JPhurst wrote:
The salaries range from a little above $50,000 to somewhere around $110,000, for a teacher with 20+ years experience and the most advanced degrees.

The "progression" is very small at the front end. Basically over 10 years a teacher only gets raises of a few thousand dollars. In the 11th or 12th year there is a jump into the 60s. I gather that is something of a point of contention. I also was told by one teacher that while the contract is expired, teachers are stuck on whatever rung they were on (I don't understand why that is so, but that's what I was told), so that is another sore spot.

brewster wrote:
I've become convinced that the public union love LOW starting salaries because it give them a club to beat up on management with in the press, getting everyone to ignore the fact that those salaries increase far more rapidly than in private sector. A ten year veteran would be a far better comparison.

Cops start at $37k but top out over $100k. And that's not counting overtime. I can't find comparable teachers salaries, and averages are not representative, since there's such high turnover it's weighted towards the lower end.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
We've had this topic already and it was already proven out that a teacher's average salary is vastly lower than any other college graduate profession. Arguing otherwise is belying the facts that are in existence.

Not sure what you're talking about, but DTJCview literally just posted facts proving a teacher's average salary is comparable to the average college graduate salary here in JC. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own (mysterious) facts.

JCMan8 wrote:
Also, 401Ks are very user friendly. They are designed so that people who know nothing about finance may profit. Simply invest in a retirement plan designed around your estimated retirement date (such as "Retirement Fund 2050.").

JCMan8 wrote:
As others have said, the real problem here is the NJEA, who makes it nearly impossible for terrible teachers to be fired. This only hurts the students. That's why California found that their teacher tenure laws were unconstitutional. New Jersey is in the crosshairs, terrible teachers and their union better watch out!

Monroe wrote:
So, JC teachers make about the same as the average other JC college grads, have Cadillac health plans that they contribute much less towards, get vastly more generous holiday and vacation time, and get a traditionally funded pension.

They should shut their pie holes and be happy with what they gotten from sweetheart union deals. Of course, they're miserable that Buono didn't get elected to keep the gravy train going.

401's are coming, at least for new hires, although a roll over would be correct for the NJ taxpayers who mostly have the 401K model. It should be done by the Legislature if it can't be done by collective bargaining. And it will, sooner or later.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Cops start at $37k but top out over $100k. And that's not counting overtime.

The ruling class will never underpay the soldiers that protect them from the masses.

brewster wrote:
Cops start at $37k but top out over $100k. And that's not counting overtime.

JCMan8 wrote:

Not sure what you're talking about, but DTJCview literally just posted facts proving a teacher's average salary is comparable to the average college graduate salary here in JC. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own (mysterious) facts.

Pebble wrote:
We've had this topic already and it was already proven out that a teacher's average salary is vastly lower than any other college graduate profession. Arguing otherwise is belying the facts that are in existence.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:

We could argue this forever, but the idea of a 9 1/2 month work year, traditional pension that is almost history in the private sector, and lifetime Cadillac pensions for the teacher and spouse is part of a model that is now unsustainable. And workplace legal protections are now so strong that many of the original reasons for teacher unionization are gone.

Except that the market is saying the only people who want jobs as teachers are mediocre while competent people are going into the private sector. So the shortened work year, pension and healthcare apparently isn't as attractive as you are claiming.

New grads aren't really interested in pensions and healthcare. Give them a bronze-level healthcare plan, a 4% match into a 401k, and 30-50% increase in base salary and that will match anything the private sector will offer. And would end up costing little more than at present.

Oh. And a career that rewards them for performance, not tenure. The brightest and smartest are motivated by success and not simply service.

Median salary in Jersey City: $52,623

Average salary at Goldman Sachs -- a business in Jersey City -- is $135,000... per quarter.


Median salary at a big law firm is down from its high, but its still $145,000 a year.


You don't need to know how to do common core math to understand that law and finance pay more than being a teacher, which is why talented people end up not teaching.


http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries


http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... achers_median_salary.html

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/ ... y-for-3-months-is-135-594

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
You're comparing teachers who only need to be smarter than the average JC kid with the Ivy League MBA types who work at GS?

We don't need 'steps' for teachers to earn PhD's to get compensated extra for teaching 3rd graders how to spell.

Shit in, shit out.

Yes, I already addressed that when I noted that the 2/3 JC graduation rate should be mostly put at the feet of indifferent parents and lazy kids, or did I say lazy parents and indifferent kids? Either way it's the truth.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
You're comparing teachers who only need to be smarter than the average JC kid with the Ivy League MBA types who work at GS?

We don't need 'steps' for teachers to earn PhD's to get compensated extra for teaching 3rd graders how to spell.

Shit in, shit out.

Monroe wrote:
You're comparing teachers who only need to be smarter than the average JC kid with the Ivy League MBA types who work at GS?

We don't need 'steps' for teachers to earn PhD's to get compensated extra for teaching 3rd graders how to spell.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:

We could argue this forever, but the idea of a 9 1/2 month work year, traditional pension that is almost history in the private sector, and lifetime Cadillac pensions for the teacher and spouse is part of a model that is now unsustainable. And workplace legal protections are now so strong that many of the original reasons for teacher unionization are gone.

