Go ask a parochial school teacher what they make and what their benefits are. Benefits?? OH YEAH - BENEFITS - that is what you get from a child doing well in your classroom. Bless their hearts, those are the only benefits they get.

This contract has nothing to do with particular schools and their administration. Try reading and retaining instead of ranting! There's 90 comments on this article and I'd bet more than half of them have nothing to do with the article!! Either stay on topic or meet for coffee and brow beat each other in a less public forum. I do have children who will be walking "those hallways" for years to come. I'm more concerned about the topic at hand than who's spouse should go build trucks and who calls who "ingorant."

caddyshack243:
||| (read between the lines) Great post. It's interesting on how the intention of a post can be completely re-directed. Bravo!

run: Thank you for taking the time to acknowledge how critically important it is to have qualified teachers in the classrooms. You are right, not everybody can do this successfully. Some people are only qualified to show videos. True teaching takes a special talent. Thank you.

When I was in school, days where we had a substitute were days where you watched a movie or did something as equally unproductive. Teachers not coming in because they are upset about the contract negotiations is not in the best interests of the students. husbandofmath- I find it interesting that you say that planned sick days to protest are ok, and just a couple sentances later you talk about the time teachers have devoted to the students. Were they showing their devotion by staying home and having students miss out on a day of education in a particular subject? Or is it ok for them to lower their level of devotion to the students because in their opinion, they are underpaid?

That's the Peter Principle: One rises to the level of one's incompetence.

In the original contract proposal from JSD to the JEA, the JSD asked the JEA to make at least 8 monetary concessions. That is not a good way to start out "good faith" bargaining.

http://www.weac.org/JanesvilleEA/319scho...

"No other profession puts incompetent administrative bureaucrats over the professionals except in the field of education."
.
I'll bet there are many in other professions that would beg to differ with that.

Ok, I concede that you weren't whining. However, this is not a typical employee / employer relationship since it is basically a government monopoly and teachers are not allowed to strike by law. The best thing to do would be to change the law to allow the teachers to strike. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with the planned sick days. If the district doesn't like it they can fire the teachers just as any employer can choose to do. Many of these teachers have devoted a lot of time to their students. No other profession puts incompetent administrative bureaucrats over the professionals except in the field of education.

Did I say that it would be good for the students for teachers to quit? How do you get out of my post that I am whining? I was just making a point, and not even stating an opinion on what my stance on this issue is. You are just making the assumption that I’m anti-teacher because I say they can quit. A January 5th article talks about two planned sick days that a select group planned and carried out. When the situation gets to that point, they should quit since it is obviously affecting their job.
And yes I do have the choice to move, but since my opinion isn’t against the teachers I don’t have a problem with having my tax dollars go towards attracting and keeping good teachers.

Run is not saying to pay the teachers less, Run is saying if the teachers don't like the proposal, then leave. The past couple of commentors have it backward. If the employer makes an offer and the employee does not like it, the employee leaves, not the boss.

run you have a choice too. You could move to a state where there are no property taxes and teachers are paid little. It seems petty to whine about the choices teachers have without facing the reality of your own decisions. You choose to live in a state that has made a commitment to its schools. Were you unaware of this? You could move to Rockford? I am pretty sure they pay their teachers less.

Run: Having teachers quit and move to other districts is not a good thing for the students or the district. I would much rather have my child educated by a highly educated, veteran teacher rather than a new teacher that could not find a job elsewhere. Think!

Moco - No offense taken. However, I must admit that I have never called anyone ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, uninformed, etc. I have taken great care as not to "bash" other people simply because posters like you do it so well that there is no need for me to respond in kind (no offense).

The teachers do have a choice in all of this. Quit. No one is forcing them to stay and if the burden is far too great for their pay they always have the option to leave.

Why doesn't the school district try to generate a endowment fund and buy over 8.1 million dollars worth of government indexed bonds and tie the teachers benefits and pay to the index. The school would still have a reserve that continually generates money and that is directly tied to the inflation rate.

