Like other city unions, SDP teachers' union gets above average benefits

[Dave]

Is any one surprised? Sounds like they could make up most, if not all, of that $94M shortfall just by restructuring the teachers' union contract to more closely resemble what average joe taxpayer gets. Raise your hand if you work in the private sector and contribute less than 1% of your health insurance costs. Anyone?

Philadelphia Teachers Union Rides First Class on Gravy Train

full report:

http://eagnews.org/wp-content/upload...act-report.pdf

Meanwhile, the school district is demonstrating how the Nutter administration maybe should be negotiating with Pete Matthews and his crew.

District, blue collar union 'millions' apart, deadline looming

"We're millions apart," he said. "We are willing to concede. We are willing to make concessions, but there has to be a bottom line."

At this point, it would seem like the bottom line is wherever costs would be if those jobs were contracted out to the private sector. The district can't really afford to do otherwise.

[BarryG]

The $94M shortfall already takes into account a lot of PFT concessions they haven't agreed to yet...

[BenDee]

Let's look at a similar Joe Taxpayer, those who spent 4-6 years getting a Bachelor's or Master's.

SDP 2010 teacher salaries (from your cited report)
Bachelor's: 42,096-65,733
Master's: 42,905-74,235

2005 Median salary from the Census bureau (closest info I could find to 2010):
25+ Bachelor's full-time: $56,078
25+ Master's full-time: $61,273

It seems that working for the school district tends to pay a bit less than the median salary nationwide for an equivalent degree level. Considering that the cost of living in the city is higher than on average nationwide (Source), the benefit level isn't that bad.

BTW: $30 million of the $135 the district could 'save' was by postponing payments. That's not saving anything, just delaying the inevitable.

[ArcticSplash]

The $94M shortfall already takes into account a lot of PFT concessions they haven't agreed to yet...

They were also banking on eliminating SEIU 32BJ, which didn't sit well with the Philly delegation at all.

[BarryG]

Let's look at a similar Joe Taxpayer, those who spent 4-6 years getting a Bachelor's or Master's.

SDP 2010 teacher salaries (from your cited report)
Bachelor's: 42,096-65,733
Master's: 42,905-74,235

2005 Median salary from the Census bureau (closest info I could find to 2010):
25+ Bachelor's full-time: $56,078
25+ Master's full-time: $61,273

It seems that working for the school district tends to pay a bit less than the median salary nationwide for an equivalent degree level. Considering that the cost of living in the city is higher than on average nationwide (Source), the benefit level isn't that bad.

BTW: $30 million of the $135 the district could 'save' was by postponing payments. That's not saving anything, just delaying the inevitable.

But teachers don't work a full year. And they get tenure... How do you put a value on that? What pay cut would you take if the only way you could lose your job is if you drop your pants at the office?

[discoprincess]

Is any one surprised? Sounds like they could make up most, if not all, of that $94M shortfall just by restructuring the teachers' union contract to more closely resemble what average joe taxpayer gets. Raise your hand if you work in the private sector and contribute less than 1% of your health insurance costs. Anyone?

*raises hand*

I work for an educational institution in the private sector.

[Naveen]

But teachers don't work a full year. And they get tenure... How do you put a value on that? What pay cut would you take if the only way you could lose your job is if you drop your pants at the office?

I agree that the current tenure structure is big a problem.

But as to teachers not working a full year: Why not make them work longer by keeping kids in school longer? The summer vacation is anachronistic at best, and in actuality probably hurts our competitiveness (Germany, Japan, UK, etc. only have 6 week breaks).

Moreover, it's unrealistic to ask teachers to take pay for only 9 months. That means 3 months without pay, or more likely 3 months where they have to find some temporary work -- temporary work that won't pay much b/c no decent job is going to hire you for a 3 month stint (there may be some, but what is the competition for those?). And during those 9 months a teacher is working, they're already making less than median.

Why would anyone who could find a better job deal with that? Answer: They wouldn't. They'd leave teaching (or more likely not go into it in the first place). Our teachers would be college grads who couldn't get a job doing anything else, or maybe some altruistic rich kids if we're lucky.

[annie]

Moreover, it's unrealistic to ask teachers to take pay for only 9 months. That means 3 months without pay, or more likely 3 months where they have to find some temporary work -- temporary work that won't pay much b/c no decent job is going to hire you for a 3 month stint (there may be some, but what is the competition for those?). And during those 9 months a teacher is working, they're already making less than median.

