Big C_Cal;842325834 said:
I believe that bill refers to "gross misconduct" cases, whereas the subject here is geared more towards "significantly below average" to "way below average" teachers.
OdontoBear66;842325711 said:
Those rights, I believe I indicated, were abused before Taft-Hartley, and my best guess was for a period of time thereafter. Those protections have long since been cast in concrete. It is the reach of unions to protect their bureaucracy and the forced contributions from "all" members that go to lobbying that I find objectionable. If you have read any other appeals of mine in this thread and others it is toward a moderate stance. I do not think you would find me objecting to any of the rights you have listed above. And I do think you know what my reference is to---that of unions existing for unions per se, not for "the kids" as they infer in any way.
Let me give you an example. I am a member of AARP. I get certain benefits, but object to most of their political stances. I can weigh whether the benefits I get are more important than the philosophy I disagree with, and decide as to continue being a member or not. Or if I were to work for a bank or a brokerage house, or an insurance company I would not be forced to have a portion of my salary go to a political party I did not agree with. Something along that order, but not specifically correct.
southseasbear;842325695 said:
The bipartisan bill predates the Vergara verdict and was a response to the bill proposed by Alex Padilla that would have destroyed due process protections. Without writing a treatise on its flaws, the bottom line is that teachers would still have had the "right" to a hearing before an administrative law judge, but the opinion would be advisory, so even if a teacher had compelling evidence to dispute frivolous charges, the district would retain sole discretion to dismiss. Now some of you may say, "so what, that's what happens in private sector." It's important to understand that public sector employees make less than those in private sector, and (more importantly) there is a stigma in public sector, particularly education, regarding employees dismissed elsewhere. You may get "let go" from a bank, movie studio, law firm, etc. and still find a job elsewhere; that is not the case with public school teachers.
The current bipartisan bill is supported by CTA (and I think CFT) but it too has flaws: it requires districts to reveal any allegations of a serious matter regardless of how old and regardless of the outcome. So, an innocent teacher is accused of child abuse (which happens all the time, as retaliatory students have learned it gets the teacher removed from the school for months, even if the teacher gets to keep his/her job), exonerated, and then ten years later chooses to move to another part of the state. The district would have to reveal the allegations to the prospective employer.
wifeisafurd;842325992 said:
You don't think its suspicious that both the state senate and assembly only voted on the bill after the decision was announced? Also, you don't think the only reason that the unions supported the bill was the decision?
Big C_Cal;842325834 said:
I believe that bill refers to "gross misconduct" cases, whereas the subject here is geared more towards "significantly below average" to "way below average" teachers.
1979bear;842325987 said:
Have any of the teachers posting here gone to bat for the administration (and yourselves) to testify against the bad teachers or otherwise worked to remove them?
BearGoggles;842325755 said:
No one has suggested that teachers should be deprived due process or denied "just cause" protections. The problem is that the current tenure regime (that is an apt description of it, even if the actual word is not used in statutes or CBAs) makes firing a teacher prohibitively expensive and time consuming.
Notwithstanding your assertion that they have no blame, the unions are absolutely to blame for intentionally creating a system where firing a teacher is next to impossible. Your assertion that this system "benefits the employer" is laughable - if that was the case why would the Unions be fighting any and all reforms to the current system?
Moreover, there has been extensive reporting on the lengthy time period and extremely high cost of firing teachers. The procedural roadblocks and attorneys fees create a strong disincentive to even try. "California has more than 1,000 school districts and 300,000 teachers, yet only 667 dismissal cases were filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings between January 2003 and March 2012, according to the Los Angeles Unified School District's chief labor and employment counsel, Alex Molina" (see linked CC Times article below). By any measure, this is not a system that benefits the employer, unless you believe that less than .3% (yes, less than 3/10ths of one percent) of teachers deserve to be fired.
Even in the rare circumstance a district does try to fire a teacher, the review "commissions", stacked by the Unions and their political cronies, often fail to fire teachers even in extreme circumstances (such as a teacher found with porn, pot, and coke at school).
So the issue isn't due process. The issue is that the process has become so expensive and time consuming, that it is almost impossible to fire a teacher even for just cause. The problem is so bad, that in NY, they are simply paying teachers not to teach, rather than firing them.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/03/local/me-teachers3
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_22454532/firing-tenured-teacher-california-can-be-tough
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/22/new-york-teachers-paid-to_n_219336.html
1979bear;842325987 said:
Have any of the teachers posting here gone to bat for the administration (and yourselves) to testify against the bad teachers or otherwise worked to remove them?
88Bear;842326003 said:
Are you freaking kidding me?
This is rapidly turning into one of the most unsettling threads that I have ever read on this site.
In response to your question - are they somehow obligated to? Which of you "non-teachers' has swooped in (regarding your respective profession) and gone 'to-the-mat' to eradicate the perceived wrongdoing in your workplace? What a crock of crap. How is a teacher more obligated to take on the health of an entire school than you are to somehow 'fix' your place of employment? There are a whole lot of "high horses" on this site.
The amount here that folks don't know about collective bargaining can't be shoehorned into Memorial Stadium.
The notion that people somehow can't be fired if they are under an MOU - teachers specifically in this thread - is flat ridiculous. I hope the folks here realize that when a Union signs a contract, it is also signed by MANAGEMENT. The protections extended (or won) in contract negotiations are usually gained over time by concessions in some other area which are demanded by management. Grievances occur when management is guilty (or at least accused) of not following the contract that they themselves helped craft.
My wife is a Director of HR for a large private company. I work for a Union. We regularly discuss how often an employee's case arises to some crisis level because a great many managers simply won't manage. If management simply crosses their 't's and dots their 'i's - see DOCUMENTS - their case against an employee over a reasonable time (say 6 months), it is usually a slam dunk to terminate them. I'm not directly knowledgeable about how long it takes to terminate an ineffective teacher, but I'm virtually certain it is eminently doable. MY guess is that it typically doesn't happen because most Administrators simply won't take the time to perform their due diligence.
