only way possible is one teacher had many years previous teaching, or was an admin and bumped her down, or is doing a tone of coaching stipend curriculum work?

Thumbs up to your comment!

Lets flip that comment around.... "I would love to slap and spit at the 3 that voted against the strike vote. They are not heroes that put their interests first"

Brad Faxton you would love to spit and slap 3 people that voted against the strike vote? I don't think I can recall a more ignorant statment than yours. What a vile and immature thing to say.

I share your sentiment

A community is NO BETTER than their educational system and people put their money on what they value. If you want excellent respectable teachers you need to pay them at Least cost of living wages otherwise you will not get good educators. People are running away from education because of all the legislation and cuts and low pay for the years of experience and education. I wouldn't want my kids to be teachers. Why have them work their butts off everyday in a stressful environment when they can sit in front of a computer call on some clients and sit in a nice chair in an airconditioned office like I do, and prob most of you do, and make a crap load more money? Pretty soon, GL will have the education of Round Lake. Let's see the property values plunge. Open up your pocket books grayslake tax payers or watch your garages get spraypainted.

Is it unreasonable to backload a salary for someone who has worked for the district for 20, 30, 40 years? Lots of large companies give incentives/extras/bonuses/additional payments to workers with very long tenure.

Are you kidding me? In this economy the people who have long tenures, making the higher salaries and could be close to retiring are the first to get let go. Most people are doing extra work, keeping their noses down and not making demands for fear of being on the next round of layoffs.

I think the boards proposal is reasonable too.....let's say they give in to all these demands and those teachers get their 6% bumps and retire. Where do you think the money is going to come from? Sure, some can come from a tax increase but that won't be enough as they can only levy so much. So what would be the answer? Teacher layoffs, think those younger teachers will be happy to lose a job while those retired one just got a $15,000 bump and living on a nice pension?

That is exactly what happened on the last negotiation, they took the deal to save other teachers jobs.

WP
Teachers pensions are pad for by the teachers...at a 9.4% rate. The district contributes a whopping .58%.
The state has an obligation for the difference but through a raiding process called "pension holidays" is behind by over $80 billion.

So the taxpayers should foot the whole bill for that too, huh Terri? I don't think so.

Sounds like their issue should be with the state of Illinois and it's inept leadership and not the taxpayers, Your anger is directed at the wrong people.

327 union members (teachers) total. Only 320 voted. Can't say what happened with the 7 who did not.

Most of the teachers cast their ballot on their own time Monday...not Tuesday afternoon.

1st...teachers are taxpayers, too.
2nd...the average D46 household pays $6,000 in school tax (D46 & D127). That's about $33 per school day if you have one child.
Last, good paying with good benefits is arguable...obviously.

I'm not a teacher. And while the economy is certainly suffering, I'm doing just fine. So are the people in my friends and family circle. We're pretty convinced that its what you choose to make of it. We happen to have a better than average understanding of how educators are compensated over an entire carrer and are not short-sighted by our own self-fulfilling prophecies.

@Terri: Go tell that to the seniors who own houses and have for decades, who are now on disability and/or limited incomes. Clearly while you are doing well, you are completely out of touch with the reality many people and families in this district are currently facing.

It is absurd that any family should be paying $6,000 a year in taxes to the school districts when some people are making $20-$25,000 a year before taxes and other living expenses.

Out of touch? $6000 is the average. The low is $0 (renters) and the high is maybe $12000. The average household income is nearly $70000. Your $20000 earner would certainly be near the low.

I completely agree, and after seeing the school board's complete offer for the first time today, I am siding with the school board. Furthermore, some of the derogatory things I have heard some of these top union members have said about several current board members is unnaceptable and inexcusable, if in fact true.

Apparently, many of them feel this is about and are making this a polticial issue.

It is not. Stop making this political.

I will stand outside and counter-protest on behalf of taxpayers, gladly. It's about time that those who pay their salaries have their voices heard as well. Enough is enough. There is going to already be a tax hike anyway, despite the deficit. And they want more?

Thanks WorriedParent, I have attached this PDF to the article. Those interested should take a look, as it includes information about the school board's proposal.

