Speaking of teacher salaries, how much must teachers pay each year to the Washington Education Association and its local, regional and national affiliates?
An average of $763. Kent and Bellevue teachers pay more than $1,000.
It varies by district. To find out how much teachers in your district must pay, follow this link.
Teachers who do not wish to be members of the union do have a right to “opt out” and receive a refund for a portion of their dues – hundreds of dollars in many districts.
Posted by Marsha Michaelis at March 15, 2006 01:58 PM | Email ThisA bargain for an organization soley interested in their benefit and welfare.
A machine that insures justice and a "fair shake" for all teachers.
NOT!
Posted by: Jack on March 15, 2006 02:28 PMUnions = scam artists
Posted by: Steve_dog on March 15, 2006 02:40 PMIf I worked at a job where I were forced to pay this much money to a firm that negotiated the crappy contracts the teachers have, I would sue for negligence. This is criminal.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on March 15, 2006 03:00 PMI suppose they could agree to a 50 percent wage cut if they want to opt out.
However, they shouldn't be able to reap the benefits without paying their share.
Posted by: Erik on March 15, 2006 03:11 PMIf the money is withdrawn from teacher paychecks automatically, essentially it's a payment to the unions by the state, not from the teachers.
In that context, it's a bit more aggrevating because the unions aren't just protecting bad teachers, they're essentially stealing from taxpayers to do it in the first place. Could be a good approach if you're trying to build a case against the unions that most residents could support.
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on March 15, 2006 03:11 PMOf course, we need Republicans to put the Washington Evil Association in its place and a State Representative Marsha Richards to fix her bayonet and CHAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGEEEE!!! :-)
Posted by: A Watchdog on March 15, 2006 03:34 PMThe same people who support the current federal administration ( the administration that wipes its ass on your constitution ) are the ones that support with big bucks the likes of Marsha Richards and her anti-union scabbing activities. She pretends that the EFF is a locally funded public policy institute, but it is not. It is funded by, among others, the Walton Foundation and the Scaife Foundation --- funds run by individuals who have inherited their money and never done a day's work in their lives.
So much for the "Meritocracy" , eh?
Check out their organization for yourself ( Evergreen Freedom Foundation ) on Media Transparency. You'll enjoy reading the articles in their subdued professional colors and lack of cheesy pop-ups. If you frequent right wing sites you may not have known these sorts of sites existed.
Posted by: headless lucy on March 15, 2006 03:48 PMYes, the idea of taxpayer funded schools drives them mad followed closely by the concept that teachers could collectively bargain for benefits.
No doubt we will see more lawsuits with EFF suing the school system arguing that right wing teachers should be able to freely reap all of the bargaining rewards of the other teachers paying dues.
Posted by: Erik on March 15, 2006 03:48 PMAs far as the rest of the comments, I encourage you to be much more vocal in your community in expressing them. You are doing more to make sure Bush's agenda gets completed than any of the republicans can do for themselves.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on March 15, 2006 04:10 PMAre you familiar with the principle that you can't give up rights you don't have? That is, if individually, the teachers aren't able to negotiate their contracts, they can't give the right to negotiate their contracts to the union.
This would imply that if one "opts-out" of the union (if such a thing were actually possible) that they could engage in their own contract negotiations.
Of course, the state has so many laws demanding uniformity of employees and their benefits, that the district would have little leeway to negotiate any change in status.
And Erik, if the pay is so horrible at private schools, why do teachers teach there at all? They could make far more money at a government school, right? Answer this conundrum, and you'll understand what is wrong with government schools, and why they cannot provide a public education of any value.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on March 15, 2006 04:14 PMBecause many of them are not credentialed or lack the educational requirements to do so.
For the ones that are, the pay is the best they can get.
>why not let the teachers that
>refuse to participate in the
>union negotiate their own contracts?
They can do that now if they voted to de-certify.
Posted by: Erik on March 15, 2006 04:23 PM"I suppose they could agree to a 50 percent wage cut if they want to opt out."
I suppose that you can provide proof that union negotiation results a doubling of salaries? I suppose that you could agree that without such proof your statement is pure hogwash?
"Because many of them {teachers at private schools} are not credentialed or lack the educational requirements to do so."
