The Saga of the Teacher and Governor Christie …

[BeAChooser]

http://www.northjersey.com/news/sta..._promotes_property_tax_cap_in_Rutherford.html

RUTHERFORD — Governor Christie on Tuesday told a borough teacher to find another job if she did not feel she was compensated enough as he defended his state budget cuts and promoted a plan to cap annual growth in property tax collections.

… snip ...

But borough teacher Rita Wilson, a Kearny resident, argued that if she were paid $3 an hour for the 30 children in her class, she’d be earning $83,000, and she makes nothing near that.

"You’re getting more than that if you include the cost of your benefits," Christie interrupted.

When Wilson, who has a master’s degree, said she was not being compensated for her education and experience, Christie said:

"Well, you know then that you don’t have to do it." Some in the audience applauded.

Christie said he would not have had to impose cuts to education if the teachers union had agreed to his call for a one-year salary freeze and a 1.5 percent increase in employee benefit contributions.

"Your union said that is the greatest assault on public education in the history of the state," Christie said. "That’s why the union has no credibility, stupid statements like that."

By the way … listen to the tape (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw0aBkt8CPA&feature=player_embedded ). Not some but almost EVERYONE in that audience applauded Christie's retort to this teacher.

And now we learn this …

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...she-deserved-actually-makes-86k-94951164.html

NJ Teacher who complained to Gov. Chris Christie she deserved $83k actually makes $86k

And according to the document from the rutherford school board mentioned in that link (http://www.rutherfordschools.org/boardofed/boardofed/minutes/minutes2009/MT071309.min.pdf ) the teacher actually makes a SALARY of $86K. And never mind the fact she only has to work 9 months a year. Add 20% for benefits (on the low side) and annualize that for only 9 months of work and she actually makes something closer to what a person making $138,000 a year would be making. So it appears this teacher (Rita Rutherford) was outright LYING in her attack on Christie. So typical of democrats nowadays, isn't it.

I suggest the state actually give her the salary she whined about not getting during that exchange with Christie. $3 per hour for each student she teaches. Because that apparently would mean a cut in pay.

 

[johnny karate]

I must have missed the part that said the teacher is a democrat. Care to source that claim for me, BAC?

 

[Lurker]

the teacher actually makes a SALAR... me by 4 minutes in asking the same question.

 

[Lurker]

I think BaC's logic is if it is a lie, it could only be uttered by a Democrat. We invented lying and have a patent on it, don't ya know.

 

[BeAChooser]

I must have missed the part that said the teacher is a democrat. Care to source that claim for me, BAC?

Want to bet she's not?

 

[johnny karate]

No, I just want you to source your claim.

 

[Spindrift]

I hope she's not a math teacher.

If she teaches 6 hours a day to 30 kids for 180 days for $3 per kid that's $97,200.
If it's 5 hours a day it's $81,000. Don't know where $83,000 comes from.

 

[DavidJames]

I hope she's not a math teacher.

If she teaches 6 hours a day to 30 kids for 180 days for $3 per kid that's $97,200.
If it's 5 hours a day it's $81,000. Don't know where $83,000 comes from.

Teachers I know work 8-10 hours day, some weekends and have off for about 6 weeks in the summer. I could live with that, what I couldn't live with are the idiot parents who want teachers to babysit and be their kids parole officer and think teachers work 5-6 hours day.

 

[DDWW]

And then there are those side perks....like sex with students.

DD (Now my French Teacher.........)WW

 

[BeAChooser]

I hope she's not a math teacher.

No, she's an English teacher and, like she said, she makes "nothing near" $83,000.

Perhaps her incompetence in math, english and life schools (knowing how much you actually make or learning that lying doesn't work in the long run) has been identified here: http://www.teachersunionexposed.com/protecting.cfm . It notes that only 47 New Jersey teachers out of 100,000 were fired over a 10 year period. Compare that with most jobs categories. Either teachers are never incompetent (believe that one and I have a bridge to sell you) or you almost can't fire them (at least in New Jersey). That source quotes a New Jersey union representative stating "I’ve gone in and defended teachers who shouldn’t even be pumping gas.” And then the article goes on to note:

Original research conducted by the Center for Union Facts (CUF) confirms that almost no one ever gets fired from New Jersey’s largest school district, no matter how bad. Over four recent years, CUF discovered, Newark’s school district successfully fired about one out of every 3,000 tenured teachers annually. Graduation statistics indicate that the district needs much stronger medicine: Between the 2001-2002 and the 2004-2005 school years, Newark’s graduation rate (not counting the diplomas “earned” through New Jersey’s laughable remedial exam) was a mere 30.6 percent.