WP
How do you think the 138 teachers that have to take a benefit cut so it can be given to everyone else feel? Appears that this is revenue neutral, so why bother?

No it is not daycare. And any teacher that views their job as such is in the wrong profession because that is a horrible attitude for any teacher to have.

"High paid babysitter? You get babysitting for 8 hours at $33?" That is the best post on this string. So true and made me laugh. Thanks.

You are comparing apples and oranges. While I totally agree that some on the board clearly are in over their heads, their inability to answer a question does not mean that they are at fault for not being able to agree on a contract. I've viewed in its entirety the board's offer, and it is not that unreasonable.

CP, I agree with you that our board is dysfunctional and the teacher contract probably could have been addressed BEFORE school started. I am a very involved parent with my school, our teachers and am very generous to all of them at birthdays, holidays and end of school year specifically because I know they give up much of their personal money to make our kids school year as productive as possible. I do what I can, as often as I can.

The main point is, that our district and community is under water, the revenues coming in are decreasing and fast. We would all love to keep the teachers happy and give raises, etc....but where is the money going to come from? They can only take so much on a levy tax increase and it still won't cover teacher salaries or their demands. That is what the teachers need to understand....we don't have the money! Striking is not going to bring more money in. One of the main sticking points is the retirement percentage. I think what the board proposed is fair and reasonable. We are talking 1% and 1 year difference! From what I understand, pensions are determined on an average 3 year top salary. The board is proposing 5% for 3 years....but the teachers want another percent for an additional year. Pushing it to the 6% forces the school to pay an additional $400,000 in TRS payments.....

cont...
Think of what that could do to help the deficit. Teachers have had raises for the last 10 years, whereas many of us homeowners have not. The reduction in fringe benefits will be compensated back with on time stipend...all these seems reasonable until our district can get back in the black.

Bottom line, we can cannot fiscally afford these demands. We cannot let our community and our schools go under like Round Lake did, then we will see our kids bused to a different town for school.

Everyone needs to email the board members and let them know their position (for or against.) We all seem to raise our voices on every other issue facing our board, this should be no exception. This is a serious matter and they should know how you feel. Not just stating it on a Patch article.

Well said!

Everyone who supports the union and the teachers who may strike on this, please, tell me how any pay increases will be funded, and/or what you would specifically cut from the budget. Until someone can answer that, there is no reason for you to even have a reasonable discussion about this.

Unfortunate, but spot-on assessment, HM. See below.

What a terribly inaccurate and unfair comparison.

I'd suggest you go back and read the board's actual statement posted above on this situation. They said, and I quote:

"Given the reduction in state and federal aid, and the limitations on the Board’s ability to generate tax revenue, the Board has no other sources from which to generate the additional revenue needed to pay its increasing costs, including the salary and other compensation demands of the teachers."

The president, on the other hand, could find about a million ways to give money back to the middle class without taxing anyone....such as cutting a slew of items from a pork-filled budget that is ridiculous in its sheer size with handouts to everyone imaginable.

Our school board meanwhile (and maybe you should read their quote from above and their actual statement again), doesn't have extra money lying around or huge amounts of items in their budget to draw extra revenue from.

Sadly, if the teachers making much more have their benefits reduced in any way, shape or form, they will be angry.

Conversely, if the teachers making less money don't see their benefits increased, they will be the ones who are upset, and are also.

You can't have it both ways, and the board is in a no-win situation. Their hands are literally tied with a lack of funds and resources, so they had to try to make those making less money happy, but their only means of doing so was this way.

You are comparing apples and oranges, and it was unfair.

The benefit reduction is revenue neutral for the contract proposed. It simply takes benefit from 138 and redistributes it to 327 (sans retires). So we upset 138 to make 200 gain at their colleagues expense with a zero gain to the district? What's the point? To polarize? The 138 will never ratify a contract with this provision and I think there's enough solidarity amongst the other 200 to make it fail.

Since it is revenue neutral like you mention, what is the other alternative Terri?

Oh, that's right, the other alternative would be to keep giving those who have more benefits what they already have, then have someone, i.e. taxpayers or some other area in the budget, foot the bill for those who don't. So if we have it your way, it winds up costing the taxpayers more in the end. We don't have anymore money to be giving, what part of that is so confusing?