I'd also really like to hear how many folks here have ever even read a union contract. I think most would find the content to be more than reasonable. Wages, hours, working conditions. Management always retains the right to manage.
1979bear;842326017 said:
I take your answer as a "no". If you want someone out and don't help push them out, you aren't helping solve the problem. If the union contract prevents this assistance, you're reminding me why I walk through picket lines to buy things I don't need. At least you can be happy that Kershaw no hit the Rockies just now.
88Bear;842326034 said:
This is a nonsensical take.
No contract obligates members to attempt to ruin the careers of other members. Discipline is the purview of management.
I really don't see where this is any different than private industry.
Frankly, I could care less if you are anti-union. Suffice it to say that we don't agree. The middle-class virtually owes any quality in its collective 'work life' to unions, but each to their own.
(In addition, I have absolutely no idea what your Kershaw comment means. Are you making some reference to the player's union?)
cbbass1;842327052 said:
88Bear, I congratulate you for being an oasis of sanity in this discussion. What you assert is true -- the rise of the U.S. middle class, and the wealth of our nation, was driven by the New Deal and strong union membership, which helped to raise wages and salaries.
The economics are very simple: Workers = Consumers, and Wages & Salaries = Demand. When policies like the New Deal are implemented to keep wages & salaries high, as they were from the 1930s to the 1970s, the resulting demand drives the economy.
The essence of Reaganomics (aka 'Supply Side'/Voodoo/Trickle-Down Economics), and the ensuing War On The Middle Class, was that increasing corporate profits should be the policy goal, instead of high wages. To that end, high wages & salaries were seen as a problem -- not a positive.
The economy we have today is a direct result of these policies. Consumer demand is horribly low; small businesses are dying in towns everywhere because people can't afford what they used to buy.
Unfortunately, nearly our entire nation has bought into the Investor/Corporate view of the economy over the last 34 years, and we've collectively forgotten about what makes an economy work.
If you think that profits or investment drive the economy, then you've allowed yourself to be misled, and most likely, propagandized. And you would be [U]wrong[/U].
Does anyone actually think that by paying workers less, across the board, our consumer economy will improve?
A consumer economy is driven by the consumers' (i.e., workers') disposable income, their economic security, and their perception of future economic prospects. NOT the DJIA or the S&P 500 index.
The incessant union-bashing and complaints about employee incompetence are coming from an Investor/Corporate viewpoint. The premise is that if the organization isn't performing well, the lazy, overpaid employees and their union are to blame; and the solution is to get rid of the union, fire the "lowest-performing" 1/3 of employees, hire great, young, motivated employees to replace the fired ones -- at a lower salary(!) -- and of course, funnel greater rewards toward the administrators & managers who are able to accomplish this.
When I see this in action, I'm reminded of the old adage, "It's a poor carpenter who blames his tools."
In California, we're getting -- precisely -- the K-12 performance that we're paying for. Thanks to Prop 13 and the Investors' Revolt, CA is well below the national median in per-pupil funding (only $8378/pupil/yr in 2011), with no extra $$ to accommodate the needs of the large population of immigrants (many non-English-speaking) who are encouraged to join the oversupply of workers in the State -- for the purpose of keeping wages & salaries down!
Prop 13 was sold to us in 1978 because many seniors were, in fact, getting taxed out of their homes. This was due to the meteoric rise in the value of those homes! Today, the valuation exemption only applies to about 1% of the residences in CA, but it applies to all of the commercial properties. Here's how it works: http://closetheloophole.com/sf-weekly-prop-13. This is yet another way in which large corporations evade taxes, and push the State's tax burden onto the backs of workers and individuals.
I think that $8378/pupil/yr is outrageous and inadequate for CA. If we moved up to #10 (Minnesota, at $12,500), we would have much better results. All we would need to do is
+ update assessments on all CA commercial properties, and
+ release all non-violent drug offenders from CA prisons (and save ~$47,100 per inmate per year)
+ return management of CA prisons to the State
I believe in having excellent Public Education. That's why I went to Cal. It's an investment that we make in our students because we need them to be educated, intelligent, and to have good judgment.
That includes NOT being misled.
cbbass1;842327052 said:
88Bear, I congratulate you for being an oasis of sanity in this discussion. What you assert is true -- the rise of the U.S. middle class, and the wealth of our nation, was driven by the New Deal and strong union membership, which helped to raise wages and salaries.
The economics are very simple: Workers = Consumers, and Wages & Salaries = Demand. When policies like the New Deal are implemented to keep wages & salaries high, as they were from the 1930s to the 1970s, the resulting demand drives the economy.
The essence of Reaganomics (aka 'Supply Side'/Voodoo/Trickle-Down Economics), and the ensuing War On The Middle Class, was that increasing corporate profits should be the policy goal, instead of high wages. To that end, high wages & salaries were seen as a problem -- not a positive.
The economy we have today is a direct result of these policies. Consumer demand is horribly low; small businesses are dying in towns everywhere because people can't afford what they used to buy.
Unfortunately, nearly our entire nation has bought into the Investor/Corporate view of the economy over the last 34 years, and we've collectively forgotten about what makes an economy work.
If you think that profits or investment drive the economy, then you've allowed yourself to be misled, and most likely, propagandized. And you would be [U]wrong[/U].
Does anyone actually think that by paying workers less, across the board, our consumer economy will improve?
A consumer economy is driven by the consumers' (i.e., workers') disposable income, their economic security, and their perception of future economic prospects. NOT the DJIA or the S&P 500 index.
The incessant union-bashing and complaints about employee incompetence are coming from an Investor/Corporate viewpoint. The premise is that if the organization isn't performing well, the lazy, overpaid employees and their union are to blame; and the solution is to get rid of the union, fire the "lowest-performing" 1/3 of employees, hire great, young, motivated employees to replace the fired ones -- at a lower salary(!) -- and of course, funnel greater rewards toward the administrators & managers who are able to accomplish this.
When I see this in action, I'm reminded of the old adage, "It's a poor carpenter who blames his tools."