I find it ridiculous that we have to have these petty wage games. The teachers burden is far too great for what they are paid. They are required to continually go back school and then criticized for expecting to be paid accordingly. If you don't want to pay teachers you could move to any number of states with more lax standards and see what that is like (higher crime, teenage pregnancy, etc etc).

This argument never seems to go away. We need to stop being petty and try to solve the problem of how schools are funded against the reality of fixed or declining incomes. Retired people don't hate schools, they hate the decline of their incomes at the sometimes heavy hand of the school districts. Maybe teachers would be willing to forgo more pay for the benefit of being able to attend the UW for free or their children to be able to go to college for free?

ihavealife: This will make you happy. I made a mistake. I got you mixed up with justsome1here. Sorry to justsome1here, that was not meant to be a slam on you.

ihavealife: I don't come on here and call names. But I, as well as every other person in here is sick of your comments. They usually don't even relate to the article. Seriously, GO AWAY! Contribute to the blog and get off of everyones back.

By the way, I never said I didn't like the students that my wife has to teach. There you go again making things up so can go tell someone to go build a truck. You come on here and never contribute a darn thing but you are good at stirring the pot. I am done with you and your comments that are a waste of everyones time. Get a new log in as I realy don't think that "ihavealife" fits you. All you seem to do is go dredge up old statements then twist them around on people just so you can argue, someone with a life wouldn't do that.

snerd: Teachers already pay part of their health insurance. It is included in their compensation package that they get nailed on all of the time! They also have high deductibles! And now you want them to pay for the premium? Also your arguement regarding teachers as being weatlhy is completely ridiculous! I am sure your the first to post that comment! Everyone has the option to go into the profession, just because you did not, does not mean you can penalize them. Average couple in Janesville makes 43000? 21500 a piece! You can make that at Wal-Mart part time! If you have a problem with what you make, go to Blackhawk Tech. or a University to change that. Don't sit their an ridicule teachers because you are jealous of what they have. You can have it to with a college degree!

To all those teachers who don't understand why taxpayers are saying "we have to pay for health care, why can't you:" it's about teachers asking people who are poorer than teachers and who pay for their own health insurance, to pay for teachers' health insurance too. You're telling the poor to pay even more to the wealthy. And most people, except for a handful of teachers think that's not fair. The average couple in Janesville has an annual income of about $43K - what does the average teacher plus spouse earn? If you don't like the present health insurance program, why not demand something else? You could self-insure, you could buy your own health insurance, or you could encourage the district to contract with an HMO or some other profit-making insurance company. Or maybe you could invite the rest of the community to join your insurance plan, then none of us would have to pay for insurance, right? It sure would be fair.

ihaevalife: GO AWAY. Your comments do absolutely nothing but bash people. If you can't talk about this with any sort of intelligence then don't talk about it.

The excellent grammar and writing skills found in some of the posts are great examples of why we need to attract and retain good teachers.

Just a thought.

whybesad,
Thats the problem, times aren't tough for the school district (8mil) and it is our good health that is making them profit. And we do pay for health insurance.

Times are tough we all have to give a little. Paying for health insurance isn't that bad. It's your health isn't it? Why not pay for it yourself.

ihavealife,
I have read some of your other posts and what is the deal with you telling people their wives should "build trucks". This article is about the teachers contracts and not about their wives. Why don't you try and stay on topic here.

spunky & 1234: Those of us who understand your job know that you are correct. There are some that will never understand and will always try to bring you down. I would not worry about defending your reasons to them. Every day it is the same few people that cry about life not being fair. They are just bitter that they can't fight for their insurance and benefits. They keep saying this is reality and as I've sited before on previous blogs, I work in the private sector and I am not experiencing what everyone else seems to think is normal. If one is that unhappy with their job/benefits there are jobs out there that don't screw you. But if they went and found themselves a job that had great benifits they wouldn't have anything to complain about! Not one of these people that is spouting off in here could do your job near as well.

You all need to remember that they are fighting to keep their benifits because there is a surplus that they helped create by taking wage freezes in the past. The JEA was good enough to help the district out when they needed it but the district does not feel the need to reciprocate. That is what this all about, not huge wage increases, just honesty and fairness.

blackirish: The little video clip you posted is not the norm, especially in wisconsin. Maybe you could find some video on factory workers coming back to work after a few beers at lunch, that would be entertaining! I bet you wouldn't even have to go very far to get it.

seabee: let me know what your compensation package is so I know what I'm eligable to get. Look at the numbers and stop the good enough for me/good enough for you nonsence.

