SABER-RATTLING AND THE SILENT TAXPAYER

Monday's meeting of the Grand Rapids Board of Education was crashed by the school district's custodians, groundskeepers, bus drivers, and cafeteria workers.  Overall there are about 400 support staff on the Grand Rapids public school district's payroll.  A good portion of them were there sporting blue union solidarity T-shirts to make a big noise about Superintendent Bert Bleke's proposal to can them all and outsource the district's support service needs to the private sector.

Well, one does wonder why taxpayers need to pay these folks uncompetitive wages, especially when the school district is on the verge of bankruptcy.  But then, I have some sympathy for them.  Why are their necks on the chopping block while Bleke and the board say nary a word about the biggest black hole in the budget -- salaries, perks, and pensions for teachers and administrators?  Could it be that a stealth reform is afoot and that support staff is just the first foray into competitive bidding for all the school district's labor contracts?

I would doubt that the existing school district bureaucrats have the courage to even consider making the teaching contract an opportunity for genuinely competitive bidding.  Presently only the teachers union, the Michigan Education Association (MEA), has a monopoly on providing teaching services to the state's public school districts.  However, the MEA may think reform is in the air.  At Monday night's protest against Bleke's proposal, the MEA rattled its sabers is solidarity with the support staff, something it does not routinely do.  It looks like the MEA wants to defeat any outsourcing movement before it reaches the teachers.

Whether or not there is any merit to the current MEA monopoly on teaching services, Monday night MEA Executive Director Chuck Anderson drearily offered the same-ol' crap as an alternative to outsourcing any of the Grand Rapids public school district's job by stating:  "This is a revenue problem, not a spending problem."

Oh yeah?  Question:  Exactly where does the revenue to the solve the problem come from?  Answer:  Working stiffs like you and me, who put in almost twice the number of hours on the job each year than the typical public school teacher, get paid less, have crummier benefits, and don't get the chance to start collecting a fat pension before hitting sixty.  Sure, I know Anderson is a union boss looking out for his charges, but at what point do his demands become unconscionable?  After all, teachers are public employees.  They work on the taxpayer's dime.

Yet the taxpayer's voice remains silent.  When in this entire debacle of the failing Grand Rapids public school system will someone in authority start speaking loudly and clearly for the taxpayer?

Comments

[Jim Chapman]

I take serious offense to several things in your post.

"This is a revenue problem, not a spending problem."

Please inform me of why you think this statement is the same ol' crap?

Also please let me know how many hours you put into your job and how much you get paid. I don't think you really understand everything that goes into being a teacher. Under the law in Michigan students must attend for 180 days. Uusually the schools schedule 184 in case of weather problems (snow days). In addition teachers are required under state law to attend 5 days worth of training through the school. They are making the salaries based on 190 days or so of total work. Seems good right.

The rest of the story. Teachers are also required by Michigan Law to gather a certain number of continuing eduction credits each year. These can come from many sources including seminar's are college classes. Who pays for these? A hint, it ain't normally the schools. The average teacher on a provisional certificate will take 3 graduate classes per school year. Each class averages 3 credits at $300-400 per credit. That is $2700 of thier own money that they are paying out.

In addition there are other things teachers pay. I think a teacher making $40,000 per year pay pays 5% into thier retirement program through the state. That means if a 2nd year teacher is making $40,000 per year, they lose $2000 into the retirement program. They still have Social Security and every other tax taken out as well. Plus the cost they are paying out of thier own pocket for college classes really cuts into the huge salaries they are getting.

What most people don't understand is teachers aren't done getting education when they graduate from college. They must continue gaining knowledge each year or they will lose thier teaching certificates.

One of the reasons the benefits are so nice is because they pay isn't as good for the importance of the job we do. I would challange everyone who thinks teachers are overpaid to actually work in a school. Depending on the district you're in you have to deal with many problems. Some students are invovled in abusive family situations. Others have behavioral issues, or mental problems. Some are abusing substances well others could be there only because the state law says they have to be. I didn't become a teacher because I wanted to be assulted by students (which has happened to me). I didn't do it for the money (I can make more using my degree in several other fields). I became a teacher because I can make a difference in someones life.

As for the revenue issue. Under Proposal A it is everyone in the state, including employees of the schools that pay for the education system in the state. The sales tax increase in the state in 1994 was to fund education. It was a great idea in a booming economy. The problem is working stiffs like you (and me) are losing our jobs and thus can't afford to spend extra money which generates extra sales taxes and extra revenue for schools.

Also, as for the MEA and it's monopolistic grasp on education in the state. How is it different than the UAW of the UFCW ( A union to which I belong). There is a difference. A UAW worker or a UFCW work can legally strike if the employeer and the union can't agree on a collective bargining agreement. Public servents such as teachers, police officers and firefighters can't legally strike in Michigan. Since teachers can't strike, we must continue to use provisions of old contracts when they expire. These contracts are not beneficial to either side, however since schools districts need teachers to give up so much due to funding issues, and teachers need to maintain decent increases in pay and maintain benefits to keep up with cost of living increase, new contracts are very hard to get worked out.