In California, we're getting -- precisely -- the K-12 performance that we're paying for. Thanks to Prop 13 and the Investors' Revolt, CA is well below the national median in per-pupil funding (only $8378/pupil/yr in 2011), with no extra $$ to accommodate the needs of the large population of immigrants (many non-English-speaking) who are encouraged to join the oversupply of workers in the State -- for the purpose of keeping wages & salaries down!
Prop 13 was sold to us in 1978 because many seniors were, in fact, getting taxed out of their homes. This was due to the meteoric rise in the value of those homes! Today, the valuation exemption only applies to about 1% of the residences in CA, but it applies to all of the commercial properties. Here's how it works: http://closetheloophole.com/sf-weekly-prop-13. This is yet another way in which large corporations evade taxes, and push the State's tax burden onto the backs of workers and individuals.
I think that $8378/pupil/yr is outrageous and inadequate for CA. If we moved up to #10 (Minnesota, at $12,500), we would have much better results. All we would need to do is
+ update assessments on all CA commercial properties, and
+ release all non-violent drug offenders from CA prisons (and save ~$47,100 per inmate per year)
+ return management of CA prisons to the State
I believe in having excellent Public Education. That's why I went to Cal. It's an investment that we make in our students because we need them to be educated, intelligent, and to have good judgment.
That includes NOT being misled.
cbbass1;842327052 said:
88Bear, I congratulate you for being an oasis of sanity in this discussion. What you assert is true -- the rise of the U.S. middle class, and the wealth of our nation, was driven by the New Deal and strong union membership, which helped to raise wages and salaries.
The economics are very simple: Workers = Consumers, and Wages & Salaries = Demand. When policies like the New Deal are implemented to keep wages & salaries high, as they were from the 1930s to the 1970s, the resulting demand drives the economy.
The essence of Reaganomics (aka 'Supply Side'/Voodoo/Trickle-Down Economics), and the ensuing War On The Middle Class, was that increasing corporate profits should be the policy goal, instead of high wages. To that end, high wages & salaries were seen as a problem -- not a positive.
The economy we have today is a direct result of these policies. Consumer demand is horribly low; small businesses are dying in towns everywhere because people can't afford what they used to buy.
Unfortunately, nearly our entire nation has bought into the Investor/Corporate view of the economy over the last 34 years, and we've collectively forgotten about what makes an economy work.
If you think that profits or investment drive the economy, then you've allowed yourself to be misled, and most likely, propagandized. And you would be [U]wrong[/U].
Does anyone actually think that by paying workers less, across the board, our consumer economy will improve?
A consumer economy is driven by the consumers' (i.e., workers') disposable income, their economic security, and their perception of future economic prospects. NOT the DJIA or the S&P 500 index.
The incessant union-bashing and complaints about employee incompetence are coming from an Investor/Corporate viewpoint. The premise is that if the organization isn't performing well, the lazy, overpaid employees and their union are to blame; and the solution is to get rid of the union, fire the "lowest-performing" 1/3 of employees, hire great, young, motivated employees to replace the fired ones -- at a lower salary(!) -- and of course, funnel greater rewards toward the administrators & managers who are able to accomplish this.
When I see this in action, I'm reminded of the old adage, "It's a poor carpenter who blames his tools."
In California, we're getting -- precisely -- the K-12 performance that we're paying for. Thanks to Prop 13 and the Investors' Revolt, CA is well below the national median in per-pupil funding (only $8378/pupil/yr in 2011), with no extra $$ to accommodate the needs of the large population of immigrants (many non-English-speaking) who are encouraged to join the oversupply of workers in the State -- for the purpose of keeping wages & salaries down!
Prop 13 was sold to us in 1978 because many seniors were, in fact, getting taxed out of their homes. This was due to the meteoric rise in the value of those homes! Today, the valuation exemption only applies to about 1% of the residences in CA, but it applies to all of the commercial properties. Here's how it works: http://closetheloophole.com/sf-weekly-prop-13. This is yet another way in which large corporations evade taxes, and push the State's tax burden onto the backs of workers and individuals.
I think that $8378/pupil/yr is outrageous and inadequate for CA. If we moved up to #10 (Minnesota, at $12,500), we would have much better results. All we would need to do is
+ update assessments on all CA commercial properties, and
+ release all non-violent drug offenders from CA prisons (and save ~$47,100 per inmate per year)
+ return management of CA prisons to the State
I believe in having excellent Public Education. That's why I went to Cal. It's an investment that we make in our students because we need them to be educated, intelligent, and to have good judgment.
That includes NOT being misled.
cbbass1;842327052 said:
88Bear, I congratulate you for being an oasis of sanity in this discussion. What you assert is true -- the rise of the U.S. middle class, and the wealth of our nation, was driven by the New Deal and strong union membership, which helped to raise wages and salaries.
The economics are very simple: Workers = Consumers, and Wages & Salaries = Demand. When policies like the New Deal are implemented to keep wages & salaries high, as they were from the 1930s to the 1970s, the resulting demand drives the economy.
The essence of Reaganomics (aka 'Supply Side'/Voodoo/Trickle-Down Economics), and the ensuing War On The Middle Class, was that increasing corporate profits should be the policy goal, instead of high wages. To that end, high wages & salaries were seen as a problem -- not a positive.
The economy we have today is a direct result of these policies. Consumer demand is horribly low; small businesses are dying in towns everywhere because people can't afford what they used to buy.
Unfortunately, nearly our entire nation has bought into the Investor/Corporate view of the economy over the last 34 years, and we've collectively forgotten about what makes an economy work.
If you think that profits or investment drive the economy, then you've allowed yourself to be misled, and most likely, propagandized. And you would be [U]wrong[/U].
Does anyone actually think that by paying workers less, across the board, our consumer economy will improve?
A consumer economy is driven by the consumers' (i.e., workers') disposable income, their economic security, and their perception of future economic prospects. NOT the DJIA or the S&P 500 index.
