Buffalo teacher pay would rise by 11.8% in proposed accord

[WNYresident]

Buffalo teacher pay would rise by 11.8% in proposed accord

uffalo teachers could get an 11.8 percent pay increase, in exchange for paying a small amount toward their health insurance premium, if the school district and the union agree to terms recommended by an outside mediator.

The proposed agreement calls for paying teachers retroactive raises going back to the 2008-09 school year. It also suggests giving the most senior teachers periodic longevity bonuses up to $5,000. Those changes would bring the maximum salary for a Buffalo teacher to about $97,000.

http://www.buffalonews.com/home/buff...ccord-20141219


Other than "time served" what justification is there for a pay raise?

Here is a pay raise that would cost no one anything.

Stop the automatic taking of a teachers paycheck by the teachers union. Does anyone know what the deduction is per pay period? If a teacher is earning $75,000 and their base pay is $50,000 how much of the $50,000 goes to the Union each year?

I'm sure the well qualified people who work at the union head quarters can easily find positions in the private sector.

[nogods]

Yep...get rid of unions and go back to the old days...when employers treated their employees the same as a broom.

The Buffalo Teachers' Union has done a good of job of looking after its members despite the never ending attempts to turn teachers into brooms.

No one should have to join a union, but all employees should have to contribute to the cost of negotiations by the union.

In most cases that represents a small part of the overall dues. So if employees only had to pay the negotiation portion, that would force the union to be even more protective of its members to attract more full memberships. That would be a good thing, but you seem opposed to unions protecting their members.

[joe d.]

Yep...get rid of unions and go back to the old days...when employers treated their employees the same as a broom.

The Buffalo Teachers' Union has done a good of job of looking after its members despite the never ending attempts to turn teachers into brooms.

No one should have to join a union, but all employees should have to contribute to the cost of negotiations by the union.

In most cases that represents a small part of the overall dues. So if employees only had to pay the negotiation portion, that would force the union to be even more protective of its members to attract more full memberships. That would be a good thing, but you seem opposed to unions protecting their members.

The living standards and working conditions in this country would be sweat shops and pennies per hour...demanded by big business...if it wasnt for the unions in this country...read the history of the UAW, COAL MINERS, STEEL INDUSTRY UNIONS...the politicians sold this country overseas...while lazy ignorant voters continued to swallow stories by corrupt, self centered politicians...and still do...by putting the same idiots in office....time after time!

[WNYresident]

Yep...get rid of unions and go back to the old days...when employers treated their employees the same as a broom.

The Buffalo Teachers' Union has done a good of job of looking after its members despite the never ending attempts to turn teachers into brooms.

No one should have to join a union, but all employees should have to contribute to the cost of negotiations by the union.

In most cases that represents a small part of the overall dues. So if employees only had to pay the negotiation portion, that would force the union to be even more protective of its members to attract more full memberships. That would be a good thing, but you seem opposed to unions protecting their members.

I did not say get rid of the unions. Not once.

What I said is stop allowing the union to take money from these hard working people. If the employees feel the union is worth their membership fees they will be more than glad to cut the group a monthly check. The teachers who feel they do not want to have the group represent their interest will have more money in their pocket.

Perhaps the group of people who run the union will have to scale back but with their qualifications they should easily be able to find work in the private sector.

[TheDude]

I did not say get rid of the unions. Not once.

What I said is stop allowing the union to take money from these hard working people. If the employees feel the union is worth their membership fees they will be more than glad to cut the group a monthly check. The teachers who feel they do not want to have the group represent their interest will have more money in their pocket.

Perhaps the group of people who run the union will have to scale back but with their qualifications they should easily be able to find work in the private sector.

Why should someone be represented by the union in contract negotiations but not required to pay dues?

[nogods]

I did not say get rid of the unions. Not once.

What I said is stop allowing the union to take money from these hard working people. If the employees feel the union is worth their membership fees they will be more than glad to cut the group a monthly check. The teachers who feel they do not want to have the group represent their interest will have more money in their pocket.

Perhaps the group of people who run the union will have to scale back but with their qualifications they should easily be able to find work in the private sector.

They only have to pay their share of the cost of negotiations. a fair compromise because they benefit from those negotiations.

[WNYresident]

Why should someone be forced to pay dues to a group they may not want to belong to?

[WNYresident]

They only have to pay their share of the cost of negotiations. a fair compromise because they benefit from those negotiations.

Where do unions get the money they use as political donations from?

[TheDude]

Where do unions get the money they use as political donations from?

Before the Citizen's United decision, most union money in politics came out of voluntary member contributions. Money collected from dues was banned from federal races.

[TheDude]

Why should someone be forced to pay dues to a group they may not want to belong to?

Because they receive services from said group. If a teacher doesn't want to be a part of the union, they should be forced to negotiate their own contract separate from the union.

[nogods]

Where do unions get the money they use as political donations from?

non-members only have to pay the "union fee" - the portion of dues attributable to negotiations as their fair share of the benefits they receive in return. So the money for political contributions comes solely from union members or non-members who decide to contribute to the union of their own free will.

[Jeff]

When I was in the Teamsters union, I think I payed $32 a paycheck or $64/month. It wasn't a percentage that changed based on my pay.

[WNYresident]

Because they receive services from said group. If a teacher doesn't want to be a part of the union, they should be forced to negotiate their own contract separate from the union.

I think I heard a contract hasn't been renewed in years. Apparently the people who run the Union are not giving their members the service they are paying for.

[WNYresident]

non-members only have to pay the "union fee" - the portion of dues attributable to negotiations as their fair share of the benefits they receive in return. So the money for political contributions comes solely from union members or non-members who decide to contribute to the union of their own free will.

If the union fees are deducted out of their paychecks and they can not stop that it isn't their own free will.

[WNYresident]

When I was in the Teamsters union, I think I payed $32 a paycheck or $64/month. It wasn't a percentage that changed based on my pay.

$64 a month X 12 = $768 dollars a year. Over 25 years you could have had $19,200 more to spend or saved not counting compounded interest you could have earned.

If you live in Cheektowaga and invested that into patio Flamingos you could have ($19,200 / $29.98) X 10 Flamingo's per pack = 6,404 Flamingos.