because you can usually do what you love. You think most corporate drones love what they do? Most of it is bitch work and unfulfilling.
Then why bitch and moan? Sounds like a better gig than most working minions. The reason why teachers bitch and moan is that they feel they can get the sympathy from the public because they have the ace in the pocket... the children. Think about the children!!!
And corporate drones have perks to their jobs, like stock options, advancement opportunities, and chances at real bumps in pay. A teacher's perks are (or have been) job security, good benefits, and a sense of self-satisfaction that you are helping society by molding the future generations. I don't see buerecrats making legislation curtailing the ability of corporate drones to receive the perks of their hard work in their system.
My wife taught elementary school for 8 years. It is true, strictly speaking, they get approximately 12 weeks off per year. However, a few things to consider- She averaged 60 hours per week during the school year; in addition to that she had to set up lesson planning every Sunday for the week; she set up continuous parent conferences and had to do her student write-ups in the evenings; she had work of some nature over all the holidays (not full time, but there’s more to teaching than just talking to kids and grading papers); she had to start meetings, setting up the classroom, yearly lesson planning (all mandatory) 3 weeks before school started each year; working on mandatory Masters degrees and continuous CE credits on her own time evenings, weekends and vacation time (and, she had to pay for it herself). Taking all that into account, she actually got about 3-4 weeks off per year based on a 2080 hour work year that salaried employees theoretically work. And that’s about right. As to their compensation, I think it starts too low, but has a reasonable mid to upper pay scale. It’s the retirement benefits that are sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet in many states.
And that's the part of the job that people like maxiep and el presidente want to gut. What's your opinion about that?
No, you've attempted to reframe the argument into an Apples and Oranges comparison. I'm simply steering it back to the topic.
Executives are drones? Especially since this is for firms that get "extraordinary assistance" from the government. You are doing the apples and oranges things again. What he said is right when you look at the private sector at large. Honestly - restricting pay and golden parachutes for corporations that needed bailout is not only reasonable - it should have happened from the start in the banking industry that got a bailout and used hundreds of millions on golden parachutes for the people that in large part brought this banks to the position where they needed the bailout. This link has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
OK then. What perks is the federal government trying to force teachers to lose then? "the right for collective bargaining"? making them pay for their own healthcare (a fraction of it) instead of having taxpayers pay for it? things that ordinary workers have to do, basically?
OMG, they limit the amount of money we can throw into our IRA. let's shut down the capital! :MARIS61:
YES. These are the perks that teachers have that make their jobs somewhat comparible in compensation for what they do vs. the private sector. Unless you want to give teachers the perks of what "corporate drones" have (specified before), then this is what they take in replacement.
Teachers, like executives that require bailout - already have limited advancement and compensation options. The reality is that the original comparison to the market at large (not private firms kept alive by bailout) was on the money.
The private sector is called the private sector for a reason. Teachers do not work for profit. They are a money losing institution and do not generate income. We throw money at schools, there is no chance to generate income so there should not be "promotions" but pay levels just like in any corporation not making money. How are teachers different than any other government employee where there are definite pay levels.
Why is this surprising? Unless you want to take away tenure and job security, I don't see why this is shocking. Schools have limited budgets and don't generate income. They are not self-sufficient.
OK. Bottom line. How much should a teacher make then? Should they have tenure? Should they be graded on their performance with their jobs on the line every year.
Nothing is surprising about it. I just pointed out that you bringing this link did not address or refute the original claim. It was irrelevant to the discussion.
You've just destroyed your own argument! Teachers are like other government employees that there are definate pay levels, but that's the limit of their advancement possibilities and upward mobility. IN COMPENSATION FOR THOSE LIMITATIONS, teachers have been afforded generous benefit packages including a great retirement plan and fully paid health insurance. Now people like you want to take that level of compensation away from them. But just them. All other government workers: Cops, Firefighters, Politicians, Judges... no one's talking about cutting their benefits, just teachers. Why is that?
Do not know, do not know, yes (as they probably are already). The only issue I have with this thread is with people upset about the teacher complaining. I think it is good for him - do not see a problem with it - do not see a problem with teachers telling people complaining about them what they really think about them.
