When Did "Public Service" Become "Public Protection, but At Twice the Pay"?

I'm wondering why we can't go after the ridiculous PERS benefits in this state as a way to cut spending. Private sector employess are having to pay for PERS at this point, and the state is running a deficit, as their own retirement is being diminished.

Why can't the public PERS beneficiaries agree to give up some of their pensions? They made a life living off the private sector and "serving" them. Why not return some of the money when the private sector is struggling to "serve" them?

 

It'll never happen. There would be strikes all over the state. Teachers would be the first to strike.

 

I would love it. It's time to treat public employees the way Reagan treated the air traffic controllers. Let the teachers strike; have parents teach classes instead. I'm sure you could find volunteers to cover a teacher's workload and they would do as good of a job. I know I'd volunteer for a few classes a week.

What really needs to happen is for all public employee unions to be outlawed. These institutions take money from their members and use that money to support candidates that later decide their hiring and compensation. In any other business that's called bribery.

 

Because the way people think, the retirees as a group, wouldn't even come close to giving up their $$$ that they expect. You cannot talk people out of what they think is theirs, no matter how unfair, no matter how much they hurt the general public, no matter how little they may have worked, and no matter how long they may live and collect a pension.

You have to force a change on them. Which is nothing more than Politics really.

Why is reducing a Pension promise any different than a large tax increase?

It isn't. Jacking up someone's taxes in the middle of their prime working career is a "broken promise". Bait and switch.

Why is reducing a Pension promise any different than laying waste to school budgets just as a family was getting ready to put their kids through school, after years and years of paying taxes to put other families kids through school?

It isn't. They are screwed. Either send kids to an overcrowded and declining school or pay yet more to go to a private school if that can be afforded with all the new taxes kicking in - to pay for the public servants to go on cruises.

And yet, "Public Servants" have their rights. Just that their rights are more important than most everyone else.
Because in this county we have Equal Rights under the law.

Except that some folks rights are much, much more important than others.

In Oregon (as in some other states as well) the "rights" of Public Pension participants to receive their promised benefits are in the state constitution.

So, the Legislature can cut school funding, cut state police funding, cut welfare funding, cut homeless support funding, increase taxes - but touch the retirement? Hell no. Against the Constitution.

That does not belong in a Constitution as it hamstrings a Legislature. But, there you have. It is in there.

It will be very difficult to make changes to restore fiscal sanity.

Good Luck.

 

I'll go further and call it flat-out theft. The private sector pays the salary of the public employees, who then give money to their unions, who then give it right back to the candidates for election purposes and political cover. It's ridiculous when you think about it in those terms. If more people really knew what a scheme this was, society would not stand for it.

 

Judging by our state test scores and drop-out rates, you may be on to something.

 

I wonder how anyone was ever educated before the mid 20th century, without all that fancy training and all. It's anecdotal, but I have a number of friends who are teachers and not one has characterized their MAT as anything but a waste of time.

Personally, I'd be comfortable teaching History, Social Studies, English, PE, Econ, Accounting, Spanish, French and Math at any level. Furthermore, I could also run the HS newspaper and coach the football, baseball and speech/debate teams. I'm sure that covering all the subjects taught in elementary, jr. high and high school could be covered by the local parents.

For example, my high school has around 1,200 students. Assume that means there are roughly 1,500 available parents, 500 of which have college degrees. You wouldn't need a college degree to teach any of the trades classes (auto shop, woodworking, etc.) or Home Ec. Assume that each class has 20 students, which means 60 teachers are required. Asking for those classes to be filled at a daily salary would be ZERO problem.

When you talk about elementary school, the numbers become even better because you don't require a high level of specific skills.

We got along just fine when teachers didn't belong to unions and didn't need Master degrees.

 

My kid does finger painting and still craps his diapers, so he's not a good example. I believe that plenty of people are able to lead a lesson plan.

There are all kinds of specialized education and I think that could be filled by "amateurs" as well. For example, my sister-in-law works with the mentally handicapped to help them live independently. She has an Associates degree, but would be amazing teaching young kids with learning disabilities.

In fact, I don't think anything below Jr. High really needs a college degree. When I think about the teachers that inspired me, rarely was I blown away by their intellect. I remember their caring, their energy and their desire to help.

I wonder how credentialed Jonas Salk's teachers were? I bet they didn't all attend college, much less have graduate degrees. And I don't possess the skilset to take a covered wagon across the country. It seems there's a lot of learning that we've lost.

 

Let's get back on point. I'm not arguing that anyone off the street would be equal or better than the current teachers. I am arguing that if the teachers went on strike because their union was decertified, they should be fired and replaced temporarily at the local level with paid volunteers until suitable replacements could be found. I would be willing to burn down the current educational structure in the short term to make it better for the long term. And I say that with a kid in the pipeline.

 

Another Reason I'm voting for Dudley, PERS reform

 

1. Teachers are not overpaid. If you have a degree and can't find a better paying job than teaching, you're a moron or a registered sex offender.

2. Chris Dudley is a hired vote for the uber-wealthy and little else. He doesn't give a rat's ass about Oregon or your taxes.

3. The only teachers who inspired me were the ones who deviated from the generic and safe "lesson plan" you value so highly.

 

Judging by a lot of my classmates in college that were majoring in education to become teachers, your sarcasm is unfortunately very close to reality.