Except that the market is saying the only people who want jobs as teachers are mediocre while competent people are going into the private sector. So the shortened work year, pension and healthcare apparently isn't as attractive as you are claiming.

New grads aren't really interested in pensions and healthcare. Give them a bronze-level healthcare plan, a 4% match into a 401k, and 30-50% increase in base salary and that will match anything the private sector will offer. And would end up costing little more than at present.

Oh. And a career that rewards them for performance, not tenure. The brightest and smartest are motivated by success and not simply service.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:

We could argue this forever, but the idea of a 9 1/2 month work year, traditional pension that is almost history in the private sector, and lifetime Cadillac pensions for the teacher and spouse is part of a model that is now unsustainable. And workplace legal protections are now so strong that many of the original reasons for teacher unionization are gone.

Except that the market is saying the only people who want jobs as teachers are mediocre while competent people are going into the private sector. So the shortened work year, pension and healthcare apparently isn't as attractive as you are claiming.

Monroe wrote:

We could argue this forever, but the idea of a 9 1/2 month work year, traditional pension that is almost history in the private sector, and lifetime Cadillac pensions for the teacher and spouse is part of a model that is now unsustainable. And workplace legal protections are now so strong that many of the original reasons for teacher unionization are gone.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
If you aren't happy with teacher performance, paying less is not going to help. That's like going to McDonald's and being disappointed that the food isn't as good as a high end steak house. Its like saying, "I don't want to pay more than $5,000 for a car, but I want it to last for 100,000 miles, get great fuel efficiency, and need little repair work." Its like going skydiving and choosing your parachute based on which one costs the least amount of money. Its like ordering a PBR and then getting angry it tastes like water.

If you want better teachers, you need to pay them more. You want smarter teachers, you need to pay them more. You want better educated teachers, you ned to pay them more. Why would anyone with half a brain and masters degree come to work in a shitty government building, deal with the administrative bullshit, nasty parents, nasty students, work from 7 in the morning until 5 at night, and earn a fraction of what they could make in a professional career?

Most want to well compensate great teachers. And have the flexibility to fire lousy teachers. The NJEA is the roadblock to those ends. Once a teacher gets tenure it's almost impossible to fire them for being bad teachers. As I recall the number of teachers fired for poor performance (and by that I mean as teachers, not counting ones that come in stoned or drunk, or are having sex with students, or have other criminal issues) is so tiny that it would be laughable if it wasn't so bad for the kids.

Schools were historically one of the greatest employee abusers. Corruption dictating hiring and firing, particularly political corruption. Older teachers who tended to be paid more were often fired simply because they were paid more. Long story short, teachers unionized for same reason many other workers unionized: abusive employers. Or out another way: tough shit, the workers are unionized, deal with it.

Unions protecting bad teachers doesn't negate the fact that the people most qualified to be teachers can earn many times more money working in professional careers.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
If you aren't happy with teacher performance, paying less is not going to help. That's like going to McDonald's and being disappointed that the food isn't as good as a high end steak house. Its like saying, "I don't want to pay more than $5,000 for a car, but I want it to last for 100,000 miles, get great fuel efficiency, and need little repair work." Its like going skydiving and choosing your parachute based on which one costs the least amount of money. Its like ordering a PBR and then getting angry it tastes like water.

If you want better teachers, you need to pay them more. You want smarter teachers, you need to pay them more. You want better educated teachers, you ned to pay them more. Why would anyone with half a brain and masters degree come to work in a shitty government building, deal with the administrative bullshit, nasty parents, nasty students, work from 7 in the morning until 5 at night, and earn a fraction of what they could make in a professional career?

Most want to well compensate great teachers. And have the flexibility to fire lousy teachers. The NJEA is the roadblock to those ends. Once a teacher gets tenure it's almost impossible to fire them for being bad teachers. As I recall the number of teachers fired for poor performance (and by that I mean as teachers, not counting ones that come in stoned or drunk, or are having sex with students, or have other criminal issues) is so tiny that it would be laughable if it wasn't so bad for the kids.

by La_Verdad on 2014/10/1 10:11:56

Is it true that Greco - the head of the Teacher's union makes six figures and he has no other job other than running the JCEA? No classroom responsibilities?

ianmac47 wrote:
If you aren't happy with teacher performance, paying less is not going to help. That's like going to McDonald's and being disappointed that the food isn't as good as a high end steak house. Its like saying, "I don't want to pay more than $5,000 for a car, but I want it to last for 100,000 miles, get great fuel efficiency, and need little repair work." Its like going skydiving and choosing your parachute based on which one costs the least amount of money. Its like ordering a PBR and then getting angry it tastes like water.

If you want better teachers, you need to pay them more. You want smarter teachers, you need to pay them more. You want better educated teachers, you ned to pay them more. Why would anyone with half a brain and masters degree come to work in a shitty government building, deal with the administrative bullshit, nasty parents, nasty students, work from 7 in the morning until 5 at night, and earn a fraction of what they could make in a professional career?

trambone wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
19% wouldn't be unreasonable if they scaled back the platinum healthcare plans, and converted teachers pensions to 401k plans.

These are the individuals who help sculpt the next generation of Americans. Why do they deserve less?