"Paid for by the teachers of West Hartford". The producers of this union propaganda piece have been watching too many "Save The Children" commercials on late night TV.
For $12.50 a month you can save a child in West Hartford from doom and gloom. So West Hartford, pony up and "invest in public education". Forget the increases that you have already been subjected to and will likely be subjected to in coming years because "it's for the children". Plaster a picture of a kid and "Isn't $12.50 worth it" on the brochure for added emotional appeal.
They fell a bit short of putting some puppies and mom and apple pie on the piece as well.
What rot!
But let's get real. It isn't really about the children - it's about another increase in union salaries and benefits propelling this 2.87 percent, $3.5 million, increase in the the 2009-10 fiscal year school budget, and bringing education spending up to $126.9 million! Oh, but West Hartford, you still are not spending enough - you are not making a big enough investment in education and shame on you all! Unbelievable that they claim our school system to be too lean and that we aren't spending enough!
The children will not be getting this $12.50 a month or even $150 a year for the median household - union pockets instead will be lined with that extra money - Money most households in West Hartford cannot spare in these hard economic times. But what do they care, the union wants theirs no matter what. Screw the taxpayers and the kids too.
Face it, if the unions (not just the teachers) weren't asking for and getting yet another contractual raise (which includes more for not just salaries), we would not have to cut back on services anywhere in town!
Do you wonder what part of the union member's paycheck, which is ultimately our tax money, is used to pay union dues? Surely more than $12.50 a month! If it was really for the kids, perhaps they would give back to the community at least what they pay in union dues every month! But no deal - no concessions for this greedy bunch - they would rather see our taxes go up AGAIN, and in a recession to boot! In lieu of higher taxes, services have to be decreased to pay the increase in union salary and benefits at a time when most families are seeing job layoffs and the other results of a very bad economy. Everyone's paycheck is strained and these people want to squeeze even more out of families.
But bring in the cute kid's face and emotion along with some subliminal text of neighborhood, and global environment, and then add in some guilt. Slick advertising - do you wonder what this piece cost to print and mail? Wouldn't that cost to the union have better been spent in your kids classroom? Obviously they don't think so.
This brochure isn't even correct!
West Hartford taxes will be going up more than $12.50 a month!
They conveniently left off the fact that we have to make up for an already built in deficit due to less money from the State, along with less revenues and at the same time we have other bargaining units in town getting 3.5% increases.
But let's get to the other glaring fact here: the comparative numbers of budget increases across neighboring towns.
Avon - 3.0%
Berlin - 3.34%
Bloomfield - 4.04%
Canton - 3.4%
Farmington (where every union except the teachers made concessions) - 2.97%
New Britain - 6.63%
Newington - 3.72%
First of all - how many of those towns will go to referendum over budget increases? That is unknown. It's pretty likely though in this economic environment that those increases will be unacceptable to their taxpayers. Funny how the education cartel keeps saying that we can't compare ourselves to our neighboring towns - except when they think it is a good comparison.
Second can we look at 8th Grade 2008 CMT scores in comparison to West Hartford's since we are in a comparing mood? Probably not, because they will tell you it's not a fair comparison.
School excellence? People are choosing Farmington and Avon over West Hartford these days - their test scores are higher and their taxes are lower.
Our test scores are at not at the top and haven't been for awhile.
Maybe if the unions want more money, it should be tied to performance.
Now there's a thought.
In the meantime, we have to cut services to pay continually higher wages and benefits. Thank the unions for eroding the ability to pay for the services we all once could afford in West Hartford.
They don't really want to "save the children" - or "invest in education": They just want more for themselves so they can send out expensive mailings to the town...now isn't that worth your $12.50 a month?
13 WH Responses:
Wow! What a nasty rant.
TOWH: This brochure isn't even correct! West Hartford taxes will be going up more than $12.50 a month!