One issue that I have seen raised but not addressed is that under Ackerman principals were allowed the option to shift to a 12 month work year essentially raising their pay by a quarter (i.e. earning $100K on over 9 months before now getting $125K over 12). Now that summer school has largely been cancelled it's not clear whether that will be continued and at what cost.

[phillycat]

while I think in some cases teacher's salary/benefits packages are over the top, if you have ever spent six hours in front of a classroom, you'll know that an 8 week break is not at all unreasonable. it's more exhausting and stressful than just about any other job out there, truly. Even cops get to spend large stretches of time sitting on their butts in a patrol car.

[discoprincess]

while I think in some cases teacher's salary/benefits packages are over the top, if you have ever spent six hours in front of a classroom, you'll know that an 8 week break is not at all unreasonable. it's more exhausting and stressful than just about any other job out there, truly.

This...especially for teachers who are stuck in an uphill battle in an under-performing school. Can we say burnout?

I don't get all the hate for unionized teachers.

[Naveen]

One issue that I have seen raised but not addressed is that under Ackerman principals were allowed the option to shift to a 12 month work year essentially raising their pay by a quarter (i.e. earning $100K on over 9 months before now getting $125K over 12). Now that summer school has largely been cancelled it's not clear whether that will be continued and at what cost.

No surprise Ackerman would do that. But I assume that was for principals only, not teachers?

[Dave]

Let's look at a similar Joe Taxpayer, those who spent 4-6 years getting a Bachelor's or Master's.

SDP 2010 teacher salaries (from your cited report)
Bachelor's: 42,096-65,733
Master's: 42,905-74,235

2005 Median salary from the Census bureau (closest info I could find to 2010):
25+ Bachelor's full-time: $56,078
25+ Master's full-time: $61,273

It seems that working for the school district tends to pay a bit less than the median salary nationwide for an equivalent degree level. Considering that the cost of living in the city is higher than on average nationwide (Source), the benefit level isn't that bad.

BTW: $30 million of the $135 the district could 'save' was by postponing payments. That's not saving anything, just delaying the inevitable.

Yes, this is always the argument: "the benefits are higher because salaries are lower". So why not just raise salaries to better reflect the average, and lower benefits so that they also better reflect the average? My suspicion is that the cost of the benefits actually far outweighs the salary difference. Either that or the government is banking on "saving" a bunch of money by underfunding pensions, sticking whoever succeeds them in office with the bill. I would very much like to see government get out of the business of managing pension funds. As you allude to at the end of your post, they're pretty consistantly terrible at it.

[annie]

No surprise Ackerman would do that. But I assume that was for principals only, not teachers?

Principals only. If teachers want to get paid for work during the break they have to find a summer school position.

[Marquis]

This...especially for teachers who are stuck in an uphill battle in an under-performing school. Can we say burnout?

I don't get all the hate for unionized teachers.

I think it translates as: "If I can't get decent benefits, why should they?" It's called "race to the bottom.

[BarryG]

Yes, this is always the argument: "the benefits are higher because salaries are lower". So why not just raise salaries to better reflect the average, and lower benefits so that they also better reflect the average? My suspicion is that the cost of the benefits actually far outweighs the salary difference. Either that or the government is banking on "saving" a bunch of money by underfunding pensions, sticking whoever succeeds them in office with the bill. I would very much like to see government get out of the business of managing pension funds. As you allude to at the end of your post, they're pretty consistantly terrible at it.

Yes the fact that teachers here pay nothing for their health care means that they are getting a large raise every year whether they know it or not. The pension benefits are huge as well. Teachers in Philadelphia make close to $100,000 after 10+ years, all in. And how to do put a value on the job security tenure and seniority-based firing/job-picking brings?

The problem with this structure is that it turns off young, talented teachers willing to make lower salaries. They only see the low dollar amount because they don't need a gold-plated health care package and retirement is so far off it's not on the radar. So while the union fights to retain these benefits, the young teachers are the ones get laid off due to work rules. So the schools ends up with the longest serving, complacent, maybe burned out teachers while totally screwing the future workforce. Yes there are plenty of great older teachers but there are many that would better serve students by being replaced with new talent. But the SD doesn't have the flexibility to do that.

