To Pat Crowley it's a game, and one he seems to really enjoy. He has called school administrators and school committee members "management" and seems to view them as the enemy, thus his efforts to embarrass the superintendent with the release of the apologetic letter.

The long term consequences of a strike have severe repercussions on teachers, students, administrators, and community members. Crowley's actions won't make it any easier.

Sorry for not getting back earlier, Jus, but been a little busy. Besides, does it really matter what I say for your audience....

I guess the fact that the school committee in Tiverton has refused to meet with the teachers has no bearing on your argument....

Now, you should check with a lawyer before you start referring to people as criminals or engaged in criminal activity. Hence my argument for you to get some more back ground information.....

By the way, what is with the Jason Priestly avatar?

I'm not asking for you to say anything, Pat. I'm asking you to release information that the public can consider objectively; if your Tiverton healthcare plan has merit, then you oughtn't be afraid to put it out there for public scrutiny.

As it is, we're left with no capability to judge the various salvos.

As for the necessity that I check with a lawyer, I offer in my defense, first, that teacher strikes are illegal, and that which is illegal is criminal by definition, and, second, that I placed the matter of criminality in the form of a question. I'm asking: is that what the union members have authorized the negotiating committee to initiate?

By the way, thank you for supporting, in multiple ways, my accusation of bullying.

I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the only answer is the dismantling of the public schools and relacing it with a voucher system which increases yearly for COLA's-not a penny more. For citizens only-no illegals or anchor babies.
Most of RI's quasi-Marxists probably don't realize there is NO federal constitutional requirement that the state operate public schools.

>>I guess the fact that the school committee in Tiverton has refused to meet with the teachers has no bearing on your argument....

Justin -

This is just a red herring on the part of NEARI.

It professes that the school committee won't meet at the table - because it has a designated negotiator. This is an classic negotiating technique in which the person with final authority to approve is NOT at the table (folks who've bought a car have experienced a variation of this with the salesperson having to "go back to the sales manager" for approval).

In particular, with a school committee if there was enough for a quorum then there is "authority" to bind the committee (and thus the taxpayers).

The problem with NEARI's position is that it is doing exactly the same thing. The rank and file teachers who will "vote" to "ratify" the contract are not at the table or allowed to witness the negotiations.

If NEARI agreed to have ALL of the sessions open to the public, then it might have some legitimate claim to object if the school committee didn't participate in the day-to-day.

Other than that, it's just more of the union's PR bull****.

Maybe someday in RI a school committee will have the guts to fire striking teachers, replace them with new ones, and say to the union, "see you in court." I have no doubt where most parents' and other taxpayers' sympathies would lie.

Justin - I am not familiar with the law making teacher strikes illegal, but that which is illegal is not necessarily criminal. You've been stopped for speeding, right? Unless you were going very, very fast you probably received a ticket and were not arrested. That's because most traffic violations are civil violations of the law, not criminal. That's just one example; many actions are illegal but not criminal.

Your point's taken, Jon, but I didn't intend to make a specific legal claim. m-w.com defines "crime" as "an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law" and lists "illegal" and "criminal" as synonyms.

Jus, if you want to see the spread sheet, send me your email and I will get it to you. I am working on posting it on my site now.

By the way, the UNION is proposing a High Deductible plan. As I explained to the members, if the current President did ANYTHING right, it was allowing this type of health care plan to exist.

By the way, if we are using the students as pawns, wouldn't it be fair to say that you are using them as human shields?

Pat is just one "more wanna be thug" in the Union's quiver. Their attempts at bullying the tax payer's into submission are not working as well as they use to. During 2004 negotiations in EG we were able to diffuse many attempts of intimidation by using their own tactics against them.Bad decisions are made late at night,after 4 hours go home! Get the negotiations out in public. Let the people that pay the bills know what is going on.Hire tutors when work to rule is taking place and pay the tutors with the teacher's wages.Bring to light that teaching as a profession is a choice.When it's time to fight take no prisoners. The Union doesn't.Now is the time, do it right!

Teacher contributions to health care don't mean much when the money is given back to the Union under the guise of "longevity" or other types of compensation.

