How does $2.1 million end up down-the-hopper?

Day three of the Olentangy staff extended weekend. The loss now stands at $2.1 million.

A running back-and-forth between Anonymous and myself regarding this issue (the actual comments were left on a prior posting):

Anonymous said...
...and why are they contractually allowed to stay home? Who agreed to permit this? Weak-willed BOE's allow this stuff to occur or the ODE...which is it? The unions will take whatever you give them. Somebody gave them the right to stay home. Who set the precedent?

8:16 PM


Jim Fedako said...
Ohio's collective bargaining laws. Ask your state representative and senator why they continue to support such laws. You'll quickly get your day's worth of political spin.

5:04 AM


Anonymous said...
So, what you are saying is the "collective bargaining laws" wrote those calamity days into law that applied to all public schools that have unionized teachers?

Or did those laws enable teacher associations to to "bargain" those days into their contracts with their local BOE's?

6:31 AM

My latest response:

Since teachers can strike, they hold a powerful hand during contract negotiations.

This is one reason why teachers in my district were averaging 6% and 7% annual raises during the same period that state employees were getting no raises at all.

Once a strike begins, parents quickly coalesce around the teachers, mainly due to the disruptions caused by the strike. Working parents have to take off or find other childcare arrangements. And, since the tax bill and the contract are not settled together, parents see no savings resulting from closed schools due to a tough bargaining stance. Their political pressure forces the board to cave and accept unfavorable terms - unfavorable to the general taxpayer anyway.

Then, at a later date, the district has to go back for additional operating funds. If the two activities -- contract and levy request -- lined up, political pressure would force people to realize that salary and benefit increases, along with the hiring of additional administrators and staff relative to the number of students, drive the whole school funding issue. So, voters would see that they are actually paying for the teacher salary increase. The voters are getting salary increase of 3% to 5% per year while the teachers are getting 6% to 7%. Yet the teachers claim to be underpaid.

This description is really a good example of the Public Choice theory of economics. The cost of the teacher salary increases are an incremental cost borne by all taxpayers, yet the parents see a settlement as a benefit since the costs of disruption exceed whatever marginal tax increase is associated with the salary/benefits increase.

The other reason is that the lead contract negotiator is the superintendent, the man or woman who has to face the staff after the contract is signed. Superintendents are typically people who truly believe that the teaching profession is underpaid.[1]

Without laws creating closed union shops which hold the ability to strike, and a negotiation team that is not superintendent/administrator-based, teacher would be making closer to their true market value -- a lesser, but more in-line with their value-product, wage.

Of course, absent a free market in education, we will never know the true worth of a teacher. Though, we can see from private schools that all staff at public schools are well overpaid.

Harsh terms, but we all desire a fair wage. And, the market is the only mechanism to establish the fair wage.

notes:

[1] Most board members have been duped into believing that school employees are underpaid also.