The incessant union-bashing and complaints about employee incompetence are coming from an Investor/Corporate viewpoint. The premise is that if the organization isn't performing well, the lazy, overpaid employees and their union are to blame; and the solution is to get rid of the union, fire the "lowest-performing" 1/3 of employees, hire great, young, motivated employees to replace the fired ones -- at a lower salary(!) -- and of course, funnel greater rewards toward the administrators & managers who are able to accomplish this.
When I see this in action, I'm reminded of the old adage, "It's a poor carpenter who blames his tools."
In California, we're getting -- precisely -- the K-12 performance that we're paying for. Thanks to Prop 13 and the Investors' Revolt, CA is well below the national median in per-pupil funding (only $8378/pupil/yr in 2011), with no extra $$ to accommodate the needs of the large population of immigrants (many non-English-speaking) who are encouraged to join the oversupply of workers in the State -- for the purpose of keeping wages & salaries down!
Prop 13 was sold to us in 1978 because many seniors were, in fact, getting taxed out of their homes. This was due to the meteoric rise in the value of those homes! Today, the valuation exemption only applies to about 1% of the residences in CA, but it applies to all of the commercial properties. Here's how it works: http://closetheloophole.com/sf-weekly-prop-13. This is yet another way in which large corporations evade taxes, and push the State's tax burden onto the backs of workers and individuals.
I think that $8378/pupil/yr is outrageous and inadequate for CA. If we moved up to #10 (Minnesota, at $12,500), we would have much better results. All we would need to do is
+ update assessments on all CA commercial properties, and
+ release all non-violent drug offenders from CA prisons (and save ~$47,100 per inmate per year)
+ return management of CA prisons to the State
I believe in having excellent Public Education. That's why I went to Cal. It's an investment that we make in our students because we need them to be educated, intelligent, and to have good judgment.
That includes NOT being misled.
wifeisafurd;842327365 said:
Well this sounds more like the voice insanity to me.
California public schools are underfunded and the higher education is underfunded relative to most states. Yet California has been highest to second highest taxing state is the nation over the last 10 years, and has the highest (or second highest) tax rate for wealthy individual and corporations of all states over the last ten years, just in case you want to know who is paying for all this. So what else is the money being spent on? At some points your going to have to understand there is trade-off between public welfare, public services and employee compensation and funding the school system.
And what does the future hold? I doubt with your liberal rants you have read a California bond OS lately or even know what that is, but there is a huge future [U]unfunded [/U]pension liability that is not considered in the purported budget surplus (its off books), all of which you can learn about from doing some homework. Its so large that without the state declaring bankruptcy and "reorganizing" its obligations, you either will have to eliminate most social welfare programs for decades or devastate the school system. You could tax taxpayers in the top 25% at a 100% per the next 100 years and still not make a dent in the unfunded obligation. I don't think you understand that paying governmental workers way above what other governments do comes with a cost of pushing out governmental service (like education) because in the long run there really is a cap on taxes levels because people and capital make decisions to move, avoid taxes, or tax rebellions (so for example, you end up with votes choosing RR or Thatcher).
I don't want to get into a blow by blow response to each of your comments (and I agree with some, like how much Cali spends on prisoners is absurd (we certainly overpay our union guards), but the property tax issue is far more complicated than the garbage article you posted to. The residential numbers are just bogus. Do you have any conception how many people and companies rec'd Prop 8 reductions during the last recession (my guess is you have no clue of why this is significant and shows the articles claims are BS). And who gets these reductions? Or who would pay for the increase in taxes. Since you undoubtedly have no idea how a commercial lease works you probably don't know its the tenants, not the property owners. If there was a reassessment to today's market values, how many small tenants could afford to pay these massive increases? Brown will threaten and oppose any such effort because we are looking at massive unemployment cause by the collapse of small businesses. And some point public unions and public management need to understand that the private sector pays for their largess and there is a day of reckoning coming even without these incredibly short sided taxing concepts.
My sense is you see those who pay for the schools as evil and declaring war on you and your beloved unions. You speak in conspiratorial over the top language regarding forces that you think result in what essentially can be reduced to broader concept of income inequality. Since its clear you have no background economics, my suggestion is read Thomas Piketty's book on Capital (it bears that name) so you can actually get a some idea, from an actual data standpoint, the sources of income inequality, where and when it exists, and the implications of same. (Piketty btw is considered the leading economist on income distribution, and is a French socialist for those that like labels).
Suffice to say most taxpayers reading your rant don't want you teaching their kids, and if this the views of public teachers, won't support public educaton.
wifeisafurd;842327365 said:
Well this sounds more like the voice insanity to me.
California public schools are underfunded and the higher education is underfunded relative to most states. Yet California has been highest to second highest taxing state is the nation over the last 10 years, and has the highest (or second highest) tax rate for wealthy individual and corporations of all states over the last ten years, just in case you want to know who is paying for all this. So what else is the money being spent on? At some points your going to have to understand there is trade-off between public welfare, public services and employee compensation and funding the school system.
And what does the future hold? I doubt with your liberal rants you have read a California bond OS lately or even know what that is, but there is a huge future [U]unfunded [/U]pension liability that is not considered in the purported budget surplus (its off books), all of which you can learn about from doing some homework. Its so large that without the state declaring bankruptcy and "reorganizing" its obligations, you either will have to eliminate most social welfare programs for decades or devastate the school system. You could tax taxpayers in the top 25% at a 100% per the next 100 years and still not make a dent in the unfunded obligation. I don't think you understand that paying governmental workers way above what other governments do comes with a cost of pushing out governmental service (like education) because in the long run there really is a cap on taxes levels because people and capital make decisions to move, avoid taxes, or tax rebellions (so for example, you end up with votes choosing RR or Thatcher).
I don't want to get into a blow by blow response to each of your comments (and I agree with some, like how much Cali spends on prisoners is absurd (we certainly overpay our union guards), but the property tax issue is far more complicated than the garbage article you posted to. The residential numbers are just bogus. Do you have any conception how many people and companies rec'd Prop 8 reductions during the last recession (my guess is you have no clue of why this is significant and shows the articles claims are BS). And who gets these reductions? Or who would pay for the increase in taxes. Since you undoubtedly have no idea how a commercial lease works you probably don't know its the tenants, not the property owners. If there was a reassessment to today's market values, how many small tenants could afford to pay these massive increases? Brown will threaten and oppose any such effort because we are looking at massive unemployment cause by the collapse of small businesses. And some point public unions and public management need to understand that the private sector pays for their largess and there is a day of reckoning coming even without these incredibly short sided taxing concepts.