Don't teachers pay taxes too? Does that mean they are paying themselves so they actually are getting double screwed?

Hey teachers, the vast majority of people that pay taxes, i.e. your salary and benefits, pay premiums! Welcome to the club!

I think many of you are missing the big picture. Wages are important but even more important is losing a very key benefit of not paying an insurance premium. Everything else being equal a 1.5% wage increase, after paying the insurance premium,is at least worth consideration. What's happening is the school district is trying to bargain away this key benefit by making a rediculous wage increase offer of 1.5% .Losing a benifit of that importance is worth far more than that offer. I don't know who is bargaining for the school dist. but someone fell asleep. From a future bargaining point of view it would have been far better to offer a sizable wage increase and a small ins. premium just to get their foot in the door.... Just one more point a 5% family prem. equals $74.14...thats a full prem. of $1,482.80/month...I don't know but that seems a little high to me.

"We are all under the same economic rules."
I didn't know everybody is held to a QEO. wow. So it's ok that the projected healthcare expenses was said to be 12%?
You'd be ok with that? or is it 8.4?

Also, you don't get the raise for experience until the contract is settled.

I guess if its so easy if anyone wants to come in and teach for me for a day feel free. I'm at 4 different schools, teaching 6th and 8th graders, kindergartners, and students with emotional disabilities ranging from 1st-5th grade. It’s probably pretty easy, after all "those who can't teach". Not to mention my bachelor and masters degree probably were pointless to achieve as well because "anyone can teach". I really would like to meet all of those who claim to be able to hold our positions; you must be amazing people and perhaps SHOULD. I'm not so sure your tune would be the same after you've seen what its really like, not to mention what its REALLY LIKE to work for the JSD.

blackirish: Your article, while interesting, is by no means respresentative of the Janesville teachers, or Wisconsin teachers for that matter. Each state sets its own standards for licensing teachers. If you read carefully, this man was from San Diego. California's requirements are far different. When I was in college, I had friends who wanted to see other parts of the country and applied for teaching jobs in places like California and Texas. Some got hired simply on a phone interview after reviewing their mailed in resume. Wisconsin standards are FAR higher than that. How do I know? I taught for 12 years before I decided to stay home with my young children, my mother is a retired teacher, my sister and brother-in-law teach in WI and my brother teaches in FL after first receiving a license in WI. Your little rip on the Janesville teachers by trying to use that article doesn't hold much water.

I guess i just need to hit the snooze button a half a dozen times first... I'm glad that you get it, most people don't. Anyway, this is NOT about me, nor is about you, even though I do enjoy reading your posts.

TheCourtJester - To answer your question from a non-teacher, everybody that I know has been awake for quite some time and has been dealing with the scenarios you have described for several years. My question to you is why are you still asleep?

thecourtjester: You are another in a long list that has asked that question. It has yet to be answered with anything but the "well I have to, so should they". The board make the position really clear with the last sentence of this article. I would imagine since they have not come up with another offer that the whole board feels the same way as Mark Vechinsky. It is sad when our community puts up the excuse of "that's just how it is deal with it" over the education of our children.

MOC0428 - that was a great article!

