Egypt, Bahrain...Wisconsin

[sabresrule30]

I live in Oshkosh and have taught summer school for them, not to mention did my student teaching there. There is no way that a teacher gets 90 sick days a year. Jesus. They may get around a total of 10 sick days and 3 personal days which is around the norm in this area with a day less or more depending on the district. I will read the article, but I guarantee the Northwestern either screwed it up or the reporter is just stupid.

Or clearly have an agenda............

[Clem]

I will read the article, but I guarantee the Northwestern either screwed it up or the reporter is just stupid.

Here is the exact text:

-Teachers would no longer receive 90 sick days per year. Instead, they would receive 10 sick days per year that could accumulate up to 90 days. Unused days would not be paid back.

[Clem]

Or clearly have an agenda............

Naturally, if they don't share your viewpoint, they must. But wait, you don't want to get into a pissing match, do you?

[sabresrule30]

Or clearly have an agenda............

Naturally, if they don't share your viewpoint, they must. But wait, you don't want to get into a pissing match, do you?

Nope

Who owns that paper?

Scapegoating public employees is very fashionable these days. Its sells papers.

[YEM]

If you look at Oshkosh school district’s website, you can see the actual information about sick leave.

The 90-day figure is essentially short-term disability and is only allowed to be used in the case of serious illnesses of the employee or the employee’s immediately family. Employees have to qualify for it.

Regular sick leave for Oshkosh school district employees accrues at 10 days per year. The maximum number of days which can be accrued is 90 days for less than 20 years of service, 120 for over 20 years.
In order to accrue this, though, a person would actually have to go 9-12 years without taking a sick day.

[Clem]

Who owns that paper?

Scapegoating public employees is very fashionable these days. Its sells papers.

** Clem deletes his attacking post after reading YEM's post ***

[Clem]

If you look at Oshkosh school district’s website, you can see the actual information about sick leave.

The 90-day figure is essentially short-term disability and is only allowed to be used in the case of serious illnesses of the employee or the employee’s immediately family. Employees have to qualify for it.

Regular sick leave for Oshkosh school district employees accrues at 10 days per year. The maximum number of days which can be accrued is 90 days for less than 20 years of service, 120 for over 20 years.
In order to accrue this, though, a person would actually have to go 9-12 years without taking a sick day.

That's good info, YEM. So I concede that the Oskosh paper misreported the information and that I jumped to quickly on what I felt was a credible source. My apologies to anyone in the Oshkosh school district who was offended.

[Clem]

Also, I am going to no longer post in this thread. I have some very passionate feelings about what is going on here in Wisconsin that I know are in conflict with a few others on this board and I don't want politics to get in the way of the fun/joking/gaming we share.

[miketheknife]

I just like being angry and this thread is perfect for that. We need less facts and more anger.

[ptrain86]

I just like being angry and this thread is perfect for that. We need less facts and more anger.

Shut yer face.

[RayRay]

The 90-day figure is essentially short-term disability and is only allowed to be used in the case of serious illnesses of the employee or the employee’s immediately family. Employees have to qualify for it.

Even though it's not sick leave, it's a shit deal to have taken away. I pay a pretty penny for my short term disability. Now I'm just being cynical here but I'm very curious how many times people were granted that 90 days with union help. I can't imagine it being frequent but you never know.

[Jammer]

The accrual of sick time is important though. I may not be informed but I don't know of many places where you can accrue sick time year to year. Hell most companies don't even let you carry vacation time over each year.

[ptrain86]

The accrual of sick time is important though. I may not be informed but I don't know of many places where you can accrue sick time year to year. Hell most companies don't even let you carry vacation time over each year.

They only receive partial pay and it actually saves money over hiring a sub which is why it is offered.

[DrTHE0P0LIS]

If they were on leave, wouldn't a sub need to be brought in regardless of leave policy? And how is this cheaper than temporary disability insurance where all of the downside risk is shifted to the insurer? That's not a rhetorical question, though I don't expect that anyone will have the answer unless they are a school district HR admin. But it's legitimate question. Is this policy actually in line with the private sector, or is it a perk that the unions managed to swing when times were better that they now refuse to give up?

Also, Jammer is correct. Sick time is rarely accruable. It's a use-it-or-lose-it proposition. Which is why it is so often abused. Which is why my company and many others have simply switched to paid time off (PTO). You get about 3/4 the same amount as you did with sick leave and vacation time, but you take what you take when you want. No need to make employees lie about it. A good policy.

As for piling on public employers, I agree that it is pretty common these days. But I don't think that it is entirely unjustified when you look at municipal, state, and federal budgets. As a taxpayer, I am asked to take a portion of my hard-earned income and give it to the government at various levels. I have every right to question how that is being used and to have a say in it. I may not be able to influence national foreign policy, but I can object when my local school district is paying for five administrators at a single high school at a cost of between $150,000 and $200,000 per year (no, administrators are no unionized). Public employees are an easy target because they are a visible target. I can't be angry with amorphous government programs (well, I can, but it's a bit different). I can be angry with my asshole neighbor who makes $50,000 per year for a part time job calling roll at aldermanic meetings. They are also working folks like you and I. So I want to make sure that I am not being asked to give more of my personal income so that somebody else can enjoy a benefit that I can no longer afford because of my high tax burden.

Sure, there are a lot of other places to look, and union cuts usually hurt the people on the low end of the totem pole--those that can least afford it and have the smallest impact on the budget. We could talk about that. But this was a thread about Wisconsin and public employees' unions. Just because there are worse offenders out there doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about it. Yes, it's political theater. That doesn't make the premise false. Just the motives.

I think that the solution is very simple. Compare the union salaries, benefits, and policies to those of the private sector. Account for discrepancies in pay. If they are on equal footing, move along. Nothing to see here. If there are gross variances, those should be addressed.

[ptrain86]

The subbing I referred to is for sick time, not disability, sorry if I was vague. If people didn't use their sick time they were allowed to accrue a portion of the time and get paid a percentage based on that.... so if people decided not to stockpile those hours and use them, the cost would be higher because of the cost of the sub. Wouldn't it?