Remember. It's ALL about the children. It's all about using the children as pawns. "We'll abuse your kids until you come around and open your wallets and pour money on the table for us. If your kid doesn't get into a good school because they didn't have mock trial it's YOUR fault for not bending over and giving us more money."

Justin,

I was a bit surprised to see an entire post devoted to my comments. Thanks, I guess :). I suppose now I have to spend my lunch hour coming up with a response.

I have no idea who Greg thinks he's addressing. Not me, I hope.

Nope. This isn't even the comment thread for the post re: you, Thomas.

Ooops! Clicked the wrong link. Sorry,.

Justin, deMederios is just making things up. In fact, our proposal at 7PM on Tuesday night was very different from our proposal at 9:55 PM.

good example: WE proposed a plan design change in the first year of the contract that would have saved money in the health insurance plan by increasing our co-payment for ER visits. The school committee rejected it, and wanted to do it in the second year.

Their proposal would cost you, as a Tiverton Taxpayer, more money. You should be outraged. Also, even using their math, what is more... 8 or 7.25? Obviously, it is 8. Unless you are a Tiverton School Committee member, and then 7.25 is more than 8.

I wish you would think critically about this Justin except just regurgitating what the School Committee is feeding you.

We also increased the amount of money we would pay for health insurance from the beginning of Tuesday to the end of Tuesday. They believe that the current copay of $1100 is MORE than $1300.

I know you can do the math, maybe they should invite you in. 30195

Let me see... 3 years at 3.75% each year down to 2 years at 4% each year, or am I missing something?

Still, if they had to deal with my 0% pay raise for the last 5 years, they would have all found new jobs I guess.

Yes, you are missing that when you spread the raises out, the cost drops to 3%. Don't worry, the school committee couldn't figure that out either.

Why did you tolerate a 0% raise for 5 years? Why didn't you look for a new job?

Two wrongs don't make a right, right?

Interesting math you've got there. Try comparing apples to apples and maybe you begin to understand why it doesn't make sense in the REAL world, Ducky.

Under the first proposal, the increased cost of teacher's salaries for the next two years is 3.75%x2=7.5%.

Under the second proposal, the increased cost of teacher's salaries for the next two years is 4%x2=8%.

So, the 'drop' costs .5% MORE and you can't figure out why the school committee might think you're playing three-card monty?

Pat:

I simply don't care about the specifics of the math. For one thing, numbers are just flying from both sides without any broader context. So you claim that this or that proposal would save taxpayers money on health-insurance, but we all know how the games are played: the same proposal probably likely moved that money somewhere else. From the taxpayer's point of view, it's all a lump cost, anyway.

Look, send me the actual proposals, and I'll give them a fair reading and assessment. Until then, it's just gamesmanship, especially since my point of contention is that every single one of your proposals has called for a higher increase (on top of steps) than the teachers' received for the past four years, even as the budget has become tighter.

3.75%, 4%... it's immaterial when the other side — the one that has its eye on an actual budget — has been looking for the number to drop below 2%.

-----

What's with the change in tone (e.g., dropping "Jusi"), by the way? Been called into Mr. Walsh's office, have we?

Hi Jusi:

"I simply don't care about the specifics of the math."

This comment says it all. You'd fit right in on the Tiverton School Committee.

See, I guess it really isn't about math, real cost, savings for tax payers, etc. It is about punishing people. Thanks for the clarification.

By the way... what happened to the Don's "watch"? Did he give up already? I guess that means I lose to pool..

Nice try, Pat.

The point is that, whatever the specifics of your proposals, they are all greater than the more realistic numbers that the school committee has been putting forward.

Really, Pat, you need to improve your technique when attempting to skip questions and comments to which you don't want to respond.

Are the teachers fairly / competitively compensated now?

Does their performance deserve to be rewarded with a raise?

The answer to the first is an unambiguous yes (if anything, they're substantially over-compensated already for their part-time jobs). That in turn answers the second inquiry.

So that percentage increases are being discussed at all demonstrates that the school committee is still playing the game on NEARI's rules - the assumption / acceptance of a premise that raises are an inherent (if not mandatory) element of a public sector contract negotiation.

Really Jus, have you seen the proposal from the school committee? How about their budget? You know, the one where they increase the budget for salaries by 3% and the one where the benefit line item increased by 12% even though the REAL cost was 4.7%.

You just don't want to acknowledge that they are making things up. Let me ask you, did you see in the budget where they increased the "legal services" line item by 38% ? Did you asked them why they are paying 2 business managers? Did you ask them how much they are paying their "health care consultant?"

Here is a better one for you... why don't you ask them if they moved money from operating budget into the bond for the new school, there by increasing the cost to taxpayers?

And Greg, you math skills astound... click here for help: http://math.com/homeworkhelp/BasicMath.html

Pat,

Your credibility with me (and, I suspect, just about everybody who will read this thread) is zero, and now you're throwing around accusations for which you know we don't have ready access to the necessary documents, hoping (no doubt) to distract us from the issue at hand.

From now on, if you want to seed the discussion with points of controversy, just send me the background documentation and, if merited, I'll take up the cause as my own.

>>Did you asked them why they are paying 2 business managers? Did you ask them how much they are paying their "health care consultant?"

A labor union guy complaining about (allegedly) padding the payroll a/k/a 'featherbedding," a union specialty.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

If those personnel were paying dues to the NEA Crowley would be claiming that their positions were critical, and indeed that they're understaffed and overworked and we need more of them - for the children, of course!