The other side to this that's terrible though is that while I do think teacher compensation packages are way inflated (particularly the pension), Philadelphia teachers make the lowest in the area and have the hardest job. So we end up with an awful lot of mediocre and worse teachers here, and they can't be fired. It should be flipped, teachers working in the worst schools should make the most money.

[BarryG]

I think it translates as: "If I can't get decent benefits, why should they?" It's called "race to the bottom.

The opposite being insolvent school districts and state bankruptcy.

[Naveen]

This...especially for teachers who are stuck in an uphill battle in an under-performing school. Can we say burnout?

I don't get all the hate for unionized teachers.

There is a general frustration with unions in the public. And the teachers unions can be very problematic. This gets transformed into an irrational hate of teachers themselves by certain people.

Ironically, the people who often complain the loudest about teachers getting paid too much would never quit their jobs to become teachers themselves because they'd never want to work for so little and deal with what teachers have to put up with.

Yes, this is always the argument: "the benefits are higher because salaries are lower". So why not just raise salaries to better reflect the average, and lower benefits so that they also better reflect the average? My suspicion is that the cost of the benefits actually far outweighs the salary difference. Either that or the government is banking on "saving" a bunch of money by underfunding pensions, sticking whoever succeeds them in office with the bill. I would very much like to see government get out of the business of managing pension funds. As you allude to at the end of your post, they're pretty consistantly terrible at it.

This touches on an important point: our financial and economic realities have changed. Teachers (and public sector workers in general) took lower salaries in exchange for better benefits, at a time when those benefits cost governments less. Today they cost much more.

The pay structure for public sector workers needs to move more inline with private sector workers. That is, 1. they should contribute more to their healthcare benefits, 2. move off a defined-benefit system (pensions) and switch to a defined-contribution system (401K-style), but also 3. receive higher wages inline with the private sector. Unfortunately, the public at-large seems to expect points 1 and 2, but balks at point 3.

Just remember folks: you get what you pay for.

Principals only. If teachers want to get paid for work during the break they have to find a summer school position.

That what I suspected. Thanks for confirming.

[Spicoli]

This...especially for teachers who are stuck in an uphill battle in an under-performing school. Can we say burnout?

I don't get all the hate for unionized teachers.

I agree with you too. If there's one union that should have some better than average benefits, its a teachers union. And blaming the under-performing schools on the teachers and their unions make no sense.

Sure there are some bad teachers out there, but most of these teachers are 'stuck' with kids that have either one or no parents. Even if they have one or two parents, how many of them are actually investing themselves in their child's education. If the parents don't involve themselves in their child's education, the child won't either.

On top of that, many teachers in the SDP that I'm friends with not only have to invest their time and effort into teaching....but also their money. Most of the supplies they want or need to have a productive class are not provided...so they need to buy them themselves.

[Marquis]

Teachers in Philadelphia make close to $100,000 after 10+ years, all in.

Where did you get that number?

[billy ross]

Let's look at a similar Joe Taxpayer, those who spent 4-6 years getting a Bachelor's or Master's.

SDP 2010 teacher salaries (from your cited report)
Bachelor's: 42,096-65,733
Master's: 42,905-74,235

2005 Median salary from the Census bureau (closest info I could find to 2010):
25+ Bachelor's full-time: $56,078
25+ Master's full-time: $61,273

It seems that working for the school district tends to pay a bit less than the median salary nationwide for an equivalent degree level. Considering that the cost of living in the city is higher than on average nationwide (Source), the benefit level isn't that bad.

BTW: $30 million of the $135 the district could 'save' was by postponing payments. That's not saving anything, just delaying the inevitable.

While the Philly metro may have a higher cost of living than the nation, I don't believe that living in the city of Philadelphia costs more than it does nationally. Of course you could burn through money living in Philly if you're not smart about it by buying in the latest and greatest neighborhood, but you could buy a gorgeous house in Germantown for the median price of $110k and live well as the neighborhood cleans up around you. My family - brother, mother, wife, cousins, aunts, uncles - lives in Philadelphia and has lived in Philly for many, many years and our cost of living is quite low, in my opinion. I am absoultely certain that everyone in the list I gave is living cheap in comparison with the national average with the possible exception of my wife and I, and we are living both more cheaply and a higher quality of life than our college peers, because Philly is a cheap place to live if you're smart about it.