<p>I realize there are many studies on public sector compensation and some say compensation is better than equivalent private sector employment and some say it is worse. I believe too many are fixated on “free insurance” and not total compensation. As I posted earlier a teacher in NJ on average makes $65,000 contributes 7% of that towards their pension (the employer contribution if made is 4%). Some were receiving free insurance but not all. In my circle of friends that is not a lucrative compensation package. I see people making 3 times the salary of a teacher upset about the free insurance. Why dwell on that and the pension and not look at the entire compensation package?</p>
<p>If people in the private sector had experienced steady economic growth over the past few decades, no one would be looking at public workers and their compensation. Unfortunately, because of income stagnation, now all of a sudden the teachers, garbage collectors, and other public employees are the “haves” while the hard-working people in the private sector are the “have nots.” Instead of looking at why corporations are shifting costs onto workers and not giving decent raises while STILL making record profits, it’s easier to look at the English teacher down the street who has the best garden every summer or the utility worker who has a bass boat or ATV with envy and resentment. This is why the carefully orchestrated class warfare is working–it’s simply a distraction from the real problems of economic inequality that have been brewing for decades.</p>
<p>As a contract negotiator, I am very familiar with my state. There are NO districts where teachers have NO cost share for insurance. And all have copays as well. And no one gets state supported health insurance for life either after they retire (there is a $110 a person amount you can receive IF YOU are purchasing your health insurance through your school district which is at the full cost…which far exceeds $110 a month). </p>
<p>State employees have very different packages than local school district teachers in this state, and folks wrongly assume they are the same.</p>
<p>My husband works in private industry. The cost share for health insurance through his company is half what it was through my school district. The company FULLY pays for coverage for all employees, and charges a small cost share for a family plan. </p>
<p>As they say YMMV depending on what school district, state, private company, etc. that you are talking about.</p>
<p>“Anyone who doubts how bruising school board politics can be should just look at the comments posted here in response to opinions and suggestions on how to economize school budgets. Accusations of teacher-bashing, exhortations to move out of town, and personal attacks about one’s choice of occupation are bad enough on a message board. But when it’s your neighbors, school staff, and the parents of your kids’ friends who engage in this type of behavior, it’s many times worse.” </p>
<p>So, what do you want to do about it to effect the changes you’d like to see, besides complaining on a message board? You (and I’m using that collectively) won’t run for school board apparently out of fear people might be mean to you. </p>
<p>It’s not going to change by osmosis. </p>
<p>And I think moving to a place where the schools are run more to your liking, is a very valid suggestion - given your reluctance to do anything else. People move all the time to states with lower taxes, right-to work policies, political climate - even because they simply prefer the weather someplace else.</p>
<p>Yes I agree. In my immediate family the private sector workers compensation is far superior to those of the public sector workers. In my circle of friends if you only look at those with similar educational/work background the private sector employees do much better. I do know some in the private sector that are not doing as well as those in the public sector but they are the outlier in the circle I travel in.</p>
<p>As of two years ago the average percent of health insurance premium paid by private sector employees was 27% for family coverage, compared to only 6.5% in our local school district, which is typical for most around here.</p>
<p>YMMV</p>
<p>What is the average compensation for college educated private sector workers in your area? Could better wages offset the fact they contribute more to HC?</p>
<p>Indeed costblog…YMMV. My husband’s company fully paid for all employee coverage. When I left my school district three years ago, my cost share was 18% and it has risen each of the years since I left. Copays and deductibles have also risen on that school plan. In addition, the district is converting from a PPO to a HSA/high deductible plan which is less costly for the district.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If my state employee friend was employed in the private sector with the skills/training he has, he’d be making much more in the private sector and have greater prestige within his field. Also, contrary to popular belief, public sector employment can be just as insecure as the public sector as he’s seen with massive layoffs in his department and the ones next door. </p>
<p>However, state employees have union representation and due process procedures which helped him deal with horrid supervisors such as one who made racist remarks and tried to lie about his “lack of work ethic” despite contrary evidence. That representation forced a meaningful investigation which found that the supervisor fabricated the “lack of work ethic” charge and that his charge of her making racist remarks was substantiated especially after they found she behaved the same way with two other employees with Eastern European heritage/surnames. </p>
<p>Comparatively speaking, the private sector procedures for such situations are still hit/miss and YMMV depending on company/HR from what I’ve heard from co-workers and labor lawyer friends. </p>
