Young workers want good old fashioned pension

[rescueme]

Could you explain how making it easier to get rid of bad teachers will make it easier to attract more of the best and brightest to become teachers?

I'm not the OP, but I would rather my tax dollars go to those that perform better than their peers, who may just have longivity in a teacher's position, without any measurement of their performance vs. student results.

Nothing more than what I was measured on when I worked in the "commercial" sector. Your performance/results had an impact upon your pay, and those that were considered "less efficient" were let go, to be replaced by others that could perform/do the job at hand.

Get rid of the deadwood, and give those that wish to show their "stuff" perform in a manner in which I (as a taxpayer) am paying for.

 

[ziggy29]

This is confused. Could you explain how making it easier to get rid of bad teachers will make it easier to attract more of the best and brightest to become teachers?

Pretty hard to hire promising new teachers when you can't get rid of the bad ones, isn't it? And if someone really is confident they will make a good teacher, why would the potential for being let go for bad performance be a deal breaker for them?

I see nothing "confused" about it. Every bad teacher getting a paycheck is potentially one more good teacher you can't hire.

Still, there's a lot more to this topic than teachers, and it's funny how so often when discussion of public employees comes up, it always seems to zero in on the teachers (sometimes to cops and firemen as well, but many see them as a different case). No one ever talks about the bureaucrats and paper-pushers (which are also needed to an extent, but they don't draw the same sympathy or effect as invoking teachers).

 

[eytonxav]

I work in IT and know I am under paid if compared to public companies. I would expect the nuke engineers and other project managers were under paid as well.

I don't know how to value job security either.

Can't buy that IT comparison to public companies, as I've seen first hand most of the mega corp IT worker jobs outsourced to India at much lower wages and no benefits. In fact, I had the unfortunate task of implementing that outsourcing strategy back in the mid 90s and it only got worse from there.

 

[donheff]

Quotes like this are often made by public employees. And there was probably a time in years gone by where there was some truth to it. However statistical analysis shows that many (most) public employees are paid better than they could do in the private sector.

In other words, what you post just isn't so.

Please cite some well done studies. To the best of my knowledge some public sector jobs may be better paid in some locations but most? - I haven't seen any evidence of that. The Feds do pretty extensive wage surveys that attempt to fairly balance pay and benefits against private sector as well as state and local comparables. At the behest of GOP legislators GAO has studied this issue time and again and has not found evidence of overpayment. The Reagan Admin tried to find the same and didn't get anywhere.

I agree with many that Government jobs of all sorts look good right now because the pension and health benefits have soared in perceived value. And, to be fair, those benefits may have always had more real value than we understood. So, in retrospect, those of us who worked for many decades under the older systems may have been better compensated than we realized at the time. But those benefits have already been substantially changed in the Federal sector and are rapidly eroding at other levels.

I suspect most government employees (particularly new ones) realize that things have to change. But the current atmosphere of demonization (where teachers are viewed as leaches) has gotten a bit out of hand and is serving no one.

 

[ziggy29]

But those benefits have already been substantially changed in the Federal sector and are rapidly eroding at other levels.

Note that relatively little of the backlash has been aimed at federal workers who, under FERS, have had a reasonable, sustainable and relatively affordable retirement system for close to 30 years now.

Had state and local governments followed suit then -- with a true three-legged stool approach like the FERS plan -- even if they grandfathered those already employed under the old plan, I suspect you'd be seeing far less backlash against public sector benefits. But the feds recognized CSRS was economically and demographically unsustainable in the early 1980s, and the state and local governments didn't. And many of the latter are teetering on the brink today as a result.

 

[GregLee]

I'm not the OP, but I would rather my tax dollars go to those that perform better than their peers, who may just have longivity in a teacher's position, without any measurement of their performance vs. student results.

Well, of course you would, and getting rid of bad teachers is obviously a good thing. But having an efficient way of removing bad teachers, desirable though it may be, is not plausibly a recruiting tool for attracting more of the best and the brightest. That's the confusion.

 

[eytonxav]

The Feds do pretty extensive wage surveys that attempt to fairly balance pay and benefits against private sector as well as state and local comparables. At the behest of GOP legislators GAO has studied this issue time and again and has not found evidence of overpayment. The Reagan Admin tried to find the same and didn't get anywhere.

The GAO, seems akin to the fox guarding the hen house.

 

[rescueme]

But the current atmosphere of demonization (where teachers are viewed as leaches) has gotten a bit out of hand and is serving no one.

As long as my tax dollars pay for their retirement (along with current pay & benefits), I'll have a voice in the discussion ...

When they start paying for my retirement, I'll keep my comments to myself.

BTW, most of my time in school was via a Catholic facility. Taxes were not paid for my time in class.

Along with the fact that I had to pay for school for my (disabled) child, I'm contributing to the education of others, beyond any benefit to myself or my family.

I'll continue to comment if I'm paying for others...

 

[ziggy29]

Well, of course you would, and getting rid of bad teachers is obviously a good thing. But having an efficient way of removing bad teachers, desirable though it may be, is not plausibly a recruiting tool for attracting more of the best and the brightest. That's the confusion.