Plus, let us not forget that when we hear a contract was signed with a 3 1/2 percent raise, this is not the whole story. Include stipends, days off (often cashed in), step increases and the aforementioned longevity, and you will see that half of our teachers receive raises well in excess of 10%.

Then throw in the pension AND social security (yes, about half of our schools receive both).

Getting 15% co-pays, to borrow Gio's phrase, is a good START.

"Then throw in the pension AND social security (yes, about half of our schools receive both)."

Nope. Wrong. Again. And even the ones who do get Social Security have it reduced thanks to the GPO/WEP rules of the Federal Government. Thank you Ronald Reagan.

And on the work to rule.. HMMM, let's see... both sides agree on a set of rules and conditions. The teachers normally go above and beyond those rules.... then, they decide to follow the rules... and that is being a thug? I thought all you law and order righties were all about following the rules?

Guess it just shows that the rules are only cool when they work in your favor.

Tom W just shows his ignorance on most things beyond the walls of his cloister so it isn't even worth getting to all his missed points. It must be lonely in that world Tom. Sometimes I feel bad for you.

Sometimes.

Posted by Pat Crowley at September 2, 2007 5:53 AM
And even the ones who do get Social Security have it reduced thanks to the GPO/WEP rules of the Federal Government. Thank you Ronald Reagan.
XXX
You could have said "thank you Democrat Congress" but I guess that wouldn't be in keeping with your Marxist theories.
Pat-what is your bet for the year teacher 401k's come in. The over/under is 2012.

“Nope. Wrong. Again. And even the ones who do get Social Security have it reduced thanks to the GPO/WEP rules of the Federal Government. Thank you Ronald Reagan. “

Pat, please explain. Am I wrong that teachers get pension and SS (which you seem to admit), or am I wrong that its “about half” of them? Considering I got that estimate from our school district’s Director of Finance, and considering it’s not a competitive employment market but rather one based on seniority, it is possible he isn’t competent. Please share the data and source if I have been misinformed.

And "wrong again" infers more than once. Was there something else I said you would like to discuss?

>>Tom W just shows his ignorance on most things beyond the walls of his cloister so it isn't even worth getting to all his missed points. It must be lonely in that world Tom. Sometimes I feel bad for you.

Ah, now there's a specific and fact-based rebuttal - a most compelling argument for NEA!

The majority of school districts, 22, in the State do NOT participate in Social Security. The ones that do, or, if a teacher works outside (which most do) they have their benefits reduced, sometimes by more than 60%.

Now, what is the big deal about getting a pension AND social security anyway? Most workers do, right? Why shouldn't teachers, especially when they are paying 50% of it anyway?

Maybe if the private sector non union workers fought harder and organized to protect their pensions and avoided the massive cost shift of the 401K they would be better off? Why drag everyone to the bottom when you can fight to raise everyone to the top?

On that subject, have you ever wondered why as soon as workers started to pay co-shares for health insurance the cost of health care sky rocketed? Where are all of the Friedman scholars now? Whether it is state intervention or corporate intervention, doesn't that seem to contradict market forces?

TomW is just silly.

You say 22 of 39, Walsh (today on LE) said "less than half" and I said, "almost half." Sounds like we essentially agree - amazing (but not quite worthy of the claim, "nope, wrong, again."

And while you are admitting your errors, don't forget to tell everyone about the 'super-match' teachers receive compared to the normal employer contributions.

Today's world is too transparent for the unions to continue getting away with these bogus sound bites.

WJF or WJT,

Actually, I'll have to watch, but I probaly said about half, which is the correct answer - and, so by the way, is about 22 districts, since Providence is in Social Security, skewing the numbers. The GPO/WEP problem also limits mobility within RI, as teachers in Social Security districts interested in moving to other districts (either as teachers or administrators) usually limit their choice to other Social Security districts.

But you are incorrect if by referring to a super-match you are implying that the employer contribution to pensions actually benefits the current teacher, when in fact most of it goes to the unfunded pension liabilty and relating it to current salaries is merely an accounting procedure. I am looking forward to folks on this blog finally understanding that fact, and admitting their error on this topic.