My sense is you see those who pay for the schools as evil and declaring war on you and your beloved unions. You speak in conspiratorial over the top language regarding forces that you think result in what essentially can be reduced to broader concept of income inequality. Since its clear you have no background economics, my suggestion is read Thomas Piketty's book on Capital (it bears that name) so you can actually get a some idea, from an actual data standpoint, the sources of income inequality, where and when it exists, and the implications of same. (Piketty btw is considered the leading economist on income distribution, and is a French socialist for those that like labels).
Suffice to say most taxpayers reading your rant don't want you teaching their kids, and if this the views of public teachers, won't support public educaton.
wifeisafurd;842327365 said:
Well this sounds more like the voice insanity to me.
California public schools are underfunded and the higher education is underfunded relative to most states. Yet California has been highest to second highest taxing state is the nation over the last 10 years, and has the highest (or second highest) tax rate for wealthy individual and corporations of all states over the last ten years, just in case you want to know who is paying for all this. So what else is the money being spent on? At some points your going to have to understand there is trade-off between public welfare, public services and employee compensation and funding the school system.
And what does the future hold? I doubt with your liberal rants you have read a California bond OS lately or even know what that is, but there is a huge future [U]unfunded [/U]pension liability that is not considered in the purported budget surplus (its off books), all of which you can learn about from doing some homework. Its so large that without the state declaring bankruptcy and "reorganizing" its obligations, you either will have to eliminate most social welfare programs for decades or devastate the school system. You could tax taxpayers in the top 25% at a 100% per the next 100 years and still not make a dent in the unfunded obligation. I don't think you understand that paying governmental workers way above what other governments do comes with a cost of pushing out governmental service (like education) because in the long run there really is a cap on taxes levels because people and capital make decisions to move, avoid taxes, or tax rebellions (so for example, you end up with votes choosing RR or Thatcher).
I don't want to get into a blow by blow response to each of your comments (and I agree with some, like how much Cali spends on prisoners is absurd (we certainly overpay our union guards), but the property tax issue is far more complicated than the garbage article you posted to. The residential numbers are just bogus. Do you have any conception how many people and companies rec'd Prop 8 reductions during the last recession (my guess is you have no clue of why this is significant and shows the articles claims are BS). And who gets these reductions? Or who would pay for the increase in taxes. Since you undoubtedly have no idea how a commercial lease works you probably don't know its the tenants, not the property owners. If there was a reassessment to today's market values, how many small tenants could afford to pay these massive increases? Brown will threaten and oppose any such effort because we are looking at massive unemployment cause by the collapse of small businesses. And some point public unions and public management need to understand that the private sector pays for their largess and there is a day of reckoning coming even without these incredibly short sided taxing concepts.
My sense is you see those who pay for the schools as evil and declaring war on you and your beloved unions. You speak in conspiratorial over the top language regarding forces that you think result in what essentially can be reduced to broader concept of income inequality. Since its clear you have no background economics, my suggestion is read Thomas Piketty's book on Capital (it bears that name) so you can actually get a some idea, from an actual data standpoint, the sources of income inequality, where and when it exists, and the implications of same. (Piketty btw is considered the leading economist on income distribution, and is a French socialist for those that like labels).
Suffice to say most taxpayers reading your rant don't want you teaching their kids, and if this the views of public teachers, won't support public educaton.
southseasbear;842327528 said:
I could write paragraphs on how unbecoming it is for you to attack 88Bear for his political views, on how you ignore the recent pension reforms that have been enacted (and which amount to serious paycuts for underpaid public employees....,
How proud you must feel with the trial court's Vergara decision. We are one step closer to making sure that teachers in your community worship at the right religious establishment, belong to the right club, date (and ultimately marry) the right person, read the right books (such as "Thomas Piketty's book on Capital"), and harbor the right political and economic beliefs.
.
southseasbear;842327528
First, where do you get the authority to believe that [B said:
you speak on behalf of "most taxpayers?" Frankly, everyone is a "taxpayer," since even the poor who do not pay income tax devote a disproportionate amount of their limited funds to a regressive sales tax. So, you think you speak on behalf of most Californians? Or perhaps you mean those in your tax bracket?
CA has approx 38 million of 308 million people in all states, so let's say around 12%.
So to the taxes. My source is the US Census which puts out an annual report on taxes collected by state all in dollars.
Overall: Starting with 2013. CA collected 133 billion. The next state was New York (77 billion), and then Texas with (51 billion). You can do the math, but Cali was by far the largest tax collector on a per capita basis. Its been like that for the last 10 years, except in one year, where New York took the honor.
Income taxes: here is the biggest structural problem in the way CA imposes taxes. It collected 74 billion versus 354 for all states. So about 20% of all income taxes collected were by California meaning CA is far more reliant on income taxes than other states, and therefore prone to business cycles.
Property taxes: CA collected around 2 billion which is about 18% of all property taxes collected and again means Cali is more reliant on property taxes, which also are impacted by business cycles. It also means the attached article (opinion) was BS. When property values in an area decline property tax assessors are obliged to conduct "decline in value reviews" to ensure that the tax assessed value of a property is set at a lower rate than the tax value of the property under Prop 13. When a property is assigned a lower value as the result of such a review, this is known as a "Proposition 8 reduction. According to the CA State Assessor, over 1 million properties have had these reductions since 2010, about half residences. So the article 1% number is just unmitigated BS.
Sales taxes: 48 million collected by CA versus 398 collected by all states, or around 12%, which matches CA's population. I was surprised because CA sales tax rates are among the highest in the nation, but CA also provides a lot of exemptions on items used disproportionately by the poor (e.g. unprepared food) to eliminate the regressive nature of the tax.
