MPS’ Obscene Fringe Benefits

It’s about the kids.

Please stop telling me that MPS is underfunded.  You sound ridiculous. 

1. Why is everybody concerned?  Don’t the publice employees deserve much better salaries, bennies, pensions and vacations than us poor dumb taxpayers?  After all we let them get it. 
   And Remember it’s for the children.

   Posted by on October 13, 2008 at 2030 hrs




2. As the private sector 401(k)’s get hammered, one of two things will happen.  We’ll all try to get government jobs or there will be one hell of a backlash against this stuff.

   Posted by on October 13, 2008 at 2142 hrs




3. will be one hell of a backlash?  Lemme tell ya Steve, the backlash is there.  I’ve been told in no uncertain terms that the health plan my family and I have is too good for me.  The Backlash is here.

   There’s not a whole lot more in the way of backlash that scares public employees. We’ve been told how little we’re valued. We get it.

   Posted by Mike on October 13, 2008 at 2151 hrs




4. But But But, it is FOR THE CHILDREN!

   Posted by Fred on October 13, 2008 at 2250 hrs




5. The missing number is salary per employee. MPS bargaining units have given up raises in exchange for additional health and pension benefits.  The ratio of benefits to salary therefore seems high, but overall compensation is not. The article’s lack of comparison on that measure paints a distorted picture.

   That said, I did not know we were paying FT benefits to such very PT employees. That seems like a bad move on our part.

   Posted by folkbum on October 13, 2008 at 2305 hrs




6. Indeed Folkbum, the real question is not fringe as percentage of salary, but rather total compensation per hour.

   After all, if their total compensation is $20 per hour while the average private sector employee is $90 per hour, then nobody should give a rip that fringe makes up such a large percentage of a rather paltry compensation rate.

   Of course, total compensation is far higher than that, and is indeed a big part of the problem.

   Posted by on October 13, 2008 at 2317 hrs




7. Owen, Dohnal, Fred:
   

   Its for the children/ It’s about the kids

   
   Is that a sarcastic statement meant to serve as some stinging indictment of the selfishness of teachers? Posted by Mike on October 14, 2008 at 0718 hrs




8. According to the 2007 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, total full and part time staff is 14,191.  They have a line item of All other Part Time at 4,801.

   Just simple division of the payroll total gives us $37559 which is of course very misleading with the part timers grouped in there.

   With benefits we’re at $60,658.  Again probably misleading because there are benefits expenses for retirees… but there would be similar expenses for retirees in a lot of large private sector companies as well.  (My company still has a pension for current employees as well as some type of extended health and life benefits --- New Hires do not have anything of the sort, and haven’t since 2002).

   The average pay rate doesn’t seem low considering the education requirements to become a teacher, and when compared with private sector pay.

   Posted by on October 14, 2008 at 0858 hrs




9. Tthere are all kinds of studies, especially one done by WPRI that shows that teachers compare very favorably with people with the same grade of education, partuclarly nurses, in Wiscosnin fpr salaries then go way ahead with benefits, vacations, hours worked and pensions. 
   Nurses work a hell of a lot harder than most public employees who have been able to use their union statuts to protect incompetent teachers, bad results, particularly in reading.
   How long society will stand for this is questionable.
   I would not mind paying more for teachers if they just accomplished what they should and that is teach kids how to read.  Everything follows that.
   And yes, everytime they demand more money they say “it is for the children”, when it is really to line their pockets.  Kids get little of all of this money spent.

   Posted by on October 14, 2008 at 1015 hrs




10. http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/09/09/d c.schools/index.html

    Now that she’s part of the “Superintendent’s Club”, maybe MPS can get her after DC tosses her out.

    Posted by on October 14, 2008 at 1022 hrs




11. Yeah, Donhol, the WPRI is totally non-biased.

    Considering that someone with this level of education could go off and make more begs the question, what do you geniuses have in mind in terms of retention. I have a niece who is a math wiz who could be making twice that in the private sector.

    This is of course a real weakness in America—math and the sciences. But the bar crowd bellows and belches over being robbed by public school teachers while America falls behind, rather than going after real solutions.

    You of course want them to work for practically nothing like they do in the religious schools. Yet, this is another dumbassed attack on the middle class.

    Whenever I am among right wingers I throw in the topic of teacher pay and watch the group roil like a cow being thrown into a piranha pool.

    Let’s throw in the insistence from the right that we teach “intelligent design.”

    No wonder this country isn’t competitive.

    Posted by on October 14, 2008 at 1311 hrs




12. If the education lobby would produce students competitive in the world in math, science and most of all reading then I would be first in line to raise their salaries.  We don’t and I won’t.
    If one of your relatives could make more in another sector and she doens’t want to do it then that is her perogative.  Manyo f us could make more doing other things but I like pharmacy best, so I stay there and produce conservative newspapers to irritate the liberals.

    Posted by on October 14, 2008 at 1355 hrs




13. Here’s my point about the “Its for the kids” accusation.  When negotiating salary/benefits teachers are thinking of themselves. No teacher would say otherwise.  Even the teachers union, which lists its priorities publicly on its website, doesn’t pretend to have the kids as a primary focus.  As educators we all ( or very close to all) have the kids as our priorities on the job.  I haven’t seen any argument to the contrary.  After hours, on our time, we lobby like hell for wages/benefits that we feel compensate us as a population for our work. Folks can disagree on how much teachers are worth, they can even argue with the role of the teachers union. 

    But casting the sarcastic line “It’s about the kids” around whenever we speak of compensation package only serves to inflame misguided passions surrounding the issue.  Go ahead and repeat it if it feels good, but don’t pretend you’re adding anything to the debate.

    Teachers compensation is about the teachers.  We wouldn’t taunt UAW workers with “Its about the Escalades” when speaking of their compensation package, would we?