WAKE UP Janesville. I'll try and make a few quick points and then I'm done. Those of you in town who are not teachers: Imagine just for minute that you get a 4% raise every year (you may or may not, but please bear with me). Half of that goes into your pocket, and the other half goes into your self funded health plan. Half of your pay increase goes towards YOUR contribution to YOUR health insurance. Furthermore imagine that for the last eight out of ten years your employer has over estimated health costs and a surplus of money has built up in that health fund. Keep in mind that those two years that were underfunded you agreed to a wage freeze in order to keep your health benefits the same and while simultaneously rebuilding the fund. Nonetheless, after 10 years there is still a surplus. A BIG one. Now imagine that in year eleven, your employer comes to you and asks you to contribute an additional 5-10 percent besides the half you are already contributing towards an already over funded health plan. All because "everyone else is doing it". Imagine when times are tight, your employer telling you to tighten your belt because they need to find a way to cut costs while at the same time being able to "magically" find $$ for pet projects. Imagine that what if the money for those projects came out of the surplus earmarked for your health plan that you have been paying in for 10 years, and NOW in year 11 they want more. I'm guessing that the majority of you would NOT like that one bit. In fact, if that were the case, I'm betting on pitchforks and torches. That is the point Janesville. It is not the district's money, it's your money. Expect and demand fiscal responsibility. Your school board, and your school district- not the teachers, are keeping YOUR money, while piling up a surplus, to spend as they see fit. The additional fact that they are asking the teachers to contribute more to this surplus makes zero sense. I can see why the teachers are chafed about that. Finally why has no one has been able to answer that question, other than that is what everyone else is doing so we need to as well.

A few people on the other blog started talking about merit increases and whatnot. Anyway OptimusPrime found this article that was mentioned by mytransams. I think that it is worth reading for everyone involved, for or against. I believe that it shows how the JEA is being treated is not the norm. I will agree costs of everything are still rising but there are alternatives to what we have going on here in Janesville. Please read:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...

I, for one, would have appreciated an explanation of the referenced pay schedule. For others who might be interested, here's my attempt to explain it - forgive me for all this tiresome explanation if I am the only one who didn't understand it.
-----
Rows (STEPS) are years and columns (called TRACKS in some districts) reflect a teacher's degree (Bachelors, Masters, PHD) and the number of additional academic credits that a teacher has earned beyond that degree. Eg, step 0 is for new hires (zero years experience), and B+6 means BA degree plus 6 additional academic credits. A new hire with only a BA degree and no additional academic credits will earn $33,262. After one year that teacher's pay will increase by 2.3% ($789) to 34,051, and after another year to 34,839, etc (an increase of about $789 each year.) After the seventh year, this teacher will not get any more raises in this track. But by obtaining 6 additional academic credits of education after 7 years experience, that teacher can advance to the next track (BA+6) in step 8 and will receive three more years of raises in that new track before hitting another maximum after ten years on the job.
-----
All these raises are built into each contract - teachers don't just get a raise when there is a new contract, they get a raise every year until they hit a maximum value that they can get past by getting additional education. Even if a new contract is never agreed upon, each teacher get's an annual raise. A new contract merely changes the amount of the annual raise in each track, and the base amount (step 0) in each track.
-----
I welcome any corrections.

We all hate to see our tax bill but teachers should have a fair wage and increase. Who pays their insurance premiums twice? I don't why does the JSD and many of you want teachers to pay twice? I get the fact they have taken their increases over the years and put it toward insurance and the district has used their money for other expenses. It should be saved for insurance. I believe the people we pay the most for in the district, are not telling all, to us taxpayers.

Why_teach: The big difference is that Dennis doesn't let WEAC do his thinking for him.

Spiraling insurance costs does not a recession make. Life isn't fair, nor "convenient" most of the time. We are all under the same economic rules. Even though our taxes have skyrocketed, our insurance costs have increased 8.4 percent, and our wages did not keep up with inflation, at some point we have to:
a)accept a new budget for ourselves, or
b)go into debt to continue the current standard of living, or
c)find new sources of income.
These are everyone's choices, even though we may not like them.

I thought I already posted this but I'll try again. Here is a copy of an email I just sent to Frank Schultz. Granted the links to the salary schedules are for 2007-2008 (the article references 2006-2007) but the discrepancy is too big to matter.

"I spoke to you earlier regarding the innacurate salary comparison chart printed in yesterday's paper. The maximum schedule row is wrong. Madison is listed as 60,902 when their website lists 87,863. I also checked on Middleton's salary schedule and they top out at 74,391.69. This is also a huge difference from the 68,587 reported. I'm not sure if the others are accurate. Can you find out what is going on?"

Middleton's salary http://www.mcpasd.k12.wi.us/empservices/...
Madison's salary http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/hr/tchrsals...