The reason, as I will repeat for what seems like the thousandth time, that the proposal is revenue neutral is because the board does not want to have any proposal that winds up costing taxpayers more in the end, or results in having programs for these kids cut in the budget.

Scream that this is revenue neutral all you want. The only other option to make ALL the teachers happy is to ask someone for more money. Money we don't have. People are broke and the district is in the red.

So who should pay to keep the 200 people happy while 138 teachers don't get what they want? Should they instead propose to leave things as they are and upset 200 people instead? You don't provide any alternative idea to this problem whatsoever Terri. You can't have it both ways. If you want things to be level for all teachers in a revenue-neutral situation, more money WILL have to come from somewhere.

So, again, where do you propose that cash comes from Terri? Where????

The teachers, all of them, say just leave it alone; it doesn't save the district anything in the proposed contract. Its a shame that the unions proposal is not posted. There is nothing in the boards proposal on this item that a.) benefits the taxpayer, or b.) benefits the 327. It is devisive and polarizing.

BTW...revenue neutral means nothing is gained or lost. Would you prefer i call it savings neutral? it just shifts dollars from one teacher to another. There is no net effect on the 200 in terms of benefits; they just get a one time taxable bonus of $1300. The 138, however, get their benefits reduced by half.

Again, you have failed to answer my question.

I am well-aware of what revenue-neutral means.

You still do nothing to explain how the extra costs would be paid for, however, as I asked you to explain.

PART TWO…
Prior to 2006, all D46 teachers received $6,200 in cafeteria-style benefits. They chose from a menu of coverage. In 2006, the district decided to move to another plan. Those desiring medical/dental coverage through the district’s group were allowed to choose that option and the district absorbed the total cost for individual coverage. Those that preferred to obtain their coverage on the open market (represented by the 138) were “grandfathered” into the $6,200 benefit. Any new hires were entered into the districts group. The districts group was, and is, a poor HMO. It’s cost has gone up significantly over the past 6 years and the district continues to shoulder the entire cost for those that represent the “200”.

The “138” are allowed to buy into the district program at open enrollment any year by giving up the $6,200. Many have, and many will, despite the expensive poor coverage.

So, while rising costs have actually made the value of the coverage for the 200 far more valuable than the $6,200 the 138 receive, the contract proposal wants to reduce the benefit for the 138 and give much of it to the 200 that already receive health/dental insurance at no cost. The 327 aren’t interested in this proposal. It saves the district nothing in the proposed contract. It cuts no cost. It raised no revenue. It serves only to polarize the teachers.

Thanks, Terri.

And yet again I continue to wait for your explanation of an alternative plan that wouldn't cost taxpayers any extra money.....and will continue to wait.

I'm sorry the teacher's proposal hasn't been posted...the district has it. Be nice to see it so we could discuss an answer to your question. For now, suffice it to say, anything would save save the district more than this issue because it saves nothing and costs nothing in the current proposal. How about every teacher throws one penny in a bucket. That would give the district a savings of $3.27 over this part of the proposed contract. Kidding aside, why is the board trying to polarize the teachers on flex benefit when it contributes $0 to deficit reduction?

What you fail to mention is that the reason the district did so back in 2006 was because those teachers wanted that option. It was THEIR choice to want to be able to choose to either take the district's offer, or find their own health insurance.

Now that costs have risen, they suddenly feel differently, DESPITE the fact it was THEIR choice to enter the open market in the first place?

Even with the re-distribution of the monies (which will help increase the salaries of the poorer teachers), the 138, who are in most cases making more to begin with, will still be allocated enough money to pay for their own health insurance if they so choose.

The only ones who seem to be polarizing anything is the teachers themselves. They seem to me, by your own words, in a tug-of-war over who gets more in what is an awful economy.

And if your statement is accurate, all the teachers still have the option to buy into the district's health care program or not to, if they so choose. The only thing changing here is the poorer teachers will suddenly see a little more cash in their pockets.

