Union Teachers Say The Hell With Students

beenthere

New Member
Why do you think teachers shouldn't make 50-60k a year? Is their job not that important?
I think 50-60k a year for teachers is a fair wage. But I also think they should contribute more to their own health and retirement benefits, especially in a down economy. I don't know about the Chicago teachers union, but here in California, the teachers retirement benefits are calculated by their two highest years of pay. Knowing this, most of them will get raises and work overtime their last two years to inflate their retirement benefits. That's fucking BS.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I think 50-60k a year for teachers is a fair wage. But I also think they should contribute more to their own health and retirement benefits, especially in a down economy. I don't know about the Chicago teachers union, but here in California, the teachers retirement benefits are calculated by their two highest years of pay. Knowing this, most of them will get raises and work overtime their last two years to inflate their retirement benefits. That's fucking BS.

I think 269k is plenty for CEOs and they should pay for their own benefits as well.
 

mr2shim

Well-Known Member
I think 50-60k a year for teachers is a fair wage. But I also think they should contribute more to their own health and retirement benefits, especially in a down economy. I don't know about the Chicago teachers union, but here in California, the teachers retirement benefits are calculated by their two highest years of pay. Knowing this, most of them will get raises and work overtime their last two years to inflate their retirement benefits. That's fucking BS.
Oh shit... I agree with you about something. WTF IS GOING ON. I'm scared.....

I think 269k is plenty for CEOs and they should pay for their own benefits as well.
I also agree with this. CEO's do nothing that special for the company except make decisions that will inevitably cost someone their job. There is no legit reason one person needs to be making 15 million a year. Same goes for athletes. The cost we pay for fame is disgusting.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I think 269k is plenty for CEOs and they should pay for their own benefits as well.
i think $45k with no benefits is a fair wage for a carpenter, let's write it into law.

nurses only get $33k, but they get benefits.

and doctors should only get $75k a year max, by law.

what sayeth you, clayton?
 

beenthere

New Member
Oh shit... I agree with you about something. WTF IS GOING ON. I'm scared.....

It's the dreads bro!

I also agree with this. CEO's do nothing that special for the company except make decisions that will inevitably cost someone their job. There is no legit reason one person needs to be making 15 million a year. Same goes for athletes. The cost we pay for fame is disgusting.
Major difference, teachers are paid by you and I, so we should have a say in it.
CEO's are from the private sector, not paid for by you and I.
Even though I agree that many of them are way over paid, it's not my business.
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
basically your views on economics allows you to wash your hands of it,

just seems backwards . . . .idk, my own feeligns about money and priorities within a society make me biased
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Parents should not have the free range to do things like pull their kids out of science classes when the chapter on evolution comes around, if they feel that way, they should be required to home school their kid or put them in private school. Parents should not have the option to protest grades their kids receive on assignments or in the class. You get what you earn, if you want something better, do better.
So Parents shouldn't be the ones in charge of their own children? There is someone better to be the parent? Who would this be? Do they know how expensive it is to raise kids?
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
i think $45k with no benefits is a fair wage for a carpenter, let's write it into law.

nurses only get $33k, but they get benefits.

and doctors should only get $75k a year max, by law.

what sayeth you, clayton?
Ohhh Can I be an equal slave too?
 

mr2shim

Well-Known Member
basically your views on economics allows you to wash your hands of it,

just seems backwards . . . .idk, my own feeligns about money and priorities within a society make me biased
It's capitalism at it's finest. Quite sad really but what are you gonna do about it, beenthere is right. It's private so technically speaking the Govt. can't/shouldn't put caps on it. It creates a huge grey area if they do cap it and it is an even bigger grey area if they don't. It's the, dammed if you do dammed if you don't type deal.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Oh shit... I agree with you about something. WTF IS GOING ON. I'm scared.....



I also agree with this. CEO's do nothing that special for the company except make decisions that will inevitably cost someone their job. There is no legit reason one person needs to be making 15 million a year. Same goes for athletes. The cost we pay for fame is disgusting.

I am being absurd. CEO's should certainly get a percentage of the earnings of the company they captain. But a part of those earnings are what a competent person bargains for as compensation. Beenthere is claiming that they shouldn't be allowed to ask for or bargain for what they think is a fair wage.

If we look at this compensation in the same way we look at the compensation of a CEO, then each teacher should receive a portion of every student's income when he goes to work as a portion of what that working student brings to the table of his employ is a result of how well (or poorly) each teacher does his job.

Beenthere would not be upset about this because the teacher is now no longer getting much from the tax payer.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Well I don't think the problem is primarily the fault of big business, I blame the governments involvement in it. Your want for big government dirties your hands IMO.

Of course you do, it cannot be business's fault it must always in every situation be the fault of government. If that were not the case, you would not be able to reconcile your belief with reality, or, more properly, realtiy with your belief.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
I am being absurd. CEO's should certainly get a percentage of the earnings of the company they captain. But a part of those earnings are what a competent person bargains for as compensation. Beenthere is claiming that they shouldn't be allowed to ask for or bargain for what they think is a fair wage.

If we look at this compensation in the same way we look at the compensation of a CEO, then each teacher should receive a portion of every student's income when he goes to work as a portion of what that working student brings to the table of his employ is a result of how well (or poorly) each teacher does his job.

Beenthere would not be upset about this because the teacher is now no longer getting much from the tax payer.
Great idea, as long as the teacher pays the student if the student can't perform. Gotta keep it fair, no special privileges.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Great idea, as long as the teacher pays the student if the student can't perform. Gotta keep it fair, no special privileges.

I like it. There should be a time limit on either side - say 10 years? each teacher gets a greater or lesser percentage depending upon what line of work the student eventualy goes into.



in other words, an art teacher won't get much money from an engineer but might from an architect but more even from a sucessful art curator or painter.
 

beenthere

New Member
It's capitalism at it's finest. Quite sad really but what are you gonna do about it, beenthere is right. It's private so technically speaking the Govt. can't/shouldn't put caps on it. It creates a huge grey area if they do cap it and it is an even bigger grey area if they don't. It's the, dammed if you do dammed if you don't type deal.
I know you guys will disagree, but IMO, big business by itself would never be the monopoly we all loathe. When government implements regulations that smaller companies cannot afford to financially comply with, only the big corporations go on.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I know you guys will disagree, but IMO, big business by itself would never be the monopoly we all loathe. When government implements regulations that smaller companies cannot afford to financially comply with, only the big corporations go on.

Really....


So a company with billions of dollars in resources never ever inhibits other competing companies, they welcome the competition and don't really want to dominate a market. It is only regulations that have put mom and pop stores out of business when Walmart comes to town.


[SUP]
These people didn't do anything unethical to limit competition, it was all government's fault, right?[/SUP]
 

mr2shim

Well-Known Member
I know you guys will disagree, but IMO, big business by itself would never be the monopoly we all loathe. When government implements regulations that smaller companies cannot afford to financially comply with, only the big corporations go on.
That would be true IF big business didn't lobby the shit out of congressmen/women to get these regulations passed that allow them more freedom and in turn crush small business.
 
Top