I'm pretty sure teachers don't receive any increases until the contract is settled. Some teachers do receive increases based on years of service - but after a while they reach the maximum salary and no longer receive this.

Using "the recession" as an excuse for poor raises is a bit convenient. Under the QEO, teachers didn't receive large raises when they were the norm in the business community, so why should they now receive small raises when that is the norm in the business community. (Unless you would relent and give raises of larger pecents retroactively.....)

How much will teachers' salaries go up automatically this year, simply because they all have one more year "time in service" even if there is no new contract that raises that automatic, annual increase?

I am not a teacher. But I think they have one of the most importants jobs in the world. In 2007, health insurance premiums in WI went up 8.4 percent. In 06 it was 7.2 percent. In addition, 13.2 percent of companies nationwide eliminated health insurance as a benefit in 07 because of the high cost. This trend is expected to continue. For teachers, a 5 percent contribution to premiums, and 2 percent wage is well above what most workers in WI experienced for 07. It is reasonable, although not desirable. Insurance is not profit based, it simply spreads out the risk among many to the benefit of each individual. Your surplus is good risk management. Taking this package does not dimish your high value to society, it is simply a reflection of the health insurance spiral. I salute you teachers for the fine job you do.

TCB,
So because the union is looking out for the better of its members they are bad. As I said this isn't going to cost the taxpayers anything more and it is for the better of the teachers. Also if the union agrees to back down don't think your taxes are going to decrease. By the way this isn't a business as you again refered to it. Not for profit.

Spunky: 1) We agree that teacher quality is not reflected in student performance - that was one aspect of my point: no matter how good the teachers and no matter how much you pay them, the outcomes will be no better. There's no value in paying more than you can afford for teachers. 2) If teachers are paid more, taxes WILL go up: revenue caps don't keep tax revenues from increasing they only limit the RATE at which they can increase. From a previous post, I'm still curious about who pays what for retired teachers' health insurance.

Whyiteach:

"Wrong this union is negotiating to keep what they have which will not cost the taxpayers a red cent more than you are already paying"

Exactly! The union is looking back to bygone times demanding that the status quo remains intact-this is part of the system problem facing public education. Its not going to stay the same-change is constant. Call it stealing (though I dont thnk you mean it), call it normal business negotiations, call it being held over a barrel.

As stated from another post: Reasons for teachers to pay healthcare:
A. To raise awareness of healthcare costs
B. What's good enough for you is good enough for me
C. Cuz everyone else is doing it
D. The district wants more money for the slush fund
E. All of the above
Notice none of these state numbers or a NEED for premiums, just a DESIRE by the board and Evert. Perhaps if the board ever gave us more than their desire, the JEA would listen.

Snerd: Your taxes are not going to go up or down based on the teacher contract. Revenue caps are in place to prevent that from happening any more than they already do. The money is already there in the form of years of surplusses on healthcare. We're not asking for the cash in return, just keep the healthcare surplus in the healthcare fund. There is no NEED to pay healthcare based on the district's continual over estimating.

snerd: Trying to keep it as PC as I can, but have you considered comparing demographics of communities. Race, family composition, family INCOME are all indicators of how a child may perform on tests. I am not trying to perpetuate stereotypes, this is well known data. That is why school districts set goals of improving performance of certain demographics. They have looked at the data and see a group that needs improvement. Janesville is not Middleton. Beloit is not Waukesha. Parkview is not Milwaukee. This is why performance-based pay, while good in theory, is not practical. It punishes teachers for working in say.. a low income neighborhood. Students may do good, but statistically speaking they are less likely.

What's the gist of my previous post? Janesville taxpayers are paying all they can afford to pay, and there is no good reason to pay more than they can afford, because greater pay does not yield better outcomes. Note that the average teacher's pay and benefits (as noted by sluggo) is $20K more than the average Janesville COUPLE'S income. Good grief. The poor being asked to pay more to the wealthy.

I'm tired of the he said, she said, name calling. Work on a settlement and stop airing your dirty laundry through the gazette. Where is the professionalism on both sides?