And, Bob, we're looking forward to your admitting that your organization helped to put the officials who've spent our state up to the precipice into office, and that your clients/members have been among the prominent beneficiaries of that spending.

Thank you for making my point, Bob.

And thank you, Don, for posting The Education Partnership website. Readers will also find copies of each school contract on their site.

The next time you hear that the unions fought to have disciplinary records expunged after only 1 year, go back and read Mr. Walsh's comments regarding tenured teachers. Removing management's ability to manage is very much a part of the union's agenda.

Alas, so many rebuttals to the unions' false economics and red herring arguments, and so little time!

>>I know you are new to this blog, Don, but hasn't it already been shown that the Ed Partnership has been pretty much discredited? Besides, I had heard that they were shutting down soon. – Pat Crowley

Discredited by whom? Without credible backup your assertion isn’t anything but is mere speculative propaganda (of course that is one of NEA’s fortes).

As for them shutting down, on what basis do you say that? Also, what does that have to do with the credibility of its studies?

>>It means that for the first 3rd of a teachers career, they are paid below market level and that the BOSS can replace a retiring or leaving senior teacher with a cheaper one. – Pat Crowley on “steps”

I’ve got news for you Pat – there is no “market level” for teachers. You’re in the public sector – you are not subject to market forces.

>>But, if your argument is that fairness means reducing everyone to your level instead of raising everyone up to a higher one... well, I guess that is just where the disagreement is. – Pat Crowley

Ditto. You are in the public sector. You don’t raise anyone up – you live off of taxes. Nobody in the private sector is going to get a raise because the teachers or the folks at the Registry of Motor Vehicles have, through POLITICAL influence, procured unwarranted pay and benefit packages.

Public sector employees should be compensated at a level comparable to those in the private sector of similar skills and work requirements – when they are compensated above that then the taxpayers laboring in the private sector are being unjustly penalized to support the (politically influential) public sector employees.

Those who work in the public sector should not suffer on a compensation basis for that – but neither should they be rewarded “just because.”

>>Teachers are hired at significantly below market rates compared to other professions requiring comparable education (nursing and pharmacy being two local examples where starting salaries have risen above top step teacher compensation), and the step scale causes them to wait ten years to get to full market comparability, after which raises approximate inflation for the rest of their careers. – Bob Walsh

My flip response would be that then obviously your union hasn’t been doing a very good job representing that “profession” then, has it?

But the serious point is that ultimately, union or non-union, the laws of supply and demand apply to labor, and over time market forces determine what a particular position is worth (more on this below).

Teaching is also a part time job – when one adjusts the total compensation (including benefits) with the ratio of time worked the compensation is quite attractive even at the start.

Teaching does not require “comparable education.” It should, but at present it is well established that education programs lack rigor, and are essentially diploma mills.

I’m not stating this to “bash teachers” – it is unfortunate fact, and the onus lies on the RIC’s of the world, not the poor students who are used as “cash cows” for the colleges. One need merely compare SAT scores of education majors with others. It would only make sense that more rigorous programs of study would be rewarded with higher initial compensation.

As for “waiting ten years” that is just laughable. How many private sector occupations get to top pay after only ten years / when one is in their early thirties? Also, in each of those years the teacher is gaining pension credits – most in the private sector, none. With RI’s extraordinarily generous pension formula teachers can be paid (by us) more in total for their non-working years (“retirement” which for many begins in their late forties or early fifties) than for their working years.

Note the recent Manhattan Institute study “How Much Are Public School Teachers Paid?” -

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_50.htm

- “The average public school teacher was paid 36% more per hour than the average non-sales white-collar worker and 11% more than the average professional specialty and technical worker” – and this doesn’t include the value of pensions!

In the private sector, unions can distort that for a while in a competitive environment, and even for a long while in a monopoly / oligopoly situation (think UAW before the imports started competing with the “Big Three” Detroit automakers). Once competition is introduced, above market union compensation / work rules / featherbedding lead to a decline in the unionized employer, and a decline in employment (just look at UAW membership numbers over recent decades).