Capital is not a "right" book. Its a book by a left leaning economist who finally provides some empirical discussion about income distribution. It notes that there has been worse income inequality than present, agrees that income inequality can occur during times of growth, and certainly doesn't have the same history as '88's post. in fact, the main factor that seems to contribute to income inequality is when rates on capital (net of taxes for those of you who wish to comment about the capital gains tax) exceeds the rate of growth of output and national income (net of taxes). That has nothing to do with the stuff in '88's post, and it puzzling that '88 is reading the book and wonders what I meant (in fairness, I have an economies degree and a MBA). Its a great book at debunking a lot of the myths surrounding income distribution, and conservatives won't like it.
I will discuss the actual post next, but tomorrow. My Republican furdie wife is demanding I watch 24 with her and then go to bed (we are back east so the time is later).
beelzebear;842327585 said:
when the freakin' all caps get whipped out, it's time for you guys to get a freakin' room. It'll be bear on bear fun baby!
Only one rule...the libertarian leaning bears get it first, you know pay to play!
enjoy beotches!
88Bear;842327542 said:
Well, if the point of your post was to be as condescending and offensive as you could possibly be in what has been relatively respectful posting to this point, kudos!
I find it immediately telling that within your screed, you don't really address the fundamental issue of tenure, or education for that matter, rather you argue against the taxation rate and management of funds in the state of California - as a means of apparently justifying some odd, anti-union sentiment. If you are complaining that the management of PERS and the future of benefits for California civil employees is a problem - agreed. The argument regarding the long-term disposition of pensions in California is worth discussing, but it isn't 'the fault' of unions. I'm wondering if you know how union contracts are determined. Suffice it to say, the union side of 'the Table' does not dictate how pension funds are managed. They bargain for the dollar amount that the State will contribute.
In addition, it is ironic that you chastise the poster for his/her lack of 'homework' but provide zero support for your points. Rather than insult, why not actually attempt to educate if your point is so readily apparent? If you have some actual facts or articles/numbers which explain or detail the subject of reassessment of valuations within the real estate market, I for one am willing to learn. Educate me if you know better. At the same time, I feel extremely confident that your understanding of the state prison system is virtually nil as that is my area of knowledge. The pay and benefits of Correctional Officers is completely peripheral to any REAL numbers when you are talking about the state budget. Any ideas regarding what officers make? How many there are? What a 1% raise costs the state? What their MOU covers?
BTW, I actually have Piketty's book sitting in front of me right now. While I haven't completed it yet, I'm really wondering what part of it even remotely supports your apparent viewpoint? As you rightly point out, his position is FAR left of where you appear to be as income redistribution is an imperative from his point of view.
While it is clear that you were at some level offended by the anti-business/corporate elements within this thread, you have certainly replied in such a way as to ensure offense to those with which you might otherwise have had a productive discussion. If all you were about was demeaning those with a different opinion, then your post simply served to make you look egotistical.
I don't pretend to be anything other than 'adequate' in my limited understanding of economics, but I do understand the math and reality of the past 70 years - the economy of this country, as it pertains to the health of the middle class, has largely mirrored the health of the union movement as a whole. There is evidence that a union presence can have deleterious effects to straight profitability, but I would argue that profit is NOT the sole factor which should be used to determine the economic health of an entity. An economy exists solely to improve the life of its citizens. When the greatest number do not benefit, the economy is not democratic. The most ridiculous conflation that has been foisted upon the American psyche is that democracy and capitalism are synonymous. Nothing could be further from the truth.
wifeisafurd;842327607 said:
I was really ticked off to see your post when I consider what is going to happen to speeding on public education in California, and what you blame for causing the problem. The education is coming in several posts. Again, my apologies on the tone.
88Bear;842327542 said:
Well, if the point of your post was to be as condescending and offensive as you could possibly be in what has been relatively respectful posting to this point, kudos!
I find it immediately telling that within your screed, you don't really address the fundamental issue of tenure, or education for that matter, rather you argue against the taxation rate and management of funds in the state of California - as a means of apparently justifying some odd, anti-union sentiment. If you are complaining that the management of PERS and the future of benefits for California civil employees is a problem - agreed. The argument regarding the long-term disposition of pensions in California is worth discussing, but it isn't 'the fault' of unions. I'm wondering if you know how union contracts are determined. Suffice it to say, the union side of 'the Table' does not dictate how pension funds are managed. They bargain for the dollar amount that the State will contribute.
In addition, it is ironic that you chastise the poster for his/her lack of 'homework' but provide zero support for your points. Rather than insult, why not actually attempt to educate if your point is so readily apparent? If you have some actual facts or articles/numbers which explain or detail the subject of reassessment of valuations within the real estate market, I for one am willing to learn. Educate me if you know better. At the same time, I feel extremely confident that your understanding of the state prison system is virtually nil as that is my area of knowledge. The pay and benefits of Correctional Officers is completely peripheral to any REAL numbers when you are talking about the state budget. Any ideas regarding what officers make? How many there are? What a 1% raise costs the state? What their MOU covers?
BTW, I actually have Piketty's book sitting in front of me right now. While I haven't completed it yet, I'm really wondering what part of it even remotely supports your apparent viewpoint? As you rightly point out, his position is FAR left of where you appear to be as income redistribution is an imperative from his point of view.
While it is clear that you were at some level offended by the anti-business/corporate elements within this thread, you have certainly replied in such a way as to ensure offense to those with which you might otherwise have had a productive discussion. If all you were about was demeaning those with a different opinion, then your post simply served to make you look egotistical.
I don't pretend to be anything other than 'adequate' in my limited understanding of economics, but I do understand the math and reality of the past 70 years - the economy of this country, as it pertains to the health of the middle class, has largely mirrored the health of the union movement as a whole. There is evidence that a union presence can have deleterious effects to straight profitability, but I would argue that profit is NOT the sole factor which should be used to determine the economic health of an entity. An economy exists solely to improve the life of its citizens. When the greatest number do not benefit, the economy is not democratic. The most ridiculous conflation that has been foisted upon the American psyche is that democracy and capitalism are synonymous. Nothing could be further from the truth.
wifeisafurd;842327571 said:
Before I get into the detail, I have not said in any post that I disfavor the tenure system, though I did note that the legislature, with union support, has responded to the court's decision by making it much easier to fire teachers without even saying whether I view this as good or not.