How wealthy are the taxpayers in the various school districts? For the year
2004, AGI (adjusted gross income) per tax return (per family for marrieds, per
individual for singles):
Beloit: $33,335
Janesville: 43,308
Madison Metro: 46,882
Middleton-Cross Plains: 67,986
Sun Prairie: 51,548
Eau Claire Area: 59,912
Waukesha: 53,685
Oshkosh Area: 41,543
Sheboygan Area: 40,023
---------
How can Beloit taxpayers afford to pay their teachers so much more than
Janesville? Because they get more money from the state and federal
governments. Beloit property taxpayers pay only $2001 per student, Janesville
taxpayers pay $2775, Middleton's pay $7207. Beloit gets $8600 in state and
federal funds per student, Janesville gets $6782, Middleton-Cross Plains gets
$3033.
---------
On performance tests, Beloit students score in the 10th deciles (the bottom 10%) across the board in all tested grades. Janesville students score in the 7-10 deciles on those tests, and Middleton-Cross Plains' score in the 1-3 deciles.
---------
I do not believe that if the Middleton-Cross Plains teachers, making the salaries they now make, taught in the Beloit or Janesville School Districts, that the Janesville or Beloit student performance stats would be any better than they are now. Data source: "SchoolFacts06" published by the Wis Taxpayers
Alliance.

Hockeyjockey,
I am unsure if he was JEA president or not but what you are saying doesn't make much sense. If what you are saying is true than our current president, who also teaches in the district, should know just as much as Mr. Vechinsky. HMMM

PS - When was the last audit of the SDJ performed by a CPA? And what were the results? If there is a financial discrepancy and nobody really seems to be getting a straight answer, then an outside, independent CPA firm should be called in to set things straight. Cost? Astronomical. Results? Necessary. And worth it.

I know Dennis Vechinsky taught in the Janesville School District for several years, but wasn't he also JEA president at one time? Hmm. Maybe he knows a little of which he speaks.

No matter whose side you are on, you have to admit that part of human nature - anyone, everyone - screams "What's in it for me?" on a regular basis. We will all work harder if we are rewarded more, be it in money, benefits, pats on the back, general appreciation, achieving personal goals, whatever. In this case, like anything else, both sides are wondering "what's in it for me" and failing to see that the other side is saying the same thing - just maybe in different ways and for different reasons. If both sides could let go of the emotion involved, make it less personal and more rational, and get down to the bare bones of the logical needs of everyone involved, a solution could be found a lot more quickly. Everyone just seems so caught up in the drama - on both sides - if that were removed, things would be a lot easier. Just my opinion.

disillusioned_already
exactly our gripe

Perhaps I am wrong, but....

Because the teacher's health care is self funded, the district sets the projected cost, right?

There is a surplus because the district has over-estimated over and over again the cost, right?

The total raise is (and has been in the past) determined by including both "rising" health care costs and salary increases, right?

Assuming all are correct assumptions, how is it fair to say to the teachers, "We will give X% raise, of which Y% we deem to be your health care costs" and then maintain a large surplus to dip into for other projects? (and then do it all again?)

There seems to be faulty logic somewhere-is it mine?

BlackIrish and TCB,
Both of you hit on the same thing-That I think they are stealing. They are stealing when they charge the taxpayers money for student services, buildings, teachers salaries, ect. and don't need it. No they are not a business they are a non for profit organization. Yes I do think they should have some excess cash to cover things that may come up but not enough to run the entire school district for over half a year without one extra dime.
As for you being a "shareholder" I would love to buy some of their stock. I could understand your comparison where the taxpayer is the shareholder if us paying premiums was going to lower taxes. Guess what it isn't. Don't you think the district would have said this by now if it was going to happen.
"They negotiate tenaciously for expensive benefits packages, pension plans and restrictive work rules" Wrong this union is negotiating to keep what they have which will not cost the taxpayers a red cent more than you are already paying.
BlackIrish, I am going to overlook the ignorance in the last sentence of your thread as you should get some more information before making some of your comments.

whyiteach:

Who is profiting? Its a school districtnot a bsuiness! Shareholders (ie taxpayers), I might add, do not received a dividend when the district runs surplus in its budget. Shareholders (ie taxpayers) are forced to invest an ever increasing amount to fund a system that continues to under perform.