The brochure explicitly states that "The Superintendent's proposed budget of 2.97 percent equates to an increase of $12.50 per month for the median household." It's right there in your scan! Yet you are outraged that the WHEA didn't specify the overall tax hike. But they didn't say West Hartford taxes will go up $12.50 a month. They said "the Superintendent's budget equates to an increase of $12.50 a month".
Your point about the comparative increases is equally spurious. Whether those other towns go to a referendum is irrelevant; the point is that their proposed education budgets are comparable to West Hartford's. If anything, the comparison reflects well on West Hartford. Farmington (2.97%) and Avon (3.0%), far less diverse towns than West Hartford (2.86%), have proposed education budgets with higher increases. If you were really so worried about test scores you wouldn't be railing against the education budget, and you are scapegoating teachers for a host of factors that you are unwilling to acknowledge in any thoughtful way.
As several bloggers have explained at length, the main driver behind benefits increases is health care, a cost for which the teachers union, the Board of Ed, and the Town Council cannot be held responsible. I am curious: what kind of solution do you favor to address the skyrocketing cost of health care in the US?
If you have evidence that the town's negotiations with the unions have concluded, please do tell.
Gee, ya think all day kindergarden may be back on the table?
I really wonder if ToWH could actually write a blog post involving taxes without calling people names or accusing people of lying or dishonesty. So far, the evidence isn't there.
I recommend you all save your breath.
Sujal
Where were people called names?
Brian, have to agree with you. I didn't see any name calling either.
Nasty Rant? Seemed about right to me.
I'd consider "greedy bunch" noise and name calling. Other names are implied, but not explicitly said.
In any case, the point I was making is that ToWH can't write a blog post without inimating what the motivations are of people who disagree with them. And the motivation they assume is always nefarious, dishonest, or underhanded.
What's the point of this rant? Certainly not bringing any light to the discussion. Just more noise.
Sujal
"In any case, the point I was making is that ToWH can't write a blog post without inimating what the motivations are of people who disagree with them. And the motivation they assume is always nefarious, dishonest, or underhanded."
Greedy does notimply dishonety or anything underhanded.
Seems an appropriate description in this discussion. You are free to disagree on whether or not they are greedy.
But when the real world is losing jobs, not getting raises, and cutting back the term does not seem inappropriate when another group that is getting 1.5%-4.5%(step inc) in raises plus bennies refuses to help out.
But when the real world...
The public sector is no less the "real world" than the private. Who went crying to the government once its almightly free market crashed and burned? Yup. The "real world". Those dollars the feds are spreading around seem real enough to CEOs and the states. But the true believers will blame Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and unions for all that has gone wrong and never learn.
Educators could have made a lot more money in the private sector before it tanked. It wasn't educators who played fast and loose with the welfare of the country (and the "real world" to boot), and the notion that they are somehow gouging the public is ludicrous. I'm not saying there isn't room for criticism of unions, but if you favor drowning the government in a bathtub then you are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, to hideously mix metaphors.
Maybe Cynic can explain the step system that heorshe refers to so casually. I hope you are better informed on this subject than on the estimated tax increase should the Board of Education adopt the Superintendent's proposed budget. Also, how do you know that "another group...refuses to help out"? Are you a fly on the wall during the town's negotiations with the unions? What's left of your credibility is on the line.
The "Steps" are logevity points in the contract where the employee is entitled to a raise due to time on the job. This is in addition to the publicly announced raises in the new contract.
Not saying it is good or bad.
Also not saying the raise is good or bad.
But in a time where the Town has no money and is on the verge of laying off employees, we may find that the BOE won't be able to afford it all - World Language, All Day Kindergarden, Small class size, Quest, etc.
The Teachers don't have to give anything back, nor do any of the other unions, but it may turn out to be at the expense of programs and jobs.
The previous post was mine
Your post at 11:11 is fair enough.
Terry Schmitt made it officiallast night.
The Unions are not talking.
This is not going to be pretty
Post a Comment