[Howard from GR]

Boo hoo Jim. I really feel for you working 190 days a year. How aboot working 250-300 days a year. And still having to put away your own money for retirement, paying social security, and having to pay higher and higher insurance copays every year. All the while having to work for 25% less than what you were paid 5 years ago and produce 25% more.
Have you see the test scores in the Kenowa district? Only Godwin and GR are lower in the county. But the teachers deserve more money, more time off, and still not pay a nickel toward their own health?
One question, do students deserve to be sexually assualted by teachers, because some students have some behavioral issues?

[The Executive Director]

Hello, everyone.

The issue that concerns L.A.W. is the apparent lack of regard the Michigan Education Association and SOME (not all) of its members have towards the public who must carry the burden of paying teacher salaries and benefits. When teachers refuse to meet with student parents in protest that they might have to pay a small portion of their health care benefits (as happened in the Kenowa Hills district), it is time to remind them of the public service aspect of their jobs -- as we have done.

Regards,
Bill Tingley

[Jim Chapman]

Let's see, teaching each day of the week, plus working Saturday and Sunday means I'm working 7 days a week during the school year. Add into that the fact I work 2 jobs in the summer with maybe 1 day off every two weeks and I think I've worked slightly more hours than you do in a year. Please don't assume you know what my schedule is and post Bull____ ( Boo hoo Jim. I really feel for you working 190 days a year.) Until you know what someones life is like, please don't make assumptions that I only work 190 days per year. I actually worked 331 days total last year. That was between substittue teaching, lifeguarding, working at 2 other places of employment and being self-employed. Why do I do this? Because to be honest teaching is a bad way to make a living. You have to put up with people like yourself who think teachers are always money mongers and make way to much. I challange you to put yourself in a classroom each day of the week and see if you like it and if you feel teachers are still underpaid.

BTW: Last time I checked, babysitters are making around $5/hour per child in my area. Let's see, that means with a classroom of 25 kids, for 7 hours a day 180 days a year I should be making about 157,000 per year. Please actually know what the profession entails before posting crap about teachers being overpaid.

[Jim Chapman]

Responding to the post from Mr. Tingley which actually does make some valid points I have a few comments.

First, it is not the MEA that is involved in the the contract dispute in Kenowa Hills, it is the KHEA. Each district has thier own branch of the MEA. Kenowa Hills is and has been invovled in a long standing contract dispute. That is very much a fact. I am a very infrequent employee of Kenowa Hills so I don't know what the issues are up there. Please remember that the negotiations are a two way street. I'm sure the KHEA would be willing to come to an agreement if they felt they were not getting the short end of the stick.

Speaking for myself here: As an employee I would have no problems paying increased deductables and co-pays for health insurance as long as the employer were to grant resonable cost of living increases.

I suspect anyone else in this forum would have a problem if your employer were to increase deductables and co-pays on the insurance but not give you a resonable cost of living increase. If you assume the cost of living increase 1.5% per year, and some employers are asking employees to pay what amounts to 4% increases in insurance costs each year that means they should be getting at least 2% per year cost of living increase in thier pay. I see very few contracts in recent years in any organization which allows for 2% plus yearly raises but they are still asking for major concessions on insurance each year.

My father is a UAW committee member currently preparing for a contract renewal meeting with the company he works for as thier contract is up November 1st. The company has already submitted a proposal which incluses .75% pay increases for the 3 years of the contract. (For an employee making 16.00 per hour that pay would increase to $16.36 the final year of the contract, or from 33280/year to 34028.80/year) At the same time they are asking the employees to pay $75 month in insurance premiums. (The increase would be $900 /year) When you take into account the raise and the increase in insurance costs the works lose $151.2 in compensation. Would any of you think that is exceptable for yourselves. If you answered no, then why would you think it is exceptable for teachers?

[The Executive Director]

Hello, Mr. Chapman.

While I do not endorse the tone of Howard's comment, it is a fact that the typical American puts in more than 2,000 hours a year on the job. The time off teachers receive is a nice benefit.

As to needing experience as a teacher to comment on how the salary and benefit demands of teachers upon the public are just or not doesn't add up. If that were the case, no citizen could have an opinion on any public matter except that which he has direct experience of. (FYI: I do have considerable experience as an instructor in military and industrial training, so I have some acquaintance with what the profession requires.)

Finally, you ask a good question: "Would any of you think that is exceptable for yourselves. If you answered no, then why would you think it is exceptable for teachers?"

What is acceptable or not for someone employed in the private sector does not necessarily apply to someone in public service. The former is subject to competition which tends to level out the playing field. The latter has access to the public purse, which taxpayers must contribute to whether they like it or not. Therefore, the market does not play its role of checks and balances. Instead the public must treat its public servants equitably while public servants must have some sense of duty to the public.

How that determines what a fair salary and benefit package is depends upon the particulars of the situation, but the result will be unsatisfactory if equity and duty are not part of the formula.

Regards,
Bill Tingley

[Howard in GR]

I am sorry that I wasn't able to respond quicker, however I was working this week and not on spring break like most of the teachers in this area.

teachers are crying
no students
paychecks are larger

[The Executive Director]

Howard,

You do have a twisted sensibility. Thanks for the laugh.

Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director