Although individual teachers may be dedicated to the welfare of their students, the first priority and the raison d'etre of the teachers unions - like any trade union - is the welfare of their rank and file. They negotiate tenaciously for expensive benefits packages, pension plans and restrictive work rules. Trade unions abhor competition among their members, and the teacher unions are no different.

Dissenting parents are overwhelmed by the establishment. The power of the unions and the politicians aligned with them, combined with the apathy and naivete of too many parents make for an intractable status quo.

What do retired teachers do about health insurance?

TCB,
Again I will note that they aren't doing this to curb taxpayer spending. They are pocketing the profits. If they wanted to curb taxpayer spending they wouldn't have the surplus they have and still cut programs.

CC88
This is exactly my point. It would be great if the school district used the huge surplus they have already overcharged you, to lower taxes but they don't. Oops, I'm sorry they did lower it with 1.5 mil of 30mil to throw you a bone knowing this contract dispute was coming into the light of the public. I understand that you pay premiums and therefore everyone should pay equal or more than you. But even if I could overlook that, you should realize that if they do charge us, the 8mil they have made on us in the past few years in insurance surplus will soon double. The point is there has been a "little extra" in the pot for years and how much have your taxes decreased? This is a cash cow for the district that they want to capitalize on. They may make it seem like they are doing it for the taxpayers but look at the facts. They are doing for themselves and not once have they said a single word about lowering your taxes.

ihavealife: To whom are you speaking to? Let's try and keep this blog constructive and on topic:)

Rocky:
Like minded people can disagree on what constitutes a large raise. If the offer is 3% and the net increase (note increase-not decrease) averages 1.5%-that is the result of labor economics.

I support the teachers and their quest to fight for what the union believes is right. I also support the JSD efforts to curb tax payer spending.

I do not have a dog in this fight. I am married to a teacher and I am aware of distortion from union officials and district officials. From my view on the sidelines, it appears that teachers have been offered a fair contract. I realize this is my view only-others are free to disagree.

However, the issues that dominate the landscape will be the same issues that rise again when its time to negotiate a new contract. It's sad but it's also predictable given the organizational and governance structure of public education.

As an average joe citizen who has always worshipped teachers in general, I'm here to share that very few of us get more than a percent or two annual raise these days. It's called recession. And yes, we're all paying more and more towards our insurance - way more than 5% thanks, and I have one of the best deals in town.

Mr. Vechinsky has never been one to mince words. He's from the old school and while I sometimes wince, I do appreciate his reality checks and opinions. From where I stand, why shouldn't you pay something for your insurance!? Then the little bit of 'extra' in the reserve can perhaps be used to lower taxes for all of us, not just employees. Let's not forget the other school district employees with low healthcare costs. Were you going to share with them, too?! I never thought I'd think badly of teachers like those other people do, but its all leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

Here is a thought - If you think you can do a better job on the school board then put your name on the ballot next time there is an opening. Then maybe you can actually put your words into action.

TCB: My concern isn't about whether teachers have to pay a bigger portion of their health insurance - it is with the boards misrepresentation of giving a large raise. When they put the money in the teachers pockets with one hand (calling it a big raise) and pull it right back out with the other, the net take home pay is barely increasing for many teachers. That hardly seems fair.

Not sure what you mean by comparing pay with achievement...I didn't mention that before. Still - I'll put our Janesville teachers on par with any in the state. There are some truly exceptional teachers in Janesville! (and no - for the record - I am not a Janesville teacher or in any way related to any Janesville teachers).

This is the Madison School Districts Salary Schedule for Teachers. Does anyone know how the different Tiers work?

http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/hr/tchrsals...