    Posted by Mike on October 14, 2008 at 1835 hrs




14. Keith, you’re crazy if you think anyone with a math or science BS can make more for 9 months of work a year than an MPS teacher.

    Posted by on October 14, 2008 at 1835 hrs




15. I should clarify lest I be accused of being anti-teacher.  Far from it.  My daughter is about to graduate with a BS in biology.  We discussed many times her considering becoming a teacher because my family thinks it’s a wonderful occupation, even considering the paltry salary and fair benefit package. 

    Posted by on October 14, 2008 at 1842 hrs




16. What is insulting in this whole debate is the teachers taking these big salary and benefits package then refusing to submit to giving more money to teachers that actully produce results instead of just showing up for work minus their sick days takens as “ mental health days”.
    Why should public employees get better salaries, benefits, pensions, sick days, vacations etc. than the general public?
    It is a national scandal that the public allows the teachers to get these packages, indulge themselves in left wing politics, bribing half the legisltors with big campaign donatios and work and then produce very little for that money.
    They are disgusting.

    Posted by on October 14, 2008 at 1857 hrs




17. Why should public employees get better salaries, benefits, pensions, sick days, vacations etc. than the general public?

    I could get a much higher salary working in the private sector.  When I started teaching, I took a $10K a year cut in salary.  After working for eleven years, I finally got back to what I was earning before I started teaching.  The only thing that kept my family afloat were the benefits through that time (three young kids, athletic, injuries, braces, you know the drill...). I took the job because I believe in the importance of education for our country.  I typically work most of the summer teaching summer school, writing curriculum, etc.  I also take classes to keep my certification up to date, and to advance on the salary schedule.  I generally get two to three weeks of vacation.  I start back on the job (part time) in late July/early August. 

    Not complaining, just telling you what happens.

    I don’t think I’m atypical.

    Posted by Mike on October 14, 2008 at 1942 hrs




18. Dohnal,

    Having worked in both sectors (and the third - nonprofit), I can tell you for certain (and I believe I’ve told you this before) that plenty of people in all sectors “just show up for work” and take “mental health days” off with full pay.

    Are you ever going to acknowledge that? Or are you just going to stick to your talking point?

    Posted by on October 14, 2008 at 2013 hrs




19. People in many sectors misuse things like sick days.  In the last ten years I have taken six while most in my profession take less than 2 per year.  Many professions seldom take them.  Survey after survey, in fact headlins in the Journal just lately show that public employees misuse these more than the public sector.
    People that want to advance in the private sector do not misuse these things.  ever go down to the County or State building on Friday afternoon?
    As for benefits, right now it is the standard to have 401ks that we pay at least 2/3 of the yearly cost.  Vacations are 3 weeks after five years, four after ten years.  compare? Most of us at least 50% of their medical and dental benefits.
    People look at what they are getting thant look at what they are giving their piblic employees with their taxes skyrocketing yearly and they are getting pissed.
    It is just a matter of time befoe the change is coming and that means they are going to rebel.  MPS is going broke, Milwaukee County has been devastated, most public agencies are underfunded in their pension accunts and in a few years the escalation will take all of our tax money with nothing left for the children, Obama wants to add to this mess that the liberals have created in the finance sector.
    Welcome to the real world.

    Posted by on October 14, 2008 at 2033 hrs




20. Yes, private sector people abuse their system, but they usually don’t last, they cost their company. Their managers figure it out and they get canned, but most of all the rest of us don’t have to pay their freight. We don’t have to buy an overpriced product from the private sector but we have to buy the overpriced pap that you guys sell.
    The worm will turn, it always evens out, the pendulum swings and that BS that you peddle will killyou.

    Posted by on October 14, 2008 at 2042 hrs




21. Listen folks on the right, here’s the thing:
    

    It is a national scandal that the public allows the teachers to get these packages, indulge themselves in left wing politics, bribing half the legisltors with big campaign donatios and work and then produce very little for that money.
    They are disgusting.

    When you talk like this, there is little room left to increase your rhetoric.  Are you gonna say, “we really really hate you and think you suck, honestly, really we do.  You’re greedy, lazy, corrupt and no good at your job.”?

    What’s the next step? I can only imagine dismantling the public schools.  You’re not going to attract professionals to the field by treating them this way. But you know that.  Cut the pay, ban political advocacy, limit free speech, degrade the work product, then call your employees disgusting.  This perspective is one intending to gut the workplace of employees, not attract better ones.

    I am convinced that this perspective is not what the public wants.  But it is what some want.  This may be what Dohnal wants.  Owen claims not to want to dismantle public schools, yet he regularly engages in the type of rhetoric that stokes passions on the right who are less discriminating in their public discourse.

    Could this be why the pendulum seems to be swinging leftward in the lead-up to November?

    Posted by Mike on October 14, 2008 at 2239 hrs




22. Some of you are really wild.  Why don’t you compare this to the Holocaust or something just as ridiculous.
    Grow up and stick to the issues.

    Posted by on October 14, 2008 at 2243 hrs




23. There is nothing very wild about the fact that some conservatives believe that public schools should not exist the way they do now.  I have heard a very responsible and consistent-with-small-government-ideology rationale for dismantling public schools on this very blog before.

    It makes sense.  Education is primarily the parents’ job. They (the parents) should see to the education of their children.  Private schools are best for that.  Public schools should exist only to the extent that the informed electorate deems them necessary. 

    This philosophy is not something I’d compare to the Holocaust.  But I would challenge critics of schools to play out the logical extension of some of the views they express here.  Post #21 was just such a challenge.

    Posted by Mike on October 14, 2008 at 2258 hrs




24. Developing the schools and education into a full blown voucher sytem would be best.

    Posted by on October 15, 2008 at 0811 hrs