids have had have, for the most part, been good, hard-working, well-meaning, motivated people) and administrators who are filling up desks and offices, doing no one any good, I'm sure they aren't happy themselves, and may benefit from a career change.
I am a public school teacher in Los Angeles. We took a 7 day pay cut this year, and 5 day pay cut next year. This is difficult for teachers who are their own self-support and who also will be retiring in the next 5 years. Despite this, I am very grateful to have a job. Many people my age (68) are already retired. It's just the breaks that I will probably be working until age 75. I LOVE TEACHING! It's just the politics that are horrid. Also once you join a union (required in California), you lose your freedom.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous:
ReplyDelete16th year doing WHAT? Teaching high school students?
I was a university professor with a PhD and I didn't get paid that much to teach. And each year I taught, I got to use my preparation from the previous year. So teaching didn't become HARDER year after year, it became easier.
What's the marginal benefit of each additional year of teaching experience? We all know (or should know) that marginal benefits are declining. I'd even say, from my experience, that teachers get complacent after teaching the same thing year after year. So at some point the marginal benefit of their experience might even be negative.
But if the marginal benefit of her experience is declining, why is her pay increasing at a constant or increasing rate? Are she and the other teachers ENTITLED to a certain percentage pay increase? In a competitive market, pay would be determined by their marginal revenue product. Judging from educational outcomes, it's doubtful that is increasing over time.
A masters degree in Education is nearly WORTHLESS. They are a dime a dozen and don't make you a better teacher. Some teachers do their MA in online courses. Some teachers PURCHASED their degrees from some diploma mill; they got caught but they weren't fired and didn't have to refund their pay.
The sole purpose for an MA in Education is to serve as flimsy justification for higher pay. The Ed.D. is the most generously granted doctorate degree. Their dissertations wouldn't come close to meaningful research in any other field. There's a reason why there's no Nobel Prize in Education. Few people with an MA in Education are blazing new, effective trails in teaching methods.
Where does she get the figure $3 per student from? Did she pull it out of her fat ass? Teaching is characterized by jointness of supply - each student sitting in the same room consumes roughly an equal quantity of her blabbing. Add one more student, and that student gets the same quantity of blabbing. The marginal cost of teaching one more student is CLOSE TO ZERO.
Now, I admit larger classes are more challenging to teach and require more grading. I've taught classes from four students up to 150 students. But when you teach a large class, you make changes to your style and graded components to accommodate or balance your workload. She apparently doesn't factor in those economies because she wants everyone to believe that five extra students is an onerous burden on her.
I taught college freshmen who are little different from high school seniors in temperament and intellect. I've taught at community colleges where the average student was a dolt. I got paid FAR below her wages teaching at a community college with an MA, and we were part of a collective bargaining unit!
My average class size over the years was 40. I would have considered 30 students a luxury.
Forget about forcing the administrators to teach. Who would want to have an a teacher an administrator forced into a teaching role? No one is going to benefit from that.
ReplyDeleteYou're missing my point, dmayes. Of course I wouldn't want to have a teacher who was forced into teaching in a classroom. But the ones who have a heart for teaching will relish the chance to return there as part of their duties, while those who don't have that heart anymore should be forced out of education. Their kind is not needed or wanted.
In a number of cases, the teachers of the charter schools around here constitute much of the management structure and leadership of the schools as well as the faculty.
It sounds like we're mostly in agreement on this point. One of the reasons that many private and charter schools work so well is that they're, as you said yourself, unshackled by bureaucracy. What I'm saying is that this applies to internal bureaucracy (non-teaching administrators) as well as external (politically-motivated school boards). The "educrats" have had their chance; it's time to let the teachers run the show.
We have far too many people in all levels of society who sit around and "manage" things without retaining even a basic level of competence in the thing they're supposed to be managing. We need more people who can actually DO the thing they're supposed to be overseeing.
For what it's worth, this woman is paid roughly double the average teacher's wage in the UK.
ReplyDeleteIt's called "the Peter Principle".
ReplyDeleteRefer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
So this teacher wants to work on a "piecework" pay scale? Most piecework employees don't get the great benefits she is getting. Also, education does not come into play. No raises either. What happens when 5 kids stay home from school? does she lose $15 that day.
ReplyDeleteLets stop picking on this teacher and learn from her. What a great concept. Every teacher gets paid "by the student". Or better yet, let the students (and parents) decide on which teacher teaches their kids.
Oh wait, that's called Charter schools. So this teacher is making more sense that we first thought.
When it comes to money, everything is screwed up in this country. There is so much corruption everywhere and so many greedy people taking far more than they need that it makes honest folks crazy. The teacher in question sounds like she makes plenty. She's probably out of line in her complaints. Salaries of government jobs are more equitable than the salaries of those in the private sector, where the back-stabbers and the ass-kissers (who had nothing to do with the company's success and often lead to its failure) slimishly claw to the top and in one day, take bonuses 2x the average working person's salary, while the bloated CEO makes 500x an average person's salary in a year. Then at the company meeting they talk about how times are tough and jobs will be cut and salaries frozen & benefits slashed. It happens every day. Then the same fat cat idiots who are causing the job cuts, who took all the money for themselves, complain about the "freeloaders" on unemployment who should suck it up and work at McDonald's and make 40% of their previous salary, which can't possibly pay the bills.
ReplyDeleteThis blogger has it right:
ReplyDeletewww.stopdestroyingeducation.blogspot.com
As far teacher pay goes in my neck of the woods,my contract says 220 days a year,so the 180 days contract is a good deal for me. Health Coverage?? Ha,right next to my 50% co-pay charge,followed by my premium,which is at least 1/4th of my measly pay,which is around 40k (before taxes,and yes I do get taxed),which is quite sad considering my education two masters in hand(neither of which are in education,I got tired of routine philosophy and Morton's Fork styled arguments and case studies),working toward my doctorate(financed by me,since my board doesn't cover my subject area,but they pay me to teach it? I thought the same thing). I know its a sad state of affairs when my stipend almost matches what's left of my pay after living expenses are taken care of.
ReplyDeleteTeachers have a good deal...Some do,but not everyone is working under those circumstances.
Remember that before you decide to cast a sweeping generalization directed at a group of people.
which is quite sad considering my education two masters in hand
ReplyDeleteWhat does one have to do with the other? Compensation is about value, not credentials.