Tenured teachers get laid off in mass when the PUBLIC schools get emasculated. Lets try some recent articles from the Chronicle, since I don't think you know what your talking about when it comes to pension shortfall or have any comprehension of what it means:
Just the teachers:
.
In Gov. Jerry Brown's promise to start paying off California's massive liabilities, the largest single unfunded debt will not be seeing any additional pay-down in the coming fiscal year.
The unfunded liability for teachers' pensions stands at more than $80 billion, a gap so large that the fund is projected to deplete all its assets in about 30 years. It is the largest single component of both the state's unfunded retirement liabilities, which the Department of Finance puts at nearly $218 billion, and of the state's overall $354 billion in long-term obligations.
Gov. Jerry Brown responds to a question concerning his proposed 2014-15 state budget he unveiled at a news conference at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif.,
Gov. Jerry Brown responds to a question concerning his proposed 2014-15 state budget he unveiled at a news conference at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Thursday Jan. 9, 2014. (Rich Pedroncelli / AP)
The deficit for the nation's largest educator-only pension fund is so huge it would cost teachers, local school districts, community colleges and the state budget a combined $4.5 billion a year to bridge. The California State Teachers' Retirement System says it grows by $22 million each day nothing is done.
Brown has no plans to start closing the gap in the fiscal year starting July 1.
Instead, he said he will meet with the key players over the next year to create a plan for long-term solvency. The proposal, which he discussed Thursday as he released his annual budget blueprint, is likely to include higher contributions from teachers whose future pension checks might otherwise be in jeopardy.
The debate "is going to be quite contentious," said Brown, a Democrat who is up for re-election this year.
Unlike other professions, teachers in California do not pay into Social Security and thus do not receive it when they retire, making their CalSTRS pensions particularly vital.
And unlike the California Public Employees' Retirement System, which covers a wide range of state and municipal employees, CalSTRS cannot unilaterally increase the amount it collects from state and local governments. CalSTRS contributions can be increased only if the Legislature votes to do so.
While CalPERS plans to boost contribution levels again next month for the third time in the last two years, the 8 percent that teachers pay into the pension fund from their salaries has not changed since 1972. The 8 percent that school districts pay has not been altered since 1990.
While the state's share can vary slightly, it has hovered at 5.5 percent including an annual cost-of-living adjustment -- about $1.4 billion a year. The state's general fund contribution to CalPERS is projected to top $1.8 billion next fiscal year.
The bulk of the pension funds' revenue comes not from contributions but from investment income. And that also is the cause of CalSTRS' problems.
The dot-com boom led to the fund being fully funded by 1998, but the windfall prompted state lawmakers to increase benefits and decrease the state's contribution. CalSTRS Chief Executive Officer Jack Ehnes said the fund has been seeking an increase ever since the tech market balloon deflated more than a decade ago, but the bottom really dropped out during the Great Recession.
There is general agreement that the gap cannot be bridged by the rebounding economy alone, said Ehnes and Ryan Miller, a CalSTRS analyst with the state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.
"There is no silver bullet," Ehnes said.
The Brown administration says the state cannot afford to absorb the full $4.5 billion annual increase because it would overwhelm other budget priorities. Paying $4.5 billion on top of the current $1.4 billion would eclipse state spending for the University of California and California State University systems combined, according to the legislative analyst.
And while we are at it, let's move on the State:
Just when things couldn't be more challenging for California's budget, we are discovering that the shortfall in three major public employee pension funds (CalPERS, CalSTRS and the UC Retirement System) is far worse than expected. According to our analysis, these three funds face a $500 billion shortfall, about six times this year's state budget.
As members of the generation that must face this fiscal burden, we urge that this not become a political tug of war between liberals and conservatives. Instead, the discussion should center on building a sustainable retirement system that honors our commitment to state retirees, but also sets our state on a path to long-term financial stability.
State law affirms that pension benefits are a form of deferred compensation and must be paid. In short, the debts owed to retired state workers are no different from state general obligation debt.
Why does that matter? Retirement funds discount the value of their future liabilities at the expected rate of investment returns (e.g., 7.75 percent for CalPERS). That accounting gimmick grossly understates future liabilities because payments to retirees are guaranteed.
Instead, sound accounting and economic principles require that future liabilities be discounted at what we call a "risk-free" rate, similar to a long-term U.S. Treasury bond.
Using that risk-free rate, combined with the recent market decline, we estimate that California's three largest pension funds face a shortfall of approximately $500 billion.
Our research team also discovered that understating liabilities is only one element of a broader accounting and fund management problem. Public employee pension funds project an expected rate of return on investments, but downplay market volatility and uncertainty.
That means that funds ignore the wide range of possible investment outcomes, including outcomes when investments underperform expectations. For instance, we discovered - irrespective of how we discount future liabilities - that there is a 44 percent chance that CalPERS will be at least $250 billion underwater in the next 16 years. That means the money has to come from somewhere.
Solutions to this mounting crisis require that more money be injected into pension funds today and that funds invest in less risky assets. Contributions should also be made to pension funds on a steady basis, unlike in the past when payments were allowed fluctuate with market conditions.
And despite much opposition, the state should implement a 401(k)-style retirement system for its future hires, which takes the state taxpayers off the hook if the pension funds don't perform well enough to cover promised payouts.
This predicament will not go away; in fact, it will worsen over time unless proactive change begins now. It is a significant problem for taxpayers and state residents, who will see services decline as the state is forced to cover increased pension obligations. We urge fiscal realism and a productive debate focused on implementing the difficult changes, not the politics we can no longer afford.