And what you again fail to mention Terri, is that part of the reason the board wants to redistribute some of that money to the poorer teachers is so they can CHOOSE to and AFFORD to enter into their own health care program if they choose to, rather than the district's, which you say is awful.

The board is simply trying to make it affordable for the poorer teachers to have the SAME healthcare options as the wealthier ones by allowing them to afford to do so.

Why is that such a horrible thing? So you are saying the poorer teachers (200) shouldn't have the same right as the wealthier teachers to choose between private and the district's healthcare options? You feel they should be stuck with the district's
"poor HMO" as you call it, while the 138 teachers have more options because they make more and can afford to do so?

Sorry, but by your explanation and standards, you seem to feel the 138 teachers should be treated with a different set of standards than the 200 are. That they somehow aren't worthy of being treated as equals when it comes to healthcare options.

That's not fair.

Tim
This has nothing to do with rich v poor. It was a decision teachers made in 2006! There are as many teachers at the upper end receiving flex as at the lower end! Where on earth did you get that idea? Under the boards proposal in this contract, costs for health/dental for the 200 remain $0. They get $1,300 on top of that $0 do do with as they choose. The 138 lose half their benefit ($3100) and get back $1,300. Their net loss is $1,800 for what?

And don't forget...the redistribution is a one-time deal. After that, the net gain for the 200 is $0 and the net loss for the 138 becomes $3100. Want to save money on this line item? Put healthcare out to bid. The board would rather polarize the teachers than make the effort.

The 138 aren't complaining or feeling differently about the choice they made in '06. If they become dissatisfied with what they can get on the open market, they join the D46 group. If you think a one-time bonus of $1,300 will enable any of the 200 to enter that open market, it goes against everything the people in the private sector are posting in these threads regarding healthcare cost.

Terri, if it is only a one-time bonus, then it is not revenue-neutral in the long-term, as you claim.

And getting an extra $1,300 may help some afford private health care, yes. As hard as it may be for you to believe.

As much as it pains me to say it, this is the time for the community, teachers, administrators...everyone....to come together and take the bullet to some degree.

Otherwise, soon the state will take over finances, and they will start lopping off huge amounts of money from the budget to balance it, regardless of who it affects.

That means people will lose their jobs. That means your child's school-related materials will be cut. And it also means that any collective bargaining rights the union members once had will effectively be null and void, because the state will be running their finances as well.

So, for the final time: The money is just not there.

Would you rather have a job, with some benefits, or would you rather lose your job because you chose this time to strike and wanted more, when the district has zero money to fund it?

Trust me, I understand this situation sucks for some teachers. I truly do. But an enormous amount of blame belongs in the hands of the state of Illinois and it's fiscal irresponsibility. Not the board, who is doing its best despite its shortcomings, and not the taxpayers, who have been bled to death, and will again bear more of the burden.

If it doesn't stop here and now, the consequences for some will be even worse, I assure you. You do not want the state taking over your district, people. If they do, there will be countless people wishing they'd accepted the board's offer when they have no job.

How is backloading someone's salary or pension at the tail end of their contract by increasing it the final three or four years not "pension padding?"

Just because you feel discussing it isn't "productive" doesn't make it any less accurate or true.

The reason why the term you use, "pension padding," has a negative connotation among many readers is because it is something that will ultimately wind up costing taxpayers more money in all likelihood. The money has to come from somewhere.

And even if the board removes the flex benefit issue, all that is going to happen is the 200 teachers making less money will then be the ones who are angry.

It's a no-win situation for the board, even if they remove that item....because there will still be a lot of unhappy teachers.

As I stated before, the term pension padding has a negative connotation and does not accurately describe the process. One needs an understanding of the compensation plan over a career to grasp the intricacies; you do not have that understanding and don't appear to be interested. You continue to insinuate that the 138 earn more than the 200. That is grossly untrue and very misleading.

And BTW...ask any of the 200 if they think the flex issue is fair. I'd venture to guess there are only 3; if that.

Similarly, any senior citizen living on social security or a fixed income that is at risk of losing their home that's been in their family for generations could mount a strong case from the opposite spectrum now, couldn't they?

Perhaps you should justify to them why they keep having to pay more and more money they don't have to those who do, which could render them homeless eventually.