<p>Also, assuming he’s able to make his 20 years which is coming up, he becomes vested with some retirement income/benefits and if he stays for 30, he gets greater retirement income/benefits and more experience he can leverage in a second career in the private sector.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the mid 80’s I was a junior high school teacher (only for 3 years). We were paid for 9 months of work, but we had the option to have it spread out over 12 months. I’m not getting how that is unfair in any way. I made 17K per year, so I had to work during the summer to make enough to do more than live paycheck to paycheck with no savings.</p>
<p>I would be surprised if there are many industries anymore where insurance is fully covered. If there is, it would be rare indeed. Same goes for pensions. My particular company has a mandated 6% subtracted from salary that goes to 401K…even for a newly minted college kid making $25,000 a year - that is not a pension, those were paid for my the companies. That 6% withdrawal has 3% matched at 50%…small potatos. Its neither here nor there it is simply where things are going. Anyone who is an exempt worker, those that aren’t salaried and/or working straight shifts 40 hours a week, dial a phone number when they start working and dial a phone when they are done, for meetings, for instructional training, for their “normal” job. People are compensated when they work at whatever rate their job category puts them in whether it’s $16 an hour or $80 an hour. Seems fair to me for an industry like education where hours are diverse, I’m salaried and am not compensated for work outside of 40 hours a week. That would stop the squawking about things. A teacher is probably worth $40 - $50 an hour at the peak of their career + bennies. They can keep the step scale since a newly minted teacher is the equivalent of any newly minted employee.</p>
<p>The NJ pension for teachers the employee contributes 7% and the State is supposed to contribute 4% which really is not much different from the 6% plus 3% your employer does for the 401k.</p>
<p>
Well I don’t know where you are, but I am fine with that. Around here teachers have to have a masters degree within three years of being hired. That’s more educated than the median person. I want my kids to have good teachers who want to stay teachers and who can afford to live in our neighborhood not an hour away where taxes are lower.</p>
<p>Good point, mathmom. The distance is not such a big deal where I live, but I can imagine it is in the NYC area.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. Especially considering all the BS teachers receive on a daily basis from students, “not my Nigel/Nancy” parents, admins, DOE bureaucracy, politicians, and MSM. </p>
<p>If teaching was such easy money…why is it so many teachers who start out end up getting burned out and quitting for other sometimes more lucrative/prestigious professions?</p>
<p>One study found that teachers earn similar wages and much higher benefits when compared to similarly skilled private-sector workers.</p>
<p>… Using data from the Census Bureaus Survey of Income and Program Participation, we are able to track changes in individuals salaries as they switch jobs. We have shown that the average public-school teacher suffers a slight wage decrease upon leaving the profession.</p>
<p>[Critical</a> Issues in Assessing Teacher Compensation](<a href=“http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/01/critical-issues-in-assessing-teacher-compensation]Critical”>http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/01/critical-issues-in-assessing-teacher-compensation)</p>
<p>(I fully expect the source to be bashed. That would certainly be in line with some other comments made here.)</p>
<p>Why would we bash this unbiased source. Heck they designed the health care fix of mandatory insurance. If teachers only suffer a slight cut that would indicate the pay is within reason.</p>
<p>I will question how they determine what benefits teachers receive because at least in NJ there are 600 different contracts and the benefits offered are different in all of them.</p>
<p>My brother has a 401k where he contributes 6% and the match is 10% can I now claim that all private sector 401k’s are better than government pensions?</p>
<p>ok, so this thread isn’t about high property taxes at all. It started with a rant about public pension (methodology) and there has been a lot of defense of public workers. </p>
<p>I will say coincidentally or not, there was a recent report - now a small scandal - about a practice in North Carolina whereby some public officials (like university presidents) have their salaries artificially pumped up for their last few years before retirement, by having many nonmonetary perks converted to salary, which then increases their pension dramatically. In an extreme case you could have a person receiving an annual pension that was higher than his working salary of 5 years earlier. </p>
<p>Point being, at some level the OP may have a point.</p>
<p>That is an abuse and it should stop but that is not the norm for the vast majority of public workers and attacks on their pensions should not be based on these extremes.</p>
<p>It would be nice to redirect this thread into a positive one sharing ideas rather than attacking one another. I and many do not want a acrimonious relationship with those who educate our future generations. With that, I would like to ask those in the industry, who have a inner perspective, if there are inefficiencies in the system which can be corrected to help reduce costs? </p>
<p>I also would like to know why combining school districts is a bad idea? We could keep the buildings as they are. The larger districts would have more than one hs? Currently in our district we have more than one middle school and elementary school. Also, wouldn’t this allow for bulk purchasing of all items which would reduce costs?</p>