TCB: Poor performance at any workplace can be attributed to not being happy with your current working conditions. I guess it doesn't have to be that way but I think even the most proffesional of people will tend to do a bit less when they don't feel appreciated. It doesn't sound like there has been much negotiating on the district/board side of things. It seems they have a take it or leave it mentality towards the JEA. I just don't understand the "if I can't have it then why sould they" approach to life. I would agree that insurance cost have been steadily rising around the country but this case appears to be a bit different. We as taxpayers and teachers have been paying into a fund that has grown quite large. The money is put there for one reason and the districts seems to use it for other things. In the end the teacher may lose this battle but I hope that people we at least start questioning the spending that occurs within the district. Is being QEO'ed the best thing for you all right now? It is really unfortunate the the board and many of the residents of Janesville don't have much respect you. Keep fighting JEA.

luvujvl: I sort of thought the same thing...he has at the very least lost my vote, and I used to support him wholeheartedly. Maybe he doesn't plan on running again and just figures he too can put in his potshots at the teachers. "Bad form" for such a lack of professionalism in an interview.

WhyTeach: I guess we couldn't avoid it for very long, the whole "everybody's doing it" mentality, and from our own school board/employer - truly scary.

Rocky:

There are 2 parties negotiating-the School district and the union. Good or Bad this is were it stands. If the janesville teachers have to pay a larger portion of health insurance-this is what they will have to do. If Janesville teacher end up as the lowest paid teachers in the Big Eight or southern wisconsin-this is what the union negotiated.

Teacher pay is not indicative of student achievement.

Sounds to me like Vechinsky just lost his job. (re: last sentence of this article.)

My point - if you compare Janesville to districts of about the same size----we are paid less.

http://dpi.wi.gov/lbstat/xls/tasr06.xls

Comparing enrollment numbers: Janesville has about 10,000; Madison 14,000 more; Sun Prairie 4,000 less; Beloit 3,000 less; Middleton 4,500 less.

Average salaries of these districts plus fringe:
Beloit Sch Dist .................71,005
Janesville Sch Dist..............63,256
Madison Metropolitan Sch Dist....69,365
Middleton-Cross Plains Sch Dis...62,976
Sun Prairie Area Sch Dist........61,573

Schools with around 10,000 students are
Eau Claire Area Sch Dist
Waukesha Sch Dist (13,000)
Oshkosh Area Sch Dist
Sheboygan Area Sch Dist

Average salary plus fringe benefits:
Eau Claire Area Sch Dist.........71,472
Waukesha Sch Dist................80549
Oshkosh Area Sch Dist............66209
Sheboygan Area Sch Dist..........72,276

Just got these off DPI website - Notice Middleton and Sun Prairie are half the size of Janesville.

Thanks Dennis for showing us as teachers how you would like us to direct our students. Would you want us to tell them it is ok to do something because their gang banging classmates do it. I guess I should speed down MIlton Ave because others are doing it too. This is the best you can come up with. You are a leader in this community and yet you let the hypocracy of the JSD get to you.
A 3.31% salary increase would be very welcomed by everyone but when you subtract the new premiums we would be paying that 3.31 is actually less than 2%. So just give us the 2% raise and keep the insurance the same.

Take whatever pay increase the board has reported in this letter and decrease it by either $900 or $1800 (depending on participation in wellness program) and you have a more accurate picture. C'mon - do you really buy this "We'll GIVE you $2000 more salary - but take $1800 of it back in insurance premiums" baloney? A new teacher could wind up with a ZERO NET INCREASE! WHY would the JEA ever accept such an offer?

This letter just seems like an attempt to end-run the union. Every JEA teacher should return the letter to the administration (postage due) with a note reminding them that they have a union negotiating team for such matters.

Mark Vechinsky into the column of "cuz everyone else has to." At least look at the numbers DV, many pay cells would be better off taking the 2% that Evert was so kind to remind us of and not pay premiums. Easy for Vechinsky to sit back and tell us what we need to take; he retired from teaching before it got nasty. Enjoy your benefits you fought for and now want to take away.

Let's not forget about the low cost of living in Janesville. Houses here are about half the cost of those in the Madison market. However, salaries here are very similar to those in Madison. Hence, teachers here are actually FAR ahead of teachers in Madison in terms of cost of living expenses as a portion of salary. If educators would like to commute to the Madison area or Beloit for a very slightly higher salary, that is also an option for them. Many of us commute daily for similar reasons.

Sounds to me like the administration and board are accusing the JEA leadership of lying, of not providing a complete picture, or of being incompetent. Which is it Tom and Dennis?