He missed the teachers’ pension contribution which they ask that taxpayers completely assume.
But, as I said, he’s in good company.
Neither of the Heralds’ reporters caught it either. It’s a pretty large amount—10.24% right off the top of every paycheck.
And any such taxpayer “pickup” would be worth even more, because it would be a tax free employee benefit.
Other than that, the story is pretty good.
And Sorling got one quote that is worth its weight in gold.
It’s from a psychology teacher named Shannon Romanski. Here’s what she said,
A cynic would suggest that teacher Romanski is free to leave her current job anytime she wishes.
A concerned taxpayer might suggest that her supervisor be spending a lot more time observing Romanski than is currently the case.
Others might reflect that she is teaching psychology.
The paper also has an editorial on the subject.
The editorial points to the 37% request jump in health benefits and less time to be spent with students.
These alert editorial writers point out that salary comparisons are included in the contract proposal from other school districts that range from 3-6%.
Then they so logically point out,
“…it seems odd that the association would recommend a 7 percent base salary raise, a full percent above the highest increase included in the chart.”
(A pet peeve is unfortunately contained in that sentence. It is not a “full percent,” it is a “full percentage point.” One percentage point divided by 6 percentage points equals 16.7 percent. So, which I and others probably can figure out the point, it is stated inaccurately.)
However, the students have bought into the union argument that more education, for example, two master’s degrees, will make someone a better teacher. And, they think it is unfair to ask the teachers for an extra hour of time for a mere 4.25% pay hike.
The editorial concludes that both sides have put forth “unreasonable proposals.” It calls for “compromise.”
I wonder how many of the students’ parents got a 4.25% raise this past year.