30.6 Percent. They should fire the whole lot of them, if that's true. They surely have never heard the expression "pay for performance." But then that expression comes from the real world (outside of government).

 

[johnny karate]

So BAC, were you planning on backing up your assertion the teacher is a democrat, or would you just like to go ahead and retract your snide remark?

And then maybe you could explain what some random teacher lying about her salary has to do with politics.

 

[joobz]

No, she's an English teacher and, like she said, she makes "nothing near" $83,000.

Perhaps her incompetence in math, english and life schools (knowing how much you actually make or learning that lying doesn't work in the long run) has been identified here: http://www.teachersunionexposed.com/protecting.cfm . It notes that only 47 New Jersey teachers out of 100,000 were fired over a 10 year period. Compare that with most jobs categories. Either teachers are never incompetent (believe that one and I have a bridge to sell you) or you almost can't fire them (at least in New Jersey).

I get the sense you've ignored an important point:

Newark’s school district successfully fired about one out of every 3,000 tenured teachers annually.

The statistic isn't shocking considering you are speaking of a tenured faculty.

Of course, you can (with good reason) question the validity of the tenure process... but the fact you are only looking at tenured faculty skews your results fairly heavily. After all, you are only comparing the faculty who actually made it past the tenure process.

 

[BeAChooser]

So BAC, were you planning on backing up your assertion the teacher is a democrat, or would you just like to go ahead and retract your snide remark?

LOL!

1) She attacked Christie. That's your first clue that there's a better than even probability that she's a democrat because mostly it's democrats who are attacking him. The rest of the audience applauded his retort to her.

2) Your second clue is that she lied to do it. Because as we've all leaned by now lying has become almost second nature to democrats. And if she didn't lie, then she's just plain clueless (which completes the picture for democrats).

3) She's a teacher. That's your third clue. Far more teachers are democrats than republicans. Even the NEA admits this. And, in fact, donations by teachers to the democratic party are more than ten times those to the republican party. In 2008, the American Federation of Teachers union says just one percent of political donations went to the GOP; 99 percent to the Democrats. Democrat teachers are the activist ones … willing to donate … willing to come out and ambush a governor with a lie.

4) She's a english teacher. A fourth clue for you. English teachers are FAR more likely to be liberals and democrats, than conservatives and republicans. You'd expect that since at the college level where they get indoctrinated, some 80 - 90 percent of the teachers in english departments called themselves liberals.

5) She's a she. Women are more likely to be democrats than men. And when it comes to teachers' unions, women have a far more favorable view of them than men.

6) She's almost certainly a member of the teacher union. The NJEA has nearly 200,000 members and there are only 113,000 full time teachers in NJ. And since you aren't forced to join the union in New Jersey, you are more likely to do it if you are a democrat/liberal.

7) she lives in Kearny. Over 67% of people in Kearny are registered democrats.

Like I said, want to bet she's not?

 

[BeAChooser]

The statistic isn't shocking considering you are speaking of a tenured faculty.

You've only proven one thing. The purpose of the teacher unions is to acquire as much power as possible to advocate an agenda that benefits the union members … not the children. As New York teachers union leader Albert Shanker said (Congressional Record, August 1985), "When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children." Tenure is something that unions have long demanded. In fact, New Jersey was the first state to pass tenure legislation back in 1910. And even offers to increase teacher salaries to as much as $130,000 a year, if they'd forgo their tenure rights, have been fought by teachers unions and their mostly democrat members. Here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/education/13tenure.html?pagewanted=all

 

[johnny karate]

LOL!

1) She attacked Christie. That's your first clue that there's a better than even probability that she's a democrat because mostly it's democrats who are attacking him. The rest of the audience applauded his retort to her.

2) Your second clue is that she lied to do it. Because as we've all leaned by now lying has become almost second nature to democrats. And if she didn't lie, then she's just plain clueless (which completes the picture for democrats).

3) She's a teacher. That's your third clue. Far more teachers are democrats than republicans. Even the NEA admits this. And, in fact, donations by teachers to the democratic party are more than ten times those to the republican party. In 2008, the American Federation of Teachers union says just one percent of political donations went to the GOP; 99 percent to the Democrats. Democrat teachers are the activist ones … willing to donate … willing to come out and ambush a governor with a lie.

4) She's a english teacher. A fourth clue for you. English teachers are FAR more likely to be liberals and democrats, than conservatives and republicans. You'd expect that since at the college level where they get indoctrinated, some 80 - 90 percent of the teachers in english departments called themselves liberals.

5) She's a she. Women are more likely to be democrats than men. And when it comes to teachers' unions, women have a far more favorable view of them than men.