That's where "pay for performance" comes into the picture -- another concept that is anathema to defenders of the status quo.

If you think you're going to be a really good teacher, I'd suggest that being an outstanding teacher paid less than a mediocre teacher with a couple years' seniority on you is worse for recruiting than the chance of being let go if you're one of the lowest performers.

Not to mention that in this job market, you don't need "recruiting." Put up a help wanted sign, especially for a permanent government job with a pension and retiree health insurance, and you'll have a hundred applicants, many of whom are qualified and a number of whom would likely be exceptional. If a district can't pick out a good one from that applicant pool, that's an administration and HR problem.

 

[GregLee]

Pretty hard to hire promising new teachers when you can't get rid of the bad ones, isn't it?

Not at all, unless you supposing that there are no open positions for public school teachers. (And that is not so.)

And if someone really is confident they will make a good teacher, why would the potential for being let go for bad performance be a deal breaker for them?

They might suspect that the mechanism for ferreting out poor teachers could be inappropriately applied to them. But even if this possibility doesn't occur to them, why would someone especially want a job where others are more likely to be fired? It doesn't make sense.

 

[ziggy29]

Not at all, unless you supposing that there are no open positions for public school teachers. (And that is not so.)

Not my supposition at all. It still applies if you replace "no" with "fewer." And certainly you can't deny "fewer," can you?

why would someone especially want a job where others are more likely to be fired?

1. Because it's a JOB (and a full time, highly benefited job) when many outstanding people have been without work for months, if not years.

2. Because the flip side is that they are more highly rewarded and compensated if they are excellent. If a teacher really has confidence in her/his ability, wouldn't this be a perk?

 

[GregLee]

It still applies if you replace "no" with "fewer."

No it doesn't. I can imagine a world in which teaching jobs are so desirable that the best students of a generation apply for them and that only the best are hired. In that special case, the only way to increase the number of very bright teachers hired would be to create more open positions by firing others. So, is that like the world we actually live in?

2. Because the flip side is that they are more highly rewarded and compensated if they are excellent.

"Flip side"? I just don't see how it follows that if more poor teachers are fired, the better ones remaining will be paid more.

 

[ziggy29]

"Flip side"? I just don't see how it follows that if more poor teachers are fired, the better ones remaining will be paid more.

Because most proponents of this "reform" are also talking of a merit-based system, not a primarily seniority-based system. In such a system, those who are better will be paid more. I talk about a system "where we do A and B" and all you can do is look at A (flexibility to remove poor teachers) in a vacuum and trash the idea without considering that it also comes with B (merit pay for performance). Why do you keep ignoring B? You refuse to touch it or acknowledge it as part of the discussion, and I'm curious as to why.

You keep coming back to "recruiting". How does it encourage "recruiting" (much less retaining) the best when you tell them that no matter how good they are, they won't earn as much as a mediocre colleague who has been there one year longer? Can you please tell me how that encourages recruiting and retaining the best? No, on second thought please don't -- this thread has drifted enough already. I'm done with this tangent and I'm done beating my head against an immovable wall here.

 

[FUEGO]

I'll offer my 2 cents on the subject, since I recently made a jump from the private sector into the public sector. Generally speaking, I don't think young people give much thought at all to pensions or 401ks when making job decisions. Just my observations from talking to lots of young people around age 30 (my peers). Most young people here in the public sector don't really understand what their pension plan is, or how it is funded, or when they can get money from it, etc. Nor do they understand the different deferred comp plans we have (401k, 457, etc) or how to use them to their advantage.

In the private sector, I have seen a similar general indifference among young folks to retirement savings plans. Retirement is something that people think of when they are older. Who has enough right now to save anything for later? Young people are focused on saving for a house, a wedding, a baby, etc, not retirement (if they are saving at all).

The only time I have talked up how awesome getting a government pension will be is when I sat down with my former employer to let them know I was leaving, and I told them how generous the pension is. I wanted to see if they would do something to match that component of my compensation. Of course I will most likely never get any benefit from my pension, since I doubt I will work in the current position the requisite 7 years for minimal vesting (for a tiny pension at age 65) or the 20+ to get any sort of a meaningful pension.

 

[GregLee]

Because most proponents of this "reform" are also talking of a merit-based system, not a primarily seniority-based system. In such a system, those who are better will be paid more. I talk about a system "where we do A and B" and all you can do is look at A (flexibility to remove poor teachers) in a vacuum and trash the idea without considering that it also comes with B (merit pay for performance). Why do you keep ignoring B? You refuse to touch it or acknowledge it as part of the discussion, and I'm curious as to why.

Your B should help attract better teachers. But your A would not. That is the point I made above. To think that firing bad teachers will attract brighter ones to the job is confused. If you want to attract better people to the job, doing B makes sense. Doing A doesn't, though it might be desirable for other reasons. I hope I've been clear.

 

[almost there]

Time to de-rail the teacher thing......
Did a bunch just take their pensions and start posting here lately?
Seems to be an issue, or something.........