The union workers who still have their jobs believe that the union is helping them, for they are compensated above market, but it’s come out of the hides of their now-unemployed former “union brothers and sisters.”

Over the long run, there’s no free lunch in economics, no matter how much unions may wish it so or have convinced their members that there can be.

All that said, while one can make an argument in the competitive environment of the private sector, those justifying rationales don’t apply to the non-competitive / non-market parallel universe of the public sector.

>>The compensation of school teachers in Rhode Island is on par with the market in Southern New England, and, when adjusted for local cost of living, on par with the country as a whole. – Bob Walsh

Irrelevant. Beyond the fact that private sector employers don’t often say “gee we’ll pay you more just because the cost of living is high in RI” - comparing NEA salaries across the country is a fallacious measure, for the NEA / political extortion model has been applied across the U.S. (see the book “The Worm In The Apple”) in the non-market public sector.

>>The myth of the 180-day year, 7 hour day is also false …” – Bob Walsh

“Full-time public school teachers work on average 36.5 hours per week DURING THE WEEKS THAT THEY ARE WORKING …” – Manhattan Institute

>> The majority of school districts, 22, in the State do NOT participate in Social Security. The ones that do, or, if a teacher works outside (which most do) they have their benefits reduced, sometimes by more than 60%. – Pat Crowley

I’ve got news for you Pat – the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that nobody has a property right to Social Security benefits, no matter what “contributions” have been made by the individual over their working years – Congress can reduce or eliminate the “benefits” at any time. Anyone who’s looked at the numbers knows that the younger you are, the more you will be “screwed” by the system because benefits will be cut, if not eliminated for many groups (a/k/a “means testing”). So the comfort of having the backstop of that vested pension benefit sure looks awfully good to the rest of us whose are also going to be screwed by Social Security.

>> On that subject, have you ever wondered why as soon as workers started to pay co-shares for health insurance the cost of health care sky rocketed? Where are all of the Friedman scholars now? Whether it is state intervention or corporate intervention, doesn't that seem to contradict market forces? – Pat Crowley

The problem is that (what is left of) market forces has been distorted by government intervention. Government (Medicare / Medicaid-RIteCare) is already about one-half of the healthcare “market.” Add in the “mandates” such for non-life threatening matters such as mandatory in vitro fertilization coverage. BTW, coming from the folks who just strong-armed the citizens of Warwick into coughing up an extra million dollars a year just to protect the interests of Blue Cross Board member AFL-CIO honcho Frank Montanaro, I don’t think that you should be lecturing us about health care competition.

>> But you are incorrect if by referring to a super-match you are implying that the employer contribution to pensions actually benefits the current teacher, when in fact most of it goes to the unfunded pension liabilty and relating it to current salaries is merely an accounting procedure. – Bob Walsh

The employer contribution (i.e., TAXPAYER contribution) sure as he** benefits the teacher collective – including the current teachers! After all, ultimately they’re in line to collect that money that is being “contributed” today – participation in the plan and their accrual of “vesting” credits is part of their CURRENT COMPENSATION PACKAGE. That the NEA-influenced (boy there’s an understatement) Democrat General Assembly hasn’t timely / fully-funded the pension plan is a red herring argument on the part of the teachers and other public-sector unions.

The NEA and other public sector unions were in the back rooms with your minions in the “Democratic leadership” year after year decided not to fund that fiscal year’s pension contributions on a sound basis (as per actuaries). You were also there when year after year they’ve p***ed away the tobacco money. So the public sector unions are not the innocent victims you’d like us to believe, but are culpable.

A couple of clarifications in [ ] to some items that weren't clear. Sorry for the inconvenience.

"In the private sector, unions can distort [MARKET COMPENSATION] for a while in a competitive environment, and even for a long while in a monopoly / oligopoly situation (think UAW before the imports started competing with the “Big Three” Detroit automakers). Once competition is introduced, above market union compensation / work rules / featherbedding lead to a decline in the unionized employer, and a decline in employment (just look at UAW membership numbers over recent decades)."

"All that said, while one can make an argument [for the existence of unions] in the competitive environment of the private sector, those justifying rationales don’t apply to the non-competitive / non-market parallel universe of the public sector."