Again, I ask you for proof of this. Anything other than a WEA flyer posted outside a polling place?
Posted by: Larry on March 15, 2006 04:28 PMCall a small private or religious school and ask what their criteria is for applying in terms of education and certification and then compare that to Washington state teacher.
Posted by: Erik on March 15, 2006 04:38 PMPrivate schools are generally exempt from meeting State licensing standards. For secondary school teacher jobs, they prefer candidates who have a bachelor’s degree in the subject they intend to teach, or in childhood education for elementary school teachers.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm
In the world of research, that's called 'I have no proof' or 'My Uncle Charlie told me so'.
It was your statistic, not mine. Why are you asking me to do your research? Let me ask you, Erik - when was the last time you called a private or religious school and asked this question? And have you done it for a relevant sample of religious and private schools?
Otherwise, you're just whistlin' Dixie, Erik.
And per your second post - being exempt from requirements is not proof that requirements aren't being met.
I've seen you provide no evidence of your earlier statements.
Posted by: Larry on March 15, 2006 05:07 PMThat's a lot of money to negotiate salary and benefits every couple of years.
I wonder how much of that is used for political (Democrat) activities?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 15, 2006 05:21 PMhttp://www.educationnext.org/20033/14.html
Posted by: Erik on March 15, 2006 05:29 PMGovernment schools are for the most part a pig trough. On average we spend annually $10K per student. Society suffers a failure rate that only Sims would tolerate. Once again proving that bureaucracy and unionism achieves remarkable goals.
Posted by: Snuffy on March 15, 2006 06:33 PMAt least I can admit and correct my own mistakes. Union pukes can't do that.
Posted by: ERNurse on March 15, 2006 07:20 PMheadlice got a weekday pass from the loonybin! Or are they providing nerf-keyboards inhouse now? How's Nurse Ratched been treatin ya?
Posted by: alphabet soup on March 15, 2006 07:30 PMHow many beginning teachers have been sued for job related activities that their employer (us) did not defend them and the union did? I imagine that the school district would be sued along with the teacher if it really was an on the job issue for two reasons:
1 - the employer is responsible for their employees official actions
2 - beginning teachers have nothing to be sued for, according to the union and the press, as they are paid so miserably little.
Posted by: Fred on March 16, 2006 07:57 AMNow Jeff, equating Headlice and work is like equating Poop and Gardenia's!!
Is work in the Seattle School District all about Blogging at all hours of the day??
C'mon now Jeff...never, ever credit the KLOWN of all KLOWNS with "working"!
The big difference between privately employed teachers and public school teachers is that the private schools have the leeway to fire the ones who don't perform. However, in spite of that, I imagine there are teachers who feel less restricted in a private teaching environment. Certainly pay is an issue, but job satisfaction must also be a factor. The image of the public school teacher is that he is typically overworked, underpaid, and unhappy in his job. That may not be the image teachers wish to project, but it is what comes across.
However, no picture of private school teachers comes to my mind. I've never heard anything about the job satisfaction of these people. Is any one here a private school teacher, what is the job like, have you worked in public schools, and which do you prefer (and why)? I'm curious!
Posted by: Peggy U on March 16, 2006 09:05 AMAs a former loan officer, I know how hard it was to approve loans for teachers. Most had huge student loan debt and wouldn't make enough income to overcome their high debt to income ratios....I don't recall any teachers applications listing such a large payment to their unions.....I know that information would have put many out of range for a loan....
Why don't they organize against this? Are they so blindly liberal that they don't see how this effects them personally?
It reminds me of how cult members and communists suffer! They lose their sense and means of individual worth for the sake of the common good of the cult or the party... They become poor - insignifcant drones....
Second, the posts about private school teachers lacking credentials is bogus. They couldn't provide any resarch because they don't know what they are talking about. From the state office of pub ed:
http://www.k12.wa.us/certification/teacher/teacherinformation.aspx
"Teachers in public and private schools in Washington State are required to hold a teaching certificate."
I've taught in both private and public schools and my children have attended both private and public schools. They have had good and bad teachers in both, and I have worked with excellent and inadequate teachers in both public and private schools.