Actually,
Young workers these days just want a permanent job.
With at least 40 hours a week.
And without the fear of being let go at any time for any reason.
And something out side the service sector. (about all that's left)
Waiting tables, cash register etc.........

 

[Independent]

Wow, the OP said nothing about Public vs. Private.

But Ha mentions government in post #5 and we quickly get 60 posts on that issue.

 

[Independent]

I'm going to talk about the original issue, young workers who say that DB plans look more appealing.

I'd like to ask them to discuss how their DB benefit would be impacted if they changed jobs every 5-10 years, and there was some significant inflation during their careers. I'll guess most haven't thought about that.

This is the other side of the coin from what we saw in the 1990's. When companies were bringing in DC plans, and workers looked at the prior 10 years' stock returns, many figured DC was the road to riches.

Somehow, the grass is always greener on the other side.

 

[Bimmerbill]

OK, so maybe I should rephrase my IT comments. All the IT staff here could walk out the door and get raises. I guess I consider that underpaid, or underpaid compared to local market conditions.

A quick search of the local want adds shows 10 or so IT jobs paying more than what I make for comparable work, to include full benefits and 401ks.

 

[rescueme]

But Ha mentions government in post #5 and we quickly get 60 posts on that issue.

Yeah, he's a troublemaker ....

(He met my expectations...)

 

[ChadR]

Your B should help attract better teachers. But your A would not. That is the point I made above. To think that firing bad teachers will attract brighter ones to the job is confused. If you want to attract better people to the job, doing B makes sense. Doing A doesn't, though it might be desirable for other reasons. I hope I've been clear.

I think this is where many would just say they agree to disagree. To most people who view themselves as hardworking and ambitious the ability to obtain a job where they are rewarded based on their merrit as well as work with others who are high performing is very attactive!!

I've worked on both sides of this fence. I worked in a segment of the private industry where average annual turnover is 15%+ I have never worked with a stronger group of individuals. "Deadwood" as has been mentioned before just can't last in that kind of environment. I now work in a company that has only done layoff's once in it's entire 70+ year history. While people do get fired here job security is very high. The performance of the average worker here is noticibly below the folks at my old job.

I've thought about being a teacher many times and have talked to a number of current and former teachers. The ones that I talked to who left the teaching profession all did so because of the politics of the system, not the pay. They were tired of being held back by seniority and working with people who had done the job a certain way for 20+ years that they refused to change or try new ideas.

 

[rescueme]

the VA is really expensive.

May be. However I doubt if you wish to endure what I did (as a Vietnam vet) to get the little services I do get through the system.

The VA provides services well outside the norm of "normal" medical coverage, and its specialized care in a lot of areas does cost more. That's the nature of the "beast", in most service connected situations.

BTW, the vast majority of my medical "benefits" come from a system of my contributions to a retirement plan, held by my former employer (private - non governmental). I use VA services very little, but I am thankful for what they provide, beyond the "typical" situation.

 

[nun]

The average teacher in Wisconsin makes about $50,000 a year plus benefits. With pension and healthcare added in, total compensation goes up to about $85,000-$90,000. How many unemployed people in America would take that job? Last year, our district had 12 openings, and got 2700 resumes........apaprently some people think that being a teacher isn't that bad of a deal..........

People in America have been beaten down. If they get health insurance it's invariably expensive. Their salaries don't keep up with inflation. Education continues to increase in cost. $50k salary is low paid considering the need for college and higher degrees and that they are teaching and care for our children.

 

[Texas Proud]

I am an exception to the norm, but my DC is much better than my DB is. I w**k still and have DB grandfathered in, but it was frozen to the current level, no cola, three years ago. I also have a DC. I have just passed the 5 year minimum for for 401k withdraw but already have a DC benefit that equals my DB. Thirty years of DB is being passed by 5 years of DB.
From my view, DB is a secure bond-like guarantee while a DC can build rapidly. This rapid growth is largely from LBYM and extreme saving and investing into DC. DC gives me control to make my FIRE happen. DB meant trudging the road to a happy destiny by a longer slower route.

I think this is mixing apples and oranges....

A DB plan is fully funded by the company... your 401(k) is most funded by you... with some match...

If you look, I bet that the amount the company put into your 401(k) is a lot less than they would have to put in a DB plan if it was not frozen...

 

[Texas Proud]

Your B should help attract better teachers. But your A would not. That is the point I made above. To think that firing bad teachers will attract brighter ones to the job is confused. If you want to attract better people to the job, doing B makes sense. Doing A doesn't, though it might be desirable for other reasons. I hope I've been clear.

Just curious as to your thinking....

Is it OK to pay a higher salary to a better teacher no matter how many years they have IOW, say a teacher with 5 years shows they are a better teacher than one with 20 years... can we pay the 5 year teacher more money? (not trying to get into the old discussion on how we can not measure a teachers performance.... lets say for discussion we can)


Now onto the other side... say the teacher has shown they are not good at all in teaching... can we get rid of them

In our current system the answers are NO and NO (well, mostly no from what I read)... I would like them to be YES and YES... what are your answers?