PDA

View Full Version : Average teacher makes $44G, top union bosses pull in nearly $500k



mikesilvia
07-14-2012, 10:56 AM
Teachers across the country face pay freezes and possible layoffs, but the heads of the two biggest teachers unions saw their pay jump 20 percent last year, to nearly half a million dollars apiece.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten's pay jumped to $407,323 last year, while her counterpart at the National Education Association, Dennis Van Roekel, got a raise to $362,644. Factor in stipends and other paid expenses and Weingarten took in $493,859 and Van Roekel $460,060 for 2011.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/14/teacher-union-bigs-rake-in-dough-despite-budget-cuts-across-education-sector/#ixzz20bZsPqz0

MadMan1978
07-14-2012, 11:34 AM
-another reason to kill the unions?

-I thought the Republicans were are for the free market system?

duane1969
07-14-2012, 12:47 PM
Unions are not part of a free market system. Unions prevent good employers from getting rid of bad employees. When an employer is forced to keep a bad employee on the payroll then it hurts the employer and limits their ability to compete in a free market.

shrewsbury
07-14-2012, 12:56 PM
unions and the free market are about opposites.

the republicans are the ones saying the unions are costing us way too much money and hurting job growth, look at wisconsin since walker took it over, he rocks!!!!

MadMan1978
07-14-2012, 01:50 PM
Without Unions fighting the good fight wages in this country would go in the toilet! It is only through a collective will wage remain stable. I do see both sides of the coin on this issue. Unions have a proper place and in should be the UNION itself to oversee the internal aspects. If their Contract called for that salary then so be it.

mrveggieman
07-15-2012, 02:00 PM
Without Unions fighting the good fight wages in this country would go in the toilet! It is only through a collective will wage remain stable. I do see both sides of the coin on this issue. Unions have a proper place and in should be the UNION itself to oversee the internal aspects. If their Contract called for that salary then so be it.+1,000,000

Star_Cards
07-16-2012, 10:37 AM
I'm of the opinion that Unions are outdated and feel that this is one of the main reasons they are still around... so that the union heads can have their members covering their huge salaries.

As for 44K average salary... that's a pretty good average salary for a career that gets about 4 months off every year. I make similar money and I have right at 6 weeks off a year. I have quite a few teacher friends. Some complain about their pay and overtime during the school year, but have plenty of spare time during summer break, spring break, fall break, and christmas break. That time seems ample to me for any comp time they may have accrued in the school year as far as over time goes. It would be more comparable to calculate an hourly rate as opposed to a yearly salary, because it's just not equal to most jobs that work year round.

Star_Cards
07-16-2012, 10:45 AM
Without Unions fighting the good fight wages in this country would go in the toilet! It is only through a collective will wage remain stable. I do see both sides of the coin on this issue. Unions have a proper place and in should be the UNION itself to oversee the internal aspects. If their Contract called for that salary then so be it.

That may have been true decades ago, but I don't think so now. The percentage of american workers who are not union far outweighs the union workers. According to wikipedia, 12% of the american workforce is unionized. If companies weren't paying fair wages without unions then there would way more people in unions. My companies pays pretty well, depending on your position and we are non union. Sure, the workers in unions would probably be paid less if they weren't in unions, but that doesn't mean companies don't pay fair wages outside of a union. There are also a long list of companies that are killed off because of their negotiated benefits with union workers. Sometimes unions aren't out for preserving jobs even when cuts need to be made to change with the market.

habsheaven
07-16-2012, 10:48 AM
I am all for a union ensuring employees have a safe working environment. I have no use for them being used to inflate wages that in turn inflate prices.

shrewsbury
07-16-2012, 12:48 PM
employee safety is done by state, federal, and local regulations, not unions.

i was a safety inspector for a few years, and we were not union, in fact, i left the job as teh union was moving in, no need for a union in my book, I can stand and fight for myself.

MadMan1978
07-16-2012, 03:02 PM
employee safety is done by state, federal, and local regulations, not unions.

i was a safety inspector for a few years, and we were not union, in fact, i left the job as teh union was moving in, no need for a union in my book, I can stand and fight for myself.and i

f the unions havent pushed this over the last 50 years it wouldnt have happened!

Star_Cards
07-16-2012, 03:14 PM
and if the unions havent pushed this over the last 50 years it wouldnt have happened!

I don't think anyone here is saying that the unions didn't have value in pushing for worker safety. It's just not needed these days. There are regulations and enforcement that comes completely independent of any unions.

angel0430
07-18-2012, 09:55 AM
Unions are the worst thing that can happen to any governemtn. Theya re the ones that fight for lazy, irersponsible and bad employees to keep their jobs.

mrveggieman
07-18-2012, 10:08 AM
Unions are the worst thing that can happen to any governemtn. Theya re the ones that fight for lazy, irersponsible and bad employees to keep their jobs.

I have to disagree. Unions are the best thing for gov't and private workers. Who is going to have the employees back when their jobs decide to screw them over just because they can?

angel0430
07-18-2012, 03:41 PM
I have to disagree. Unions are the best thing for gov't and private workers. Who is going to have the employees back when their jobs decide to screw them over just because they can?

If you do your job, then you do not have to worry about. I hate that they control what every employee can and can't do. If you are just a driver, there is nothing else you can do. I have seen this first hand and at least back in Puerto Rico, they send 3-4 people to change a light bulb. One to carry the ladder, the other to change the bulb, other to drive the car...is this really necessary? It does not make sense. The unions only care about making money for themselves and not the employees.

mrveggieman
07-18-2012, 03:47 PM
If you do your job, then you do not have to worry about. I hate that they control what every employee can and can't do. If you are just a driver, there is nothing else you can do. I have seen this first hand and at least back in Puerto Rico, they send 3-4 people to change a light bulb. One to carry the ladder, the other to change the bulb, other to drive the car...is this really necessary? It does not make sense. The unions only care about making money for themselves and not the employees.

I have to disagree with you. Im sure that unions may have overstepped their boundries in some jobs but that is few and far in between. For example I previously had an inside sales job. Everything was gravy and I was making good money. All of a sudden the company decided that they didn't want to pay any money to us any more. So they made a bunch of rules changes to make us misreable and to ensure that we didn't get any commission. I also got assigned to the worst supervisor in the company who did everything she could think of to get under my skin and micromanage me. If that job was unionized none of the stunts that they tried to pull would have flew with the union. Unions are in place to protect workers from companies who do not have the employees best intrests at heart. God bless the unions.