6) She's almost certainly a member of the teacher union. The NJEA has nearly 200,000 members and there are only 113,000 full time teachers in NJ. And since you aren't forced to join the union in New Jersey, you are more likely to do it if you are a democrat/liberal.

7) she lives in Kearny. Over 67% of people in Kearny are registered democrats.

Like I said, want to bet she's not?

Translation: "I have no evidence to support my assertion. I just like to make threads trashing a political ideology with which I disagree."

 

[joobz]

LOL!

1) She attacked Christie.

Only democratic teachers would balk at lower wages. Republican teachers are completely happy to take a lower wage...of course.

2) Your second clue is that she lied to do it. Because as we've all leaned by now lying has become almost second nature to democrats. And if she didn't lie, then she's just plain clueless (which completes the picture for democrats).

You've described yourself to a tee. I didn't know you were democrat...

3) She's a teacher. That's your third clue. Far more teachers are democrats than republicans.

evidence?

Even the NEA admits this.

evidence?

And, in fact, donations by teachers to the democratic party are more than ten times those to the republican party. In 2008, the American Federation of Teachers union says just one percent of political donations went to the GOP; 99 percent to the Democrats.

This has nothing to do with the fact that republicans are notoriously unkind to public education?

Democrat teachers are the activist ones … willing to donate … willing to come out and ambush a governor with a lie.

Of course, republicans would never "ambush" a public forum when their salaries are threatened?

*cough*...tea party...

4) She's a english teacher. A fourth clue for you. English teachers are FAR more likely to be liberals and democrats, than conservatives and republicans. You'd expect that since at the college level where they get indoctrinated, some 80 - 90 percent of the teachers in english departments called themselves liberals.

Of course, people are only liberal because of indoctrination...

5) She's a she. Women are more likely to be democrats than men. And when it comes to teachers' unions, women have a far more favorable view of them than men.

This is extremely telling.....of you.

6) She's almost certainly a member of the teacher union. The NJEA has nearly 200,000 members and there are only 113,000 full time teachers in NJ. And since you aren't forced to join the union in New Jersey, you are more likely to do it if you are a democrat/liberal.

Evidence of her Being a democrat?
The fact that she "MAYBE" a member of a union, which you do not have evidence for...

BWA HA HA HA HA!!!!

7) she lives in Kearny. Over 67% of people in Kearny are registered democrats.

You state this, yet you also said:

That's your first clue that there's a better than even probability that she's a democrat because mostly it's democrats who are attacking him. The rest of the audience applauded his retort to her.

Something doesn't quite gel here. Majority of the people are democrat, yet the majority of the people supported Christie.. Hmmm, I wonder.....

Well Done, BAC. You have officially made the dumbest post on the internet. I didn't think you had it in you, but you proved me wrong. Congratulations!


ETA:
I nominated your post. I thought it was of interest to a general audience.

 

[joobz]

You've only proven one thing. The purpose of the teacher unions is to acquire as much power as possible to advocate an agenda that benefits the union members … not the children.

How have I proven that? I only stated a fact about tenure.

As New York teachers union leader Albert Shanker said (Congressional Record, August 1985), "When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children."

Non-sequitur.

Tenure is something that unions have long demanded. In fact, New Jersey was the first state to pass tenure legislation back in 1910. And even offers to increase teacher salaries to as much as $130,000 a year, if they'd forgo their tenure rights, have been fought by teachers unions and their mostly democrat members. Here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/education/13tenure.html?pagewanted=all

Like I said, there are good arguments for and against tenure. My only point was to highlight that your data only looked at tenured faculty. To get a more honest answer, why not look at the % of pretenure faculty firings?

 

[Gangularis]

2) Your second clue is that she lied to do it. Because as we've all leaned by now lying has become almost second nature to democrats. And if she didn't lie, then she's just plain clueless (which completes the picture for democrats).

And you think the GOP is the party of honesty?

 

[BeAChooser]

ETA:
I nominated your post. I thought it was of interest to a general audience.

Like I said, want to bet she's not a democrat? Because we're likely to hear one way or another in the next few days, I imagine. What stakes?

 

[Prometheus]

....The purpose of the teacher unions is to acquire as much power as possible to advocate an agenda that benefits the union members … not the children....

Er...duh. The purpose of all labor unions is to represent their membership's interests. It's their parents' job to represent the children's interests. Paying whatever is necessary for a quality teaching staff would be one good way for them to do so.

You think teachers are greedy for balking at a 1.5% decrease in pay. Can we safely assume then that you'd be happy to help your government balance its books by accepting a 1.5% increase in your taxes?