Letters
A call for a true pay freeze for teachers
with his vote
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 1:20 PM
By Worthington

In response to the upcoming levy request, there has been much banter as to relationship betweenteacher pay and teachers being valued in our community. Just because many feel that teachersshould be subject to "shared sacrifice" does not mean that we don't value them. Personally, I love the teachers at my kid's school.

They've been first-rate.

I also see what has happened elsewhere. Pay cuts, layoffs and furloughs are the order of the day. State workers (I'm one) have had four years of pay freezes (that's no COLAs and no Steps) over a nine-year period, along with 10 furlough days, for example.

Social Security payments to our retirees will be frozen in 2010 and perhaps 2011. Others I've talked to have been laid off and been subjected to pay cuts of as much as 20-percent.

Recently, it was agreed upon that teachers will not have a COLA in 2011-12. Step increases will continue. Obviously, this is a sacrifice and is much appreciated to be sure; however, honestly, it falls far short of the "shared" variety when compared to the examples I've shown.

I would like to see a true pay freeze (COLAs and Steps) for two years. Then we can insert the word "shared" before sacrifice.

Voting against a school levy because you are unhappy about teacher compensation is like kicking your dog when something bad happens at work. It might feel good to take out your frustration, but it does not accomplish much and isn't fair to the dog. Regardless of whether you vote for or against the levy, teacher compensation won't change until there is a new contract in 2011-2012. So I ask those who oppose the levy based on their objections to teacher compensation: "What exactly is accomplished by failing the levy if there is no effect on teacher compensation?"

The likely answer is: "To send a message to the board!" Unfortunately, that message is several years too early (or too late) and muddled by an anti-tax/anti-union subtext.

If you want to "send a message to the board" about teacher compensation, you need to participate in the process when the next contract is negotiated. The board has less negotiating leverage on this issue than you might think if the only people who are organized and participate in the process are the teachers. If for every one teacher that comes to a board meeting and argues for a raise there are two taxpayers saying "no," I am sure it will show in the resulting contract. If you want the board to have "backbone," you have to support them (or run yourself).

Voting against a school levy to make a statement about teacher compensation is ineffective, and therefore irrational. The only thing that changes if we fail a levy is we (1) fire our younger teacher staff, in whom we have made a substantial training investment, (2) give our kids fewer educational options, and (3) roil the community.

For these reasons, communities that fail school levies are unattractive to young families who are willing to shoulder the tax burden and are the lifeblood of a vibrant community. I encourage those who may be undecided to consider the collateral damage that would result from a failed levy, take the long view and vote for the levy.

Worthington teachers agreed to a pay freeze and the school board voted 4-1 to accept that freeze. In voting to refuse, Marc Schare made comments that once again hit the trifecta by being silly, pompous and wrong all at once.