JUST SO YOU GET IT: THIS IS THE PRESENT SHORTFALL WITH THE STOCK MARKET AT ALL TIMES HIGH, AND WITHOUT INCLUDING FUTURE PENSIONERS. SO TELL ME, HOW DO YOU WANT TO CUT A DEFICIT THAT WITH THE TEACHERS ADDED THAT IS SEVEN TIMES THE ENTIRE CURRENT STATE BUDGET DESPITE HAVING THE HIGHEST TAX IN THE COUNTRY AND MORE TAX REVENUES THAN ANY OTHR STATE. DESPITE A DFICIT THAT IS 7 TIMES THE ANNUAL STATE BUDGET FOR EXISTING PENSIONS. YES, THE PROBLEM MAY GROW LESS WITH LESS PENSIONS FOR FUTRE EMPLOYEES (SO WHAT, ITS ONLY 9 OR 10 TIMES THE TOTAL STATE BUDGET IN THE FUTURE?).,
THE LAST TIME THERE WAS A ANNUAL BUDGET SHORTFALL, IN FELL ON THE PUBLIC SCHOOL AND HIGHER EDUCATION. WHEN THE PENSION PAYMENTS HAVE TO BE MADE, DO YOU THINK ITS GOING TO BE ANY DIFFERENT? YOU CAN BLAME VODOO ECONOMICS, TRICKLE DOWN, OR THE REST OF THE MISSTATED MACROECONOMIC CRAP MENTIONED IN THE POST, BUT NONE OF IT APPLIES TO THE CURRENT SITUATION IN CALIFORNIA. NOR WAS IT THE LACK OF TAX REVENUES OR THE LACK OF TOP INCOMERS PAYING TAXES (MORE ABOUT REVENUES IN THE NEXT POST). IT WAS HORRIBLE GIVE AWAYS BY THE STATE. AND THE VICTIM IN ALL THIS WILL BE PUBLIC EDUCATION UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW ME WHERE THE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WILL COME FROM. DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU CAN RAISE TAXES IN THIS STATE TEN FOLD (HINT: AT THE HIHGER RATES 9OU END-UP WITH MORE THAN 100%)?
MORE ON WHAT '88 SAID IN ANOTHER POST SINCE NOTHING IN IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH TENURE.
southseasbear;842327656 said:
I don't know how this thread morphed from one about whether teachers should have due process prior to being dismissed (the Vergara case) to the issue of pension, but okay, here goes (quoting liberally from a CTA bargaining advisory:
The pension shortfall is real but not due to unions. The CalSTRS unfunded liability was created primarily by the stock marked downturn of the early 2000's and the Great Recession of 2008 which led to lower than expected investment returns. The occurrence of twin economic declines of such proportions in a single decade is the primary reason CalSTRS faces an approximately $74 billion. Without these events, CalSTRS would likely have been fully funded.
dajo9;842327625 said:
Funny how Republicans always get hysterical about paying down the deficit when Democrats are President / Governor. Then, when their own are in charge, they fall silent. Hey, Reagan proved deficits don't matter, right Dick Cheney?
I'm all for fiscal responsibility. WIAF, can you tell me what percentage of California's GDP the unfunded pension liability is, applying the same timeframe to both? Honest question, you clearly know more about it than me.
dajo9;842327667 said:
I'm not an expert on the California pension system but this excuse doesn't hold up to scrutiny. All those stock market downturns have been overcome and the stock market is at record levels. If the pension fund has insufficient stock market returns it is due to poor management, not the overall level of the market.
southseasbear;842327657 said:
(continued)
Member contribution rates have been at 8% since 1972, while the 8.25% contributed by employers has remained the same since 1986. The state's contribution to CalSTRS in 1998 was 4.6.07% of payroll. As of 2013-14, the State's contribution rate is 3.041%.
The contributions to CalSTRS are lower than the contributions made to other retirement systems. Moreover, it is important to note that the State's contribution is lower, not higher than before and remains the smallest of the three sources. The majority comes directly out of the teachers' paychecks (8%) or from the employer (8.25%) which is not a gift but a form of delayed compensation.
In order to address the CalSTRS shortfall, the Governor has proposed to increase contributions incrementally over the next few years. Starting in 2014-15 member contributions would increase based on the two tiers (established by the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act [PERPRA]) phased in 3 years (see below for explanation of 2% at 60 and 2% at 62*)
- from 8% to 10.25% - for 2% at 60 members; or
- from 8% to 9.21% - for 2%at 62 members; and
employer contributions would increase from 8.25% to 19.1 % phased in 7 years; and
the state's contribution would increase from 3% to 6.3% in 3 years.
* One other reform that has been implemented is PERPRA (AB340) which was passed in September 2012. The pension legislations changed pension benefits for all employees newly hired and new to CalSTRS after January 1, 2013. The passage of PERPRA allowed for new CalSTRS members to have a different set of retirement terms than those who were in the system prior to the passage of PERPRA. Prior to PERPRA, teachers could retire at 60 for a 2% retirement factor (receiving 2% of salary for each year worked) and get a full retirement factor of 2.4% at 63. PERPRA changed the numbers to 2% at 62 and 2.4% at 65. Based on the fact that the newer members (those who have to wait to 62 to get 2%) will have a lesser benefit due to PEPRA, the amount of their increase will be less than the ones who will receive 2% at 60.
These are needed reforms to correct a problem that is not the fault of teachers or employer districts but which will allow the pension fund to be fully funded and thus able to survive another economic downturn.
Other changes have been made. Previously, a teacher could "buy" up to 5 years of "air time" (additional years), but this has been eliminated. Also, teachers could retire as early as 50 if they had 30 years of service, but the minimum age has been increased to 55 regardless of years of service.
I should note, a previous poster repeated the false allegation that teachers work a short period of time and retire with pensions that pay more than their salaries. If a teacher retires at 60 with 30 years of service, he or she will get 60% of salary (2% retirement factor times 30 years = 60). If the teacher waits until 63 to get "full" retirement, he or she will get 79.2% of salary (2.4% times 33 years = 79.2%). Of course, those figures are under the "old" system; newer teachers will have to work longer or have lower pensions.
Finally, while many teachers are in their second profession (coming from private sector) they lose Social Security they earned due to an "offset."
